Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › FLAC vs. 320 Mp3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FLAC vs. 320 Mp3 - Page 18  

post #256 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

AIFF is a complete waste. It gobbles up your hard drive and you get nothing for it. Either use the Apple Lossless Encoder or AAC 256 VBR. You won't have any problems with either of those settings. They both sound the same. AAC is better for use with ipods and ipads.
There's no reason to convert iTunes downloads. They're already AAC 256 VBR. Leave em as they are.
It might help you to google basic info so you know how iTunes works.

I'm not being sarcastic...
I know how to use Google. That said this is an opinion forum and I was asking for your opinion. I wanted to know what method you used.

On last question, I think you'll tell me they are the same..... The thread is titled 320 Mp3. Wouldn't I use that? Perhaps I should google that one.

I appreciate your time.
post #257 of 504
Opinions are great. There are a lot of them all over the place. Some are good, and some are bad. The way to tell the difference is to understand the basics of how something works. Using AIFF tells me that you really don't understand what that format is and what it's used for. A simple google search ofthe various file format options would clear that all up.

The reason I didn't suggest 320 MP3 is because iTunes doesn't make the best MP3s. If you're going to use iTunes, use 256 AAC VBR. It sounds better than the 320 MP3s that iTunes makes.
Edited by bigshot - 11/28/12 at 11:10am
post #258 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Opinions are great. There are a lot of them all over the place. Some are good, and some are bad. The way to tell the difference is to understand the basics of how something works. Using AIFF tells me that you really don't understand what that format is and what it's used for. A simple google search ofthe various file format options would clear that all up.
The reason I didn't suggest 320 MP3 is because iTunes doesn't make the best MP3s. If you're going to use iTunes, use 256 AAC VBR. It sounds better than the 320 MP3s that iTunes makes.

I get it.

Thanks

Edit: you've got a lot of knowledge and experience. I value what you have to say.... but not necessarily how you "present it" to those less knowledgable.
Edited by Iamnothim - 11/28/12 at 11:34am
post #259 of 504

All formats are lossy, whether analog or digital. Information is always lost during the recording process. So it's down to (1) your system's reproduction capability and (2) your hearing whether you notice a difference between any two formats. The general consensus seems to be that 320kbps MP3s reach the limits of human hearing, when played on a high-end system. That certainly fits with my experience, but no doubt there are exceptions in individual cases (although it would seem unlikely the musicians intended that 'ultrasound' as part of their product).

 

The CD format is basically inefficient because decompression on-the-fly was a computing dream at the time this format was conceived. A factor of two compression without loss relative to CD is achieved by FLAC or ALAC which demonstrates 50% total waste in the CD format. High-end mp3s are another factor of 2 away from FLAC which is reached by filtering further for human hearing.

 

So to conclude, whilst every format is lossy, in the domain of human hearing FLAC and high-end mp3s are, for all practical purposes, lossless.

post #260 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsal View Post

All formats are lossy, whether analog or digital. Information is always lost during the recording process. So it's down to (1) your system's reproduction capability and (2) your hearing whether you notice a difference between any two formats. The general consensus seems to be that 320kbps MP3s reach the limits of human hearing, when played on a high-end system. That certainly fits with my experience, but no doubt there are exceptions in individual cases (although it would seem unlikely the musicians intended that 'ultrasound' as part of their product).

 

The CD format is basically inefficient because decompression on-the-fly was a computing dream at the time this format was conceived. A factor of two compression without loss relative to CD is achieved by FLAC or ALAC which demonstrates 50% total waste in the CD format. High-end mp3s are another factor of 2 away from FLAC which is reached by filtering further for human hearing.

 

So to conclude, whilst every format is lossy, in the domain of human hearing FLAC and high-end mp3s are, for all practical purposes, lossless.

 

The words lossy and lossless were intended to refer to types of compression algorithms, not the end result vs the real life performance before the recording.

 

And that 50% of space isn't wasted on a CD because it could have been compressed. It allows for universal compatibility and mechanical timing.


Edited by chewy4 - 3/19/13 at 3:03pm
post #261 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsal View Post

So to conclude, whilst every format is lossy, in the domain of human hearing FLAC and high-end mp3s are, for all practical purposes, lossless.

Chewy already responded but I'd like to add that we have a term for that in psychoacoustics: transparency.

post #262 of 504

Please, this FLAC vs. mp3 horse has been beaten time and time again and pulverized into glue. It's almost as bad as the cheap vs. expensive cables debate. FLAC and other lossless files sound better than mp3 because they have 10x more data than mp3's. MP3 encoding uses a process called psychoacoustic masking which throws out sound data that isn't deemed necessary in order to reach a smaller file size. It's really an amazing thing but in the data that is thrown out, many of the tiny nuances and details of the recording are lost. These all still there when a file is in a lossless format such as FLAC. The difference between the sound of each isn't huge but definitely noticeable. Just ask any audiophile which they would rather have, a player full of FLACs or one full of 320mp3's. You know which one they would choose biggrin.gif

post #263 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForShure View Post

Please, this FLAC vs. mp3 horse has been beaten time and time again and pulverized into glue. It's almost as bad as the cheap vs. expensive cables debate. FLAC and other lossless files sound better than mp3 because they have 10x more data than mp3's. MP3 encoding uses a process called psychoacoustic masking which throws out sound data that isn't deemed necessary in order to reach a smaller file size. It's really an amazing thing but in the data that is thrown out, many of the tiny nuances and details of the recording are lost. These all still there when a file is in a lossless format such as FLAC. The difference between the sound of each isn't huge but definitely noticeable. Just ask any audiophile which they would rather have, a player full of FLACs or one full of 320mp3's. You know which one they would choose biggrin.gif

Hi ForShure,

 

I am curious what sort of equipment to reveal the difference between FLAC and 320kb/s MP3 ?

 

I have Westone W4 and Fiio E11 but somehow when I closed my eyes listening to the same album/songs from my laptop, I couldn't notice the difference.

 

Now I'm going to buy HiFiman HE-500 to get different feeling between 4xBalance Armature IEM and Planar Magnetic Headphone.

post #264 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForShure View Post

Please, this FLAC vs. mp3 horse has been beaten time and time again and pulverized into glue. It's almost as bad as the cheap vs. expensive cables debate. 

Well the two debates do share a couple similarities: when blind testing people fail to notice differences between the two. And some times people end up preferring 128kbps MP3s when testing blindly, just like radioshack cables get a good deal of votes in blind cable test.

post #265 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForShure View Post

The difference between the sound of each isn't huge but definitely noticeable. Just ask any audiophile which they would rather have, a player full of FLACs or one full of 320mp3's. You know which one they would choose biggrin.gif

It's blanket statements and anecdotes like that, which makes you just another one of those audiophools.

post #266 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSantana View Post

Hi ForShure,

 

I am curious what sort of equipment to reveal the difference between FLAC and 320kb/s MP3 ?

 

I have Westone W4 and Fiio E11 but somehow when I closed my eyes listening to the same album/songs from my laptop, I couldn't notice the difference.

 

Now I'm going to buy HiFiman HE-500 to get different feeling between 4xBalance Armature IEM and Planar Magnetic Headphone.


My equipment isn't anything special. The setup that makes telling a difference easiest is MacBook Pro>Ibasso Dzero amp/dac>Sennheiser HD595. I find it harder to distinguish between the two with my iem's, I think the added soundstage of larger headphones makes it easier to tell. It might be easier for me since I'm only 20 years old and my ears haven't gotten destroyed by age yet lol. I was talking to one of my professors who has been an audio engineer for 30 years about this subject and he also argued that there absolutely is a difference. If there was no difference then lossless files wouldn't be around because the need for them wouldn't exist.

post #267 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForShure View Post

 

I was talking to one of my professors who has been an audio engineer for 30 years about this subject and he also argued that there absolutely is a difference.

[X] Argument from (anonymous) authority.

 

Quote:
If there was no difference then lossless files wouldn't be around because the need for them wouldn't exist.

[X] You do not understand lossy compression, psychoacoustics.


Edited by xnor - 3/20/13 at 9:00am
post #268 of 504
The real question is.......
Why the h+ll is the sheer term 'mp3' even being mentioned at this point on this site. The only time anyone should be using mp3 is when your favorite artists release a free ep on their website and it's in said format and that formate alone! Silly people biggrin.gif
post #269 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by D3Seeker View Post

The real question is.......
Why the h+ll is the sheer term 'mp3' even being mentioned at this point on this site. The only time anyone should be using mp3 is when your favorite artists release a free ep on their website and it's in said format and that formate alone! Silly people biggrin.gif

Similarly stupid question: why are there history books?

post #270 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

[X] Argument from (anonymous) authority.

[X] You do not understand lossy compression, psychoacoustics.
I explained psychoacoustics in my last post. I understand how it works. Everybody on head-fi is an anonymous source in some ways. Just trying to make my argument. I don't see you adding any new stuff to the debate, instead you choose to criticize the arguments that don't agree with your view without having support to back it up. But continue to enjoy your flat sounding mp3's believing that they sound as good as lossless.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › FLAC vs. 320 Mp3