Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › I converted a file to FLAC the first time, it sounds better, am I imagining it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I converted a file to FLAC the first time, it sounds better, am I imagining it?

post #1 of 8
11/19/11 at 7:51pm
Thread Starter 

I decided to try out the FLAC format.....I converted an uncompressed AIFF file to FLAC....I usually have my music in 192kbs AAC format if I burn from my own CD, and the 256kbs AAC of the iTunes store if i buy it there....I played the new FLAC file and compared the same track to the 192kbs AAC file that also came from the same AIFF file, and it's hard to put a finger on it, but the FLAC sounds better...It is very subtle though....Am I imagining it, or should a FLAC file sound better than a 192kbs AAC file?? I used the "MAX" OS X software to do the FLAC conversion. I played the FLAC file in the VLC OS X player.

 

 I have not tried the Apple Lossless Format yet. Do FLAC and the Apple Lossless sound pretty much the same? Or are there differences between FLAC and Apple Lossless sound quality wise?

Reply
post #2 of 8
11/19/11 at 7:53pm

FLAC which is around 900kbps will sound better than a 192kbps file.

Reply
post #3 of 8
11/19/11 at 8:06pm
Thread Starter 

PS, I did another listening comparison, and it is more than a "subtle difference" as i first stated, especially in the high treble frequencies. FLAC is much better than 192kbs AAC in the high frequencies....Wow, now I know why so many hear praise the FLAC format. :) :) Too bad my iPOD does not play FLAC like my computer can. I guess Apple will never support FLAC since they feel it competes with their own Apple Lossless format?

Reply
post #4 of 8
11/19/11 at 8:25pm

Why not just encode in ALAC (apple lossless)? All forms of lossless audio ape/wav/flac/alac should sound exactly the same if the source material is the same. The only difference is the level of compression and hence the cpu power require to unpack it.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeno View Post

PS, I did another listening comparison, and it is more than a "subtle difference" as i first stated, especially in the high treble frequencies. FLAC is much better than 192kbs AAC in the high frequencies....Wow, now I know why so many hear praise the FLAC format. :) :) Too bad my iPOD does not play FLAC like my computer can. I guess Apple will never support FLAC since they feel it competes with their own Apple Lossless format?



 

Reply
post #5 of 8
11/19/11 at 8:32pm
Thread Starter 

Not enough room on my 8GB iPOD is the reason I use AACs on the iPOD....(I have tons of pics also on the iPOD...) Room is not an issue on my computer though.


Edited by zeno - 11/19/11 at 8:33pm
Reply
post #6 of 8
11/19/11 at 8:32pm

ALAC and FLAC should sound the same if the encoder does it properly, which it most likely should.  If you're using it on an iPod there's really no reason not to use ALAC.

Reply
post #7 of 8
11/20/11 at 6:07am

flac and ALAC more than should sound the same, they ARE exactly the same thing, they both simply throw out redundant info in the file, rather than compression of the musical information (which remains untouched with both lossless types) like mp3 and AAC, which search for areas that it deems less important and removes them. AAC is better than mp3 for the same bitrate IME, but flac and alac are the same thing. the only difference at the moment being that there are hirez FLAC files available, while i'm yet to see such a thing in ALAC


Edited by qusp - 11/20/11 at 6:09am
Reply
post #8 of 8
11/20/11 at 7:42am

Simple - ABX them using something like a foobar plugin. Note that there are apparently no real good ABX tools for mac, so you'll need a windows box. Don't bother with comparing lossless formats - they are identical (all other factors being the same, like decode speed, etc).


Edited by Parak - 11/20/11 at 7:44am
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › I converted a file to FLAC the first time, it sounds better, am I imagining it?