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

FLAC vs 320kbps - Page 3

post #31 of 120

No. Most of the compression is in frequencies the human can't even hear. Most people who tell you they can are lying, or are experiencing placebo.

post #32 of 120

The responses here continue to astound me, haha. Even straight out of an iPod with HD202s the difference is pretty much night and day to my ears. It's a personal thing, most certainly. Some people just don't hear/care. I envy many of you in a way, however. You probably aren't struggling to cram you library onto the "tiny" 160 GB hard drive of 1 of only 2 or 3 DAPs available to you, none of which are sufficient in the first place but it's the best you could do. angry_face.gif

post #33 of 120

First part or second part?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by olear View Post

 

Huhh?
 

 



 

post #34 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by vyyye View Post

Calling it now, no one will upload ABX logs of them successfully telling the difference. Many will claim it's there.



That's it, you can close the topic now. Thank you.

post #35 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundstige View Post

First part or second part?
 



 



I was referring to what roadcykler stated. It way over my head.

 

post #36 of 120

Tis possible, but "night and day" is placebo. wink.gif

post #37 of 120

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

Tis possible, but "night and day" is placebo. wink.gif


I'll admit, maybe that was too strong a choice of words. Some of the opposing arguments are just as exaggerated, so I felt the need to compensate. All I mean to say is that the difference is not in any way what I would define as subtle. It is very clear. It seems that everyone has an extremely negative attitude and is dedicated to dispelling this as a "myth." Odd that so many cynical people are hanging out on a forum supposedly dedicated to hifi. Oh well, I'll promptly stop making a fool of myself by posting here.

 

deadhorse.gif

post #38 of 120
Thread Starter 

Any Sansa Clip owners use Rhapsody?

 

 

post #39 of 120


If you have the right equipment and headphones/IEMs that are very revealing its quite noticeable. On my iphone4 I would only use high bit mp3 files as its not worth the difference and space requirements of lossless. But on devices such as the Sflo2, Hifiman 601, Studio V, and DX100, I only use lossless files as it is more apparent on such devices. Also some tracks will have a more noticeable difference. This is even more apparent on very busy tracks. I"ve compared some of my files in high bit rate mp3 to flac and I could tell differences in the sound stage, and imaging. I found the mp3 versions to sound more hollow, empty if you will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manveru View Post

 


I'll admit, maybe that was too strong a choice of words. Some of the opposing arguments are just as exaggerated, so I felt the need to compensate. All I mean to say is that the difference is not in any way what I would define as subtle. It is very clear. It seems that everyone has an extremely negative attitude and is dedicated to dispelling this as a "myth." Odd that so many cynical people are hanging out on a forum supposedly dedicated to hifi. Oh well, I'll promptly stop making a fool of myself by posting here.

 

deadhorse.gif



 

post #40 of 120

My personal experience has been that the difference between flac and 320kbs mp3 is usually dependent on the recording given the kind of equipment I have.  If you've got a superbly recoded source, the flac is more likely to be distinguishable from the mp3.  I don't really have enough gear to discuss how revealing different setups may or may not be and how that would affect the perceived difference.

 

In practical terms for me and the kind of music I tend to listen to, this translates to my classical library being 90% flac while the rest is about an even mix of flac and mp3.  I will generally choose flac over mp3 these days simply because the increased file size is not an issue for me.  I don't use a portable media player, I just stream to my phone from my desktop using J River's android app (though it all gets transcoded to 320 kbs mp3 in that process anyway).

 

Quote:

Can someone PM me on which sites have quality MP3 320 kbps and procedure to use to download onto a clip using Windows. 

Thank You

I don't know anything about the sansa clip, but if memory serves Google Music uses 320kbs mp3.  Amazon's aren't bad terrible either at 256, but ymmv.

post #41 of 120
Thread Starter 

Could we agree, in terms of mp3 quality (320 gbps), that some youtube tracks are quite good?

post #42 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by olear View Post

Could we agree, in terms of mp3 quality (320 gbps), that some youtube tracks are quite good?

No. As far as I know, YouTube does not use MP3 in their back end, so any MP3 files obtained from YouTube will have been transcoded at least once, possibly more. Consequently, a 320 kbps file from YouTube will not contain the same information as a 320 kbps file encoded from a lossless file.
post #43 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by olear View Post

Could we agree, in terms of mp3 quality (320 gbps), that some youtube tracks are quite good?

No. As far as I know, YouTube does not use MP3 in their back end, so any MP3 files obtained from YouTube will have been transcoded at least once, possibly more. Consequently, a 320 kbps file from YouTube will not contain the same information as a 320 kbps file encoded from a lossless file.

According to Google (who own YouTube), YouTube does not support MP3.

Some sources claim that some YouTube FLV based videos are played with MP3 audio, but none suggest bit rates anywhere near 320 kbps (128 kbps appears to be very good for YouTube).

There is no benefit to encoding a 128 kbps file to a 320 kbps file, even if the codec is not changed. The best case scenario is a file that has the quality of 128 kbps, but takes up 2.5 times as much space.
post #44 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by vyyye View Post

Calling it now, no one will upload ABX logs of them successfully telling the difference. Many will claim it's there.



...so maybe its time for a reincarnation

post #45 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by kn19h7 View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by vyyye View Post

Calling it now, no one will upload ABX logs of them successfully telling the difference. Many will claim it's there.


...so maybe its time for a reincarnation

Interesting, but the poster stated that ReplayGain was used for volume control. ReplayGain's volume increments are 1.5 dB, far too course for use with ABX comparisons for sound quality. The tests were undoubtedly well-intentioned, but the methodology was not sound.

For a meaningful ABX comparison, volume should be adjusted in hardware only, not software, and the resulting volume difference between the samples needs to be less than ~0.25 dB (perhaps even less).
Edited by Jaywalk3r - 2/1/12 at 2:45pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › FLAC vs 320kbps