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

FLAC vs 320kbps - Page 5

post #61 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadcykler View Post

I can only tell a difference if I use my SR-009 with the the dCS Scarlatti as my source that is running through my Weiss DAC 202 with everything connected via Nordost Supreme Reference cables. When I use my SRS-4170 or Ultrasone Edition 10 headphones and the mbl system of the 1621 cd transport and the 1611 HR DAC with the Transparent Musiclink Super cables, the music just doesn't seem to have as much bite in 320 as it does in FLAC. There is certainly just a touch of gray in the blackness. Although the mbl is a fine piece of equipment, it just doesn't quite punch out of it's weight class.  

 

Oh wait, there is probably a placebo difference but I doubt anyone in the homo sapien species can hear a difference. Nevermind. 


That pretty much sums it.  There are definite measurable differences but whether you will hear them with your gear/music depends on innumerable factors.

 

A recording professional with even a decent soundcard/monitors will be able to hear the difference - their livelihood depends on hearing much smaller differences than 320 mp3 vs 16/44.1 FLAC.

 

"SR-009 with the the dCS Scarlatti as my source that is running through my Weiss DAC 202 with everything connected via Nordost Supreme Reference cables" is similarly a VERY high resolution setup that should expose the differences easily.

 

On the average portable setup the differences are probably insignificant due to the hardware and background noise and outweighed by practical considerations.

 

IMO if you can get a recording in FLAC or WAVE do so; if you can get 24/96 even better - this is your master copy and you want as good quality even if it is mostly redundant.  Hard drives are cheap - there is no need to split hairs over whether you can pass a DBT between formats.  Use the best quality format that is practical.

post #62 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

Interesting. I don't know enough about ReplayGain's measurements to trust it. With what precision does it return values? (More importantly, but much more difficult to find, with what precision is it capable of measuring?) I'd be much more inclined to manually measure the volume levels if I wanted to do a serious comparison.
I don't mean to be overly critical. It is the nature of scientific experimentation to make every effort to ensure that only the thing being tested can influence the results.


It assigns a value with two decimal places of accuracy. -8.51 dB for example, just a random number I chose (at a guess I have about a dozen songs with that value out of nearly 22,000). I have foobar2000 set up with a ReplayGain column in my playlist so I can easily sort my library by value. I have 7 songs with +0.00 dB, 10 with +0.01 dB, etc. So it does appear to be able to scan to that accuracy.

 

As for precision, I rarely scan files more than once so I can't say for certain, but I've never had it give me two different values for the same file. Encoding to a different bit rate alters the data in the file, and I expect it would return a different value because of that. It goes by RMS volume, not peak volume, so it would be hard to verify by eye if the changes it makes are good or bad. It's best to test without it unless the files are noticeably different in volume after encoding.

 

I'm sure you don't mean to be overly critical, but I'd like to know where you're getting your information. I'm not questioning the avoidance of ReplayGain for testing, just the number you seem to have pulled out of thin air.

post #63 of 120

I think there may be very slight one's. But I'll be honest, even with my T1's hooked up to reasonable gear, it's hard to make out unless I really listen carefully or A/B multiple times. I'm not sure it's worth the file size difference to be honest, but like everything else in life, you want the best, however insignificant the differences, you have to pay one way or the other.

post #64 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

It's best to test without it unless the files are noticeably different in volume after encoding.

ReplayGain adjusts volume too coarsely for ABX comparisons, but it is absolutely imperative that the volumes be as close to equal as possible. We can perceive small differences in volume as differences in sound quality, even when they are not perceived as differences in listening.
Quote:
I'm sure you don't mean to be overly critical, but I'd like to know where you're getting your information. I'm not questioning the avoidance of ReplayGain for testing, just the number you seem to have pulled out of thin air.

Google. I found a few sources that gave the same 1.5 dB figure. It's a reasonable figure when you consider the intended purpose of ReplayGain. Two songs with a loudness difference of 1.5 dB will sound roughly equal in volume, even if the louder one can be easily identified. It's close enough not to be annoying when a media player goes from one album to the next. Plus, IIRC, ReplayGain does not use peak level, it uses average level, so matching loudness level of different songs (as opposed to the same song in different codecs) exactly instead of approximately wouldn't really be beneficial when used as intended.
post #65 of 120

hi all

 

i am new into this audio hobby but can any one advise how to rip quality 320kps mp3? using which software and settings, etc...i am still using the default itunes audio convertor but im not sure if its good enough..

 

thanks

post #66 of 120

Exact Audio Copy is a good program for ripping in just about anything.  You'll have to download the LAME mp3 codec separately, but it's not too complicated.  The setup wizard should be able to get you through it pretty easily.

post #67 of 120

DO NOT use the iTunes mp3 encoder. AAC encoder is fine though.

 

Use something with LAME, if mp3.

 

I like fre:ac because it's simpler than EAC. 

post #68 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

DO NOT use the iTunes mp3 encoder. AAC encoder is fine though.

 

Use something with LAME, if mp3.

 

I like fre:ac because it's simpler than EAC. 



Kinda funny how LAME encoder does an excellent job while its name doesn't imply that :).

post #69 of 120

Honestly, this has been discussed a bazillionbugillion times. With the proper equipement, yes you can tell the difference, but in my opinion it isn't worth it. FLAC takes up wayyy too much space and you honestly probably wouldn't even notice...

post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elluzion View Post

Honestly, this has been discussed a bazillionbugillion times. With the proper equipement, yes you can tell the difference, but in my opinion it isn't worth it. FLAC takes up wayyy too much space and you honestly probably wouldn't even notice...



On my DX100/Studio V/Hifiman 601 I will only use FLAC. It sure does take quite a bit of space but 32GB micro SD cards are dirt cheap these days and I've yet fill up the 64GB of onboard the DX100 has plus it has a micro sd slot as well. I can't wait till 64GB cards become cheap though. With all three of those devices I can tell the difference but on things such as my Fuze and iphone its a no go (high bit mp3 all the way).

post #71 of 120

Personally I prefer to rip everything to flac for archive purposes and with cheapness of disk space these days, why not get a bit perfect copy of a cd? I dont understand why anyone wouldnt want?

post #72 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by kryten123 View Post

Personally I prefer to rip everything to flac for archive purposes and with cheapness of disk space these days, why not get a bit perfect copy of a cd? I dont understand why anyone wouldnt want?



Some people don't want to spend $90.00 on a 2TB drive ;).

 

Mine is about half way filled with lossless already lol.

post #73 of 120

Well, I've other use for my harddisks of about 20tb and keep growing...

 

Even though I do admit there's difference between flac and 320mp3, lossy is still my way to go~

post #74 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

Some people don't want to spend $90.00 on a 2TB drive ;).

 

Mine is about half way filled with lossless already lol.


Assuming a typical album takes up ~300 MB once compressed, a 2 TB hard drive will hold 5-6,000 CDs. At $99, that's less than 2 cents per CD. Pretty much negligible, even if you buy all your music cheap and used.

post #75 of 120

^^^ following this logic I'd actually think like "it can hold ~20000 CDs if those are in lossy format" orz..

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