[ajkda]

Hi,
 
I am still kinda new here and not sure if this threads goes here.
 
I just tried a track of flac and tried it with comparison to the same track in 320 mp3 encoded by lame 3.97 and noticed that there is sort of a distortion in the 320 bitrate...
 
It sounded as if there was a vibration in the bass and lower ends. E.g. a 'bur' sound from flac became 'burrr' in 320.
 
It was very minute and I was thinking if this is placebo or did anyone of you heard such a difference?

 

[gameboy115]

Depending on sources, 320kps and flac/ WAV have big difference to me, not if you are using ipod with no amp.
 
If you are pretty sure you have a quite good hearing, and ca notice a nuance difference between different tier headphone, but at the same time you can hear a slightest difference from mp3 to WAv/flac with one player, I will say this player is not good enough
 
you can either go for amp or change your source

 

[Sonic 748i]

It would be more appropriate to place this thread in the "Sound Sciene" sub-forum. But, I think the difference between the 320 lossless and FLAC becomes more apparent with a better setup but still it's a little difference unless the song is a very complex one.

 

[ethan961]

The difference is minimal, and anyone claiming to be able to readily tell the difference is lying to you.
 
Personally, I use 256kbps AAC for my rips. Good size and good quality. I have no need for anything more, especially when most of my music is in ~230kbps VBR MP3 from downloads.

 

[gameboy115]

I also want to add something, it will depend to your IEM too. X10 for me is more forgiving, not much difference for bad recording or format. When TF10 pro is a little picky for recording and music format, then it comes to my favorite IEM, UM3X, it can pick up much more detail by changing format if it is good recording.
 
Better recording / more completed the song is, the easier for me to notice the difference from upgrading the format

 

[usf09]

I can tell the difference between FLAC and 320 kbps MP3...on my HD650 and only on tracks I have listened to hundreds of times. When you become really familiar with a song, you can hear the minor differences at certain points in a song (perhaps the elongated twang of a guitar chord, something of that nature), but I definitely can't distinguish differences throughout the entire song. I would guess that the percentage of people who can genuinely distinguish between FLAC and MP3 on portable setups is minute. 
 
Also realize that there can be a placebo effect in place...people may think they hear huge differences in sound quality, but from a portable system, it's just unlikely. (With a home rig, I think it's easier to tell the difference, but it's not a night and day difference.) I listen to FLAC at home whenever possible just because I have virtually unlimited space on my hard drives, so I may as well rip them in lossless, but I think it's ridiculous how some can even go so far as to say that music is not enjoyable unless it's lossless. Again, this is NOT a flame, nor is it aimed at anyone in this thread. I've just read so many posts about how MP3/AAC, etc is worthless when that's just not the case, it's just exaggerated.

 

[gameboy115]

With my kenwood player and UM3x, I can hear huge difference from songs to songs.

 
One of significant is the separation and sound stage, not to mention micro detail from vocal which always portrait different texture to me as long as recording is good. It is huge which something I can't easily miss if I pay attention to in quite place.
 
Usually, vocal become dull and not detailed, like breath sound, throat movement. It is obvious to me since I have been in choir for years and I used to like to learn a thing or two from my favorite singer when listening
 
But I also agree this topic will lead us to nowhere, just like burn in effect. Some one think it is placebo, some one do not

 

[ethan961]

Quote:

I can tell the difference between FLAC and 320 kbps MP3...on my HD650 and only on tracks I have listened to hundreds of times. When you become really familiar with a song, you can hear the minor differences at certain points in a song (perhaps the elongated twang of a guitar chord, something of that nature), but I definitely can't distinguish differences throughout the entire song. I would guess that the percentage of people who can genuinely distinguish between FLAC and MP3 on portable setups is minute. 
 
Also realize that there can be a placebo effect in place...people may think they hear huge differences in sound quality, but from a portable system, it's just unlikely. (With a home rig, I think it's easier to tell the difference, but it's not a night and day difference.) I listen to FLAC at home whenever possible just because I have virtually unlimited space on my hard drives, so I may as well rip them in lossless, but I think it's ridiculous how some can even go so far as to say that music is not enjoyable unless it's lossless. Again, this is NOT a flame, nor is it aimed at anyone in this thread. I've just read so many posts about how MP3/AAC, etc is worthless when that's just not the case, it's just exaggerated.

Exactly, in some cases it may very well be possible to tell the difference (you would hope so for all the extra effort) but if you were to get someone to A/B and tell you which was which on something they had heard for the first time, a likely majority would have no clue which was the lossless one. Eventually you might get to know the differences, but on a whim I doubt anyone could, even with good cans and a good amp.
I don't think this thread is useless, it's a topic that doesn't come up that often here. Besides, it's not as clear cut as burn-in is with 'yes I believe' or 'no, it's total bollocks'. There are many different solutions, and perhaps people could share what works for them.

 

[gameboy115]

If lossless format is not important, how come we don't get MP3 format from CD we bought?
 
Another question, if I am not mistaken, vbr means the max rate is 230 kps, and somehow it can go as low as 192kps. For me, jumping from 192kps to 320 kps already makes a huge difference already
 
Third, I really don't believe 6 mb mp3 can reveal all detail from original 30 mb file without scarfing anything, at the same time, changing from 100 bucks IEM and 500 custom IEM makes difference. It does not seems consistence to me.
 
Again, we have different hearing, haven't we? No flame war here.The fact I can't hear difference, I guess it does not mean other one can't.  No offense. it is pointless thread to me, we won't have any answer, even I got best gear, but it won't guarantee I can make most of it, right?

 

[ethan961]

I didn't say lossless was not important, I just said that lossless doesn't have massive gains over 320kbps MP3. I would not be happy if a CD I bought came with mp3 tracks, because it's an instant bottleneck.
 
VBR 230 in the case of most of my files means average bitrate 230. You can set it to never go over a certain amount and never go under a certain amount. If you want specifics, iTunes tells me the average bitrate of it song. Sometimes it is more or less than another song.
Taking a quick look, it varies from 225 to 290, just looking at a couple albums.
 
Anyways, I'm not trying to say MP3 is good or anything. I'm a pirate simply because that's the generation I come from and that's what most of my library was before entering the Head-Fi world. Unless it sounds blatantly bad I'm not all that concerned, and if it's a band I like I tend to buy it anyways.
 
I prefer to use 256kbps (or around that when using VBR) AAC when I can, mostly because it sounds nearly as good as lossless and is a lot more friendly to an 8gb iPod. I can live with the difference, it's nowhere near the difference of something lower compared to it. I'd use Ogg hands down if Apple would support it, but that's far too open for such a company.
 
I think the point of this thread is not to debate, but rather to share our experiences.

 

[usf09]

Gameboy, no offense taken at all, we do have different hearing. I acknowledge that a small percent of people are capable of hearing the differences on a consistent basis, and you may be part of that group, but for the vast majority of the population, FLAC vs MP3 doesn't make a difference. (Of course, this site is largely skewed towards those with good hearing, or so it seems). 
 
Now, again, when I buy CDs, I rip to FLAC. For the songs that I listen to over and over, I'll probably hear a few differences, and since HDD space is just ridiculously cheap, there's no reason not to use FLAC. On portable players, I use MP3 almost exclusively, space is precious there (well, it is now that my ipod broke-switched to Fuze, only 24GB space). I don't think a portable will ever be as good as a home system (No, not even the HiFiMan or s:flo2), so MP3 is good enough.
 
Please know I'm not flaming anyone, if you really can hear a difference, by all means use FLAC. I'm simply saying that you're in the minority (with fantastic hearing) if you actually can differentiate between the formats. For me, 320 CBR is perfect for portable, which is what we're really talking about here. And to reiterate what you said, it's all opinion based. Nobody is right or wrong here. I do get annoyed sometimes by some of the comments posted on Head-Fi, when people are unwilling to have a conversation about anything, and it stretches from DAPs to music sources to customs and everything. Hearing IS different for everyone, we can't all appreciate the same things.
 
Again Gameboy, you pose a logical question and a valid argument, it would be ignorant to take offense to that.

 

[gameboy115]

Quote:

I didn't say lossless was not important, I just said that lossless doesn't have massive gains over 320kbps MP3. I would not be happy if a CD I bought came with mp3 tracks, because it's an instant bottleneck.
 
VBR 230 in the case of most of my files means average bitrate 230. You can set it to never go over a certain amount and never go under a certain amount. If you want specifics, iTunes tells me the average bitrate of it song. Sometimes it is more or less than another song.
Taking a quick look, it varies from 225 to 290, just looking at a couple albums.
 
Anyways, I'm not trying to say MP3 is good or anything. I'm a pirate simply because that's the generation I come from and that's what most of my library was before entering the Head-Fi world. Unless it sounds blatantly bad I'm not all that concerned, and if it's a band I like I tend to buy it anyways.
 
I prefer to use 256kbps (or around that when using VBR) AAC when I can, mostly because it sounds nearly as good as lossless and is a lot more friendly to an 8gb iPod. I can live with the difference, it's nowhere near the difference of something lower compared to it. I'd use Ogg hands down if Apple would support it, but that's far too open for such a company.
 
I think the point of this thread is not to debate, but rather to share our experiences.

Quote:

Gameboy, no offense taken at all, we do have different hearing. I acknowledge that a small percent of people are capable of hearing the differences on a consistent basis, and you may be part of that group, but for the vast majority of the population, FLAC vs MP3 doesn't make a difference. (Of course, this site is largely skewed towards those with good hearing, or so it seems). 
 
Now, again, when I buy CDs, I rip to FLAC. For the songs that I listen to over and over, I'll probably hear a few differences, and since HDD space is just ridiculously cheap, there's no reason not to use FLAC. On portable players, I use MP3 almost exclusively, space is precious there (well, it is now that my ipod broke-switched to Fuze, only 24GB space). I don't think a portable will ever be as good as a home system (No, not even the HiFiMan or s:flo2), so MP3 is good enough.
 
Please know I'm not flaming anyone, if you really can hear a difference, by all means use FLAC. I'm simply saying that you're in the minority (with fantastic hearing) if you actually can differentiate between the formats. For me, 320 CBR is perfect for portable, which is what we're really talking about here. And to reiterate what you said, it's all opinion based. Nobody is right or wrong here. I do get annoyed sometimes by some of the comments posted on Head-Fi, when people are unwilling to have a conversation about anything, and it stretches from DAPs to music sources to customs and everything. Hearing IS different for everyone, we can't all appreciate the same things.
 
Again Gameboy, you pose a logical question and a valid argument, it would be ignorant to take offense to that.

 
Guys, Point taken. I agree with the fact that mp3 is really good for portable player since space is an important factor. To be honest, I seldom put Wav in my 8 gig iphone.  If I tend to keep all my music in WAV format, I may only put 4/5 album in it.  With my kewnwood 30gb which only support WAV/MP3, sometimes I still get tired of putting WAV file as it occupies a lot of space, also the only time I could focus on music is 20 mins before I fall asleep, it is impossible for me to tell any difference anytime during daily travel
 
USfo9, you are absolutely right. I totally understand the gain from format difference is min as portable system is not comparable to full home rig. It may not worth to precious space it takes.

 

[Vergex2]

For some tracks that I know very well, lossless provides a marginal improvement. Definitely not all tracks, and I would only be able to A/B them maybe 2/3 to 3/4 of the time. It definitely isn't night and day, unless maybe if you have incredible hearing and a superb analytical setup and paid 100% attention to the music and nothing else.
 
Ripping the file properly is far more important than lossless or not (as long as it is at 320 kb/s). I've heard MP3s that have sounded to my ear, just very marginally superior to lossless FLACs. It may however be that MP3s do hide flaws better than FLACs, which can be an advantage in itself.

Another advantage that I've observed so far is that FLACs have fewer artifacts than lossy formats, though this may only be with lower bitrates (128/192) - I am uncertain.

However, since I have plenty of free space - the placebo effect is free, and knowing the fewer bottlenecks the better, I always pick lossless while ripping a CD.
 
As for AACs, sadly, I am uncertain, as I don't use it. I've heard however, that they are superior to MP3s both by hearing tests and on graphs (scientifically).

 

[JxK]

If you're wondering about your hearing, why not test it?
http://www.foobar2000.org/
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
 
Use a simple ABX test between FLAC and mp3. IF you hear a difference, and that's a big if since the vast majority of people overestimate their hearing ability, the difference will be subtle. That I guarantee you. So, if you manage to pass the ABX test you'll have to decide if that marginal difference is even worth it in a portable set up. Basically, when you're out and about you're not paying the closest attention to the music, and the music must compete with outside noise -- so max quality may really be a waste of space.
 
I'll also add that 320 CBR is a waste of space. If you want max quality mp3, use V0. There is a fraction of people on this board who can truly and consistently differentiate between 320 mp3 and FLAC via ABX. I doubt there are 10 people among headfi's thousands who could do the same between 320 CBR and V0 mp3. And that's in a quit room. For portable use, there is no one alive capable of hearing a difference between the two. And that I feel I can say with absolute certainty.
 
Myself, I use V2 mp3. For portable use it is more than adequate to me. FLAC has its place, but that place is in your home system.

 

[usf09]

Actually haven't tried V0 vs CBR, that'll be the next step I suppose...any saved space is good.