1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by johnsantana, Oct 16, 2012.
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
  1. AudioBob1
    It is NOT "Compressed" it is the same independent of how the wave was made.   
  2. cjl

    FLAC is definitely compressed. Compare the filesize between FLAC and WAV and you'll see that the FLAC is something like 60% of the size.
  3. AudioBob1

    A flac compared to 128MP3 people can tell.   A Flac/wave compared to a 320MP3 is much more difficult,  its not a WOW there is a huge difference type of experience.  If playing on full range speakers and you have 20 year old hearing then why not using a wave or flac as the source?   320mp3 is good enough for most applications.    A person past age 50 is going to have a much harder time to differentiate as their hearing has dropped vs age 20.
  4. AudioBob1
    It can't be compressed if its a LOSSLESS Flac.   
    You can take a 128mp3 and turn it in to a Flac, that would be flac compressed.    So flacs can be lossy in that case.
    But if you use a LOSSLESS Flac there will be ZERO difference.    Look up the word Lossless before you reply.
  5. AudioBob1
    We are talking about two different things here.  Audio signal compression and zip compression.   I am talking about Lossless in which you loose no information.   In zip files are you not loosing any information like you would with a jpeg file.
    As long as the file is properly decompressed (same as the original) it will be read the same or heard the same as there is no missing information.
    The zip example is lossless.
    Mp3 is not lossless.
    And yes a flac file can be compressed digitally but that should not result in any difference when played back.   When it is decompressed the final form is the same as the original.
    Really the discussion should be about lossy vs lossless and leave the word compression out of it.
    Lossless = should sound the same as the original source as no information is lost.
    Lossy = might sound different as there is information missing.  If it is done well it will be very difficult to hear that difference.
    The word compression confuses things as it has different meanings.  can have lossy and lossless compression.   Can compress dynamic range etc.
  6. castleofargh Contributor
    seems like only you got confused.[​IMG]
    but yes there can be all sorts of compressions and not all are lossless/can be undone.
  7. AudioBob1
    If the lossless can't be undone then its not Lossless its lossy.
    No I think you and the rest were getting confused mixing up terms.   Very common, don't worry about it.
  8. cjl
    Sure it can. That's why it's called lossless compression. It's compressed because the filesize/bitrate is reduced. It's lossless because you can perfectly reconstruct the original signal. You seem to be incorrectly using the word "compression" to mean "lossy compression", when compression can be either lossless or lossy.
  9. watchnerd
    On top of that, FLAC even offers different levels of compression.  See screenshot:
    cjl likes this.
  10. AudioBob1
    You are a little late to the party, already addressed this.  Its like you glossed over these things in attempt to find one thing where you could look right.
    I get it.
  11. watchnerd
    Look right?
    It doesn't "look right", it is right.
    Lossless audio comes in varying degrees of file compression.
    Anyone who has made FLACs knows this.
    cjl likes this.
  12. AudioBob1
    You are beating a dead horse.   I already addressed this yet you continue to ramble on.
  13. watchnerd
    I find that funny given I didn't even reply to you in my first post to this thread.  I replied to cjl.
  14. AudioBob1
    You could be a comedian man.   That is funny.
  15. watchnerd
    oh the irony
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Share This Page