[James_K]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum (I'm new and can only seem to post here), but I'm just getting into FLAC and have noticed that some of the music I've purchased in FLAC is 2x the file size versus the FLAC I ripped myself (following instructions from this website that I mostly don't understand

It took me a while to figure out that the difference is that the big files are sampled at 96000 Hz. This is news to me because I always thought FLAC was "CD quality" and "lossless," end of story, but now I'm seeing different sampling rates of FLAC, like with MP3s? I did some searching but can't find a decent answer as to whether there is any practical difference between the two.

So what is the difference and why are some bands releasing music using 96000? Thanks.

 

[cossix]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum (I'm new and can only seem to post here), but I'm just getting into FLAC and have noticed that some of the music I've purchased in FLAC is 2x the file size versus the FLAC I ripped myself (following instructions from this website that I mostly don't understand

It took me a while to figure out that the difference is that the big files are sampled at 96000 Hz. This is news to me because I always thought FLAC was "CD quality" and "lossless," end of story, but now I'm seeing different sampling rates of FLAC, like with MP3s? I did some searching but can't find a decent answer as to whether there is any practical difference between the two.

So what is the difference and why are some bands releasing music using 96000? Thanks.

Lossless is its own world, as you've seen. CD quality is 16 bit / 44.1khz which is typically the bare minimum for "lossless" from there, there are also lossless files that have more information, such as 24/192 etc.

File size goes up obviously but so does the captured data, which in theory preserves more detail. I say in theory because it is very hard for anyone to accurately distinguish between 16/44.1 and 24/192 in a blind test. This has led to a vicious debate about whether hi-res is even worth having if it's so hard to tell it apart from CD quality.

On another level, anything above CD quality has theoretically less fidelity, or audio accuracy, because A) the Human ear cannot register sounds above 20khz-ish and B) when a headphone tries to play such high frequencies, it distorts the audible frequencies as a result. This part is 100% true by the way. If you play a 24khz warble tone, for example, and turn up your amplifier, you'll hear distortion. It sounds exactly like the tone should sound, but at a frequency that you can hear. Therefore, since the inaudible tone is producing audible distortion, hi-res is less true than CD quality 16/44.1

Lots of info there, hope it helps! TL DR, don't bother with anything over 16 bit / 44.1khz unless you already have some. Especially don't pay extra for anything above that point just because people claim to hear a difference. It matters much more how the music was recorded and the quality of gear and mastering they used. I have 16/44.1 albums that sound much better than some 24/192 or even DSD64 albums that I own. (DSD is a different type of transport than FLAC and WAV, which are PCM. It's viewed as some kind of "God tier" because instead of a sample rate of 44.1khz or something, they have sample rates of over 2MHz which is outrageous. Some of my DSD64 sounds really good, but I think that's more because it was mastered well.)

 

[James_K]

Thanks Cossix, that's exactly the info I was looking for... though I guess it does open a bit of a Pandora's box! I mostly just dislike having albums take up over 1GB of precious storage size (which is what the 96000 Hz ones do). I think I will try to convert them into smaller files. I'm coming from using mostly MP3s so to me it's still a step up.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum (I'm new and can only seem to post here)...

New members are restricted to this part of the forum until you reach a minimum number of days and posts.

...but I'm just getting into FLAC and have noticed that some of the music I've purchased in FLAC is 2x the file size versus the FLAC I ripped myself (following instructions from this website that I mostly don't understand

It took me a while to figure out that the difference is that the big files are sampled at 96000 Hz.

If you ripped them yourself from CD and you set the compression to max, then you end up with a smaller file size, at the cost of taking longer to compress the file. You can convert the 24bit 96khz files to the same compression level to make the files smaller.

This is news to me because I always thought FLAC was "CD quality" and "lossless," end of story, but now I'm seeing different sampling rates of FLAC, like with MP3s?

FLAC is lossless. It just depends on how much you compress the file. It works more like a zip file than an MP3 with the exception that you don't have to unpack it to play it.

The different sampling rates are in kilohertz and what frequency the DAC chip uses to sample the file during conversion, not in kilobit per second which determines file size as on MP3.

I did some searching but can't find a decent answer as to whether there is any practical difference between the two.

So what is the difference and why are some bands releasing music using 96000? Thanks.

24/96 is the resolution used in the studio up until the final master before being converted to 16/44.1 Redbook (ie, CD). If there's any benefit, likely because with the proliferation of 24/96 capable DACs the studios reasoned the logic of why they should spend extra time for 16/44.1 FLAC and take up server space on download facilitators' servers much less at the highest compression ratio when:

1. Most DACs and DAPs out there right now can play the studio master copy anyway

2. People will download the studio master, not always because they believe it sounds better than 16/44.1 from the same master copy, but they're archiving them as well

3. End users can use the time to convert them to 16/44.1 (if their smartphone doesn't read 24/96 natively and thus converts on the fly, using the CPU and hence the battery; or if they're using a non-oversampling 16/44.1 DAC) or higher compression of either 16/44.1 or 24/96 as needed (like saving space for portable players)

 

[Grimbles]

This is a passionate debate and (complex scientific explanations aside) the best advice has to be listen to both and see which you like more if yoy can discern a difference. Bear in mind a lot of websites ie hdtracks are more expensive than buying the cd off amazon and ripping yourself.

Having spent some money on higher sample rates and bit depth, ive decided to stick to 16/44.1. I found the two articles below informative (the first links the second).

http://productionadvice.co.uk/high-sample-rates-make-your-music-sound-worse/

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_1ch

 

[Grimbles]

Seeing if @Brooko is about - he wrote an instructive piece on blind (deaf?) testing your own ears to see if you can reliably tell the difference. Sorry @Brooko , cant find the link!

 

[Brooko]

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Bear in mind a lot of websites ie hdtracks are more expensive than buying the cd off amazon and ripping yourself.

Depends on where one is and how much more esoteric his tastes in music are vs market studies by local record companies. In my case for example downloading Dream Theater's latest album in 24/96 (no 16/44.1 option) will cost $26, but buying the CDs will be $16+$12 shipping+however much the local Customs Agent thinks he can get out of me/how high my blood pressure will get arguing with said Customs Agent.

 

[Grimbles]

Fair point @ProtegeManiac and to be fair eclassical is pretty reasonable and has a broad catalogue of higher than cd quality music too. Theres also quite a lot of free stuff out there (musopen kickstarter project has a lovely recording of peer gynt by grieg). If im trying to buy Noel Gallagher's latests squawkings though, cd it is! More esoteric/import risks i guess is a case by case basis.

 

[tomb]

Thanks Cossix, that's exactly the info I was looking for... though I guess it does open a bit of a Pandora's box! I mostly just dislike having albums take up over 1GB of precious storage size (which is what the 96000 Hz ones do). I think I will try to convert them into smaller files. I'm coming from using mostly MP3s so to me it's still a step up.

Oh no - sacrilege! You should never decrease the quality of your files, at least not permanently. If you want to compress to an mp3 for a portable, fine, but don't get rid of that hi-res file. Lots of opinions here, but none of your own on the quality of the music. If you get rid of the originals, you'll never know.

BTW, not sure if anyone really explained, but the 24-bit, 96kHz is the recording environment. An mp3 sample rate is the extent of the data lost in compression. It's two different things. FLAC is lossless compression, regardless of the recording environment bit and sample rate. Think of it in terms of a printed page - lots of unnecessary white space as far as data is concerned. FLAC compresses the white space in music; the data is left untouched. As you discovered, however, it takes more file size to store a 24-bit, 96kHz music file. That's because there's more data to store. Do you really want to throw away some of that data?

 

[James_K]

Oh no - sacrilege! You should never decrease the quality of your files, at least not permanently. If you want to compress to an mp3 for a portable, fine, but don't get rid of that hi-res file. Lots of opinions here, but none of your own on the quality of the music. If you get rid of the originals, you'll never know.

BTW, not sure if anyone really explained, but the 24-bit, 96kHz is the recording environment. An mp3 sample rate is the extent of the data lost in compression. It's two different things. FLAC is lossless compression, regardless of the recording environment bit and sample rate. Think of it in terms of a printed page - lots of unnecessary white space as far as data is concerned. FLAC compresses the white space in music; the data is left untouched. As you discovered, however, it takes more file size to store a 24-bit, 96kHz music file. That's because there's more data to store. Do you really want to throw away some of that data?

I have a Cowon Plenue D, so that should be capable of playing 96KHz... my limitation is storage, with 128 GB max on that player. If every album is over 1 GB, that fills fast... but point taken regarding keeping the originals for listening on my PC or wherever.

Some great information overall in this thread, I've learned a ton!

By the way, in case anyone else comes along, I found a thread about conversion here:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/flac-to-flac.473129/

I plan to covert and do some listening tests.

 

[cossix]

I have a Cowon Plenue D, so that should be capable of playing 96KHz... my limitation is storage, with 128 GB max on that player. If every album is over 1 GB, that fills fast... but point taken regarding keeping the originals for listening on my PC or wherever.

Some great information overall in this thread, I've learned a ton!

By the way, in case anyone else comes along, I found a thread about conversion here:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/flac-to-flac.473129/

I plan to covert and do some listening tests.

Make sure the tests are blind tests so you don't know which is which! If you just switch between the two and see which you are clicking, your brain will trick you into thinking the higher sample rate sounds better

 

[ProtegeManiac]

I have a Cowon Plenue D, so that should be capable of playing 96KHz... my limitation is storage, with 128 GB max on that player. If every album is over 1 GB, that fills fast... but point taken regarding keeping the originals for listening on my PC or wherever.

A CD holds under 800mb of WAV, even 24/96 WAV. FLAC at its highest compression ratio is roughly 35% to 40% of that. That assumes the CD is full. The only way you can get to over 1gb is if:

1. The album spans more than 1 CD
2. You didn't apply highest FLAC compression on 24/96 studio master FLAC
3. You have too many other files in there, like whatever ripper you used made multiple copies of the album cover (one for each song as opposed to linking all to a single JPEG) in high res JPEG, or the whole album cover sleeve was scanned into the file (as would be found in albums from torrents).

 

[PETEBULL]

Strange thing but if you downsample a loud recording of 96 to 44.1 you will have to reduce volume by 1-1.5db to avoid clipping.

 

[theveterans]

Strange thing but if you downsample a loud recording of 96 to 44.1 you will have to reduce volume by 1-1.5db to avoid clipping.

It's not strange if you reduce the bits to 16 bits from 24 bits since 24 bits has more dynamic range thus even higher volumes.