[JMT391]

Before I start this thread, I would like to affirm that this thread is not an attempt to argue over whether or not there is a difference between lossy and lossles. So please, leave it behind.

Anyway, I just did some ABX comparator tests with FLAC vs. V0 VBR MP3 files in foobar, and unfortunately was not able to hear a difference. I do believe there is one, however, and I am just curious as to what I should listen for in FLAC files. I understand that they are better, but what specifically sets a FLAC file apart from an MP3 (in terms of audible differences)?

Thanks for the help

 

[iriverdude]

Listen to bassy music. And pay attention to cymbals. Play on speakers, not headphones as I've found phones mask the music, and it's far more obvious on them.

Reason why I deleted all mp3's, even 320kps.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've found phones mask the music

hah

 

[Anonanimal]

Probably you won't hear a difference between a .flac and a quality .mp3 (in my opinion). What you will gain is the peace of mind of having an exact backup copy of all of your CDs.

 

[xnor]

You don't hear differences on every track, in the best case there are only rare cases in your music collection.
Like iriverdude mentioned, listen to cymbals and other stuff going on in the treble region.

You could also re-encode the file using V2, 3 or higher (but not too high

) and ABX, just to get an idea what to listen for.

 

[Currawong]

Your gear may simply not be resolving enough for you to tell. Not to mention, LAME has been in development for many years, so their VBR encoding is extremely good.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMT391 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Before I start this thread, I would like to affirm that this thread is not an attempt to argue over whether or not there is a difference between lossy and lossles. So please, leave it behind. Anyway, I just did some ABX comparator tests with FLAC vs. V0 VBR MP3 files in foobar, and unfortunately was not able to hear a difference. I do believe there is one, however, and I am just curious as to what I should listen for in FLAC files. I understand that they are better, but what specifically sets a FLAC file apart from an MP3 (in terms of audible differences)? Thanks for the help

It's not unfortunate that you can't hear it; it is a good thing. Now you can make compressed files for portable use and not experience a loss of quality in your listening. Be happy. Why teach yourself to hear artifacts in lossy codecs? What could possibly be gained by that?

P

 

[Seufari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why teach yourself to hear artifacts in lossy codecs? What could possibly be gained by that? P

Haha... I like that statement... It makes sense.

 

[ROBSCIX]

What could possibly be gained by ignoring the artifacts and other negative aspects of MP3 or other lossy codecs?

 

[Zoomastigophora]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX /img/forum/go_quote.gif What could possibly be gained by ignoring the artifacts and other negative aspects of MP3 or other lossy codecs?

Why bother digitizing music at all? You can't accurately store analog waves in discrete form since you would need infinite number of samples (per Nyquist-Shannon) and because of the very nature of quantization, which in turn means that you are guaranteed artifacts in the reproduction of analog.

Point being, if there is no perceptible difference between the source and the encoded file, be happy. I'm fine with Uberstandard MP3s, but I acknowledge the value of FLAC as a format for making backups.