FLAC or MP3-320 For Portable Gear

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by ryder78, Oct 8, 2017.
  1. stalepie
    It does get better with higher quality settings in Ogg format:

    https://imgur.com/a/lbfPN

    1st = CD FLAC
    2nd = OGG quality level 6
    3rd = OGG quality level 10 (max)

    but the previous example was a commercially released 320 Kbps MP3 from Google Play Store.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2017
  2. PETEBULL
    There are so called "problem samples" that expose LAME flaws. However there is a variation called 3995m that uses VBR256 + 64 forced signal-to noise correction. With that problem samples are no problem.
     
  3. bigshot
    i tried hard to break all the codecs. I could break Frauenhofer but not LAME.
     
  4. PETEBULL
    Try this (here was supposed to be the attached file, where the damn is it?)
    eig_essence.flac
    harp40_1.flac
    herding_calls.flac
    lead-voice.flac
    trumpet.flac
    trumpet_MyPrince.flac
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017
  5. Killcomic
    Lately I've been encoding all my lossless with AAC (VBR around 400kbps) to save space in my DAP/phone.
    I did some blind testing and could barely hear the difference between MP3 128k VS lossless and completely failed with MP3 320K VS Lossless.
    Neil Young would be disappointed.

    Damn, ACC sounds really, really good!
    I know I should probably use 256kbps but come on, cut me some slack, I'm just getting off the Lossless placebo pills!
     
  6. reginalb
    Neutron on Android plays Opus but I really dislike the UI. Much of the music on my computer is FLAC, some MP3, some AAC. I synced to my phone with Musicbee set to encode anything lossless to Opus, and just copy the MP3 and AAC stuff (oddly, when you set it to transcode the lossless, it doesn't transcode DSD - I do have 2 DSD albums). Opus was set to high quality, which is VBR, I checked some of the files, most wound up around 150k, the highest I found was 177k, and it all sounds great. My collection went from 70GB to 13GB, which is a pretty nice drop.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
    RRod and JaeYoon like this.
  7. RRod
    I use Neutron too, and yeah the UI isn't the best. But they recently added a compressor, which along with the EQ and xfeed already there made it a pretty universal solution for my 2-channel needs, especially given all the presets you can save.
     
    JaeYoon likes this.
  8. MM1990
    Same here. In some cases I can hear a difference between mp3 320k and FLAC, but in others I don't.

    But I'm trying to get my music in FLAC as often as possible :)
    Maybe it's just for the peace of mind to use FLAC haha
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  9. bigshot
    It doesn't make much sense to talk about whether you can hear a difference or not unless you specify a bitrate and codec. Anyone can tell the difference between MP3 and lossless at low bitrates. But once you get up to AAC 320, I don't think anyone on Earth can tell the difference.
     
  10. Vatnos
    I had my whole library in mp3s, aacs, or ogg vorbis of varying qualities from 128 kbps files made in 2005 that sounded awful, to fairly high quality, and everything in between.

    Last year, I finally got fed up, and decided to re-rip everything I had a physical copy of in FLAC for my desktop libary. After a few months I had a complete lossless archive.

    And from there I had two options... I could create a second folder with everything converted into 320 kbps ogg vorbis files for portable, or I could just get a 200 gb SD card and carry all my FLACs around. I decided on the latter. While I determined I cannot tell the difference between the best ogg file I can make and flac on my portable setup... I find that SD cards are big enough now, it doesn't matter. It would be much more work to maintain another playlist of lossy files so I don't bother.

    My argument for lossless goes like this:
    -Sure, 320kbps VBR ogg sounds indistinguishable to my ears.
    but...

    -I will never purchase a lossy file again.
    You don't know what you're getting if it's lossy. Could be a bad codec. Could be an ancient file. Could be compressed multiple times. With lossless, you are getting a product that will last. So the only lossy files I will ever trust will be ones that I have made.
    -If I'm archiving my music library, I definitely will do it in lossless. If anything happens to my CDs or vinyls, I'm covered.
    -I would have to maintain a separate playlist of lossy files in addition to my lossless playlist, and that's a lot of extra work. Hard drives are big enough now, so who cares?


     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017 at 6:32 PM
  11. bigshot
    I have my entire library ripped to AAC 256 VBR. It's audibly identical to lossless. It's MUCH smaller than FLAC. My AAC library is pushing 2 TB, so that's nothing to sneeze at. The best thing is that I don't have to transcode when I upload to my phone or iPod. I just grab files and drop them on the DAP. It's much easier and more convenient than FLAC.

    I put together a listening test with three different lossy codecs at three different data rates along with lossless. It's fun to find out exactly where your threshold of transparency lies. If anyone would like to take the test, let me know and I'll set you up.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017 at 8:24 PM
    JaeYoon likes this.
  12. voxie
    Hi, when listening via portable it also depends on your environment, is it office commute both. MP3-320 is perfect for portable playback. Personally I use FLAC for home use. Also depends on the player and phones used.
     
  13. danadam
    That's weird argument. You could as well get a defective file when buying a lossless one. You could be buying "lossless" file that was made from lossy. It all comes down to trusting the seller or not, it has nothing to do with lossless vs lossy.
     
    bfreedma and gregorio like this.
  14. Vatnos
    That you cannot guarantee you're getting a quality file is not an argument for lossy. There are many 320 kbps AACs and mp3s floating around that are not the quality they're claiming to be. There are many poor quality encoders with noticeable artifacts still being used on new albums today, as well as good encoders being used the wrong way to produce flawed files.

    The problems that can occur in a lossless file are just as likely to occur in a lossy one. You are not 'trading' one set of problems for another. You're just adding the additional risks that come along with introducing compression.
     
  15. bigshot
    It might have been true that there were bad encoders back in the early days of MP3, but that was decades ago now. AAC in particular is perfectly capable of achieving audible transparency. I would bet that even at 192, you would have a very difficult time discerning AAC from lossless.
     

Share This Page