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

FLAC vs. 320 Mp3

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by icedup, Sep 7, 2011.
First
 
Back
1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Next
 
Last
  1. ImperialX
     
    Quote:

    I have a feeling I've heard this stupidity here on Head-Fi before. Is this some sort of old "rumor" that people new to audio develop?
     
  2. telecaster
    There is no relation between recording bit rate and playback bitrate!
    For example, an album studio is recorded in world class studio with amazing gear, even back in the day, the analogue for recording was amazin!
    Then after everything is mixed and mastered, the resulting downmix is printed on CD.
     
    Then this CD is downgrade even to 128kps MP3 and will sound better than a home made mix with FLAC bitrate!
     
    In audio all the chain is important and a single crappy link will be your uplifting limit.
     
    Better to listen to MP3 from a pro world class studio, than a FLAC lossless file from a crappy home studio!
     
    ImperialX likes this.
  3. ImperialX
     
    Quote:
     
    Can't be truer. I can't tell the difference between 320kps MP3 and FLAC with my HD800, but I can hear the noises and imperfections of cheap tracks recorded in a lackluster studio! I've heard many pieces of music that are 192kps on my HD800 that sound better than FLACs recorded in a bad studio!
     
    peskypesky likes this.
  4. Bleether


    Quote:


    Troll harder please.
     
  5. rui-no-onna
     
    Quote:
     
    It does if you edit metadata while listening. 'Course, doing that has no effect on quality. [​IMG]
     
    Tried running the test on my PC with onboard Realtek soundcard and Sennheiser HD 202 (yeah, not a good set-up at all). Can't hear the difference so after 5 tries with foobar ABX testing, I stopped.
     
    I still rip to FLAC, though. While I may not be able to hear the difference, I do conversions to OGG, AAC and MP3 so it's better to have a lossless source to convert from. Hard drive space is cheap. Well not as cheap as before the flood in Thailand but they're still inexpensive enough given you can store ~3,000 albums losslessly on a 1TB drive (~$110).
     
    peskypesky likes this.
  6. proton007
     
    Quote:
     
    Agree. Also, while there are music players around that have large storage (160 GB), I think lossless is viable. Once apple stops making the iPod Classic, we'll have to think of something else.

     
  7. youngngray
     
    Quote:
     
    C'mon guys, don't you all know about digital dust and Rotational velocidensity? Of couse the files degrade over time! [​IMG]
     
  8. rui-no-onna
     
    Quote:
     
    To be strictly technical, this can happen. A lot of times, it can go undetected. That's why RAID controllers periodically scrub arrays to check for errors. There's actually a lot of error correction going on in hard drives.
     
  9. proton007
    Actually more than the hard-drive I consider the possibility of this happening in the RAM, since that's where a digital file is buffered.
    File systems maintain a CRC check for each file in order to check integrity at every write/cut/copy operation, so chances of this going undetected on a HDD are small.
    RAMs can suffer from bit flipping. ECC RAMs that have error checking are available but cost more and are used mostly in servers/databases.
     
    Coming back to point. Sometimes I feel the mainstream music is being made with the objective of being used as MP3/AAC files, since thats how its sold digitally. So everything is recorded in bits and pieces and then joined together. Its hard to tell how many takes have been fused together to create a song, and how much of it is autotuned.
    IMO this defeats the purpose of lossless audio entirely. If a sound is created digitally, as opposed to digitizing live sound, it does not matter even if its compressed by MP3.
     
  10. kore
    so is the size between flac and 320 still worth?
    knowing that slightly little difference between them...
     
  11. TheGrumpyOldMan
    You can probably get the exact % online, but roughly from my own collection, per album:
    -> Actual CD (~600-700MB)
    -> lossless about 1/2 of that (~250-300MB) (all in the same ballpark (ALAC, FLAC etc.))
    -> MP3 highest quality under 1/2 of that (~90-120MB) (CB 320 takes a bit more space than VBR 0)
     
    Of course it varies based on the length of the album and the complexity of the music... I have some lossless compressed album that are still over 420MB for example.
     
    Personally, if I use lossy compression at all, I prefer VBR 0 since it delivers the same quality as CB 320 but cuts out the filler so to speak. Which is not an exact definition, but the real-world benefit is for portable use: I can fit a larger selection of albums. And without wanting to go down another codec debate, if CB320 vs. lossless can be tough depending on the music, I think an honest ABX of CB320 vs. VBR0 for the same track would be close to impossible to discern in any genre, at least when encoded with the most up-to-date version of LAME. I have certainly tried my hardest on a pretty decent setup, and really couldn't for the life of me even with tracks I'm very familiar with, so it does the trick for me at least.
     
  12. Maverickmonk
    Quote:

    Wait...is this real? even the term "velocidensity" seems like a BS unit of measure.
     
  13. stv014
    Quote:
     
    Unfortunately, at least for more popular music styles, mixes made in world class pro studios can easily sound worse than something that was created in a crappy home studio, but without trying to squeeze out the last dB of loudness at any cost in distortion.
     
  14. BrownBear
    Quote:

    Yes.
     
    It's a shame really, and it gets on my nerves if I think about it. Such a waste of resources and music.
     
  15. spierdolony
    Quote:
    You may be getting confused with image formats. I believe .JPG's behave like this if you keep editing, that's why other picture formats exists such as tiff.
     
First
 
Back
1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Next
 
Last

Share This Page