Alai
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Posts
- 765
- Likes
- 10
Also, on this topic of FLAC, is FLAC pretty much the same quality as the CD tracks or is it better?
FLAC vs mp3
- Thread starter Mental_Medical
- Start date
krmathis
Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 34,759
- Likes
- 82
Quote:
FLAC is lossless.
So if the source are CD, then the FLAC files will be the same quality as the CD tracks.It can never be better than the source...
| Originally Posted by Alai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, on this topic of FLAC, is FLAC pretty much the same quality as the CD tracks or is it better? |
FLAC is lossless.
So if the source are CD, then the FLAC files will be the same quality as the CD tracks.It can never be better than the source...
Shike
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Posts
- 1,888
- Likes
- 72
Quote:
Golden? Pfft, we're probably talking platinum.
Seriously, only on the most complex music does 320kbs MP3 scientifically fail.
| Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've done ABX testing with me and a friend using mp3 at less than 320kb/s and lossless .wav and both of us failed to tell the difference. If you can tell the dif then you must have golden ears. |
Golden? Pfft, we're probably talking platinum.
Seriously, only on the most complex music does 320kbs MP3 scientifically fail.
Alai
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Posts
- 765
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Bleh. Yeah, my question sounded stupid because I worded it incorrectly.
My real question is this:
Is CD quality lower than the FLAC quality offered by some of the online music stores like HDtracks? Because their advertisement was that their FLAC is higher quality than their normal "CD quality" files.
| Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif FLAC is lossless. So if the source are CD, then the FLAC files will be the same quality as the CD tracks.It can never be better than the source... |
Bleh. Yeah, my question sounded stupid because I worded it incorrectly.
My real question is this:
Is CD quality lower than the FLAC quality offered by some of the online music stores like HDtracks? Because their advertisement was that their FLAC is higher quality than their normal "CD quality" files.
Barock
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2005
- Posts
- 345
- Likes
- 11
That's because "CD-quality" can arbitrarily mean MP3 at, well almost any bitrate. Usually 320 or 256 kbps, but I think even 192/160 kbps have been sold as "CD-quality" as many people can't tell the difference. Only lossless from the original CD source can be considered CD-quality, hence the FLACs should be, unless they're being encoded from MP3s or other lossy whatever.
Vandal
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Posts
- 741
- Likes
- 22
Quote:
I agree with you. ^^ (person who finds a stark difference) The only possible thing I can think of is using 320 KBps VBR; stick with CBR. That's what I do. I ripped from the same CD to both 320 KBps CBR and .FLAC. I couldn't tell the difference; and I shuffled the tracks in Winamp so I didn't know which format was playing when.
I think if you know you're playing .FLAC you may have the subconscious feel that its better.
| Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've done ABX testing with me and a friend using mp3 at less than 320kb/s and lossless .wav and both of us failed to tell the difference. If you can tell the dif then you must have golden ears. |
I agree with you. ^^ (person who finds a stark difference) The only possible thing I can think of is using 320 KBps VBR; stick with CBR. That's what I do. I ripped from the same CD to both 320 KBps CBR and .FLAC. I couldn't tell the difference; and I shuffled the tracks in Winamp so I didn't know which format was playing when.
I think if you know you're playing .FLAC you may have the subconscious feel that its better.
Alai
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Posts
- 765
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Ah. Thanks! I almost got caught by deceptive advertising. So basically, FLAC ripped directly from a CD or DVD-A is technically the best quality you can find?
| Originally Posted by Barock /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's because "CD-quality" can arbitrarily mean MP3 at, well almost any bitrate. Usually 320 or 256 kbps, but I think even 192/160 kbps have been sold as "CD-quality" as many people can't tell the difference. Only lossless from the original CD source can be considered CD-quality, hence the FLACs should be, unless they're being encoded from MP3s or other lossy whatever. |
Ah. Thanks! I almost got caught by deceptive advertising. So basically, FLAC ripped directly from a CD or DVD-A is technically the best quality you can find?
smuh
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2004
- Posts
- 910
- Likes
- 42
Quote:
Reencoding from a lossy format (like MP3) to a lossless format (like FLAC) does not make any sense... the other way around, from FLAC to Mp3 does at least in my case, because of of my portable players does not support FLAC.
That means, yes, FLAC ripped directly from a CD or DVD-A should be the only way to rip and encode. Or of course encode/reencode from another lossless format.
| Originally Posted by Alai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah. Thanks! I almost got caught by deceptive advertising. So basically, FLAC ripped directly from a CD or DVD-A is technically the best quality you can find? |
Reencoding from a lossy format (like MP3) to a lossless format (like FLAC) does not make any sense... the other way around, from FLAC to Mp3 does at least in my case, because of of my portable players does not support FLAC.
That means, yes, FLAC ripped directly from a CD or DVD-A should be the only way to rip and encode. Or of course encode/reencode from another lossless format.
smuh
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2004
- Posts
- 910
- Likes
- 42
Quote:
Yes and no, for me FLAC is better if it comes to archiving. My collection of FLAC files will still be the same in years, whereas I am not sure about my CD's and their lifetime + scatches etc...
| Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif FLAC is lossless. So if the source are CD, then the FLAC files will be the same quality as the CD tracks.It can never be better than the source... |
Yes and no, for me FLAC is better if it comes to archiving. My collection of FLAC files will still be the same in years, whereas I am not sure about my CD's and their lifetime + scatches etc...
linuxworks
Member of the Trade: Sercona Audio
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2008
- Posts
- 3,456
- Likes
- 69
Quote:
I wouldn't state it that way.
the way I would explain flac is that it represents all the data on the source; no more and no less. just in a more 'efficient' form. but exact bit for bit for what's on the source.
note I didn't say cd, I said source. if the source is very high bit width (more than 16 bit audio) and higher sampling rate than cd - flac can still 'compress' it and it will still be bit for bit what the source had, just with some fancy maths tricks to reduce file size.
| Originally Posted by Alai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah. Thanks! I almost got caught by deceptive advertising. So basically, FLAC ripped directly from a CD or DVD-A is technically the best quality you can find? |
I wouldn't state it that way.
the way I would explain flac is that it represents all the data on the source; no more and no less. just in a more 'efficient' form. but exact bit for bit for what's on the source.
note I didn't say cd, I said source. if the source is very high bit width (more than 16 bit audio) and higher sampling rate than cd - flac can still 'compress' it and it will still be bit for bit what the source had, just with some fancy maths tricks to reduce file size.
illy2k
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Posts
- 436
- Likes
- 11
just think of it this way, any lossless audio codec is a way to represent audio data without losing any of the data in the process. Whether it is FLAC, ALAC, MA it should alll be the same if taken from the same source. Ripping a CD directly to one of these formats will yield the best possible audio quality result and at level 8 for FLAC the "compressed" file will be smaller but won't be lossy.
Alai
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Posts
- 765
- Likes
- 10
Wait, then what IS higher quality than CD tracks (besides vinyl)?
Mental_Medical
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2008
- Posts
- 50
- Likes
- 0
But not all CDs are created equally, right? Much like DVDs and Blu-ray. Can the audio quality differ depending on the studio/producer?
krmathis
Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 34,759
- Likes
- 82
Quote:
$**** happens!
Quote:
"CD quality" don't tell us much, as its often used for anything down to 128Kbps lossy encoded audio files.
Quote:
SACD, DVD Audio, high-definition lossless files (ex. 24-bit/96Khz), ...
| Originally Posted by Alai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bleh. Yeah, my question sounded stupid because I worded it incorrectly. |
$**** happens!
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Alai /img/forum/go_quote.gif My real question is this: Is CD quality lower than the FLAC quality offered by some of the online music stores like HDtracks? Because their advertisement was that their FLAC is higher quality than their normal "CD quality" files. |
"CD quality" don't tell us much, as its often used for anything down to 128Kbps lossy encoded audio files.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Alai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wait, then what IS higher quality than CD tracks (besides vinyl)? |
SACD, DVD Audio, high-definition lossless files (ex. 24-bit/96Khz), ...
illy2k
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Posts
- 436
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
well there is DVD-A and SACD and those formats, they can handle up to 24-bit audio and 192kHz sampling rates. This just means that there can be more detail in the music for you to hear. But for SACD you need a special player and not much music is put onto SACD, and you need a special player as well.
Quote:
this is very true, that is why some amp/dac/can combos can reveal flaws and distortions in the mixing/mastering of a CD.
| Originally Posted by Alai /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wait, then what IS higher quality than CD tracks (besides vinyl)? |
well there is DVD-A and SACD and those formats, they can handle up to 24-bit audio and 192kHz sampling rates. This just means that there can be more detail in the music for you to hear. But for SACD you need a special player and not much music is put onto SACD, and you need a special player as well.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Mental_Medical /img/forum/go_quote.gif But not all CDs are created equally, right? Much like DVDs and Blu-ray. Can the audio quality differ depending on the studio/producer? |
this is very true, that is why some amp/dac/can combos can reveal flaws and distortions in the mixing/mastering of a CD.
Users who are viewing this thread
