[BeNME]

Are FLAC songs really that much better than mp3? If so, what is noticeably different?

 

[Jaska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeNME /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are FLAC songs really that much better than mp3? If so, what is noticeably different?

FLAC files, if securely ripped from original audio CDs, are perfect (they are lossless). MP3s are not (they are lossy). But, depending on your hearing abilities, you may not notice any difference as long as your MP3s are properly encoded and at a high enough bit rate. The most noticeable difference between FLAC and MP3 is of course in file size.

 

[trains are bad]

There is no audible difference between a well-encoded mp3 and flac. But flac takes no chances with sound quality and is desirable for archiving because it is lossless.

 

[blinx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no audible difference between a well-encoded mp3 and flac. But flac takes no chances with sound quality and is desirable for archiving because it is lossless.

i wouldnt say that.. it depends on your hearing ability and your setup

 

[Cid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no audible difference between a well-encoded mp3 and flac. But flac takes no chances with sound quality and is desirable for archiving because it is lossless.

That is FALSE. As a few members have already proven. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=225975

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no audible difference between a well-encoded mp3 and flac. But flac takes no chances with sound quality and is desirable for archiving because it is lossless.

I think it is more accurate to say that some (or even most) people will not hear an audible difference between lossless and a well-encoded MP3 (like high quality VBR). But some people will. If you are one of those, then you will want all of your music in FLAC or WAV.

 

[bubbamc119]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeNME /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are FLAC songs really that much better than mp3? If so, what is noticeably different?

Yes FLAC songs are that much better - this is the same quality you get from your cd player. With mp3 you loose dynamic range, and increase distortion. This happens because you are discarding a whole lot of information when you convert to mp3.

There are other codecs as good as FLAC, apple lossless is another.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbamc119 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are other codecs as good as FLAC, apple lossless is another.

I haven't used M4A lossless much, but doesn't it possess a, by default, smaller compression ratio than FLAC? Plus, FLAC is much more supported in different software than apple lossless.

 

[Abe Froman]

One good thing about FLAC, and indeed any lossless format in that you can convert it on a whim to whatever format you like, without re-ripping it. With the decreasing cost of storage, you can keep stuff on your home machine in a lossless format, then convert it to MP3 (or whatever) for your portable. This comes in way handy if you want to experiment with whatever hare-brained proprietary format your new player likes.

 

[Cousin Patty]

It's really a piece of mind thing for me. I have the space, so why would I want to use anything other than FLAC? I've purchased expensive equipment. Why not feed it the best possible quality of music I can? On portable setups, this is a different story.

 

[BillC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe Froman /img/forum/go_quote.gif One good thing about FLAC, and indeed any lossless format in that you can convert it on a whim to whatever format you like, without re-ripping it. With the decreasing cost of storage, you can keep stuff on your home machine in a lossless format, then convert it to MP3 (or whatever) for your portable. This comes in way handy if you want to experiment with whatever hare-brained proprietary format your new player likes.

Precisely. And the nice thing about FLAC compared to other lossless formats is that it is open source rather than some hare-brained proprietary format.

 

[floydenheimer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe Froman /img/forum/go_quote.gif One good thing about FLAC, and indeed any lossless format in that you can convert it on a whim to whatever format you like, without re-ripping it. With the decreasing cost of storage, you can keep stuff on your home machine in a lossless format, then convert it to MP3 (or whatever) for your portable. This comes in way handy if you want to experiment with whatever hare-brained proprietary format your new player likes.

x2, great points.

 

[Amarok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillC /img/forum/go_quote.gif Precisely. And the nice thing about FLAC compared to other lossless formats is that it is open source rather than some hare-brained proprietary format.

I love the open source aspect because it opens up use of the format to anyone with a good idea. I, for example, have installed Rockbox firmware on my iHP40 that plays FLAC. I have no idea if iRiver has ever fulfilled their promise to do so. Nor do I care. These guys reverse engineered the hardware and software in order to open up the device for more capabilities. This kind of thing means a lossless compression format can be available on waaaaaay more platforms than any proprietary format. And being lossless there are no arguments about whose compression sounds best.

Also, I think that having an extra copy of your mvsik can be a life saver if, say, your 2 year old decides that your out-of-print copy of <insert-title-here> can be used like her Sit'n'Spin(tm).

<tangential tirade>
Funny how record labels say you're paying for a license for the music, not the media or recording technology, etc. And yet I don't think they'll replace a CD for the cost of the media (what < $0.05?) and shipping and handling if you send them your trashed CD. Oh, and Mr Record Company sir, since I already have a license to _Close_to_the_Edge_, can I upgrade it to SACD for the difference in manufacturing costs? If I buy a CD of an album that I have on vinyl, cassette or 8-track (HA!) doesn't that mean I can make a copy and give it to someone else since I've paid for two licenses? Or if I've bought replacements for destroyed discs? I can't wait till I can download everything and pay the artists directly.
</tangential tirade>

<puts on tin foil conspiracy hat>
And being open source means no worry of any kind of abuse from the format's owner. Imagine, one day, M$ decides it isn't rich enough and releases a new version of media player that charges for each play. And then sabotages other players in an "essential security patch." I wouldn't put anything past a company that was caught faking video evidence at their antitrust trial.
<removes tin foil conspiracy hat>


-=A=-
(the long winded)

 

[skeeder]

I recently went from my MP3 version of Porcupine Tree's Album In Absentia to Reripped in FLAC...the difference was very noticeable, and this was from a 224KBPS VBR LAME rip...I'd say if you have the hard drive space...go for it.

 

[JES]

Everything on my player is Ogg Compression Level 7 or FLAC. And I've got about 20 GB still free. I wish to hell I would have ripped more of my favorites to FLAC files. It is a noticeable difference on most tracks.

And I just feel better knowing that I can't get any higher SQ than what FLAC provides.