Edoardo
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Posts
- 856
- Likes
- 23
FLAC is one of the few formats that can guarantee PCM-like quality and therefore offers a reliable back-up of our CDs...
dont know if this thread is still alive but I recently purchased some songs off of iTunes, 256 kbps AAC, and while they are of excellent quality, I always had the impression that FLAC would always sound noticeably better and more detailed than any lossy format especially when played through the appropriate audio equipment like a high-end DAC, amp and good quality headphones. So, after some time and out of curiosity, I acquired FLAC versions of the songs I had and played them in Foobar. They sounded pretty normal to me, nothing special. I then used the ABX Comparator plugin to compare the AAC version of the songs to the FLAC songs directly and to see if I could distinguish the two, but I couldnt tell a difference. They sounded virtually similar. so its either:
a) my ears arent that good
b) AAC is a much better format than we give it credit for
c) FLAC is overrated
or maybe a bit of all of the above.
Needless to say, I dont think I'll be going out of my way to obtain FLAC files anymore. FLAC files are good for archiving purposes, but for music listening, when an FLAC file is 3-4 times larger in file size than the corresponding AAC or MP3 and yet sounds virtually the same, I dont think it justifies its large file size.
I recently succumbed to the 24/96 store at HDtracks. After downloading foobar to play these files, I used dbPoweramp to convert them to ALAC for convenience from my iTunes library. Experimenting with the same tunes from different sources: the iTunes store (AAC), CD, wav files of CD, and SACD, I cannot say that I can tell any difference. Listening to The Rolling Stones, Love In Vain on I think every format it has been made available, from 256k to 24/96, I cannot distinguish one from anothe,r although a friend of mine can. At any rate, today, even though I cannot distinguish a difference, I'm still downloading the 24/96 HDtracks tunes since they're only about $1.30 more per tune than an iTunes 256k download; and, it makes me feel better-perceiving that it's better.
,
But, getting back to the topic, I see why the folks at HDtracks deliver flac files,. alternative files would be huge, or would not be 24/96, either of which would undermine the content providers appeal.
I have no problem with flac. The problem is with the media players needed to play flac. So far, none have been as intuitive, versatile, or accommodating to my listening preferences as iTunes. And, since there is no substitute for iTunes, I've needed to convert the flac files to ALAC in order to play them from iTunes.
BTW, you alluded to me complaining. I'm not complaining, I'm rejoicing. Also, you said it's awful people have been mislead by statements like mine. There's nothing misleading in anything I've said, it's just an informed opinion based on my personal experience with the concept. If you can hear a difference between hi-rez flac files and 256k files, O.K. thanks for sharing.
Perhaps, if I were to re-set Window for something like16/44 I might be able to hear the 256k files as being inferior, but why would I want to do that?