Is It Just Me, Or Does FLAC Sound Boring?
Apr 9, 2006 at 5:26 AM Post #17 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh
Perhaps you just like the sound colouration of MP3 files? Just as other people prefer the sound of LPs over CDs. Or the sound of one headphone over another. To each his own, if that is in fact the explanation, at least itll save you a bunch of hard drive space!


Not a good comparison. There are many instances where an LP will out-class a CD in terms of pure fidelity.

There are many instances, also, where a CD will do the same to an LP. Most of the time it comes down to the mastering.

My bet is that this person simply doesn't know what good mastering is. He probably is listening to the wrong parts of the sound. Listen to FLAC realizing the beauty of balance it possesses, and the un-matched clarity and detail, not the 'coolness' of the sound or the lack of artificial/result-of-compression distortion.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 5:54 AM Post #18 of 43
This thread is RIDICulous . Its all in your mind ! And you seem to have some hearing ability to distinguish 320 kbps mp3's from the original wav's.
evil_smiley.gif
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 10:22 AM Post #20 of 43
It's just you.
rolleyes.gif
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 7:19 PM Post #21 of 43
FIRST POST
eek.gif


May I jump in here, today I have had ago at EAC to Flac according to this guide off Google (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org) and one or two others I have come across, and have found playing back through Foobar there is detail missing aswell as image and soundstage when compared to wav

My pref when ripping from a CD:

1. Wav (can not tell any difference between CD and Wav)
2. MP3 320 (less detail but image and soundstage is still there)
3. Flac (detail is not all there, image and soundstage is a joke)

I am using a Rega ear amp & Grado RS-1 headphones.

Also, FooBar v0.9 << this loads up with a error message "failed to load foo_flaccer.dll" could this have anything to do with the sound ??

I am new to this and may well have the wrong set-up, be interested in some feed back though, esp audiophile people and not just ipod PC geeks, sorry no offence but you know what I mean....
icon10.gif
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 7:35 PM Post #22 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by King Saul
1. Wav (can not tell any difference between CD and Wav)
2. MP3 320 (less detail but image and soundstage is still there)
3. Flac (detail is not all there, image and soundstage is a joke)


I'm not sure about the error message. It's possible (but unlikely) that your computer is seriously messed up...but even errors during ripping and conversion can hardly explain your findings.

So I'm forced to conclude that you're imagining things. The way to test this is very easy - select the WAV and FLAC versions of the same track, and use foobar's built-in ABX tester to see if you can distinguish them. Random guessing will give the right answer 50% of the time, so you'll have to score higher than that.

Foobar also has a feature to bit-compare two tracks - again, select the WAV and FLAC files and see if there are any differences in the data. Don't try bit-comparing for the tracks at the beginning and end of a CD, since they might have a gap which is not translated into your FLAC file. Pick some track from the middle of your CD.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 7:43 PM Post #23 of 43
First off, all equipment and settings were the same. All listening was done with an Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music to a Ultrasone HFi 550, and then also on a Sennheiser EH150.

Foobar was used to play the MP3's, FLAC, and the CD. All settings and volume levels were the exact same. Nothing changed between any of them. The same ripping method was also used, EAC with LAME using 320kbps cbr, and EAC with FLAC at highest settings.

Here's my experience. While listening to Opeth's Ghost Reveries directly from the CD, the music presents impact and detail. The sound is very full and has many dynamic traits, its reaches in and grabs you.

While listening to Opeth's Ghost Reveries from an MP3 rip of the CD the music also presents impact. The sound is still full, just slightly less than the CD. There is slight detail loss, but not much. Things missing include soft guitar reverb and some cymbal work doesnt have the same fullness.

While listening to Opeth's Ghost Reveries from a FLAC rip of the CD the music does not have impact. The response feels very flat, there feels to be no dynamical change at all. Detail is the same as a CD. The fullness is completely gone though. It sounds like the music is being played about 20 feet away instead of close around me.

From my experience, I would rate them as such CD>>MP3>>>>>>FLAC. This is purely for the fact that FLAC sounds lifeless, there is nothing about it that pulls me in, it sounds very bad, IMO.

Maybe I ripped it wrong, maybe there's something weird about my Foobar, but either way, FLAC sounded very very bad to me. I was looking to see if anyone else had this same experience, instead I got a lot of you basically saying I'm an idiot, oh well, for some reason I'm not surprised.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 7:53 PM Post #24 of 43
FLAC is a lossless compression. It equals the quality of WAV, the original CD. It doesn't sound worse nor better. Easy as that.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 7:58 PM Post #25 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by King Saul
FIRST POST
eek.gif


May I jump in here, today I have had ago at EAC to Flac according to this guide off Google (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org) and one or two others I have come across, and have found playing back through Foobar there is detail missing aswell as image and soundstage when compared to wav

My pref when ripping from a CD:

1. Wav (can not tell any difference between CD and Wav)
2. MP3 320 (less detail but image and soundstage is still there)
3. Flac (detail is not all there, image and soundstage is a joke)

I am using a Rega ear amp & Grado RS-1 headphones.

Also, FooBar v0.9 << this loads up with a error message "failed to load foo_flaccer.dll" could this have anything to do with the sound ??

I am new to this and may well have the wrong set-up, be interested in some feed back though, esp audiophile people and not just ipod PC geeks, sorry no offence but you know what I mean....
icon10.gif



You're either imagining things or something is seriously wrong, FLAC is exactly the same as wav.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 7:58 PM Post #26 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skrying
Maybe I ripped it wrong, maybe there's something weird about my Foobar, but either way, FLAC sounded very very bad to me. I was looking to see if anyone else had this same experience, instead I got a lot of you basically saying I'm an idiot, oh well, for some reason I'm not surprised.


For a short while, I believed I could hear a difference in FLAC too. Then I tried Foobar's built-in ABX tester. It was a classic placebo effect. You should try ABXing too. It is impossible to tell them apart. The bit-compare feature also shows them to be identical.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 8:17 PM Post #27 of 43
This is an idiotic argument; FLAC versus the world.

I have a music folder of 320K mp3s encoded with Lame ripped by EAC(for my Zen) and the identical stuff in FLAC, from the same EAC rip...for use in Foobar.
The FLACs sound a bit better. The opposite of what people are saying, flat & lifeless.

The only idea I can think of is that some people must prefer the sound of technically inferior files?
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 8:17 PM Post #28 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by jagorev
For a short while, I believed I could hear a difference in FLAC too. Then I tried Foobar's built-in ABX tester. It was a classic placebo effect. You should try ABXing too. It is impossible to tell them apart. The bit-compare feature also shows them to be identical.


I have tried it. Jesus, there is a massive difference. Its not hard to tell at all. I'm beginning to guess I set EAC up wrong to rip the FLAC, but then again, I've tried it several times using things I've found on hydrogenaudio.org.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 8:29 PM Post #29 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skrying
I have tried it. Jesus, there is a massive difference. Its not hard to tell at all. I'm beginning to guess I set EAC up wrong to rip the FLAC, but then again, I've tried it several times using things I've found on hydrogenaudio.org.


You guessed X correctly over 50% of the time with repeated trials?

Wow. I don't know what to say. I guess there's something seriously corrupted about your software.

I usually just rip to WAV from EAC, and then use foobar's own FLAC codec to do the conversion.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 8:32 PM Post #30 of 43
Well...I've just tried another CD more upto date one and better recording not that it should make any difference and I have to say now I can't tell any difference between the two >>> wav & Flac
I dunno...its funny how you get stuck on one recording and benchmark everthing on that one song.

Jagorev, this ABX tester, is this in Foobar 0.9 can't seem to access it, I have columns installed if this changes anything. Looked in components and can't see anything.

The error message I get when starting Foobar happened after I download & installed FLAC 1.1.2 for Windows. I am using Foobar v0.9.
Message is "Failed to load DLL: foo_flaccer.dll"

By the way, great forums - great for advice, spent manys hours on here reading different topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top