[thatBeatsguy]

  I personally notice richer, much extended (say better treble) sound from FLAC compared to 320k mp3. Also, the airiness and sound-stage is also better with FLAC

Is that with a direct FLAC vs. 320 kbps MP3 A/B blind test ripped from the exact same file? 

 

[imran27]

  Is that with a direct FLAC vs. 320 kbps MP3 A/B blind test ripped from the exact same file? 

Probably not.
 
FLAC was from a CD I bought online while MP3/AAC was from Gaana.com (Downloaded with my pro subscription)
 
I think that files on gaana were ripped from better sources than my FLAC since they get it directly from the studios by their license agreement.
 
That's just a guess and I don't exactly know. But perhaps I should convert the FLAC under test to 320k mp3 and do a blind A/B test as before but now coming from same source

 

[thatBeatsguy]

 
Probably not.
 
FLAC was from a CD I bought online while MP3/AAC was from Gaana.com (Downloaded with my pro subscription)
 
I think that files on gaana were ripped from better sources than my FLAC since they get it directly from the studios by their license agreement.
 
That's just a guess and I don't exactly know. But perhaps I should convert the FLAC under test to 320k mp3 and do a blind A/B test as before but now coming from same source

Just the response I expected. Now, do that, and let me know of your results through PM. I'd hate to derail the thread any further with this "FLAC sounds better" BS.

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

Well on the topic of non-audiophile or not, I'd say that bitrate can determine whether someone's an audiophile or not. When FLAC became all the rage in my country around 2008, I did a lot of blind tests on 128kbps AAC and MP3, 320kbps AAC, 320kpbs MP3 and FLAC ripped from a local, authentic CD to see whether there was any difference. There was none. I decided to keep on ripping my music at 128kbps, however made the switch from MP3 to AAC since the file size was smaller.
 
The thing is that back then I used apple headphones or cheap "ultrabass" Sony rip-off. Later on when I bought my first pair of Grados and Sennheisers (SR60i and HD448), the difference btwn low and high bitrate became clear. I moved onto 320kbps. With that setup, the difference between this and FLAC was still not audible however. 
 
Similarly, on my friend's custom amp connected to his EMU, the difference between FLAC and MP3s is there. Blind tests and all. 
 
IMHO the loss of bits on lossy files must account for something, and IME it does. However it's our gear that will actually do the differentiating, not our ears - provided your gear is hi-fi enough, the difference will be there. Non-audiophile people will not spend much on their headphones, so there's no point in using FLAC. 

 

[thatBeatsguy]

  Well on the topic of non-audiophile or not, I'd say that bitrate can determine whether someone's an audiophile or not. When FLAC became all the rage in my country around 2008, I did a lot of blind tests on 128kbps AAC and MP3, 320kbps AAC, 320kpbs MP3 and FLAC ripped from a local, authentic CD to see whether there was any difference. There was none. I decided to keep on ripping my music at 128kbps, however made the switch from MP3 to AAC since the file size was smaller.
 
The thing is that back then I used apple headphones or cheap "ultrabass" Sony rip-off. Later on when I bought my first pair of Grados and Sennheisers (SR60i and HD448), the difference btwn low and high bitrate became clear. I moved onto 320kbps. With that setup, the difference between this and FLAC was still not audible however. 
 
Similarly, on my friend's custom amp connected to his EMU, the difference between FLAC and MP3s is there. Blind tests and all. 
 
IMHO the loss of bits on lossy files must account for something, and IME it does. However it's our gear that will actually do the differentiating, not our ears - provided your gear is hi-fi enough, the difference will be there. Non-audiophile people will not spend much on their headphones, so there's no point in using FLAC. 

Though I agree with you here, I'm still baffled by the audiophiles who spend more than what they should on high-resolution 24/512 DSD mumbo-jumbo for the sake of audio quality. IMO the differences between FLAC and those so-called "high-res" recordings are actually much smaller compared to MP3 320 vs. FLAC. The way I put it, I feel audio files above WAV/AIFF seem to be crammed with nothing but filler data -- trust me, I hear absolutely no difference.

 

[penmarker]

Most people (me included) store highest quality whenever we can because "just in case". I want to know the files I have is the best, I want that. Sound quality is number 2.

Don't worry, it's our money and our time. We all support the industry and the musicians, so we should also support each other.

 

[Tostitostelli]

 Most people (me included) store highest quality whenever we can because "just in case". I want to know the files I have is the best, I want that. Sound quality is number 2.

I actually store mainly flacs. And have no problem with storage space. Whether a FLAC actually sounds better is debateable, and frankly, I don't know. But just in case FLAC's might be proven to be better, I know i already have the best possible quality, and dont have to download everything again.

 

[imran27]

ABX on my phone did reveal FLAC to have richer and more detailed sound, though the difference was very very minute. Now using a DAC/AMP will definitely make things better and scale well with quality of files

 

[cs098]

  I actually store mainly flacs. And have no problem with storage space. Whether a FLAC actually sounds better is debateable, and frankly, I don't know. But just in case FLAC's might be proven to be better, I know i already have the best possible quality, and dont have to download everything again.

Due to the fact flac is lossless, even if flac really doesn't sound better than mp3, this makes flac superior for storage and conversion anyways.
 
In any case I do hear micro details a bit better on flac, but you need a system that can retrieve those micro details in the first place and be in a environment where you can analyze and appreciate them. Hence why I have a flac library on my computer and the same library converted to 128 kbps mp3 on my phone

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

  Though I agree with you here, I'm still baffled by the audiophiles who spend more than what they should on high-resolution 24/512 DSD mumbo-jumbo for the sake of audio quality. IMO the differences between FLAC and those so-called "high-res" recordings are actually much smaller compared to MP3 320 vs. FLAC. The way I put it, I feel audio files above WAV/AIFF seem to be crammed with nothing but filler data -- trust me, I hear absolutely no difference.

Personally I found that the difference from 128kps to 320kps is more profound than from 320kps to lossless, but it's there. I have not tried DSD yet, so I can't tell.
 
I would have stored all of my musics into FLAC, but I can't afford the storage, with all the CDs and AAC amounting to roughly 5TB if in FLAC - I'd even have to back them up as well. I do however agree with penmarker's "just in case" policy though. It was painful having to re-rip my CDs into 320kps.

 

[Uberclocked]

ABX on my phone did reveal FLAC to have richer and more detailed sound, though the difference was very very minute. Now using a DAC/AMP will definitely make things better and scale well with quality of files

>.<
Do a blind a/b test with 320 kbps mp3 from a good encoder and you won't be able to hear a difference from flac.

 

[DonutDeflector]

Though I agree with you here, I'm still baffled by the audiophiles who spend more than what they should on high-resolution 24/512 DSD mumbo-jumbo for the sake of audio quality. IMO the differences between FLAC and those so-called "high-res" recordings are actually much smaller compared to MP3 320 vs. FLAC. The way I put it, I feel audio files above WAV/AIFF seem to be crammed with nothing but filler data -- trust me, I hear absolutely no difference.

For some reason I still get FLACs if they are available and don't cost too much more than the lossy version. I do compress it to 256kbps AAC on my iPod.

I guess the just in case mentality came to me.

 

[thatBeatsguy]

 
For some reason I still get FLACs if they are available and don't cost too much more than the lossy version. I do compress it to 256kbps AAC on my iPod.

I guess the just in case mentality came to me.

It came to me, too, and I rip to FLAC whenever possible, but to load FLAC or those stupidly large hi-res files onto a DAP for sound quality (*ahem*Pono*ahem*) is BS. 

 

[penmarker]

  It came to me, too, and I rip to FLAC whenever possible, but to load FLAC or those stupidly large hi-res files onto a DAP for sound quality (*ahem*Pono*ahem*) is BS. 

I think its BS that you keep saying other people's choices as BS. Not everyone is looking to maximize space on their DAPs, some people even bring only 3-4 albums on their DAPs because they got favorites. It doesn't matter if the size is big or small.
 
"Superior than thou"

 

[kapanak]

It came to me, too, and I rip to FLAC whenever possible, but to load FLAC or those stupidly large hi-res files onto a DAP for sound quality (*ahem*Pono*ahem*) is BS. 

Maybe BS for you, but there wouldn't be a pretty large niche of high end DAPs that play hi bitrate. Clearly not BS for other people. Preaching your own opinion as truth and declaring other people are full of **** is what bad people do. Very bad people. I know some people can hear the difference, even if placebo.