Poll: Audible Difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3?
Sep 3, 2009 at 9:48 PM Post #61 of 242

Mr. B

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 31, 2009
Posts
313
Likes
23
I can almost never tell the difference, but my gear isn't anything to write home about and I haven't spent any significant amount of time trying. I am in the process of shifting my collection to FLAC however. I have the disk space and someday I'll have a system able to make full use of lossless audio.
 
Sep 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM Post #62 of 242

iriverdude

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Posts
4,007
Likes
15
I typed

DEL *.mp3 /s

in my music server directory. Got sick of mp3 sound quality, for poor quality albums can't notice too much but still thin sounding, like listening to PC speakers. For quality albums it's pretty obvious.
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM Post #63 of 242

lost_in_dreams

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Posts
1
Likes
0
i can hear the difference but it takes effort..good quesion and poll.
if the poll had asked i dont hear a difference 100 percent of the time..then it would have a different result..then then that would be a different poll
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM Post #64 of 242

Prog Rock Man

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
3,806
Likes
163
I am in the majority who cannot tell the difference 99% of the time. But 99% odf the time I am not listening to my music with a view of trying to hear a difference. Sometimes I will change to an album on itunes that sounds flat and it will be one that is a lower bit rate download.

The main reason why I am not so fussed about bit rates and think that it not a major issue is because of Spotify. I have the premium service so I get it at 320 instead of 160kbps. Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis. More importantly I prefer the Spotify to itunes lossless. It has more weight and dynamic.

So many replies have rightly said that kit plays an important part. I would add the codec used is also important.
 
Sep 12, 2009 at 5:31 PM Post #65 of 242

slytown

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Posts
297
Likes
11
I prefer the sound of FLAC, but I like how easy the distribution is with MP3. I listen to a lot of unknowns who can't get major label deals. MP3 is pretty much all they have.
 
Sep 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM Post #66 of 242

JimVincible

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Posts
46
Likes
0
The vast majority of my music is .mp3
I did a double-blind test between 320kbps .mp3 and .alac for Oasis' "Wonderwall" and failed miserably. After many attempts, I could not discern any difference whatsoever. Obviously, the original recording quality has a major impact.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers' "Californication" album (their best one, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise) was mastered at absolutely terrible quality. It clips so badly that I can't even listen to it on my headphones. Lossless only accentuates this problem. I wish I could find a remastered version of that album...
 
Sep 13, 2009 at 2:29 PM Post #67 of 242

hortoholic

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Posts
108
Likes
1
I probably cannot. Although it makes me feel good that everything is in lossless and a great pair of cains gives it soo much depth. Although I have heard bad Cd's by the way they were mastered.
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 2:07 AM Post #68 of 242

Jupiterknight

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Posts
1,989
Likes
157
Location
USA/OH
On my desktop rig and home audio I can hear a difference in maybe one out of ten songs, probably depends on the level of the production and compression. On my portable players I can't hit the same 1/10 rate except that some of flac files are more consistent in sq than the mp3 format.
I think that most portable players has a chipset and software meant to convert flac or decent ripped mp3 files the same sonic way. But again it doesn't nessarily happens..
 
Sep 23, 2009 at 7:03 PM Post #70 of 242

Prog Rock Man

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
3,806
Likes
163
Here is an interesting article about the 'difference' in bit rates and SQ.

AVI Hi-Fi - a passion for sound engineering

This quote caught my interest 'Audiophiles who talk of how awful compressed music is, are listening with their eyes. They couldn’t differentiate a 320kbps AAC file from a CD in a blind listening test to save their lives. And if they can hear 256kbps, they’re straining to hear artifacts, playing the most vulnerable passages over and over to identify problems when they should be listening to music.'
 
Sep 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM Post #72 of 242

chinesekiwi

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Posts
3,797
Likes
28
Quote:

Originally Posted by JimVincible /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Red Hot Chilli Peppers' "Californication" album (their best one, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise) was mastered at absolutely terrible quality. It clips so badly that I can't even listen to it on my headphones. Lossless only accentuates this problem. I wish I could find a remastered version of that album...


You can eliminate the clipping via Replay Gain but you cannot restore the compressed or lost dynamics of the recording.
 
Sep 27, 2009 at 6:46 AM Post #74 of 242

Modifiedz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
220
Likes
0
Sound quality is obvious on my Logitech Z-5500 Surround, and any pair of phones. Quality always goes first for me. I would rather have 100 of my favorite songs in Lossless directly off a CD than 500 of my favorite in MP3 (or AAC) @ 320kb, (if I had to choose). The crispness of the Highs, and Tight Bass just isnt there for me on MP3's.
 
Sep 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM Post #75 of 242

Prog Rock Man

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
3,806
Likes
163
Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Very funny website, alienate people who like cd quality and vinyl while trying to sell speakers.


The owner of AVI is a very opinionated man, who alienated a lot of people on the What Hifi forum by his holier than though attitude.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top