1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Poll: Audible Difference between FLAC and 320kbps MP3?

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by el_doug, Aug 10, 2009.
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5 6
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Next
 
Last
  1. charlie0904
    guys, so how about the losseless 16bit/44.1khz and 24bit/96khz or 192khz?

    is there significant difference?
     
  2. smurfz
    Apparently the dynamic range capable within 16/44.1 is enough for our audible range. But, who knows without hearing for yourself?

    I've downloaded some free samples of 24/96 FLAC and 24/192 DXD WAV files (need to figure out how to play this monster). When I get some time, I'm planning on testing this out as well. I will downsample 24/96 to 16/44.1, play that on a Lenovo via optical out, 24/96 will be played from my MACBOOK (USB). May be even switch them around as well. That way, I should be able to do a proper AB test.

    Will report back to this thread with my findings along with 320kbps mp3 vs FLAC test.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlie0904 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    guys, so how about the losseless 16bit/44.1khz and 24bit/96khz or 192khz?

    is there significant difference?




     
  3. MD1032 Contributor
    I don't think you'll hear the difference. 22 khz. is more than most peoples' hearing range anyway, and I doubt the waveform shape will make a difference at that frequency.
     
  4. Charles_1985
    I have been doing a lot of listening with 320Kbps MP3s vs directly from CD/FLAC. My MP3 encoding process goes like this: EAC (properly set up) import CD to .WAV > LAME 3.97/98

    I cannot tell a difference. I genuinely tried but no dice. I listen to trance/electronica and have a lot of well mastered CDs but not once could I tell which was the CD and which was MP3. I found I was not enjoying the music while listening that closely.

    If I would have been able to I would be re-ripping all my CDs right now lol.
     
  5. plaidplatypus Contributor
    There are small differences but not enough to worry about unless you are archiving. What really gets me though, is that I can hear tiny differences between .wav and lossless; totally illogical but my obervations were confirmed by a mafia member.
     
  6. Aynjell Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    A popular example would be "float on" by modest mouse, if you listen to an mp3 recording (even if it is 320kbs) you will hear breakup in the singer's voice during the chorus, but it doesn't occur on my cd recording or on my .flac copy



    I'll try this test tonite.

    I am not sure if I can hear the difference in question but I will look into it, I may not be able to come to a conclusion tonite, my senses are dimmed as I have a cold.

    That being said, I have heard a difference when playing music through foobar upsampled to 96khz or 192khz from CD quality files. It wasn't good.

    Also, I could hear a difference between WMP and foobar. Not sure how to describe it, but the difference was worth my suffering through foobar's terrible ui (no offense, but I hate it).

    Rhythmbox just trumps everything, though. [​IMG]
     
  7. CodeToad
    Music sounds more "realistic" with flac. Spatial cues, slight reverberations etc all add up. Do you really think dropping 2/3 of the info is unnoticeable?

    One thing I have noticed is that mp3's distort MORE on lesser equipment and thus artifacts are MORE noticeable. Actually with better equipment it seems more forgiving but clearly there is a difference.
     
  8. Ko Nectic Jazz
    I hear the difference between mp3 and lossless for sure, especially because I listen to this kind of music...

    L-NE

    And as I listen to this outdoor and in subway, I only can use closed circum cans. [​IMG]
     
  9. swbf2cheater
    It really depends on how the song was made in the studio. Some songs just sound awesome regardless of which you use, some don't. IMO nothing beats lossless WMA :\
    Why bother use flac at all? Idk really. Im too lazy to find a freeware and actually use it to rip or convert my music to FLAC. Im just fine with lossless or the highest quality WMA I can get.
     
  10. Aynjell Contributor
    I had to relocate my attempt to differentiate to probably tomorrow or Saturday. I've had a fierce cold.
     
  11. complin
    For me FLAC wins hands down everytime for serious listening. MP3 is fine for casual listening where you are not concentrating that much on the music say on the train, in the car or office.
    For me MP3 sounds very compressed and lacks real dymnamics. Also much of the subtle detail is lost, presumably thrown away in the in the conversion.
    The attached link takes you to an objective comparison in Stereophile of the different digital formats, and this illustrates why the formats sound different.
    Stereophile: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD
     
  12. stang
    I voted "I cannot tell a difference 99% of the time". Yes, see my sig [​IMG] Even though I have "good" equipment (portably wise), I still cannot tell a difference [​IMG] I still use .wav on my main rig (home rig) just for peace of mind im getting the best quality possible for what equipment I have. FLAC I never use because there is almost no support for it (especially on my iPod and Walkman AFAIK).
     
  13. Patrick82
    In my system WAV vs FLAC is a bigger difference than FLAC vs 320 mp3 because WAV takes 0% CPU power while both FLAC and mp3 take 1%. My trance music doesn't have much high frequency information, I like to listen to the midrange resolution the most.
     
  14. haloxt
    Well now I've seen 2-3 people say there is a difference between uncompressed and compressed lossless [​IMG]. If you are interested, there's a free software called cmp and cplay (csic memory player and cisc ASIO player) that tries to increase efficiency of computer audio playback, reducing cpu usage, storing music in RAM to deal with hard drive I/O interference, replacing explorer.exe with another shell with much less overhead, etc. You have to use them together to get the most out of it, or reconfigure cmp to work with another ASIO media player such as winamp, foobar, or media monkey. Many people using cmp+cplay have used it with emu cards.

    main site: cMP² | Main / HomePage
    to use cmp with other player: cMP² | CMP / 11CMPShell
    cue creator (necessary for accessing music with cmp+cplay): cMP² | CPlay / CueSheets

    It's a real pain in the arse to set the software up, but if you need any help getting cmp+cplay to work or setting it up to work with foobar or winamp etc let me know I can guide you through it. If you want to do the BIOS tweaks it mentions you're on your own [​IMG].
     
  15. krmathis Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Patrick82 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    In my system WAV vs FLAC is a bigger difference than FLAC vs 320 mp3 because WAV takes 0% CPU power while both FLAC and mp3 take 1%. My trance music doesn't have much high frequency information, I like to listen to the midrange resolution the most.



    So the consumed cpu power is more important than the data bits it decode? [​IMG]
     
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5 6
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Next
 
Last

Share This Page