So is Flac really that much better than high quality Mp3 file ?
What difference do you hear if anything.
What do you use iTunes ?
What difference do you hear if anything.
What do you use iTunes ?
Flac Vs Mp3 Hype ?
- Thread starter alwaysbeblue1
- Start date
I'm not sure..I did a test on internet...guessed first one wrong then the others mostly right..mp3 v flac but I think well recorded cd easily wins...what I found was the mp3 sounded better initially but upon closer listening the flac had more going on..then it was easier to distinguish between the two...on my main kit I would heard difference more clearly..but put both through a good dac? That would be interesting..a mp3 into Cyrus dac x? My mate did this...very nice sound..poor mp3 gets such a drubbing, through good dac? Shines..no drubalwaysbeblue1 said:
shadders
Well-known member
Hi,
there is no difference between FLAC (free lossless audio codec) and CD. You can convert between FLAC and CD with no loss of information.
Regards,
Shadders.
there is no difference between FLAC (free lossless audio codec) and CD. You can convert between FLAC and CD with no loss of information.
Regards,
Shadders.
shadders said:
If the streamed signal sounds significantly different from a CD, then you are doing the streaming wrong.
Usually as simple as a level mismatch or incorrect settings.
Al ears
Well-known member
davedotco said:
Isn't this rather bypassing the OPs question? Presumably he means something ripped to a flac format versus the same ripped to mp3 format.
no difference between? They do sound different albeit kit dependent..so is the difference the kit?shadders said:
abacus
Well-known member
FLAC is a lossless format, therefore it will be a 100% match to whatever it was ripped from, unless it was dodgy ripping software.
MP3 removes information that you cannot hear, so as to make the file smaller, however once taken away it cannot be put back, hence for archiving (And for future use) always use FLAC.
As to whether you can tell the difference, then this will be totally dependent on your system and ears.
I try to avoid iTunes as while it works seamlessly with other Apple products, it can be a pain in the backside if using other equipment.
Hope this helps
Bill
MP3 removes information that you cannot hear, so as to make the file smaller, however once taken away it cannot be put back, hence for archiving (And for future use) always use FLAC.
As to whether you can tell the difference, then this will be totally dependent on your system and ears.
I try to avoid iTunes as while it works seamlessly with other Apple products, it can be a pain in the backside if using other equipment.
Hope this helps
Bill
mp3 sounds good through good equipment and what's interesting is even though things are left out (inaudible or not?) it's a very persuasive sound, and can make some classical pieces that drone on a bit quite zippy!..me and my mate played some stuff back to back mp3 and cd...and if no critical listening involved? Mp3s sound great!abacus said:
BigH
Well-known member
Of course there is a lot of hype from the Flac producers. In tests many people can't hear the difference. I find on good recording the difference is small. On some mp3 the drums cymbals can sound tissy.
If you listen closely side by side you will probably notice a difference. Tidal have a test on their site for cd to mp3 although I found the pieces too long, I would rather have shorter pieces running straight to next sample.
Difference between 24bit and 16bit I can't hear if its a straight conversion.
If you listen closely side by side you will probably notice a difference. Tidal have a test on their site for cd to mp3 although I found the pieces too long, I would rather have shorter pieces running straight to next sample.
Difference between 24bit and 16bit I can't hear if its a straight conversion.
Gray
Well-known member
To me, it was unthinkable to rip my CD collection until lossless ripping became practical. There were people that ripped to mp3 then got rid of their CDs.
You can only assume that 'convenience' was important and / or they couldn't tell the difference, didn't compare the differences or didn't care about the differences.
Maybe it's just me, I'm a bit of a hoarder, but throwing anything away goes against my nature, especially when it cost me thousands of pounds.
You can only assume that 'convenience' was important and / or they couldn't tell the difference, didn't compare the differences or didn't care about the differences.
Maybe it's just me, I'm a bit of a hoarder, but throwing anything away goes against my nature, especially when it cost me thousands of pounds.
Barbapapa
Well-known member
I'm still on the fence here.
Some hi-res downloads (for example from Linn records) sound fantastic, but this may well be due to excellent recording. The low-res versions (320 kB MP3) of the same recording also sound good at first listen. Similarly when I've made lower rate conversions or transfered to my iPod I don't notice immediate differences. Partly this may be due to different, non-ideal listening environment (public transport, in-ear earphones). I should conduct a proper (blind) A-B test, but as yet couldn't be bothered.
I did briefly try the online test linked to in another thread here. However, that was a test with rather loud rock music which in my opinion isn't fit for such comparisons anyhow as it doesn't contain relevant soft details at all (or at least drowns them in the overall music).
I do wonder whether the difference may lie in background details. In some cases I have the impression that higher-resolution files better preserve the detail in other instruments than the main ones. In particular polyphonic/symphonic music may have a lot of other voices in the background. On lesser equipment these voices are hard to hear anyway, but given sufficient quality equipment I find it fairly easy to hear for example not only the celli but also an intermediate viola melody or accompanying oboe. Now on lower-resolution files these voices can also be distinguished, but it seems to me that they lack detail, they don't seem to have the character of the actual instrument and are more a sketchy presence.
Of course for normal enjoyment of the music the main voices are sufficient, and I wouldn't be able to distinguish different resolutions on my own without preparation. However, it seems to me that one might be able to actually hear the difference even with blind A-B testing if one knows what to listen for in the music. I'm not sure whether the scientific A-B tests that have been done allow for this. It's a bit like I can't distinguish different shades of off-white when seeing them at some distance, but can easily tell them apart when seen side by side.
Whether these details actually matter to most people is of course an entirely different kettle of fish.
Some hi-res downloads (for example from Linn records) sound fantastic, but this may well be due to excellent recording. The low-res versions (320 kB MP3) of the same recording also sound good at first listen. Similarly when I've made lower rate conversions or transfered to my iPod I don't notice immediate differences. Partly this may be due to different, non-ideal listening environment (public transport, in-ear earphones). I should conduct a proper (blind) A-B test, but as yet couldn't be bothered.
I did briefly try the online test linked to in another thread here. However, that was a test with rather loud rock music which in my opinion isn't fit for such comparisons anyhow as it doesn't contain relevant soft details at all (or at least drowns them in the overall music).
I do wonder whether the difference may lie in background details. In some cases I have the impression that higher-resolution files better preserve the detail in other instruments than the main ones. In particular polyphonic/symphonic music may have a lot of other voices in the background. On lesser equipment these voices are hard to hear anyway, but given sufficient quality equipment I find it fairly easy to hear for example not only the celli but also an intermediate viola melody or accompanying oboe. Now on lower-resolution files these voices can also be distinguished, but it seems to me that they lack detail, they don't seem to have the character of the actual instrument and are more a sketchy presence.
Of course for normal enjoyment of the music the main voices are sufficient, and I wouldn't be able to distinguish different resolutions on my own without preparation. However, it seems to me that one might be able to actually hear the difference even with blind A-B testing if one knows what to listen for in the music. I'm not sure whether the scientific A-B tests that have been done allow for this. It's a bit like I can't distinguish different shades of off-white when seeing them at some distance, but can easily tell them apart when seen side by side.
Whether these details actually matter to most people is of course an entirely different kettle of fish.
When the music plays on a talk-volume-level, I can't hear the difference.
I can, however, easily distinguish how speakers reproduce sounds at high volumes. Bass isn't as deep on mp3 320 as it is on FLAC. I also sometimes hear that the crisp highs are gone in some places. I have a feeling the speakers are having a hard time because where they were supposed to harmonically continue their operation, they seized/cut short to progress onto a different frequency, creating a tiny deaf-spot where I expected sound.
But again, I can only differentiate that when it's played loud.
I can, however, easily distinguish how speakers reproduce sounds at high volumes. Bass isn't as deep on mp3 320 as it is on FLAC. I also sometimes hear that the crisp highs are gone in some places. I have a feeling the speakers are having a hard time because where they were supposed to harmonically continue their operation, they seized/cut short to progress onto a different frequency, creating a tiny deaf-spot where I expected sound.
But again, I can only differentiate that when it's played loud.
chebby
Well-known member
In my case virtually everything is ripped in 320k AAC VBR (with error correction on) to iTunes (on a Mac) and synced to my iOS devices.
I use AirPlay to my system via an Apple TV3 (connected to the wireless router/base station with ethernet and to my Quad Vena with optical and to our television with HDMI).
It works really well. I also stream audio and televison from Apple Music, BBC iPlayer Radio, BBC iPlayer televison, YouTube et al.
I have everything i've ever ripped in it's original CD format in storage boxes (or folders) in a cupboard under the stairs just in case I ever change my mind and want/need to re-rip something.
I did my ALAC vs 320k AAC VBR comparisons (years ago) and was entirely happy with the compressed versions over a range of content including music of various genres (like pop and jazz and reggae, ska and light classical).
I use AirPlay to my system via an Apple TV3 (connected to the wireless router/base station with ethernet and to my Quad Vena with optical and to our television with HDMI).
It works really well. I also stream audio and televison from Apple Music, BBC iPlayer Radio, BBC iPlayer televison, YouTube et al.
I have everything i've ever ripped in it's original CD format in storage boxes (or folders) in a cupboard under the stairs just in case I ever change my mind and want/need to re-rip something.
I did my ALAC vs 320k AAC VBR comparisons (years ago) and was entirely happy with the compressed versions over a range of content including music of various genres (like pop and jazz and reggae, ska and light classical).
AAC is normally considered a superior format to MP3, and should sound better at a given bit rate. The only real advantage of MP3 is that it's more compatible, but pretty much all newer devices seem to handle AAC.
Mp3 256 or 320kbps sounds great - it's good on Spotify Radio Paradise etc. Very convenient etc
But for critical listening - it doesn't compare to lossles files - the difference is obvious - it may depend on quality of ancillary equipment of course . As has been mentioned - lower bass is compromised - high frequency "air". And particularly for me - upfront immediacy of sound - dynamics. It's just not the same. - It's a fact.
cheers tonky
But for critical listening - it doesn't compare to lossles files - the difference is obvious - it may depend on quality of ancillary equipment of course . As has been mentioned - lower bass is compromised - high frequency "air". And particularly for me - upfront immediacy of sound - dynamics. It's just not the same. - It's a fact.
cheers tonky
chebby
Well-known member
tonky said:
Yeah, what is that exactly?
Is it 'dad-dancing' around the room until embarassed into ceasing by laughing/pointing wife or daughters?
Is it performing on 'air' guitar/drums/saxophone/baton until - again - caught out by cackling female and posted on facebook as 'sad git'?!
Is it listening to a brilliant drama/book/comedy/documentry and being fully absorbed?
Or is it that Linn/Naim 'thing' where you stare at the hi-fi intently, from a position calculated with precise trigonometry, without daring to move your head but tapping your toes?
(Not feet mind you. They must stay still. Only toes may be tapped if exuberance demands it.)
OK. Just joking about the 'critical listening' thing. I prefer cheerful/happy/frivolous/relaxed listening.
chebby
Well-known member
DomCheetham said:
Those are the settings selected.
Nit pick away with the guys at Apple.
(And yes, I know what you mean but it doesn't bother me.)
chebby said:
Sorry I didn't realise the term "critical" bothered you so much. If your happy with mp3 at 256 and/or 320 kbps - you go for it. The difference doesn't obviously bother you does it?
tonky
Dom
Well-known member
chebby said:
OK, fine with me.
With AAC CBR there is a 512Kbps output, which creates files at FLAC size.
Dom
Well-known member
chebby said:
Hi chebby, how can it be 320k and VBR. Sorry to nit pick.
Saying that I also convert my FLACs to level 5 AAC VBR. You can output files from 16Bit, 24Bit and 32Bit if you desire.
abacus
Well-known member
For archiving and longevity always use a lossless format, as to whether you can hear the difference between the formats, just have a listen and decide for yourself.
Hope this helps
Bill
Hope this helps
Bill
DomCheetham said:
Happy to be proven wrong, but doesn't 512kbps only apply to multi-channel use with 320kbps being the maximum for stereo. Also, as lossless has the same audio bitrate as CD, which (again, happy to be proven wrong) would be 2 channels at 16 bits and 44.1kHz = 1,411.2kbps - still leaves a fair bit of compression at 512k. I would have thought ALAC was the codec of choice for anyone with an Apple orientation looking for FLAC sized files.
TomSawyer said:
Exactly - otherwise what's the point of file compression.
tonky - no golden ears required to hear the difference
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram