Software to use to play back FLAC files

peter8171

New member
Sep 25, 2008
47
0
0
Visit site
I've just downloaded some FLAC files to see what difference I can hear between them and the same Apple Lossless files downloaded fromthe B&W website. What software (preferably free) would people recommend for me to use to hear these files.?

 

Cheers 
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
JohnDuncan:dbPoweramp (not free)

hmmm, I've never paid for it, the only bit that seems to need paying for is the mp3 codec, but as I don't use mp3 this has never been an issue.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
jetjohnson:foobar for me too and you can set up mixed playlists of MP.3 files wav. flac. etc. I use it all the time.

Hmm, I would hope that that would be the bare minimum for any software audio player to be honest.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
peter8171:
I've just downloaded some FLAC files to see what difference I can hear between them and the same Apple Lossless files downloaded fromthe B&W website. What software (preferably free) would people recommend for me to use to hear these files.?

Cheers

You will hear no difference at all between FLAC and Apple Lossless as they are both lossless audio codecs. Any difference you could possibly ever hear would be due to the source being damaged or badly ripped, not the codec.

Winamp, MediaMonkey and foobar all play FLAC though.
 

manicm

Well-known member
jaxzo:peter8171:

I've just downloaded some FLAC files to see what difference I can hear between them and the same Apple Lossless files downloaded fromthe B&W website. What software (preferably free) would people recommend for me to use to hear these files.?

Cheers

You will hear no difference at all between FLAC and Apple Lossless as they are both lossless audio codecs. Any difference you could possibly ever hear would be due to the source being damaged or badly ripped, not the codec.

Winamp, MediaMonkey and foobar all play FLAC though.

I'm not the only one who believes Apple Lossless sounds dullest of lossless formats, all things being equal etc.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
manicm:jaxzo:peter8171:

I've just downloaded some FLAC files to see what difference I can hear between them and the same Apple Lossless files downloaded fromthe B&W website. What software (preferably free) would people recommend for me to use to hear these files.?

Cheers

You will hear no difference at all between FLAC and Apple Lossless as they are both lossless audio codecs. Any difference you could possibly ever hear would be due to the source being damaged or badly ripped, not the codec.

Winamp, MediaMonkey and foobar all play FLAC though.

I'm not the only one who believes Apple Lossless sounds dullest of lossless formats, all things being equal etc.

An argument isn't needed over this, but have you done an ABX test to verify your theory? If you can tell the difference between lossless formats through listening alone you deserve a medal.

If there was any audible difference between the lossless formats, they wouldn't be lossless as there would clearly be something lost from the original source.

This dullness is purely a placebo effect.
 

manicm

Well-known member
jaxzo:manicm:jaxzo:peter8171:

I've just downloaded some FLAC files to see what difference I can hear between them and the same Apple Lossless files downloaded fromthe B&W website. What software (preferably free) would people recommend for me to use to hear these files.?

Cheers

You will hear no difference at all between FLAC and Apple Lossless as they are both lossless audio codecs. Any difference you could possibly ever hear would be due to the source being damaged or badly ripped, not the codec.

Winamp, MediaMonkey and foobar all play FLAC though.

I'm not the only one who believes Apple Lossless sounds dullest of lossless formats, all things being equal etc.

An argument isn't needed over this, but have you done an ABX test to verify your theory? If you can tell the difference between lossless formats through listening alone you deserve a medal.

If there was any audible difference between the lossless formats, they wouldn't be lossless as there would clearly be something lost from the original source.

This dullness is purely a placebo effect.

Maybe but I trust my ears, and I'm not the only one - there was one massive argument (go google) where someone believed AIFFs sounded better than Apple Lossless, although ultimately he did some adjusting to his system to improve things.

And you can level the same accusation to Wadia, albeit in a slightly different context, where they firmly believe in loading the iPod with WAVs instead of AL for their 170i. I think it's something in the decoding process.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
manicm:
Maybe but I trust my ears, and I'm not the only one - there was one massive argument (go google) where someone believed AIFFs sounded better than Apple Lossless, although ultimately he did some adjusting to his system to improve things.

And you can level the same accusation to Wadia, albeit in a slightly different context, where they firmly believe in loading the iPod with WAVs instead of AL for their 170i. I think it's something in the decoding process.

An iPod will not struggle to decode Apple Lossless. Nor will foobar or any other media player unless you are running a really old PC with a terrible processor and little RAM.

As unbelievable as this may sound, and I'm sure you will dispute this, you most likely won't be able to tell the difference between MP3 v0 and FLAC/ALAC/WAV/AIFF etc. either.

Please, do take an ABX test and you may be surprised by the results. Try ripping a favourite track using FLAC and Apple Lossless and using foobar to compare them. Then compare to differing mp3 bitrates. It will tell you whether you are guessing or actually can tell the difference.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
al7478:V0?

It is a LAME (mp3 encoder) preset for variable bit rate MP3. v0 is the highest variable bitrate. It can go up to 320kb/s when needed, but for less complex parts of a recording for example a piano or silence, it uses a lower bitrate. This means the best quality MP3 possible at the smallest size.

I have ABX'd a v0 transcoded from a FLAC, as well as a v2 (a lower VBR that is the default LAME setting, and described as being 'transparent', and indistinguishable from lossless) several times with my Grado SR60s, and can honestly say I can hear no difference at all.

For the record, most pre-release leaks of albums are in the v2 format.
 

Alec

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2007
478
0
18,890
Visit site
jaxzo:

al7478:V0?

It is a LAME (mp3 encoder) preset for variable bit rate MP3. v0 is the highest variable bitrate. It can go up to 320kb/s when needed, but for less complex parts of a recording for example a piano or silence, it uses a lower bitrate. This means the best quality MP3 possible at the smallest size.

I have ABX'd a v0 transcoded from a FLAC, as well as a v2 (a lower VBR that is the default LAME setting, and described as being 'transparent', and indistinguishable from lossless) several times with my Grado SR60s, and can honestly say I can hear no difference at all.

For the record, most pre-release leaks of albums are in the v2 format.

Cheers
emotion-21.gif
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts