FLAC VS MP3

[ixelion]

Is there a really big diffrence between FLAC and MP3, should I spend the time to re-encode all my CDs to FLAC?

Basically is lossless that much better that compressed?

Im using a Audigy 2 Value and a Logitech x-530 5.1 speaker setup. I am aware of the fact that it doesnt really matter what quality format your using if your speakers/soundcard suck.

I also tried AC3 5.1 but I was dissapointed by the results.

 

[Jeff7]

Sometimes I notice weird effects in the audio on MP3, but it's not often. I re-encoded to FLAC just because I'm a little obsessive about quality loss due to compression. Re-encode FLAC 150,000 times, and you can still decompress it into the original WAV data. Do the same with MP3, and you'll probably get a whole mess of warbles and chirps.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It matters to me since even at 192 and 224 kbps there were a few favorite songs where I heard annoying artifacts. With FLAC I know if I here something "off" it's actually on the CD (like processed vocals or tape hiss).

Also with FLAC I can transcode to any other format as needed, as many times as I want, with exactly the same quality as a fresh rip from the CDs.

I did this in December after buying a Zen Xtra player, I used dbPowerAmp to transcode about 300 CDs in FLAC format to 192 kbps MP3 for the Zen. An artifact or two isn't as annoying when I'm riding my noisy Lifecycle

 

[Slick5150]

If you encode properly to MP3 (meaning, use VBR w/ Lame encoder), you'll have a real hard time noticing a difference.

Oh, and this is in the wrong forum (had to say it)

 

[ecvs85]

FLAC is generally used for archiving (as others has stated) and listening with high end equipments (usually high end headphone where you can detect the lossless flaws more easily, as well as good ears ).

Since you used it on desktop and decent sound systems, mp3 may be suffice for you. You might as well look at other formats such as ogg and wma, they are generally better than the old mp3 format.

 

[RedRhino]

wma better than mp3??

 

[Midwayman]

MP3 is an old codec anymore. FLAC will absolutely sound better than mp3. Its lossless afterall. If you want a compressed format for portable players, I highly reccomend looking into OGG. Smaller and better than mp3 if you get a device that supports it. It also supports data peeling so you can rip at q7 for your desktop and peel down to q3 for your portable player without re-encoding. (no additional data loss past what would have originally been encoded at q3)

 

[svi]

I'm not comfortable with Ogg Vorbis on portables. While it is indeed an excellent format, Ogg decoding eats a lot more battery life than mp3 decoding (something about relative power needed to decode), and not all portable audio players play it.

WMA is the devil.

Properly-encoded mp3 will be fine for you. I sincerely doubt anyone can actually hear the difference between 192kbps LAME VBR and FLAC on computer speakers. However, if you're ripping yourself, you might as well go the extra step and go 320kbps VBR or something.

 

[RedRhino]

"WMA is the devil." ---- that made me laugh

anyways, whats the BEST way to rip and encode an mp3 from A to Z? I want to make it a 192 or 320 vbr file with highest quality.

thank you!

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: RedRhino
"WMA is the devil." ---- that made me laugh

anyways, whats the BEST way to rip and encode an mp3 from A to Z? I want to make it a 192 or 320 vbr file with highest quality.

thank you!

Exact Audio Copy + LAME, though some people prefer CDex. Advanced Search the proper forum (Software) for 42+ threads on this.

 

[RedRhino]

ok thanks a bunch Dave

 

[poisonthewell]

Originally posted by: svi
sincerely doubt anyone can actually hear the difference between 192kbps LAME VBR and FLAC on computer speakers.

On a $30 set of speakers - correct.

Get something decent like z-2300s or promedia's and a chaintech av-710 - wrong.

 

[Midwayman]

Originally posted by: svi
I'm not comfortable with Ogg Vorbis on portables. While it is indeed an excellent format, Ogg decoding eats a lot more battery life than mp3 decoding (something about relative power needed to decode), and not all portable audio players play it.

Thats not true on all portables. The issues is mainly that OGG is done on DSP on most of them and MP3 is done mostly in hardware. If the format was more popular and we got hardware for it, I bet the battery life difference would disappear completely.

On my iriver h320 the difference for using OGG isnt much. Battery life is still much longer than I need between times I can recharge it. Plus I dont have to have multiple copies of my library around.

 

[SonicIce]

if its just for music on your pc i'd just go with OGG. flad is neat but pretty unneccasry.
(say, wheres the lossless video codec? )

 

[svi]

On a $30 set of speakers - correct.

Get something decent like z-2300s or promedia's and a chaintech av-710 - wrong.

No, it's still correct unless sugar pills make up a large portion of your diet. 192kbps LAME VBR with 3.96.x is shockingly close to Redbook CD, and the differences are not noticeable to some people in a DBT with actual high-end audio gear. It is difficult to do any critical listening with a consumer-grade sub/sat system, considering that they generally have a frequency response shaped like an M.

Thats not true on all portables. The issues is mainly that OGG is done on DSP on most of them and MP3 is done mostly in hardware. If the format was more popular and we got hardware for it, I bet the battery life difference would disappear completely.

On my iriver h320 the difference for using OGG isnt much. Battery life is still much longer than I need between times I can recharge it. Plus I dont have to have multiple copies of my library around.

Indeed, if. Unfortunately, that's not the case for most players, and having an Ogg collection can limit your ability to upgrade in the future. (I'd know-- half of my collection is Vorbis q6-q7, and it made choosing a DAP a pain in the rear.)

 

[ixelion]

say, wheres the lossless video codec?

Huffyuv is a lossless video codec.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: poisonthewell

Originally posted by: svi
sincerely doubt anyone can actually hear the difference between 192kbps LAME VBR and FLAC on computer speakers.

On a $30 set of speakers - correct.

Get something decent like z-2300s or promedia's and a chaintech av-710 - wrong.

Well I can't tell the difference between a .wav and the highest LAME VBR setting when I did a blind test. I selected some tracks with specific issues that compression seemed to highlight at low quality mp3 settings then encoded with EAC and LAME and converting the .mp3s back to wavs. Then I had someone else burning them side by side with the true .wavs and save the file so we could learn the true order after the test. Then we played it through my brothers audio setup (not top end audiophile but ~$1k speakers and Adcom preamp/amp I don't recall the CD player brand, but roughly equal quality, not department store stuff).

Neither of us scored very well. We tried to rank which track was .mp3 and which track was .wav but both got many of them wrong.

I would suggest anyone who is planning on cataloging their collection to do a similar type of test on your own. Your ear is what matters, not anyone else's opinion or ear. It's possible that someone else could listen to the CD I made and identify the .mp3 tracks with 100% accuracy. But I don't really care if they can, because I can't tell the difference... and I'm who matters when it comes to listening to my music.

 

[Tiamat]

EAC+Lame CBR 240 for the mp3 player.
.wav into my stereo

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Concillian
I would suggest anyone who is planning on cataloging their collection to do a similar type of test on your own. Your ear is what matters, not anyone else's opinion or ear. It's possible that someone else could listen to the CD I made and identify the .mp3 tracks with 100% accuracy. But I don't really care if they can, because I can't tell the difference... and I'm who matters when it comes to listening to my music.

Makes sense if you care about disk space, except lossless is better for archiving and being able to transcode to other formats / bitrates. Also 300 MB per CD is pretty reasonable for the peace of mind of lossless storage.

In general CD or FLAC (lossless, so identical) transcoded to a given lossy format with sound better than going from lossy to lossy.

So if you take your (say) 192 kbps MP3 and decide to convert to 160 kbps for a flash player, you'll lose quality. Same if you need to change it to AAC or WMA for some streaming audio widget.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

I plead with everyone: Please dump lossy formats! FLAC is the way to go.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

I'm about to share a known fact. For some reason, folks often find it difficult to accept, and many can't even understand it at all. I don't know if that's my fault for not explaining it well enough, or if other people are just morons (but I suspect the latter). In any case, because so many people don't seem to get it, I'm going to write a "for dummies"-style explanation.

Have you ever heard of the difference between "hearing" and "listening"? Well, this is much the same principle: Since mp3s are known to cut frequencies within human sensitivity, and also since they leave audible artifacts, we know that all people hear the difference.

"But I can't hear a difference..."
Yes, you can. You just don't know it.

"But I don't care if the quality is a little bit less..."
Yes, you do. You just don't realize it.

See, the human ear can hear the difference between lossy and lossless. That you can't identify those differences means nothing at all. You still hear it, and your brain reacts differently. You respond differently to lossless music. It's an undeniable fact.

The next time you're trying to decide whether to encode to lossy or lossless, remember that you can hear the difference, and it does matter.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: ixelion
Im using a Audigy 2 Value and a Logitech x-530 5.1 speaker setup. I am aware of the fact that it doesnt really matter what quality format your using if your speakers/soundcard suck.

That's a misconception. You can still hear a difference, even on poor speakers.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ixelion

say, wheres the lossless video codec?

Huffyuv is a lossless video codec.

Yup, and it makes HUGE video files too. I don't know that it's the most efficient though. It hasn't been updated in some time, at least by the original authors. There is a newer version out there somewhere, but it caused horrible visual corruption when I used it.
One of the possible features on the drawing board for XviD 2.0 is lossless compression, though, based on the poll at XviD.org, it's not the highest in-demand item...though checking now, it has made it to second place. I'd still like to see multi-pass encoding too, as in, greater than the 2 passes already there - and heck with it, multi-pass lossless while they're at it.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: svi
I sincerely doubt anyone can actually hear the difference between 192kbps LAME VBR and FLAC on computer speakers.

Everyone can hear the difference. It's a simple fact.

 

[svi]

I'm about to share a known fact. For some reason, folks often find it difficult to accept, and many can't even understand it at all. I don't know if that's my fault for not explaining it well enough, or if other people are just morons (but I suspect the latter). In any case, because so many people don't seem to get it, I'm going to write a "for dummies"-style explanation.

Have you ever heard of people improving after taking sugar pills in medical studies? Well, this is much the same principle: since people believe they should be able to hear a difference or are looking for one to begin with, many of them perceive a difference that is not actually there.

"But I'm SURE I hear something..."
Of course you think you hear something. If you didn't think that, it wouldn't be the placebo effect.

"But there is a technological difference..."
Even if there is, that doesn't mean the human ear can pick it up.

See, the human ear is an astoudingly bad measuring instrument. It can't pick up differences that midrange 30-year-old analog recording equipment can, it has astoundingly poor recording functions (the brain, here), and the brain is so complex that it is quite capable of messing with the ear's input and making it something other than bit-perfect. It's been proven in many, many studies. It's an undeniable fact.

The next time you're pulling an argument out of your ass with no experimental evidence whatsoever, remember: the scientific method exists for a reason. The only guide worse than emotion is intuition.

That's a misconception. You can still hear a difference, even on poor speakers.

No, you can't. (See above.)

Everyone can hear the difference. It's a simple fact.

No, it's a completely unqualified statement that you are pulling out of your ass. There's quite a difference. You can tell the difference by the fact that I have the results of scientific testing on my side and you don't. Next you're going to tell me that rainbow foil makes audio gear sound better because that's what your intuition tells you, right?

You'll have to excuse me if I am rude and/or impatient with you. It's nothing personal. Understand that I have dealt with this countless times before, and never has the other person come up with anything approaching scientific evidence. I sincerely doubt that you'll suddenly pull up, out of the blue, a properly conducted DB study showing me differences.