320 bitrate vs FLAC (distinguishable differences)?

[3db]

T would be an interesting test, but on what speakers in what room, and with what source material? And let's say I failed the DBT, in a world where gigahertz is a solved problem and solid-state storage prices are falling by some large fraction of their cost annually, tolerating lossy compression for 20-20KHz just isn't something I'll ever do. For me, it's CDs or FLAC or nothing.

It appears that you like flac only because of word association with lossless and you're a digital purist. That's your personal preference but don't downplay the fact that high bit rate mp3 can and do sound as good as CD.

 

[Irvrobinson]

It appears that you like flac only because of word association with lossless and you're a digital purist. That's your personal preference but don't downplay the fact that high bit rate mp3 can and do sound as good as CD.

Word association? No, it's because lossy compression algorithms have unpredictable audible effects that are content-dependent. Given the very low personal savings involved - the big savings accrue only to the cloud-based content providers who save on mass storage and telecom expenses - and the projected price erosion for solid-state storage devices, I choose to ignore and recommend against using lossy media.

Anyway, if memory serves, aren't you a vinylphile? 320Kb MP3 is probably better than vinyl, so perhaps your expectations are skewed. [big grin]

 

[shadyJ]

A high bitrate MP3 is definitely an acceptable compromise if the music isn't easily procured in lossless or uncompressed files. Since storage is so cheap, there is not much reason not to go with lossles or uncompressed these days, if you can get them. However, when I listened closely to some tunes in both uncompressed WAV files vs high bitrate MP3s, I could not tell the difference. The difference between 128 kpbs were clear, but faded fast as I went up to higher rates. At 192 kbps, I am not sure if the differences were even real or my imagination because they were so subtle. At 256 kpbs, forget it, I wasn't able to discern any difference.

 

[Blue Dude]

I've used FLAC to archive my CD collection, not because they are clearly audibly superior to high quality MP3 encodes (they're not), but because since storage space isn't an issue there's no clear advantage to MP3 either. Therefore, I make one very careful rip (verifying with Accurip, etc.), encode a bit-perfect copy with FLAC, edit metadata the way I like, and store it on the server. There's no point to encode with MP3 in this context. Why store a photocopy if you can store the original?

 

[KenM10759]

OK, how about throwing a wrench into the works?

At roughly the same file size and bit rate as "CD" files I am now streaming MQA from Tidal Hi-Fi, full decoding through my Bluesound Vault 2. I can clearly hear the improvement. That isn't as subjective as the difference between 320kbps and FLAC. It's quite "clear."

 

[Irvrobinson]

OK, how about throwing a wrench into the works?

At roughly the same file size and bit rate as "CD" files I am now streaming MQA from Tidal Hi-Fi, full decoding through my Bluesound Vault 2. I can clearly hear the improvement. That isn't as subjective as the difference between 320kbps and FLAC. It's quite "clear."

I haven't downloaded any MQA files yet, because the technical explanations from Meridian sound like BS. Perhaps I should suspend disbelief and try a few.

 

[KenM10759]

Do you have a DAC or other device with MQA decoding capability?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Do you have a DAC or other device with MQA decoding capability?

No, but a friend has a Bluesound something-or-other with the FW upgrade to decode MQA, and he's been raving about it, and has offered to bring it over to demo in my system. I've resisted because of my skepticism. (He doesn't listen to classical music, so I'd have to do some of my own downloads.)

Here's an interesting opinion on MQA (but it is just an opinion):

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

 

[KenM10759]

Of course I'm well aware of that article and it could have been taken as truth...up until a couple of days ago when Tidal Hi-Fi went live with it. Since that happened I haven't heard nor seen word from anyone who's tried it state "this sucks."

 

[Irvrobinson]

Of course I'm well aware of that article and it could have been taken as truth...up until a couple of days ago when Tidal Hi-Fi went live with it. Since that happened I haven't heard nor seen word from anyone who's tried it state "this sucks."

Really? I happen to own a Benchmark Media DAC-HDR, and when looking at their latest models I read the blog some time ago, but I didn't think anyone would know about that blog who didn't venture onto that web site. You must have done your homework. My friend pointed me to some positive comments in Stereophile, but they sounded too good to be true, and reminded me of one of their cable reviews.

 

[cel4145]

I've used FLAC to archive my CD collection, not because they are clearly audibly superior to high quality MP3 encodes (they're not), but because since storage space isn't an issue there's no clear advantage to MP3 either. Therefore, I make one very careful rip (verifying with Accurip, etc.), encode a bit-perfect copy with FLAC, edit metadata the way I like, and store it on the server. There's no point to encode with MP3 in this context. Why store a photocopy if you can store the original?

Agreed. But as lovinthehd pointed out already in this thread, there are other contexts where lossy is useful. For example, why pay more than Spotify for streaming if upgrading to lossless won't provide an audible difference?

 

[lovinthehd]

Agreed. But as lovinthehd pointed out already in this thread, there are other contexts where lossy is useful. For example, why pay more than Spotify for streaming if upgrading to lossless won't provide an audible difference?

To clarify, I don't think its worth storing less than a lossless version.....but you can create useful lossy files from the lossless as needed....

 

[3db]

Word association? No, it's because lossy compression algorithms have unpredictable audible effects that are content-dependent. Given the very low personal savings involved - the big savings accrue only to the cloud-based content providers who save on mass storage and telecom expenses - and the projected price erosion for solid-state storage devices, I choose to ignore and recommend against using lossy media.

Anyway, if memory serves, aren't you a vinylphile? 320Kb MP3 is probably better than vinyl, so perhaps your expectations are skewed. [big grin]

Maybe my vinyl expectations have skewed my expectations but I don't believe so. I have ripped my entire CD collection to 320MP3 and I cannot detect a difference between the rips and the CD irregardless of genre.

 

[Bucknekked]

I have some 320's that sound better than FLAC's and it's pop music. I would just add one thing; it is the quality of the mastering, for sure, but I suspect it is the ripping process as well.
editinig just for the sake of the conclusion; I think 320 is 'big enough' if you do everything properly.

I have only dipped my toe in to the lossless coding world. I have a couple of purchases from HD tracks of CD's I own and digital rips from those CD's as well as purchased copies of digital files on those same tracks. That's a long winded way to say I have the same music in everything from an iTunes file to an HD Tracks flac file that costs 10 times as much.

While that doesn't make me any sort of expert, it means that I can tell you what my own personal experience has been comparing the formats using the same songs. First off, I believe there's a difference between the FLAC file and the old and fairly low rate iTunes file. Quantifying that difference is hard because if I wasn't sitting in my listening chair in a perfectly quiet environment and straining at gnats, I might not be able to say much.

I also have ripped a lot of Blu-ray music and CD based music. I have converted all my physical media to digital files. That process took me almost a year. I experimented a lot with bit rates to see if I could hear the difference between different choices. I'd like to be able to report that the higher bit rate choices always made a difference. Sadly, most of the time, I couldn't tell much of any difference.

What I ended up doing was ripping at the highest bit rate/sampling rate for everything because even if I can't hear the difference right now with the equipment I own, I am future proofing my library against the day when newer DACs or equipment choices may make a difference.

IMHO the advice that 320 is enough, is pretty solid. The biggest difference that you can hear has also been noted: the source material itself. The source material itself and its original recording and preservation makes more difference to how a song will sound than anything other aspect of the song. No amount of digital oversampling will save a song that was poorly recorded to begin with. And there are 1,000's of examples of poorly recorded music that is ending up on "remastered" or HD media for sale. Read some of the critiques of albums that cost $40 bucks on HD websites that have exactly the same content as a CD.

Caveat Emptor.

 

[PENG]

The source material itself and its original recording and preservation makes more difference to how a song will sound than anything other aspect of the song. No amount of digital oversampling will save a song that was poorly recorded to begin with.

Caveat Emptor.

That's the point I have been trying to make, can't polish a turd! Flac is only one of the compressed lossless format, sound quality output depends on the source material.

 

[vsound5150]

What I ended up doing was ripping at the highest bit rate/sampling rate for everything because even if I can't hear the difference right now with the equipment I own, I am future proofing my library against the day when newer DACs or equipment choices may make a difference.

Same here future proofing as well or maybe it's the OCD side of me. I still can't forget the day I first noticed I was purchasing 128kbps music from Apple and felt I was getting ripped off so I never spent a dime more. But I still use these cloud libraries to research and sample unknown music and go elsewhere to buy the real deal.

 

[MrBoat]

I'm computer burnt. There was a point when I knew too much. I wasn't meant to know about computers and OS's. I learned windows with DOS. Went through most of the coding changes over the years, which became increasingly complicated, understandably so. Then about a 10 year stint with Linux, never mind all the hardware associations over the last 23 years or so.

Which brings me to now. I can't make myself get interested in a lot of new technology, or even that which has a lot of technological options. I started to research the multiple music options and found myself in a lazy mental block. So, now I just buy CDs. Turns out that I don't like messing with the storage options either. Or that I would not really go out of my way to arrange it in any certain way.

Of course, this brings up another issue, likely needing another thread. Which is; "Does My CD Player Suck?"

 

[KenM10759]

I've simplified too, in a way. I still buy a CD now & then, but just stick them in my Bluesound Vault and it rips them. Once done I sit back with tablet in hand and play any of them without ever opening a funky plastic case.

 

[MrBoat]

I've simplified too, in a way. I still buy a CD now & then, but just stick them in my Bluesound Vault and it rips them. Once done I sit back with tablet in hand and play any of them without ever opening a funky plastic case.

I may get there. I am going to have to be bored and have nothing else to do.

 

[Bucknekked]

I may get there. I am going to have to be bored and have nothing else to do.

yup. after I finished getting all my physical media ripped in to digital files, there was no way on earth I was going back and re-doing the first dozen or so that I did in a fairly light bitrate. I totally understand there are diminishing returns. Also, there are a lot more fun things to do with your time than watch a CD spin in to a file. Fishing for instance.