FLAC Quality

[angusrex]

I always wanted to see what all the audiophiles were talking about, so I recently downloaded some FLAC versions of a few MP3s that I had to see if there was a substantial difference. After listening to each version, I honestly cannot tell the difference. Does the problem exist in my headphones, my sound card, or are my ears just bad? I'm worried I might just not be audiophile material.

 

[Adam]

Welcome to the forum!

There are a number of reasons why you might not have noticed a difference, with some that come to mind being as follows:

1. The effects of compression are greater the more compressed the audio is, so if your MP3 files were already at a good bitrate (say, 192 kbps or higher...the threshold is arguable), then you might not be able to tell any difference between a compressed file and an uncompressed file.

2. The effects of compression are more noticeable on more "capable" audio equipment. If you're using iPod headphones, then you probably wouldn't be able to hear the effects of compression unless the MP3 files were at a low bitrate. That's the beauty of the iPod, after all. Most portable equipment can't reproduce sound with full fidelity anyway, so compressing the files doesn't really hurt the end result.

When I would listen to files compressed at a 128 kbps bitrate, they would sound just fine on my computer speakers or in my car, but they sounded bad on my home stereo. My brother used to think that I was nuts to rip my CDs into lossless files...until he bought himself some nice headphones, and then he could hear the compression effects on his ripped music.

So, if you can't tell a difference - don't worry! It just means that you don't need to use as much disk space to store your music. However, be aware that you certainly might be able to tell a difference in the future when you go to play those files through better headphones or a better stereo set-up. Just something to consider.

Adam

 

[angusrex]

Thank you so much. I thought I had something wrong with my hearing! I really appreciate the help and I'll be sure to upgrade my equipment if I decide to get anymore lossless files.

 

[sterling shoote]

I agree with all Adam had to say. In my own experiments I can indeed discern MP3 from about 14 years ago with ALAC today at any ALAC bit and bite rate. I cannot discern any difference between 16/44 AIFF/ALAC and 24/192 AIFF/ALAC. Therefore, so far, I can not justify spending more money for so called HI-RES downloads. I think CD quality downloads are as good as I can hear. Things are a little different however concerning SACD. Although I can not discern a sound difference between stereo SACD and CD. I do enjoy multi channel SACDs better than stereo SACD on some occasions. Of course, to enjoy those requires a multi channel SACD or universal player. I'm not aware of any way to buy, download, and play multi channel SACDs, so I just buy the discs from online retailers.

 

[PENG]

I always wanted to see what all the audiophiles were talking about, so I recently downloaded some FLAC versions of a few MP3s that I had to see if there was a substantial difference. After listening to each version, I honestly cannot tell the difference. Does the problem exist in my headphones, my sound card, or are my ears just bad? I'm worried I might just not be audiophile material.

When you say Flac version of a few MP3s, what exactly do you mean? If you simply download Flac converted from same MP3 files then you shouldn't notice a difference. If by Flac version you mean lossless files then you should hear a difference if the music were recorded for lossless playback.

You cannot polish a turd so if the original music was recorded with MP3 playback in mind then there isn't much you can do to improve it by using different formats.

I also cannot tell the difference between CD quality and HD formats such as 24/192 and dsd 256 etc., but I do concentrate on acquiring music in HD formats because there is a greater chance files in HD formats are from good quality recordings to begin with.

 

[lovinthehd]

When you say Flac version of a few MP3s, what exactly do you mean? If you simply download Flac converted from same MP3 files then you shouldn't notice a difference. If by Flac version you mean lossless files then you should hear a difference if the music were recorded for lossless playback.

You cannot polish a turd so if the original music was recorded with MP3 playback in mind then there's much you can do to improve it by using different formats.

I also cannot tell the difference between CD quality and HD formats such as 24/192 and dsd 256 etc., but I do concentrate on acquiring music in HD formats because there is a greater chance files in HD formats are from good quality recordings to begin with.

8 years later wonder if he will even get an alert from AH or not....

 

[jmalecki05]

FLAC is a lossless format, as is WAVE, ALAC, and WMA lossless. MP3 is not, it is lossy meaning that some of the data was lost at the benefit of decreasing the file size.

If you own the audio CD and a computer, you can rip to any format you choose. Windows Media Player and ITunes are both great for this. DB PowerAmp is an excellent computer program and makes file conversation from one format to another a cinch.

I am in the early stages of testing / interpreting quality differences. So far, I only tested WAV vs. MP3 320kbps (converted from the wav file) and could not definitively prove an audio quality difference. Then again, this was only with headphones and portable audio player.

 

[lovinthehd]

FLAC is a lossless format, as is WAVE, ALAC, and WMA lossless. MP3 is not, it is lossy meaning that some of the data was lost at the benefit of decreasing the file size.

If you own the audio CD and a computer, you can rip to any format you choose. Windows Media Player and ITunes are both great for this. DB PowerAmp is excellent computer program and makes file conversation from one format to another a cinch.

I am in the early stages of testing / interpreting quality differences. So far, I only tested WAV vs. MP3 320kbps (converted from the wav file) and could not definitively prove I can tell the difference. Then again, this was only with headphones and portable audio player.

One consideration of a lossless file is the future use, for example burning a cd later (or mp3s), gives you the ability to do that at full quality whereas if you go with 320 that's no longer an option. With storage space so cheap....just a thought.

 

[jmalecki05]

I totally agree. I only initially rip from CD to WAV. Then, I create an ALAC file (or any other format I choose) from the original WAV.

 

[lovinthehd]

I totally agree. I only initially rip from CD to WAV. Then, I create an ALAC file (or any other format I choose) from the original WAV.

Why store both a WAV and ALAC (or FLAC outside of appleland), though? Same info, if you have space for WAV files why even create the ALAC? Or for apple devices does this give you more playback options or some other benefit? Or do you mean you are actually ripping the WAV file and immediately converting it? Just curious, I suppose my ripper actually has to create the WAV temporarily but I only store in FLAC....

 

[jmalecki05]

WAV is my master backup for archive purposes. ALAC, since my computer is a Mac, was my format of choice when I began the process earlier this year. (Apple's function to encode WAV to ALAC is wonderful). Since ALAC is lossless and about 60% of the file size, I can fit more albums on my audio player (Fiio X5).

I dont have much WMA lossless. My work computer is Windows, so I ripped directly from CD to WMA lossless.

It is only recently that I am playing with FLAC. My reasoning is (1) support for more devices, (2) FLAC supports metadata, which will work with multiple operating systems where ALAC is only for Apple, (3) I was curious, (4) ALAC files do not play as nice with my android phone (e.g. metadata, not all haps support), and FLAC is more compatible.

I also encode from WAV to MP3 (320 kb) for use in my car. When driving, I accept the indistinguishable audio quality loss versus storing more files on my petty 1 GB built in hard drive.

Plus, with memory so inexpensive, the little extra effort provides much greater functionality.

 

[-Jim-]

Hi Gents,

This type of conversation should probably be a Sticky as so many Newbies need help here. (Hence my reply to an 8 year old thread.)

Personally, I've progressed from Vinyl to CD ages ago. (I know there are still some vinyl purists out there and I don't want to start that argument here.) I used to burn greatest hits CDs from Wave Files I created - to play in the Car. I was an early adopter of MP3s when the Storage costs were high, and therefore the Rip rates low. Eventually I moved up to 192, and eventually 320 kbps. I thought at the time that was the limit of my hearing.

Then just for grins I tried FLAC. I can certainly tell the difference, and have now duplicated most of my library to FLAC. (I keep involved in MP3s as my car plays them, and my iPhone doesn't have the capacity for many FLAC tunes.)

Then I tried FLAC 24 bit. And my interpretation is you need very good equipment, with decent bottom end capability, to hear the differences at 24 bit. Some of this I attribute to the re-mastering of the original tapes, or better recording techniques as ripping your typical CD to 24 Bit won't give you any benefit at all. (Just larger files.) As noted earlier, the Source file needs to be of equal or better quality than the file you are trying to make, or your are just spinning your wheels.

I used to think it would be important to be able to go back, and make CDs from my files; but I store all of my tunes on multiple hard drives (at least one off-machine) and play them off USB drives for my two of my receivers. I also use USB thumb drives in my car. My disk burners are getting used less and less. Sometimes I use my home network but that slows down the ability to change tunes quickly.

There are a lot of considerations when choosing your file format. My take is to go for the best you can afford storage for that you can hear the difference and lets you play in on as many devices you have. If you are extravagant (like me) go for a couple of formats if you have the time and $$.

 

[cel4145]

If they took the time to do some double blind tests, many people might be surprised at whether or not they can hear the difference between high bit rate mp3/aac and lossless: http://lifehacker.com/5903625/mp3-or-lossless-see-if-you-can-hear-the-difference-with-this-test/. Otherwise, with sighted comparisons, you can never know whether or not there actually exists an audible difference or if it is just confirmation bias.

 

[jmalecki05]

If only people were honest with themselves (and the people they preach to) and not parroting what another website tells them to think.

I know a music promoter for local bands. He told me recently that (and I paraphrase) that he cannot tell the difference between formats, but he would never tell anybody that because he is in the music business.

 

[-Jim-]

To some degree, I agree with you about parroting others, but sometimes folks need to be enlightened so they can put old prejudices behind them and just listen. Of course having decent equipment is a must (not Apple Bud headphones). And decently recorded source material, preferably what the listener likes, and is used to hearing, can be a plus.

However some folks simply can't hear those differences (maybe like me and all those fancy expensive cables) whether they were born that way, or like a couple brothers of mine who had their hearing degrade after adulthood. One due to hearing damage from loud equipment at work (and maybe more than a few Rock concerts) and he was the one who always wore deadphones and ear plugs; an another due to a health impact - that's still undiagnosed. We were all Audiophiles when in our teens / early twenties but it's mostly lost on them now.

Of course the ones who can really pick out these differences are our kids. And hopefully for decades to come.

 

[Bucknekked]

I will throw my two cents worth in simply because I have dipped my toe in to HD versions of old material to see how they would differ. One thing became immediately apparent : the chain from the HD digital file all the way to the last piece of gear touching the speakers has to be up to that encoding and bit rate or the whole thing gets cut down to the lowest bit rate that any single device supports. That means if you have 3 or 4 pieces of hardware between the file and the speakers, every single item has to support the bit rate or its all going fall to the highest rate supported by your weakest link.

For many users running hardware that's just a few years old, this means there could be an HD inhibitor in there somewhere that will shear off any potential gains.

As a newb that just tried this same thing (buying an HD version of available MP3 material) can I tell the difference? For me personally, the jury is still out. Sometimes, I believe there is a difference. Other times, I can't hear any difference. I would not want to state emphatically either way because my personal experience is so lacking in any objective statements.

I have listened to HD fan-boys scream and holler that OF COURSE there is a difference. Anyone that can't hear the difference is a total moron in their opinions. I have listened to others with long time expertise in recording and productions state just as flatly that anything outside of what a normal CD can produce just isn't audible and therefore a waste of money. Which is correct? One side is selling something and the other side is dedicated to maintaining the status quo. Both sides of the argument have an agenda.

 

[-Jim-]

Hi Bucknekked,

As with all technology, if you personally can't derive a benefit, then don't waste you time or $ on it. If there is a perception of value, then explore it to see if it's worth it to you. (So even if you can hear the difference with FLAC Files, it may not be worth the bother and extra space.)

I know all kinds of folks, and some buy computer components, audio equipment, boats, and even cars just because someone said it's "cool". In my youth I used to "overbuy" my Audio components so I'd have "top of the Line" bragging rights. (Of course there were lots of times when we never even used half the functions we paid for.)

As I've mellowed my focus is now on fitting the equipment, components, source material, data, etc., to the duty it will see. It's not that we can't afford to spend that much, but it's such a waste and any moron can just throw money at a problem. So if you are sure you don't gain any value from going to FLAC Files, I certainly don't want you wasting your time and $ on it.

 

[jmalecki05]

Reading this, I am reminded of what a cigar shop keeper once told me (as a poor college student). Paraphrasing, its does not matter if you spend $30 or $3 on a cigar, if you like it, then its a good one.

 

[Bucknekked]

Both of you hit the nail on the head. Especially the comment about FLAC and other HD formats perhaps being better, but are they worth the cost? I purchased a Steely Dan MP3 from Amazon a week or so ago. Decent bit rates, and an excellent sounding recording. The cost was $4.99. The same Steely Dan in HD is $20.00 on HD Tracks. 4x or 400% difference in the price. Is the HD version 4x as good? I dunno, I didn't purchase it. I can tell you the HD track will not be 4x better to listen to.

Audio is all in the perception of the listener. There are objective and measurable things we can talk about and judge imperically. But, when it comes down to listening to tunes and enjoying them, its all perception and very individualized. That's why someone who is 20'ish and listening to a small setup under very modest conditions can still get great pleasure from the setup. The old guy with the super expensive setup where the cables cost as much as a car can also enjoy his stuff too. I don't mind either guy saying his stuff is great. I just applaud others who like this hobby as much as I do.

 

[jmalecki05]

Why store both a WAV and ALAC (or FLAC outside of appleland), though? Same info, if you have space for WAV files why even create the ALAC? Or for apple devices does this give you more playback options or some other benefit? Or do you mean you are actually ripping the WAV file and immediately converting it? Just curious, I suppose my ripper actually has to create the WAV temporarily but I only store in FLAC....

I just realized that I did not fully answer your question. I first make a WAV copy of the album in a dedicated folder. I then make a copy of that folder and convert the WAV files to ALAC. I maintain two unique folders (labeled WAV and ALAC). The WAV I retain as a master backup. The ALAC (which is roughly 60% of the original size), I use on my portable audio player.

Don't ask me how I realized this over 8 months later