MP3 vs. CDs & FLAC

[N.Cotman]

Hi everyone,

So I have basically all of my music as MP3 files. I have recently really started to notice the lack of dynamics and richness MP3s have once I started listening to them next to the radio and CDs.

I was wondering if using FLACs would be a good option? Is their quality as good as that of a CD? When I burn CDs, can I convert them to FLAC rather than MP3?

Note: I am using a Mac!

Thanks!
Nick

 

[Nestor]

MP3 vs. CDs & FLAC

Hi everyone,

So I have basically all of my music as MP3 files. I have recently really started to notice the lack of dynamics and richness MP3s have once I started listening to them next to the radio and CDs.

I was wondering if using FLACs would be a good option? Is their quality as good as that of a CD? When I burn CDs, can I convert them to FLAC rather than MP3?

Note: I am using a Mac!

Thanks!
Nick

Any lossless codec, such as FLAC (or Apple Lossless) will transcode back to a bit for bit copy of the original file. Translation: if you rip to FLAC from CD, you can convert it back to a bit for bit copy of the original WAV file from the CD.

Just note that lossless codecs can only compress to typically 50 to 60% of the original file size, so storage space needs to be considered. Also, you need to make sure the player that you use can handle the codec that you choose.

 

[Ponzio]

So I have basically all of my music as MP3 files. I have recently really started to notice the lack of dynamics and richness MP3s have once I started listening to them next to the radio and CDs.

With all due respect if you’re MP3 versions of a song sound worse than the radio versions, I have to believe they must be a low bit copy (160kb CBR [constant bit rate] or less) or the DAC on your Mac is of low quality. All things being equal, CD’s>FLAC (highest bit rate possible)>MP3 (320kb CBR) is the usual order of SQ (sound quality). Also your conversion software makes a huge difference in some cases. I highly recommend EAC (Easy Audio Copy). Like Nestor said, if storage space isn’t an issue I would go with FLAC but MP3 SQ has come a long way within the last 7 years or so. I’ve done blind listening tests with friends between a high bit MP3 file & the same song off of a CD and 90% of the time they can’t tell the difference. Personally I’ve replaced my older MP3’s from 160kb and less to 320kb and I’m very satisfied.

 

[Nestor]

MP3 vs. CDs & FLAC

With all due respect if you’re MP3 versions of a song sound worse than the radio versions, I have to believe they must be a low bit copy (160kb CBR [constant bit rate] or less) or the DAC on your Mac is of low quality. All things being equal, CD’s>FLAC (highest bit rate possible)>MP3 (320kb CBR) is the usual order of SQ (sound quality). Also your conversion software makes a huge difference in some cases. I highly recommend EAC (Easy Audio Copy). Like Nestor said, if storage space isn’t an issue I would go with FLAC but MP3 SQ has come a long way within the last 7 years or so. I’ve done blind listening tests with friends between a high bit MP3 file & the same song off of a CD and 90% of the time they can’t tell the difference. Personally I’ve replaced my older MP3’s from 160kb and less to 320kb and I’m very satisfied.

Don't mean to nitpick, but CD=FLAC for sound quality. The only difference is strictly format related. There are different compression options for FLAC, but they only trade off file size for transcode time.

 

[markw]

One bit of bad news here: The improvments in sound can only be realized in future recordings. The music already encoded in MP3 cannot be improved upon.

 

[Ponzio]

Don't mean to nitpick, but CD=FLAC for sound quality. The only difference is strictly format related. There are different compression options for FLAC, but they only trade off file size for transcode time.

I'll take your word for it ... no, I'm not going to research the veracity of your statement ... but a friend and me sat down for some blind listening, using various standard CD's and the ripped FLAC/MP3 versions to a CD-R disc, using a Oppo BDP-105, and to us there were some slight, slight differences, mostly in the higher frequencies. Not as stark lets say between similar copies of SACD vs. standard CD's but we heard it. Maybe we were lucky in identifying the format and experiencing a placebo effect as we took turns trying to out wit the other. Who knows? Thanks for the technical update.

 

[Nestor]

I'll take your word for it ... no, I'm not going to research the veracity of your statement ... but a friend and me sat down for some blind listening, using various standard CD's and the ripped FLAC/MP3 versions to a CD-R disc, using a Oppo BDP-105, and to us there were some slight, slight differences, mostly in the higher frequencies. Not as stark lets say between similar copies of SACD vs. standard CD's but we heard it. Maybe we were lucky in identifying the format and experiencing a placebo effect as we took turns trying to out wit the other. Who knows? Thanks for the technical update.

Facts are facts.

Don't take my word for it.

The encoding of audio (PCM) data incurs no loss of information, and the decoded audio is bit-for-bit identical to what went into the encoder. Each frame contains a 16-bit CRC of the frame data for detecting transmission errors. The integrity of the audio data is further insured by storing an MD5 signature of the original unencoded audio data in the file header, which can be compared against later during decoding or testing.

https://xiph.org/flac/features.html

If you could distinguish a difference, it was because:

a. The files were changed before transcoding. (Level matching is the most common error)

or

b. The "blind" test you performed was not bias-controlled to the point of providing reliable results.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Some 320kbps MP3 sound great too. It's not the "MP3" that sounds bad, it's the actual recording. If the actual song is highly compressed, the FLAC or ALAC or WAV version isn't going to sound much better than the same song in 320kbps MP3.

But in my experience, CD = FLAC = ALAC = Lossless, assuming it is the same exact recording and same sound level.

For example, ripping CD to FLAC or ALAC without doing any kind of post compressions or modifications.

 

[Ponzio]

Facts are facts.

Don't take my word for it.



https://xiph.org/flac/features.html

If you could distinguish a difference, it was because:

a. The files were changed before transcoding. (Level matching is the most common error)

or

b. The "blind" test you performed was not bias-controlled to the point of providing reliable results.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Okie Dokie

the "blind tests" were not bias controlled, whatever that means. I simply took 2 standard CD's, converted the tracks to FLAC/MP3 on my PC at the highest bit rate possible, using EAC conversion software, to 2 separate CD-R discs. one of us would stand in front of the player and randomly put in one of the discs and the other would guess which format it was in. I thought about cheating but it kind-a went against what we were trying to accomplish.

 

[crossedover]

Some 320kbps MP3 sound great too. It's not the "MP3" that sounds bad, it's the actual recording. If the actual song is highly compressed, the FLAC or ALAC or WAV version isn't going to sound much better than the same song in 320kbps MP3.

But in my experience, CD = FLAC = ALAC = Lossless, assuming it is the same exact recording and same sound level.

For example, ripping CD to FLAC or ALAC without doing any kind of post compressions or modifications.

I could never listen to any classical recordings on mp3. I have a few albums that I got for my daughter, mostly pop, and they sound ok. My entire library is encoded in FLAC. Don't use anything apple so I can't speak to their spec. Before FLAC there was SHN and it was pretty much the standard for digital audio for those who cared about quality.

 

[Nestor]

MP3 vs. CDs & FLAC

Okie Dokie

the "blind tests" were not bias controlled, whatever that means. I simply took 2 standard CD's, converted the tracks to FLAC/MP3 on my PC at the highest bit rate possible, using EAC conversion software, to 2 separate CD-R discs. one of us would stand in front of the player and randomly put in one of the discs and the other would guess which format it was in. I thought about cheating but it kind-a went against what we were trying to accomplish.

I'm sure your intentions were sincere, and I said nothing about cheating. You can be influenced by bias and not even realize it's happening. For example, even a 0.2 dB difference in the files can result in an audible difference.

I know you want to claim there is a difference, but there simply isn't. If there were, zip files would be riddled with corruptions, as they use similar algorithms.

 

[PENG]

Okie Dokie

simply took 2 standard CD's, converted the tracks to FLAC/MP3 on my PC at the highest bit rate possible, using EAC conversion software, to 2 separate CD-R discs. one of us would stand in front of the player and randomly put in one of the discs and the other would guess which format it was in. I thought about cheating but it kind-a went against what we were trying to accomplish.

Just a couple of quick points:

1) CD's are 16bit 44.1 kHz, so when ripped to FLAC it is best to stick with 44.1/16 and do not convert it to anything higher. There is no gain, could get worse depending on the software. In your case it could possibly be worse but you are buring the FLAC back on to a CD-R disc, i.e. back to 441/16 again!!
2) I know nothing about EAC but you need to make sure you burn error free CDs, some software such as dbpoweramp has the feature to confirm 100% accuracy.

 

[PENG]

Not as stark lets say between similar copies of SACD vs. standard CD's

Take any hybrid SACD you have and do a blind test comparing the SACD and CD layer with your 105. I can pretty much guarantee you cannot tell any such "stark" difference, or any difference at all. I used to think there were but it was all the intial Placebo effect (plus the specific sample discs selected) at work. I would admit that most of my SCADs do tend to offer slightly higher SQ than my CDs but I also have quite a few CDs that sound better than some of my SACDs.

I believe more SACDs sound better than CDs simply because the quality of the original recording and mastering process, not because the format. In terms of specs, they are superior, no doubt about it. The only problem is that CD's specs has already exceeded the need of mortals, or the majority of them anyway. For me, the bottom line, is, focus on the quality of the original recording and mastering, not so much the format.

Here's a link to a list of CDs/SACDs/FLAC/WAV etc., that should offer you good sound quality.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/general-av-discussions/78328-high-quality-sound-albums-25.html

 

[cpp]

Some 320kbps MP3 sound great too. It's not the "MP3" that sounds bad, it's the actual recording. If the actual song is highly compressed, the FLAC or ALAC or WAV version isn't going to sound much better than the same song in 320kbps MP3.

But in my experience, CD = FLAC = ALAC = Lossless, assuming it is the same exact recording and same sound level.

For example, ripping CD to FLAC or ALAC without doing any kind of post compressions or modifications.

Agree, If the original is poor your rips will be poor regardless of the new format. And some DAC' chips like the ESS9018 that are in the OPPO105 will just point out how bad they really are.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Take any hybrid SACD you have and do a blind test comparing the SACD and CD layer with your 105. I can pretty much guarantee you cannot tell any such "stark" difference, or any difference at all. I used to think there were but it was all the intial Placebo effect (plus the specific sample discs selected) at work. I would admit that most of my SCADs do tend to offer slightly higher SQ than my CDs but I also have quite a few CDs that sound better than some of my SACDs.

I believe more SACDs sound better than CDs simply because the quality of the original recording and mastering process, not because the format. In terms of specs, they are superior, no doubt about it. The only problem is that CD's specs has already exceeded the need of mortals, or the majority of them anyway. For me, the bottom line, is, focus on the quality of the original recording and mastering, not so much the format.

Here's a link to a list of CDs/SACDs/FLAC/WAV etc., that should offer you good sound quality.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/general-av-discussions/78328-high-quality-sound-albums-25.html

This is precisely my opinion on the topic. I would also add that source media with a frequency response extending much beyond 22KHz may not be good idea either. There could be ultra-sonic signals present that can cause negative effects in electronics or speakers, and could impact pets. Unless you have an appropriate analyzer you might not even know the spurious signals are present.

Dynamic range is a different issue, and here I say the more the better - for recording. For playback I have yet to hear any evidence that 16 bit PCM (like the CD Redbook) is audibly inadequate in any way in dynamic range. For eliminating clipping while recording more dynamic range is a great tool, and 24 bit PCM is said to be about 16db better than DSD. Once you have a well-made 24 bit recording, fitting the level values into 16 bit format is an easy operation, and the result is an awesome CD unlikely to be bettered by any hi-res format.

 

[defmoot]

For me, the bottom line, is, focus on the quality of the original recording and mastering, not so much the format.

This is the crux of the biscuit, I think. It's the reason I've found, say, Mobile Fidelity, Sony MasterSound, etc. releases have generally sounded much better to me than the mass produced stuff. They're remastered, usually for the better, and the dynamic range is greater, which is a plus if your equipment doesn't suck. It's funny to see and hear guys who think a disc with a compressed dynamic range sounds better because it gets louder more quickly with a small spin of the volume knob. When listening to the same disc with better mastering and dynamic range they complain that "you have to really crank it up to hear it." Cracks me up every time.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

For me, the bottom line, is, focus on the quality of the original recording and mastering, not so much the format.

I agree.

I love ALAC. I use AVS Audio Converter and rip the CD to ALAC. It is lossless so the quality is exactly like CD. But the size of the ALAC file is only about the size of MP3. So I put ALAC music files on my iPad and phone.

 

[Topher]

I've been using MP3s for years because when I started, FLAC wasn't around. Then, when it did come around, I couldn't find a program to adjust the volume between tracks, like MP3Gain that I use on MP3s. Does such a program exist these days?
MP3Gain
Edit: Looks like MetaFLAC can do this to FLAC files. Anyone ever tried it?
How to normalize volume of FLAC files using MetaFLAC | chooru.code

 

[JMJVK]

Hi everyone,

So I have basically all of my music as MP3 files. I have recently really started to notice the lack of dynamics and richness MP3s have once I started listening to them next to the radio and CDs.

I was wondering if using FLACs would be a good option? Is their quality as good as that of a CD? When I burn CDs, can I convert them to FLAC rather than MP3?

Note: I am using a Mac!

Thanks!
Nick

- 1st mistake was to burn the two format on different CDs. The second was using them in the fashion where too much time goes on between two streams can be auditioned.

Using a USB stick with 1 file in both formats would have been better. This alleviates the risk of unwanted and software trans-coding and level modifications often silently done by software. Switching from one version to the other on the same device, or switching versions played on two identical devices using the same interconnect is the only way to get this comparison right.​

- Device(s), if they feature any "MP3" sound improvement DSP, have to be set for it to be turned "Off".

This is a common feature on cheapie CD/DVD/BluRay players.​

- Your playback device has to be of suitable quality.

Laptop speakers and portable BlueTooth speakers won't cut it.​

- Sound quality not only depends on the codec, but also on the file.

Some songs and tunes have a narrower range, and less complexity to them from the get-go, making them better candidates for compression. Other songs and tunes have very complex sonority, and a wide range, and this often induces unwanted clipping of certain notes, beats or high notes. This phenomenon is reminiscent of short "ticks" we sometimes experienced listening to vinyl records.

One band who's stuff often shows this phenomenon is Pink Floyd. Songs like "One of these days" are complex, loud and span a wide range of frequencies all at once, making them full of artifacts that may pass unheard to the uninitiated, but will absolutely make the proverbial "Old fan", cringe to the ³. The Who and The Doors also have a lot titles which will display such artifacts and annoyances.​

- SACD to CD.

A good, well mastered CD to a "quickly" remastered SACD can be close. BThat said, an ordinarily mastered CD compared to a well remastered SACD will simply floor you by the difference. Listening to "Dark side of the Moon" on original CD compared to James Guthrie's re-master would convince anyone without a doubt, if the audition is done on decent audio gear. I do prefer Alan Parson's PCM quad mix, but Guthrie really nailed it, quality-wise.​

Just my [strike]two[/strike]¯ er... Twenty cents.