320 bitrate vs FLAC (distinguishable differences)?

[andurilnarsil1]

HI all,

Newbie here.

Should I be able to hear a noticeable improvement in audio quality when listening to flac music files (vs 320 bitrate)?

Some peeps say no, while others say it depends on how good my hearing is, and the quality of my audio equipment.

So, my hearing is pretty good, and I generally notice subtle differences in sound quality. Also, I'm running B/Ws CM9s which are half descent speakers (and very transparent) IMO.

Is there a definitive answer on this? Seems like it's one of those touchy subjects for audio community.

Thanks!
Andy

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Arguably B&W value CM9 are hardly transparent. I would more likely call them unnecessary bright and definitely not very neutral. That said, you and many others do like B&W signature sound, but using them for reference playback, I won't suggest so. If you can't yet afford real reference speakers, you might want to consider getting near reference headphones - this would be much more affordable.

You should do forums search. We'd raised this exact subject time and time again. And why this is an issue? Both bandwidth and storage had gotten exponentially better in few years. If you constrained for space on mobile device or car audio - go ahead and use lossy compressed files - you won't hear any difference, but do keep lossless FLACs around - as on really good speakers and good recorded music you will hear difference clearly.

 

[vsound5150]

I can hear the difference between flac or other lossless music compared to compressed. What I hear is a more full sound and instruments separated and very clear. But not so much if using those cheap white earbuds that Apple provides with iPods/phones.

I can understand why some people cannot hear the difference, I noticed it's usually friends/family who don't have the passion for music like some of us do. I guess their ears are satisfied with lower quality sound.

 

[PENG]

HI all,

Newbie here.

Should I be able to hear a noticeable improvement in audio quality when listening to flac music files (vs 320 bitrate)?

Some peeps say no, while others say it depends on how good my hearing is, and the quality of my audio equipment.

So, my hearing is pretty good, and I generally notice subtle differences in sound quality. Also, I'm running B/Ws CM9s which are half descent speakers (and very transparent) IMO.

Is there a definitive answer on this? Seems like it's one of those touchy subjects for audio community.

Thanks!
Andy

FLAC is lossless but the track still has to be recorded and mastered for it to sound good. In theory, a great recording quality in 320 can sound better than a poor quality track in FLAC.

Again, if the recording is of high quality, then lossless FLAC will of course beat the lossy mp3.

 

[3db]

I'm an avid music listener and have an extensive music library. I've yet to do a direct comparison between flac and 320Kbps mp3 but to me, the 320kpbs is indistinguishable to that of a CD.

 

[vsound5150]

Peng brings up a good point. If the initial recording in the studio is poorly mastered it won't sound good, you can listen to different CD's, vinyl, etc. and will easily hear the rubbish ones. I think some artists create great music lyrically and melody wise and that's it while others take it a step further and spend extra time and money mastering the tracks.

One reason there's music fanatics in search of music content mastered by the best mastering engineers like Bob Ludwig, etc. who have top notch studios, equipment, and experience to finalize great results, too bad it couldn't all be this way.

 

[rojo]

The difference in quality between FLAC and 320kbps compressed is inaudible when both are ripped from the same master. Compression becomes a factor when burning 320kbps to disc, then re-ripping. Do this enough times, and the quality will degrade. With FLAC on the other hand, you can burn -> rip -> burn -> rip as often as you wish and still end up with a 1:1 copy. But with both ripped from an original master, I can't tell any difference between FLAC and 224kbps, and only rarely between FLAC and 192kbps if I am being hyper critical.

 

[3db]

The difference in quality between FLAC and 320kbps compressed is inaudible when both are ripped from the same master. Compression becomes a factor when burning 320kbps to disc, then re-ripping. Do this enough times, and the quality will degrade. With FLAC on the other hand, you can burn -> rip -> burn -> rip as often as you wish and still end up with a 1:1 copy. But with both ripped from an original master, I can't tell any difference between FLAC and 224kbps, and only rarely between FLAC and 192kbps if I am being hyper critical.

I forgot to add "ripped from the same master CD " in my previous post. Thanks for mentioning this.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Since we're discussing human perception, there isn't a definitive answer. One thing is for sure, perception of "loss" is very content dependent. On certain material, for example symphony orchestras, you're much more likely to hear differences than on pop music.

Personally, I won't even consider lossy media for audio. It doesn't even cross my mind. I know it is far from a perfect analogy, but watching the difference between a BD and Netflix streaming of the same movie is so profound, that the idea of dropping 1.1Mb per second to have the economic benefit of 320Kb MP3 isn't happening for me. I'd rather fiddle with the damn CDs or pay for FLAC storage.

 

[andurilnarsil1]

Arguably B&W value CM9 are hardly transparent. I would more likely call them unnecessary bright and definitely not very neutral. That said, you and many others do like B&W signature sound, but using them for reference playback, I won't suggest so. If you can't yet afford real reference speakers, you might want to consider getting near reference headphones - this would be much more affordable.

You should do forums search. We'd raised this exact subject time and time again. And why this is an issue? Both bandwidth and storage had gotten exponentially better in few years. If you constrained for space on mobile device or car audio - go ahead and use lossy compressed files - you won't hear any difference, but do keep lossless FLACs around - as on really good speakers and good recorded music you will hear difference clearly.

Hi BoredSysAdm,

My question was mostly academic. I'd watched some guys talking on youtube videos stating that there is no audible difference in quality when listening to 320 bitrate audio files (vs flac)

The question (maybe I should have qualified), was factoring in "all things being equal". So, from your perspective, taking the original master recording, converting to FLAC, then also converting another copy from the same master but converted to 320 bit rate, and if I did a double blind test on a pair of reference speakers of your choosing, with ideal room acoustics, using the best amp and receiving in the solar system, is there actually an improvement by listening to the FLAC version of the music file. Sorry if my reply is a bit over the top, just emphasizing all things being equal

 

[andurilnarsil1]

I'm an avid music listener and have an extensive music library. I've yet to do a direct comparison between flac and 320Kbps mp3 but to me, the 320kpbs is indistinguishable to that of a CD.

This is what I keep hearing.. I'm not sure then what the point is to having FLAC files (except that I like the idea of it being lossless)

 

[shadyJ]

Hi BoredSysAdm,

My question was mostly academic. I'd watched some guys talking on youtube videos stating that there is no audible difference in quality when listening to 320 bitrate audio files (vs flac)

The question (maybe I should have qualified), was factoring in "all things being equal". So, from your perspective, taking the original master recording, converting to FLAC, then also converting another copy from the same master but converted to 320 bit rate, and if I did a double blind test on a pair of reference speakers of your choosing, with ideal room acoustics, using the best amp and receiving in the solar system, is there actually an improvement by listening to the FLAC version of the music file. Sorry if my reply is a bit over the top, just emphasizing all things being equal

If you want to do a comparison, headphones are much better for this type of thing than speakers in a room. Speakers in-room will never be able to approach the detail and resolution of good headphones unless you listen to speakers in an anechoic chamber.

 

[andurilnarsil1]

I can hear the difference between flac or other lossless music compared to compressed. What I hear is a more full sound and instruments separated and very clear. But not so much if using those cheap white earbuds that Apple provides with iPods/phones.

I can understand why some people cannot hear the difference, I noticed it's usually friends/family who don't have the passion for music like some of us do. I guess their ears are satisfied with lower quality sound.

I don't suppose you've tried testing between 320 and flac with a blindfold? I think id like to try this for fun. Note, I can tell the difference from 320 and lower, just not 320 and higher, if that makes sense.

 

[andurilnarsil1]

FLAC is lossless but the track still has to be recorded and mastered for it to sound good. In theory, a great recording quality in 320 can sound better than a poor quality track in FLAC.

Again, if the recording is of high quality, then lossless FLAC will of course beat the lossy mp3.

I meant if both came from the same master recording.. to clarify.

 

[lovinthehd]

If you really want to test yourself as to whether you can tell the difference use an abx comparator, such as the module that you can use with foobar2000. http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

Personally I have both FLAC and 256-320kbps versions (both from the same cd rip) and am often fooled as to which one is playing....they're pretty damn close but there are things you can educate yourself and listen for if you want to....

ps I think Audacity software has similar capabilities for the abx test.

 

[andurilnarsil1]

If you want to do a comparison, headphones are much better for this type of thing than speakers in a room. Speakers in-room will never be able to approach the detail and resolution of good headphones unless you listen to speakers in an anechoic chamber.

You know, that is a good idea.. I do own some (semi nice) headphones, did not think of that. I've seen some crazy nice (expensive) 1000.00 dollar headphones online. That might be fun new door to try.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/

 

[PENG]

I meant if both came from the same master recording.. to clarify.

I actually assume you meant that already but as I said, it depends on the original recording/mastering quality. If it is recorded/mastered for the best sound quality then I am sure I can tell the difference in a blind listening tests. If the recording/mastering is not the best, then I think all bets are off regardless.

I should add that I don't really listen to pops/rocks/country much. I agree with what IRV said in post#9 so I am in fact talking about orchestral and non amplified music such as concertos, symphonies and certain kind of jazz, example: Jazz at the Pawnshop, that involves more than a few instruments.

 

[killdozzer]

FLAC is lossless but the track still has to be recorded and mastered for it to sound good. In theory, a great recording quality in 320 can sound better than a poor quality track in FLAC.

Again, if the recording is of high quality, then lossless FLAC will of course beat the lossy mp3.

I should add that I don't really listen to pops/rocks/country much...

I do listen to a lot of pops/rocks as you say and just to confirm, it's same here. I just mentioned this in a conversation the other day; 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.

I am yet to confirm this ripping business, I'm not there yet. What leads me in this direction is one case where two identical ripps were made from the same mastering/source. One was awful. I have no means to exclude the possibility that one of the rippers was laying, though.

editinig just for the sake of the conclusion; I think 320 is 'big enough' if you do everything properly. Since you can not rely on everyone putting in the effort, I dl FLAC's simply because I see fewer bad apples. If it is lossless or exact copy, it should be all there.

 

[andurilnarsil1]

I actually assume you meant that already but as I said, it depends on the original recording/mastering quality. If it is recorded/mastered for the best sound quality then I am sure I can tell the difference in a blind listening tests. If the recording/mastering is not the best, then I think all bets are off regardless.

I should add that I don't really listen to pops/rocks/country much. I agree with what IRV said in post#9 so I am in fact talking about orchestral and non amplified music such as concertos, symphonies and certain kind of jazz, example: Jazz at the Pawnshop, that involves more than a few instruments.

Got it.. so in real world usage it sounds like a FLAC will not stand out that much for most people, if at all. Howevr considering types of music and quality of recording, it seems that 320 is enough unless everything else is aligned perfectly.

Btw, im offended that you knocked my CM9s ...lol To me they were my first real ENTRY level purchse of quality good speakers. In fact, i bought the whole 5.1 set. If I upgraded, I'd have to go to 9000.00 / pair 800 D3s. OUCH! That means EVERYTHING would need upgrading since I'm a HT guy. I'll need a second job