Lossless vs. MP3

[ChDV]

On a good sound system, FLAC files show the smallest nuances of a track played, you can hear every single background instrument, every single note...
But what about electronic music? If I'm, for example, listening to some sort of trance music, would it really matter what file-format this track is in? FLAC or MP3 with high bpm?

P. S. Apology for my poor English

 

[Pyrrho]

On a good sound system, FLAC files show the smallest nuances of a track played, you can hear every single background instrument, every single note...
But what about electronic music? If I'm, for example, listening to some sort of trance music, would it really matter what file-format this track is in? FLAC or MP3 with high bpm?

P. S. Apology for my poor English

A well made MP3 with a high bit rate will probably be audibly indistinguishable from a FLAC. However, to know exactly how high the bit rate must be, it would take some careful testing, using the particular algorithm that you will use for your MP3s (as different ones can make a difference; it is not merely file size that affects the sound). If you want archival quality, you must not use any "lossy" format, and must use a lossless file, e.g., FLAC. And if you want to be certain that there are no audible imperfections, I suggest using a lossless format. But, if you must have a smaller file size, then you can use MP3, if you are careful about it.

 

[lsiberian]

Given most recordings these days. There is no discernable audible difference between a high bit rate mp3 or AAC file and it's lossless equivalent. You would need to have incredibly high volumes to hit the noise floor for either. Everyone overestimates their ears. A double blind test will reveal it probably doesn't matter to you.
Remember studio compress cd's like crazy anyway. So it's not really lossless to beign with.

Now there are some great CDs out there, but most music isn't worthy of the work anyway. Not to dis anyone, but it's a fact most songs are good for a year and then fade away into obscurity.

 

[Pyrrho]

Given most recordings these days. There is no discernable audible difference between a high bit rate mp3 or AAC file and it's lossless equivalent. You would need to have incredibly high volumes to hit the noise floor for either. Everyone overestimates their ears. A double blind test will reveal it probably doesn't matter to you.
Remember studio compress cd's like crazy anyway. So it's not really lossless to beign with.

Now there are some great CDs out there, but most music isn't worthy of the work anyway. Not to dis anyone, but it's a fact most songs are good for a year and then fade away into obscurity.

You are conflating two kinds of compression. The compression on CDs of which you are complaining is a compression of dynamic range. It is not data compression at all, so it is not like what is going on with an MP3. The CD format is inherently lossless.

 

[pzaur]

You are conflating two kinds of compression. The compression on CDs of which you are complaining is a compression of dynamic range. It is not data compression at all, so it is not like what is going on with an MP3. The CD format is inherently lossless.

Completely agree. Many, most, mainstream music CDs are mastered so that they average volume of the disc is inherently LOUD. This causes clipping to occur to the soundwave form which creates artifacts in the sound not from compression. The upper and lower reaches of the soundwave (not pitch) are "clipped" off when the volume of the recording is increased too much.

This can cause vocals to sound metallic or robotic and create distortion in other sounds that are clipped. Kelly Clarkson's recent albums are good examples of this. She has a good voice, but when she gets loud her voice starts to generate a robot type quality because the volume headroom is not available on the disc. This all returns to the marketing mantra of "Louder = Better".

-pat