MP3, FlAC/WAV, CD, or Record?

[bobdehunt]

Note: I am pretty sure that this is a good place to post this, but I really don't know. Either way, I think it's needed considering that I don't see many posts like this and usually they aren't as in depth.


There are a few myths that have been spread over the years about which one of these formats sound the best. Here, I will try to help you find which one sounds better. Let's begin with the most common misconception.

Records sound better-
Some argue that records have a warmer sound and bring you closer to the audience, but this isn't always the case. Sonically, the difference between a record and a CD are either extremely minimal or completely unnoticeable if the record was being played with a neutral needle, cartridge, etc. Maybe, depending on the player, stylus, and other assorted pieces, the sound could be warmer and more pleasing, but the same could be achieved with experimenting with different players, amps, and preamps for the other various venues of delivering music. The idea that records produce a warmer sound could also be partially due to the difference in mastering between the music on the record and the music on the CD. Many musicians digitally compress their music, meaning that they essentially take a sound then rob it of it's dynamics. This just wasn't done in the time of records and I hope that it will eventually wither out and die because I hate listening to a good song that sounds awful because there's no difference in volume between someone yelling and whispering. Personally, I don't like records, because the players, preamps, vinyls, and basically everything else that goes into playing a record is very expensive. That being said, I still listen to records from time to time. Not because they sound better, but because I enjoy watching the turntable spin and the act of putting the record on the dish. I guess in that way, records do bring one closer to the performer.

CD's sound better-
CD's do not sound better than other uncompressed audio formats if both formats are being played on comparable machines. The bitrate on a FLAC file is actually higher than the bitrate on a CD.

Uncompressed audio sounds better than MP3's-
This depends. There is a noticeable difference between FLAC/WAV and 360kbs MP3 files, but this difference in my opinion does not at all change how well the music sounds. The difference is so minuscule that even if you were to notice it, which is very unlikely, you probably wouldn't care. The difference between 360kbs and 128kbs is more noticeable and I believe that with the right equipment, the higher bitrate would lead to a better sound. This difference between sound and bitrate becomes much more evident as you go down. By 96kbs the difference is much easier to notice and anything below that sounds terrible.

Here is a good website to visit if you would like to find out for yourself what sounds better-
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

 

[Ponzio]

WAV>FLAC>MP3>Vinyl

 

[Bizarro_Stormy]

WAV>FLAC>MP3>Vinyl>Morse Code

-···-------·········

 

[lovinthehd]

CD's sound better-
CD's do not sound better than other uncompressed audio formats if both formats are being played on comparable machines. The bitrate on a FLAC file is actually higher than the bitrate on a CD.

If the FLAC was made from a CD, it may use less space but playback is the same....are you referring to a FLAC from another source?

 

[BMXTRIX]

FLAC=WAV=CD>MP3>Morse Code>Vinyl<Cassette

 

[Bucknekked]

Note: I am pretty sure that this is a good place to post this, but I really don't know. Either way, I think it's needed considering that I don't see many posts like this and usually they aren't as in depth.

bobdehunt:
I would suggest there are many, many posts on this exact topic on the forum. There are some very lengthy ones, and many go in to great detail. It is one of those topics people get carried away with. If you think your post was "in depth", well, again, I would suggest there are many very technically astute threads.

Rather than berate (there's a bitrate pun in there somewhere) your post, I would just invite you to search out audio formats, cd's verses vinyl, compressed verses uncompressed, and other search arguments and you should come up with a number of posts with lots of detail.

The long and the short of comparing the ideas you put forth (vinyl, CD, and then digitial files) is one that has been flogged pretty hard. In the end, a well engineered recording will sound and play well no matter what the physical format. A poorly engineered recording will not sound great or play well no matter what the physical format. The physical format will not dictate the quality of the sound, it will be the efforts of the band and the recording enginneers.

Are there differences between vinyl, CD's and files : yes there are. Each has its devotees.
As long as you enjoy beautiful music from whatever you choose, I'm happy. There's room at the inn for just about everyone's tastes and preferences.

 

[Swerd]

I suggest that bobdehunt spend some time reading this thread:

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/has-anybody-measured-the-resolution-of-vinyl-records.94576/#post-1082467

 

[shadyJ]

A true audiophile would not dabble in such plebeian mediums. Vinyl, CD, Flac/WAV, MP3: each has its own unacceptable shortcomings. The only media that has come close to capturing the essence of real music is wax cylinders. There is a good reason why this medium was the first choice of the Edison Company to record and store music. It has pure analog sound but without the need of the source player to alter the motor speed to correctly play back the content- which is the case for disc records and tapes. This creates unforgivable errors in phase coherency and waveform integrity. I don't know how so-called analog purists can tolerate such mutilation inflicted on their music! Have they ever heard a live musical performance at all? Or even just any musical instrument, even as played by a street beggar!? As for digital medias, this shouldn't have to be said, but anyone who would subject themselves to such rubbish isn't fit to have contact with civilized people, much less be allowed to touch a high-fidelity audio system. Throw those brutes back into the sanitariums where they belong!

The Edison Company correctly intuited the right medium for audio signal storage, the glorious wax cylinder, but men of such intellectual caliber are rare these days.

 

[Bucknekked]

A true audiophile would not dabble in such plebeian mediums. Vinyl, CD, Flac/WAV, MP3: each has its own unacceptable shortcomings. The only media that has come close to capturing the essence of real music is wax cylinders. There is a good reason why this medium was the fist choice of the Edison Company to record and store music. It has pure analog sound but without the need of the source player to alter the motor speed to correctly play back the content- which is the case for disc records and tapes. This creates unforgivable errors in phase coherency and waveform integrity. I don't know how so-called analog purists can tolerate such mutilation inflicted on their music! Have they ever heard a live musical performance at all? Or even just any musical instrument, even as played by a street beggar!? As for digital medias, this shouldn't have to be said, but anyone who would subject themselves to such rubbish isn't fit to have contact with civilized people, much less be allowed to touch a high-fidelity audio system. Throw those brutes back into the sanitariums where they belong!

The Edison Company correctly intuited the right medium for audio signal storage, the glorious wax cylinder, but men of such intellectual caliber are rare these days.

shadyj
I have long held you in high esteem. I take umbrage with your description of those who would accept Vinyl, CD, or digital files as plebian individuals of limited intellectual caliber. While I agree that wax rolls are indeed the gold standard of mediums, who could argue such a thing, there are remediating circumstances that should be considered before lumping people in to the plebian bin.

1) Was the individual ever allowed to listen to wax rolled recordings? I myself was never allowed the privilege. Am I damned to plebian status for being raised in a starched shirt home that only considered one viewpoint : the vinyl record?

2) Was the individual ever enlightened or taught about more highborn principals of audio? Again, I was never allowed to know about fancy monoblocks, or cables, or even CD's until they were everywhere.

I think if we give give allowance for the paucity of audio education available in many homes, I think we can allow more tolerance than just plebian individuals of limited intellectual caliber. Like myself, I am happy with the label of just being a member of the unwashed masses.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

shadyj
I have long held you in high esteem. I take umbrage with your description of those who would accept Vinyl, CD, or digital files as plebian individuals of limited intellectual caliber. While I agree that wax rolls are indeed the gold standard of mediums, who could argue such a thing, there are remediating circumstances that should be considered before lumping people in to the plebian bin.

1) Was the individual ever allowed to listen to wax rolled recordings? I myself was never allowed the privilege. Am I damned to plebian status for being raised in a starched shirt home that only considered one viewpoint : the vinyl record?

2) Was the individual ever enlightened or taught about more highborn principals of audio? Again, I was never allowed to know about fancy monoblocks, or cables, or even CD's until they were everywhere.

I think if we give give allowance for the paucity of audio education available in many homes, I think we can allow more tolerance than just plebian individuals of limited intellectual caliber. Like myself, I am happy with the label of just being a member of the unwashed masses.

I think you've missed the sarcasm in his post.

I've also agreed with BMXTrix WAV=FLAC=CD is a bit generalized and only covers red-book which is 16/44
You could have different formats using with wav file container and you also could have HD Flac file. So result would change in these cases.

Regardless generally speaking WAV is typically used with uncompressed digital audio (matching red-book spec) which is absolutely identical in sound to compressed, but lossless FLAC and CD

Cassettes are just bad, not matter what. Only thing which was good about these is their portability.

Vinyl records vs CDs - are hot subject for discussion elsewhere, but in general in AH. Records with tube amp is mostly nostalgia and could play distorted (but, pleasantly so) sound which many like.

Pure science/math is simple - properly recorded CD is superior to vinyl without any doubt.

 

[pewternhrata]

What about all this hi-res streaming. Before anything my preference is CD. I searched YouTube for hi res and it sounded pretty good, actually very good, however it was mostly instrumental and im assuming over produced. Quality and detail was crazy good. question is, why does sacd, hdCD, DVD audio seem to get shunned and not worth it over standard CD as it is said to be top dog?
I know source material is key, but those hi res audio files on YouTube were exceptional.

 

[Bucknekked]

I think you've missed the sarcasm in his post.

I've also agreed with BMXTrix WAV=FLAC=CD is a bit generalized and only covers red-book which is 16/44
You could have different formats using with wav file container and you also could have HD Flac file. So result would change in these cases.

Regardless generally speaking WAV is typically used with uncompressed digital audio (matching red-book spec) which is absolutely identical in sound to compressed, but lossless FLAC and CD

Cassettes are just bad, not matter what. Only thing which was good about these is their portability.

Vinyl records vs CDs - are hot subject for discussion elsewhere, but in general in AH. Records with tube amp is mostly nostalgia and could play distorted (but, pleasantly so) sound which many like.

Pure science/math is simple - properly recorded CD is superior to vinyl without any doubt.

oh, I got the humor and sarcasm. I appreciate every word he said. I also appreciate what you just wrote as well. I was trying to add some of my own. Humor is hit and miss sometimes.

 

[bobdehunt]

but those hi res audio files on YouTube were exceptional.

Youtube has a set bitrate of 98kbs if i remember correctly and that's mp3 too. Lately, YouTube has also been compressing the poop out of all the music on there in ord3r to make all the videos be around the same volume. Here's a link to compare different bitrates. A good DAC and decent headphones or good speakers are needed to tell the difference between some of the formats. https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

 

[lovinthehd]

Looking around youtube site a bit the only bitrate info I found related to uploads, where 128 kbps was suggested as CBR in AAC or MP3. Assume same is playback basis?

 

[bobdehunt]

Looking around youtube site a bit the only bitrate info I found related to uploads, where 128 kbps was suggested as CBR in AAC or MP3. Assume same is playback basis?

Probably. It was a while back that I looked. I just remember that it's far from CD quality or even a good mp3 quality. Mp3s at 360kbs aren't bad. I listen to them, but ultimately, i prefer CD quality or greater. The difference between 360kbs mp3 and a lossless file is subtle, but it's still noticeable to me.

 

[pewternhrata]

Youtube has a set bitrate of 98kbs if i remember correctly and that's mp3 too. Lately, YouTube has also been compressing the poop out of all the music on there in ord3r to make all the videos be around the same volume. Here's a link to compare different bitrates. A good DAC and decent headphones or good speakers are needed to tell the difference between some of the formats. https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Just used jdownloader on 2 'high res' files, came up as 125kbps 2 channel stereo 44.1khz

I should do a random 'old' uploaded file and see what it comes up with

 

[pewternhrata]

Also, with YouTube, isn't it up to the user who is uploading the video to choose the audio quality, I'm assuming YouTube has a max

 

[bobdehunt]

Also, with YouTube, isn't it up to the user who is uploading the video to choose the audio quality, I'm assuming YouTube has a max

You can upload in any quality, but youtube compresses it for streaming. I'm not sure if it's like soundcloud where you cam download the original uploaded file or if you get the compressed version if you have youtube red or something of that kind.

 

[pewternhrata]

You can upload in any quality, but youtube compresses it for streaming. I'm not sure if it's like soundcloud where you cam download the original uploaded file or if you get the compressed version if you have youtube red or something of that kind.

Makes sense. In the end, I prefer a cd, dont think I can argue in favor of any other form of media. I do like the convenience of streaming, soo much content available, I dont think I could afford I to buy every CD I want lol. The only thing with streaming is I would like to better see what the content is (bit rate, sampling) just bc I would like to know, with that said though, all that matters is that it sounds good. I typically goto the artist page when on youtube bc I trust that its uploaded correctly and with a good cut.

 

[sterling shoote]

What about all this hi-res streaming. Before anything my preference is CD. I searched YouTube for hi res and it sounded pretty good, actually very good, however it was mostly instrumental and im assuming over produced. Quality and detail was crazy good. question is, why does sacd, hdCD, DVD audio seem to get shunned and not worth it over standard CD as it is said to be top dog?
I know source material is key, but those hi res audio files on YouTube were exceptional.

I'm going to put my vote in for multi-channel SACD. I've got the gear to hear any format out there today and multi-channel SACD is literally the clear winner. It seems best in all manner that best can be discerned.