Is FLAC worth it?

[KeeperOfThePizza]

 Is flac really at all worth it? is there a noticeably big difference or is it minimal? I have 500watt sound system with sub. Just wondering if that format is worth it or not. Thanks!

[TPreston]

just compare to regular mp3 with the same file. its clear, clean, smooth. i was dont believe what people said about FLAC back then, but after i hear it by myself, man its the best quality you ever heard, some people said, its even greater if you have a classic vinyl

Use ABX Comparator!

 

 

Contrary to extensive proof that our listening is not as good as what we would like to think, a small group of people continue to believe they have golden ears.

These are the same people who will tell you that their entire music library is encoded in nothing less than FLAC or (insert any other lossless codec) because anything of a poorer quality and their (insert exorbitantly expensive, high-end audio equipment) will reveal imperfections.

This is an excellent example of what I?m on about. A member posts his findings with regards to FLAC vs 320Kbps MP3. He does a blind test and concludes he cannot accurately determine the differences between a FLAC and 320Kbps MP3 recording. Low and and behold, a member chimes in saying that with a high-end DAC, he can pretty much tell which is which ?90+%? of the time.

Personally, my view of these people who say that they can tell the difference because of their high-end audio equipment are just elitists trying their very best to find ways to justify their expensive purchases.

I?m a pretty open-minded chap, but when there?s pretty compelling proof on the Internet that man cannot hear as good as we?d like to think, it?s hard not to be skeptical. 

24/192 Music Downloads ... and why they make no sense

Concluding the Great MP3 Bitrate Experiment

ABX Test of 320Kbps vs FLAC

Results of Sound Quality Test 128 vs 320 - more people thought Clip 2 (128Kbps) sounded better

Still skeptical? Why not try these tests for yourself?

WAV vs. MP3

128Kbps vs. 320Kbps

ABX Test: 128Kbps vs 320Kbps

Could you accurately and repeatedly tell the difference?

MP3 has been around for a very long time now and today?s encoders are becoming increasingly efficient at compressing music. And since hard disk space can be had for cheap, my personal take is that 192Kbps will more than suffice. You can go higher if you wish, but since I can't accurately tell the difference and my primary computer is a notebook which makes upgrading its hard disk a real hassle, I would just be wasting hard disk space.

Anyhow, since audio is a matter of personal tastes and since no one can agree on the proper way of testing the golden ear claim, if you strongly believe yourself to have superior hearing, well, more power to you. That said, I think Jeff Atwood sums it up best in his Great MP3 Bitrate Experiment, ?On the Internet, nobody knows you?re a dog?.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/blog-so-you-think-you-have-golden-ears

[AndyMutz]

i tried blind listening tests once and i could not distinguish 160 kbits mp3 from flac.

however i still keep my complete cd collection as flac rips, because knowing that my rips have perfect quality lets me sleep well at night ;), and because hdd space is cheap.

 

 -andy-

[Ace]

The main advantage of FLAC (and other lossless audio formats) is that you can transcode to lossy formats like AAC and MP3 without losing quality each time.

[Boo Berry]

Or to other lossless formats (FLAC to ALAC and vice versa).

[bigmehdi]

I can't say I can hear always the difference between mp3 & flac, but I can't ensure that every mp3 are properly encoded.

Mp3  encoders were in the past very bad,  but then evolved , and now most people  can't tell the difference (Lame encoder, is considered today to be a reference).

So , just to have the feeling to listen the right thing, I "must" have a lossless copy.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

The main advantage of FLAC (and other lossless audio formats) is that you can transcode to lossy formats like AAC and MP3 without losing quality each time.

 

Have you checked that with our resident sound quality/placebo experts? /sarcasm

[Guest]

Yes absolutely.

 

Unless you listen to ######, like commercial music.

[cork1958]

if you can't hear the difference between vinyl and mp3 you might as well quit talking about music. 

 

just because you go blind one day doesn't mean you can read braille. it takes a trained ear to appreciate the quality and dynamic range provided by a good vinyl press 

 

lossless is generally much better especially since we all have enough space on our large HDD. the problem with flac is you can't really play it on popular devices. its kinda just for playing on the computer and speakers attached to it. 

If you're talking the quality of music between an old, scratched up album and a newly ripped mp3 from a cd, then yes, there's definitely a difference there, but otherwise, IMO, flac is next to useless and nothing more than a space hog!!

 

And it is this attitude of audiosnobs that makes "audiophile" an increasingly derogatory term and the same time lets ignorance run rampant. Be ashamed of yourself at once.

 

Couldn't agree with that statement anymore than I already am! :)

 

I'll admit my hearing isn't as good as it once was, but still  not totally deaf! I have 2 very high end stereos in the house and a couple very good one's in each of my vehicles. I have burned flac cd's and high quality mp3's of the same titles and listened to each, one after the other, in all 4 stereos and can not hear a lick of difference!

 

You CAN NOT make a disc sound any better than it originally did, unless it was already some cheap quality rip to begin with!

[protocol7]

The main advantage of FLAC (and other lossless audio formats) is that you can transcode to lossy formats like AAC and MP3 without losing quality each time.

 

This is one big reason to use it.

 

Because I rip my CDs to FLAC I can convert tracks to any format I want later without having to re-rip the disc.

 

On-the-go I listen to music on my phone so FLAC would be a waste of space there. I find that AAC is perfectly fine and I'm snobby when it comes to compression.

[bigmehdi]

If you're talking the quality of music between an old, scratched up album and a newly ripped mp3 from a cd, then yes, there's definitely a difference there, but otherwise, IMO, flac is next to useless and nothing more than a space hog!!

 

No I'm talking of the bad quality you could get from the old Xing ripper. I  remind encoding an album at 256 kps, thinking it was a safe setting, and then  listening again to the original album , I realized that this encoder was crap. I  revised my opinion with mp3, after using the Lame encoder. Also there's a problem of transcoding, if you get stuff illegally;  it happens that some mp3 are encoded many times, which contribute to the bad reputation of mp3.

[theyarecomingforyou]

In an ideal world of course you would use FLAC, especially as storage capacity becomes less of an issue over time. However, for all intents and purposes high quality MP3 files (320k) are the better choice. They are better supported, take up less space and the quality difference is virtually?if not completely?indiscernible. A lot of people choose to listen to music on their phones and given the limited storage space FLAC just isn't practical, nor is converting files to MP3 just for mobile use.

 

As always, the biggest difference you can make is with the sound equipment itself. It's pointless arguing over FLAC and MP3 if your sound system isn't up to the job. The best thing I did for my music setup was moving over to studio monitors and reference-grade headphones - no more exaggerated bass, muffled frequency crossover points and non-existent top-end. Even now I can't discern a difference between FLAC and high quality MP3, though it's very easy to discern between 192k and 320k.

 

Is FLAC the better quality option? Absolutely. Is it worth it? Not for most people.

[bigmehdi]

I'd take adavantage of this thread, to show a picture about lossless that makes me  laugh:

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I always find it funny how these discussions come down to FLAC vs. MP3, you've got a format that's designed to accurately represent sounds outside of the human range of hearing (Your dog thanks you) vs. "state of the art" audio compression from 20 years ago. If you're archiving then sure, use FLAC (You can then transcode to a good format like AAC easily, don't bother with MP3), but otherwise it's pointless. The whole point of audio compression is to remove data that humans physically can't hear, doesn't matter how good you think your headphones are, your ear can't pick it up.

Imagine an image format that could accurately store visible and non-visible light, useful for processing, but even if your monitor could show it, you can't see it.

[bigmehdi]

 However, for all intents and purposes high quality MP3 files (320k) are the better choice.

 

320 kps is truely a waste of space, and actually have less sense than lossless (lossless is original "untouched" copy. 320 kps is not "untouched", and still takes lot space , around half of flac ) .  Using VBR (variable bit rate), is more optimized to save space.

[Ace]

Imagine an image format that could accurately store visible and non-visible light, useful for processing, but even if your monitor could show it, you can't see it.

 

A better comparison to FLAC and MP3, would be PNG vs JPG.

 

Every time you save a JPG you are losing information and eventually this will become noticeable. PNGs (and other lossless image formats) can be saved an infinite number of times with affecting the image quality.

[francescob]

FLAC = 1:1 copy of the original. Considering how fast some CDs and DVDs can die keeping an exact copy is not a bad idea at all, even if in the future FLAC will no longer exists there will always be alternatives (like AAC lossless). Of course if we strictly talk about listening FLAC can be mostly just a waste of space and CPU power (and battery power on mobile devices) so it's always better to keep it just for backup and use an automatic lossy conversion for what you store on your music player.

[+devHead Subscriber²]

I have to say, one, if you mention that you have a 500w sound system, you haven't bought a good sound system.  Only stereo systems that are sub-par use the wattage to attract buyers.  Using more than 100 watts would be so loud that your speakers would explode, or you would go deaf.  But if you mention what brand you have (what speakers - not whether you have a sub), then we could give a better idea.  Most likely then, I would say you will hear no difference between high VBR MP3 audio and FLAC (or any other lossless format).  

 

On the other hand, I have a good stereo system, and my PC has an Asus Xonar Essence STX sound card. So, I can tell the difference between MP3s and FLAC audio.

[Andre S. Veteran]

The whole point of audio compression is to remove data that humans physically can't hear, doesn't matter how good you think your headphones are, your ear can't pick it up.

That's quite inaccurate. The point of compression in general is to store the same information using less bytes; ideally this does not involve removing any information. Lossy compression creates an approximation of the original information that attemps to retain as much subjective quality as possible, but whether that creates noticeable artifacts or not depends highly on the target bitrate. At 32kbps even Opus will sound terrible.

 

I find the "you can't tell the difference" argument unconvincing; it's not because I can't consciously tell the difference (not that I'm trying to, anyway) that I'm not getting lower quality sound with lossy compression. This may unconsciously affect my enjoyment of it.

 

Anyway, I always use lossless compression unless I have no other option; why go for anything else than the original master?

[TPreston]

On the other hand, I have a good stereo system, and my PC has an Asus Xonar Essence STX sound card. So, I can tell the difference between MP3s and FLAC audio.

Me too and I cant even tell the difference between 320 and 128 mp3. You are all being fooled by confirmation bias. The only way to determine if you can hear the difference is with ABX Comparator. Not by double clicking on each file.

 

Concluding the Great MP3 Bitrate Experiment

ABX Test of 320Kbps vs FLAC

Results of Sound Quality Test 128 vs 320 - more people thought Clip 2 (128Kbps) sounded better

Still skeptical? Why not try these tests for yourself?

WAV vs. MP3

128Kbps vs. 320Kbps

ABX Test: 128Kbps vs 320Kbps

Human judgment is as flawed as our hearing is.

 

[ViperAFK]

Main advantage of FLAC is archival and being able to transcode to any other format without losing additional quality each time its transcoded. I highly doubt most people can hear the difference between FLAC and a properly encoded MP3 or AAC, except for edge cases with extremely high end audio equipment (although many often claim to, but rarely back it up with ABX testing).

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Is FLAC worth it to use it as main audio format?

In my opinion, no.

Is FLAC worth to download and then convert from FLAC to another audio format?

Yes.

The reasons for that is simple. It's because of a new audio format that went standard in 2012. It's called OPUS and you can read more about it here and here. Now, take a listen to the audio samples in the last link. That's something i call impressive :).

The downside of using OPUS is that very few devices supports it. Android doesn't even supports it out of the box. You have to download another music player for Android that have to support the format. But more and more music players is starting to support the format.

Except for that, OPUS will be my new standard in audio format when i'm downloading musics in the FLAC format and then converts it. Earlier i would just convert those to MP3's, but now they will be converted to OPUS instead.

OPUS is much better than MP3 in pretty much every possible ways.

[vcfan]

All of my CDs are ripped to WAV. The only time i listen to less quality music,like using Xbox Music is only to sample music before buying and ripping. And yes i can tell the difference between CDQ and 320kbps MP3 even on crummy old earplugs.

[bigmehdi]

 

This may unconsciously affect my enjoyment of it.

 

I think that's the whole point, and this actually might just be placebo. Do people make a fuss when they look at jpeg pictures ? Nope, but it's still lossy. Sometimes , this endless quest for "perfect audio" is a bit absurd, and might just hide some kind of OCD.

[theyarecomingforyou]

320 kps is truely a waste of space, and actually have less sense than lossless (lossless is original "untouched" copy. 320 kps is not "untouched", and still takes lot space , around half of flac ) .  Using VBR (variable bit rate), is more optimized to save space.

I'm well aware of VBR but there are varying degrees of quality, some of which are discernable from 320k. It was easier for me to refer to 320k, which is a fixed quality level, than saying LAME VBR -alt-preset extreme and confusing the matter.

[webdev511]

Me too and I cant even tell the difference between 320 and 128 mp3. You are all being fooled by confirmation bias. The only way to determine if you can hear the difference is with ABX Comparator. Not by double clicking on each file.

Human judgment is as flawed as our hearing is.

Is Ripping to FLAC worth it? Yes. Is using FLAC as a primary listening format worth it? The depends on a lot of different things which have already been discussed here.

If the source is a CD, telling the difference between 320k MP3 and FLAC is a 50/50 at best. If the source is HD Audio 96/24 or better, I can tell the difference almost 90% of the time. This is on my Fiio X3 with UE 7 Pro CIEM (Custom In Ear Monitors).

So using it as a playback format it depends on your end to end audio equipment, how good your hearing is, how well you know the source material and the quality of the source material.

It's different for everyone, but as an archival/source format: Yep, FLAC is worth it.