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!

[Andre S. Veteran]

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.

MP3 at 128kbps typically cuts off at 16khz or even less. You can see this just by opening any random file in Audacity and doing the frequency histogram. Human hearing is sensitive at up to 20khz, so there's definitely a loss of audible information there.

[fusi0n]

you called me a liar & i have every right to defend myself so here is my proof 

 

proof.jpg

 

 

so nice try mr assume

Congratulations. Your mom must be so proud :P 

[Boo Berry]

MP3 at 128kbps typically cuts off at 16khz or even less. You can see this just by opening any random file in Audacity and doing the frequency histogram. Human hearing is sensitive at up to 20khz, so there's definitely a loss of audible information there.

Exactly. That's why I wish the standard was at least 24-bit/48kHz instead of 16-bit/44.1kHz.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Exactly. That's why I wish the standard was at least 24-bit/48kHz instead of 16-bit/44.1kHz.

A 44.1khz sampling rate is enough to perfectly reproduce up to 22khz signals which amply covers the human hearing range.

[Andre S. Veteran]

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.

That's why professional cameras support a lossless format too ("RAW").

[seta-san]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TlQo9k827c

 

lossless rips of shittily mixed and engineered music is still going to be ######.

[Digit12345]

http://mp3ornot.com/

Give it a go yourself, Not so easy now when you don't have the kb/s or .mp3 on front of you is it ?

 

Can't get this working in latest Firefox or Chromium.

 

Anyhow, I have to admit that I cannot reliably tell the difference between the 320 kbps and 128 kbps samples on that website.

 

However, with that said, the 3 different song snippets chosen for the test don't exhibit sound qualities that would be very pronounced going from 128 kbps to 320 kbps (or even a lossless of the original). The frequencies are heavily attenuated towards the high end and moderately towards the low end. Here's an EQ snapshot of the jazzy piece.

 

 

 

You're just not going to hear much of a difference if at all because these genres aren't exactly pushing the limits of human hearing. Turn up the volume on something with a more balanced spectrum (e.g. a lot of EDM) and you may just hear the unwanted distortion, lack of "air", and cloudiness of the low end in a 128kbps mix given some decent equipment (anything midrange).

 

And as some people have already mentioned, having a lossless copy of your music ensures flexibility in the long run. You can convert it to any new standard lossless/lossy format that comes along.

 

And if you're working with anything audio related, it's always ideal to start off with the highest quality possible. A bit of a niche example but I do some music production and if I wanted to slow the tempo down on a sample, it sounds like crap if it's low bitrate (kinda like trying to watch a 30 fps video in slow motion).

[Guest]

 

Considering that site has multiple samples im guessing you failed the first test and abandoned it in fear of losing your golden ears.

 

#MasterRace :rofl:

[Darrian]

I use 256kbps AAC and I can't tell the difference.  I considered ripping all my CDs to FLAC "just because," but it's just not worth it to me to have that much space taken up on my hard drive.  It would be nice to have in case a better codec comes out in the future, so you can convert from lossless, but you'd better have the cash to buy the storage for it, which I don't.

[bigmehdi]

That's why professional cameras support a lossless format too ("RAW").

Lossless can be justified for editing purpose, the end viewer will still get a "lossy" encoded video .

[Lord Method Man]

Yeah if storage space isn't an issue than there's no reason not to go with FLAC.

[tiagosilva29]

Lossless is always worth it if you have the right equipment.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

MP3 at 128kbps typically cuts off at 16khz or even less. You can see this just by opening any random file in Audacity and doing the frequency histogram. Human hearing is sensitive at up to 20khz, so there's definitely a loss of audible information there.

Depending on your age, we start losing the very high frequency ranges by the time we're around 20. I'm 27 and my hearing maxes out at around 18 kHz.

Human hearing also isn't linear, it's most sensitive to frequencies under 8 kHz because they're used for human speech. I'm not saying we don't use higher frequency noise, it's just not as important to us as lower frequency noise.

Also, MP3 sucks.

[jesseinsf]

.flac is very worth it if you have a 24 bit audio collection. I also think flac has very superior tagging. Yes it's bigger than mp3 but it retains the original quality very well. And Plus it's an open source format. Every media player on the planet (Accept WMP and iTune/QuickTime) will play flac.

 

 

24 bit Audio note:

also to play true 24 bit audio you need an audio interface (USB audio or PCI card audio) where it's driver can pass a 32 bit audio file through the PCI interface which then hads it to the audio hardware which will down-convert the bit depth to 24 bit for the DAC to play it. (Unless you have a 32 bit DAC). The reason for this is the PCI interface understands 16bit, 32 bit and 64 bit. When playing a 24 bit audio file, the hardware end seems to receive a 16 bit version of that file and then up-converts the file back to 24 bit. We all know that we lose quality that can never be recovered when we down-convert. So if the audio driver can take a 32 bit file and pass it through the PCI interface and then pass it to the hardware at the other end which will then down-convert to the original bit depth which never loses quality from the original.

[Shiranui]

For the kind of music that most people listen to, the difference is negligible. An mp3 encoded at a high, variable bitrate, at the highest quality setting with LAME or something will still be smaller than FLAC and be of comparable quality.

The only FLACs I have are of classical music.

[DeusProto]

FLAC is very much worth it

 

I have hundreds of BD-Rs full of 24bit 96kHz [some 192kHz] of HDTracks releases, professionally ADC'd vinyl transfers done with the highest quality cartridges, tonearm, ADC, interconnects, and also they have DSD music all encoded to FLAC except for DSD since its not yet possible with FLAC. 

 

I check the spectrum of all music I purchase in Adobe Audition to make sure its of full fidelity. 

 

I stopped using Mp3 over a decade ago. This was way before ALAC, WMA Lossless, retail sale of lossless music or 24bit [HDtracks] I switched over and ripped my music collection in secure EAC over a decade ago. 

 

I am hoping FLAC adds support for DSD eventually. As I believe DSD superior to PCM.

 

On my monitors [thats professional speakers, not displays] I can hear the differences clearly. 

 

The only thing that becomes hard to hear a difference is PCM vs DSD or 96kHz vs 192. 

 

No, you can't hear above 44kHz... but due to poor mastering, human error, there can be excess dithering or other issues that ruin 16-22kHz per channel and 96kHz gives you a much higher ceiling where these errors become inaudible. 

[trieste]

Of course you can. Do not listen to commercial crap. Listen to psychedelic trance, or balearic downtempo, or something similar where the actual use of high and low frequencies have a purpose. Oh, and use something that can reproduce the sounds properly, not your average Beats crap.

 

It used to be a given within LAME mp3 development circles that they had to be intentional in encoding electronic sounds correctly, because these have distinctly different characteristics from the sounds produced by physical instruments. Especially so if the point of using electronic sounds in some genres was not to imitate the sounds of real instruments.

 

mp3 as a format also struggles a LOT with pre-echo. So some people will hear smeary cymbals up till 320 kbps (but they back up their claims with successful ABX results, like guruboolez from hydrogenaudio once did).

 

 

MP3 at 128kbps typically cuts off at 16khz or even less. You can see this just by opening any random file in Audacity and doing the frequency histogram. Human hearing is sensitive at up to 20khz, so there's definitely a loss of audible information there.

"Frequency histogram" -- do you listen with your ears or eyes?

 

Your conclusion is a very classic case of confirmation bias... the only valid way to test your assertion is to ABX, which uses your ears.

 

 

Exactly. That's why I wish the standard was at least 24-bit/48kHz instead of 16-bit/44.1kHz.

No CD makes use of the full 16-bit range, because no speakers can reproduce the difference between a whisper (softer than a whisper even; air draft maybe) and a jet engine 1 metre away.

 

Vinyl itself, if it reaches 11-bits, is excellent already in terms of dynamic range, and clearly less functional than Red Book even before we talk about physical limitations of the human hearing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range#Audio

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/vinyl-dynamic-range-questions.217444/

 

48 kHz sampling is only useful in the realm of audio processing, as it allows for filters to be built with a gentler cut-off (between 20 kHz and 24 kHz, instead of between 20 kHz and 22.05 kHz for 44.1 kHz sampling). That is the ONLY (indirect) benefit to consumers... nothing at all to do with having bat or dog ears.

[Andre S. Veteran]

"Frequency histogram" -- do you listen with your ears or eyes?

 

Your conclusion is a very classic case of confirmation bias... the only valid way to test your assertion is to ABX, which uses your ears.

It's a proven fact that human hearing is sensitive to up to 20khz, and many people can tell the difference between a track that's been lowpassed at 16khz and one that's not. In fact that's typically how people recognize 128kbps MP3 from 320 - they'll tell you the highs sound flatter, and get it correctly on blind tests. Not everyone has good hearing in that range and it diminishes with age, but definitely some people can clearly tell the difference. Just because you (or I, for that matter) can't tell the difference on an ABX test doesn't invalidate everyone else's research.

[blerk]

The difference for me on my current setup (cheap Sony headphones) between MP3 and FLAC is not too noticeable - somewhat obvious when listening for the  differences and more obvious when playing MP3 after a FLAC, but fine for casual use (clipping of the extremities, etc really doesn't have too much of an effect on everyday listening for me). 

 

I still rip and store all music in FLAC. Storage is cheap and I consider ripping files in FLAC sorta as an investment for the future when I do upgrade my speakers. Also, if I ever want to change the format of my music (for whatever reason), I'd rather start from a high quality lossless rip over a high-quality MP3. 

 

Just my two cents. 

[:B: Rex]

judging from all the responses here we could be arguing this forever.

those of us that can hear a difference will never be able to change the way some people perceive the music

 

alot has to do with the actual source material. alot of sources aren't too good to begin with.

ive had many Lp's and cd's that just sounded like crap, so converting those to flac won't make much difference.

and there are even different compression levels to flac, so just because it is flac doesnt mean it is uncompressed.

 

for me if you have good source material flac always sounds more like the actual original recording.

more spaciousness, more airy, more width to the music.

mp3,s flatten out the sound for me and you lose much of the ambience.

 

this is more apparent in conversions of light jazz and classical music. heavy rock has so much going on it is hard to hear the separation even with flac.

i do find a very tiny difference between 192kbps to 320kbps but not enough to make much difference. even tho not much i still prefer 320 over 192

by the time its compressed this level most of the difference has been wiped out.

 

for me using good headphones flac can sound better, but only if the original source is good quality and your not using some crappy player

i think using a good quality sound card makes a difference on a pc. onboard sound has been terrible even on todays new motherboards.

[trieste]

It's a proven fact that human hearing is sensitive to up to 20khz, and many people can tell the difference between a track that's been lowpassed at 16khz and one that's not. In fact that's typically how people recognize 128kbps MP3 from 320 - they'll tell you the highs sound flatter, and get it correctly on blind tests. Not everyone has good hearing in that range and it diminishes with age, but definitely some people can clearly tell the difference. Just because you (or I, for that matter) can't tell the difference on an ABX test doesn't invalidate everyone else's research.

It's a proven fact that human hearing is sensitive to up to 20khz for pure test tones (sine waves). In music, higher frequencies are effectively masked for the vast majority of humans, because:

1) instruments don't output that much high freq in the first place

2) our sense of hearing is very insensitive to high freq (i.e. need to boost the volume to hear the same loudness as a lower freq tone)

3) research has repeatedly shown that louder sounds block out softer sounds (i.e. lower freqs will mask higher freqs easily)

 

If you can NEVER hear it, and you won't with age, why insist on overkill unless you really have access to so much hard disk space for archival use?

 

No one is invalidating anyone's research here. I am invalidating your use of the frequency histogram (spectrogram) to assert a hearing difference with your eyes before you reached for the ABX tool to confirm the hearing difference with your ears.

[T3X4S]

I have some of the best headphones on the market (Beats by Dr. Dre) and I can't really tell a difference between FLAC and MP3 at all.

LOL - those arent even in the top 50 of best headphones on the market...trust me.

[123456789A]

LOL - those arent even in the top 50 of best headphones on the market...trust me.

 

Someone who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about...

 

1) Beats were engineered and designed by Dr. Dre. He has a doctorate in music. What do you have?

2) Beats have 4th order low pass filter that nobody else has.

3) Beats are the most stylish on the market.

4) Beats are able to stimulate RCH (reserve capacity hearing) which means it increases the ability of the human ear to hear a wider range of frequencies, like magic.

5) Beats are iPhone® and iPod® compatible and certified.

 

Now let's see your Soundheizers or Bose match even one of those features.

[Starbuck84]

Like many have said here: there are just to many factors at play here. Genre, sound system, your own ears, et cetera.

 

To answer the OP: for me it's worth it, but not for my own music collection. I have all my music CD's ripped to AAC - 400kbps. Why? 50% less space, AAC plays on all my devices and compared to FLAC I just can't hear the difference, I really can't. But I also have a Deezer and Qobuz streaming service. If I listen to Deezer (HQ, which is supposedly 320kbps MP3) I can clearly tell the difference compared to Qobuz (which streams in FLAC). The most simple test of all is to just take an original CD and rip it to different formats and put all files in a playlist and press shuffle. Listen closely and if you think you can hear a difference, than check what format you're listening to. Just an idea. :)

 

_{For anyone who must know, this is what I listen to: headphone and amp.}

[trieste]

Someone who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about...

 

1) Beats were engineered and designed by Dr. Dre. He has a doctorate in music. What do you have?

2) Beats have 4th order low pass filter that nobody else has.

3) Beats are the most stylish on the market.

4) Beats are able to stimulate RCH (reserve capacity hearing) which means it increases the ability of the human ear to hear a wider range of frequencies, like magic.

5) Beats are iPhone® and iPod® compatible and certified.

 

Now let's see your Soundheizers or Bose match even one of those features.

In Soviet Russia, music has a doctorate in Dr. Dre.