FLAC Vs. 320kbps


 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay so I decided to finally bother listening to a song in FLAC after always ripping music to 320kpbs mp3 or aac files. I compared the track and really could not hear any difference. The only difference I can see is about 25MB in file size.

Could anyone tell me if they have found any need of FLAC over 320kbps audio files?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lossless audio codecs are good for archiving music, that's about it.

I use 256Kbps VBR AAC, sounds fine to me and my uncle (who's an audio engineer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so I decided to finally bother listening to a song in FLAC after always ripping music to 320kpbs mp3 or aac files. I compared the track and really could not hear any difference. The only difference I can see is about 25MB in file size.

Could anyone tell me if they have found any need of FLAC over 320kbps audio files?

Thanks

Most people like to think they're having a better experience with FLAC. I have amazing sound quality with 128k AAC's.

Whatever people say, it's more than enough for me. Crisp, clear sound, has a negligible difference from the CD itself.

Lossless audio codecs are good for archiving music, that's about it.

True.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's mostly a placebo effect. I really can't tell the difference myself. As for the other thing, just curious but what is the point of archiving what you can't hear anyway? Seems like a huge waste of space to me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's mostly a placebo effect. I really can't tell the difference myself. As for the other thing, just curious but what is the point of archiving what you can't hear anyway? Seems like a huge waste of space to me. :)

Just so you can transcode to whatever format you want without losing quality. Converting from MP3/AAC to another format will start to lose quality. It's always better if you start from the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I re encoded a 48mb flac file (was in 849kbps quality) to 3mb MP3 VBR (Variable Bit Rate), and heard no differences.

So yeah, I don't see a need in flac when MP3 VBR gives the same results and much smaller file size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that it's lossless is good, of course, and as said is perfect for archiving or if you're about to digitize your CD collection. But I can't justify the much larger space it takes up compared to a high-quality VBR encoded MP3, not to mention my Zune doesn't support FLAC. I don't have the sound equipment to hear a difference either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you need to make sure you have good quality audio gear so you can actually hear the difference if there is one. Some people have different experiences so just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean there isn't one. I can hear a difference between 128kbps and 320kbps but beyond that I can't hear any difference. I have huge lossless wav files but they are just for the e-penis lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer 28k MP3's that have been compressed several times over. :p

What? :p

I encode at 320kbps AAC and it sounds fine. Anything lower than 256kbps and I can hear the difference.

Yeah, I always rip my cd's at 320kbps as it's good, I'll admit though, 256kbps still has a good quality, I can tell the difference sometimes but it's not much and unnoticable in normal earphones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lossless audio file formats (such as FLAC) are purpose-designed for archiving. The idea is that the FLAC-encoded files with an accompanying CUE sheet can be used to create an EXACT copy of the original audio CD. This is perfect in case you lose or damage your original CD or are paranoid about lending your CDs to other people. Moreover, a FLAC archive of a typical audio CD will take up about half the disk space of the original PCM audio stream.

MP3 is perfectly fine for general listening. Particularly if it has been ripped from the source using a good encoder (like LAME) and at a decent bitrate. Personally, I think even 320 kbps CBR is overkill. VBR V2 or V0 gives decent quality at a very good file size and should be more than sufficient for everyday listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even 320kbps mp3s are going to be overkill. Lossy codecs are generally transparent when set to variable bitrate at lower bitrates than you might expect.

The only honest (i.e. free from biases) way to confirm whether your ears are hearing a transparent encode or not is to conduct a blind ABX listening test. foobar2000 contains a free component to do blind ABX testing.

The useful purpose of lossless formats like FLAC is (like is said above) archiving, and to allow you to transcode to different lossy formats without having to re-rip.

Edited by shakey_snake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lossless audio file formats (such as FLAC) are purpose-designed for archiving. The idea is that the FLAC-encoded files with an accompanying CUE sheet can be used to create an EXACT copy of the original audio CD. This is perfect in case you lose or damage your original CD or are paranoid about lending your CDs to other people. Moreover, a FLAC archive of a typical audio CD will take up about half the disk space of the original PCM audio stream.

MP3 is perfectly fine for general listening. Particularly if it has been ripped from the source using a good encoder (like LAME) and at a decent bitrate. Personally, I think even 320 kbps CBR is overkill. VBR V2 or V0 gives decent quality at a very good file size and should be more than sufficient for everyday listening.

To be fair though I have made copies of my CD's with 320kbps mp3 files and heard no difference in quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair though I have made copies of my CD's with 320kbps mp3 files and heard no difference in quality.

of course, that is really to be expected. you can probably use a much lower bitrate and still be transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a copy of an album in mp3 320kbps and the same album in FLAC format - no apparent difference.

But what does it matter when you listen to the noise i do :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with 128kbps ?

Is there any reason to mess around with decoding (or whatever the term is) when all you want is to listen to your favourite band ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair though I have made copies of my CD's with 320kbps mp3 files and heard no difference in quality.

I never said that there is any 'discernable' difference between 320 kbps MP3 and FLAC (although some 'golden-eared' audiophiles would disagree). I don't see the point of listening to music in FLAC anyway (unless I've been too lazy to compress it to MP3 :D ).

My point is that a FLAC audio stream and its accompanying CUE sheet can be used to create an exact copy of the original while this can never be accomplished with MP3s of the same data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ewwww @ all the 320kbps in here.

V0 baby.

What's so bad about 320kbps? Is it because a constant bitrate is inefficient, or other reasons? I'm asking out of interest; I'm not disagreeing with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so bad about 320kbps? Is it because a constant bitrate is inefficient, or other reasons? I'm asking out of interest; I'm not disagreeing with you.

It's just inefficient space wise.

The reason Variable bit rate is better is because silence/quiet parts of a song aren't encoded in 320Kbps, the bitrate will dip for these parts. They don't need to be encoded in 320. Who wants to listen to silence at that bitrate? :p

It's not that there's anything wrong with the quality of 320, you'll just save yourself hard drive space and be more effecient with V0 (highest quality Variable Bit Rate).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ewwww @ all the 320kbps in here.

V0 baby.

It's just inefficient space wise.

The reason Variable bit rate is better is because silence/quiet parts of a song aren't encoded in 320Kbps, the bitrate will dip for these parts. They don't need to be encoded in 320. Who wants to listen to silence at that bitrate? :p

It's not that there's anything wrong with the quality of 320, you'll just save yourself hard drive space and be more effecient with V0 (highest quality Variable Bit Rate).

+1 V0 for the win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.