[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Click for more| Home]

Is there any difference in sound quality between FLAC and say

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 136
Thread images: 17

File: flac.png (10KB, 262x130px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
flac.png
10KB, 262x130px
Is there any difference in sound quality between FLAC and say a 320kbps mp3? If not, why should I be using FLAC?
>>
FLAC is for hipsters and douchebags

you won't notice any difference.
>>
File: 1385743687307.png (134KB, 502x375px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1385743687307.png
134KB, 502x375px
>>42885441
>>42885463
le ebin samefag troll
>>
Yes, even at 320kbps, MP3 employs destructive psychoacoustics. FLAC decodes identical to its source.
>>
File: 1404159926857.gif (796KB, 320x286px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1404159926857.gif
796KB, 320x286px
>>42885479
> call him a samefag
> contribute nothing
/g/ saves the day
>>
>>42885512
>calls himself him
>>
>you'll never get lame 3.100

feels bad man
>>
>>42885520
>greentext
>implying
/g/ does it again
>>
>>42885441
The only reason u use flac is if you are a dj or a playbacker
>>
use flac when you want to backup your cds to digital format, use 320kb/s for your portable or casual listening, you probably won't be able to hear the difference unless you're an "audiophile" autist.
>>
>>42885441
>Is there any difference in sound quality between FLAC and say a 320kbps mp3?
yes
>>
>>42885441
storing for future.Even at 320kbps it still lose detail faster.
>>
>>42885559
this
>>
FLAC can be transcoded into any other codec, while 320kbps can not. In fact, you wont know any difference if you bump down to V0 either.
>>
FLAC is lossless and therefore can withstand those tough years on you HDD. In terms of audio quality there is a difference for those who have dedicated audio equipment but for the everyday listener such as YOU and I there wont be any noticeable difference.
>>
you won't notice shit above 192kbps
>inb4 graphs by buttblasted audiophiles
thanks for proving my point
>>
File: 1387574286669.jpg (60KB, 500x586px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1387574286669.jpg
60KB, 500x586px
>>42885540
>implies
>doesn't imply
>>
>>42885511
>destructive psychoacoustics

>uses headphones
>but muh frequency cut
only asspergers think that
>>
>>42885587
> FLAC can be transcoded into any other codec, while 320kbps can not
why would you ever have to transcode anyway?

mp3 is ubiquitous and it's not like you have to re-encode and compress the file every time you transfer it to a device.
>>
>>42885441
Well, yeah.
Flac encoded files are completely lossless meaning no sound quality is lost during the encoding.
320kbps mp3's are lossy and running at 320 kilobytes per second. Lossy basicsally means it's almost lossless but not fully.

Honestly if you can't tell the difference between either codecs you may as well just listen to mp3, It'll be more convenient for you. I prefer listening to Flac files simply for the clarity, but I do listen to mp3's when I can't find a Flac torrent with good seeds.
>>
It's only worth using FLAC if you have the equipment to take advantage of it. If you're using cheap speakers or headphones you won't notice a difference.

With good audio hardware the difference is very minimal (but it's there), and since storage space and download times aren't an object for me I just download everything in a lossless format.
>>
>>42885592
>>>/g/
>>
>>42885594

I should have known from the moment I saw you using "muh" in your argument that your post will be nothing but retardation and wrong facts.

What do headphones and frequency cuts have to do with losing audio quality while encoding to the lossy MP3 format? Do you think MP3 works just by cutting of everything above a certain frequency?
>>
FLAC is only nice if you have the equipment needed to hear the difference. If you're just going to be using a standard, stock 3.5 mm jack in your PC, the difference is barely noticeable, if at all. If you're gonna listen to it on your phone, there really is no point unless it has a high end DAC.
to;dr: you have to have spent a fuck load of money in equipment to enjoy FLAC. Or you can delude yourself into thinking you're getting better quality out of it. [SPOILER]Like me.[/SPOILER]
>>
>>42886055
>If you're just going to be using a standard, stock 3.5 mm jack in your PC, the difference is barely noticeable, if at all.
jack size has no influence on sound quality

please don't post if you don't know what you're talking about
>>
>>42886087
No, I know jack size has no effect on quality, but I was talking about the actual component driving the audio, i.e. a shitty built in audio chip. Compared to an actual audio card, it's gonna make the sound utter shit.
>>
If you listen to it in a car or on regular headphones or cheap stereos - no
You need to spend a lot of money on speakers/amplifier to notice the difference. If you afford that, you can afford the storage for it.
>>
>>42886186
>Compared to an actual audio card, it's gonna make the sound utter shit.

No, it won't. Stop believing the audiophile placebo stories.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-19.html
>>
>>42886242
>stop believing placebo stories
Well, I've experienced the "placebo" myself.
But, fair enough. I can't argue with objective tests done by professionals, and at the end of the day, FLAC (and high end equipment) is just personal preference, even if it is heavily placebo influenced.
>>
>>42885441
Yes, but you can't hear the difference.
>>
>>42885729
>uses Web Developer Tools to fake screenshot for samefagging
>>
about 5
>>
File: 1404759208571.gif (3MB, 255x191px)
1404759208571.gif
3MB, 255x191px
>>42887512
> two hours later
> comes back to get the last word
>>
File: 1387551473957.jpg (17KB, 342x336px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1387551473957.jpg
17KB, 342x336px
>>42887763
cleaning up tabs
>>
>>42887832
you seriously leave a tab open for each site you visit?
>>
File: 1398763788320.jpg (146KB, 334x500px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1398763788320.jpg
146KB, 334x500px
>>42887852
"I will surely review this later"
>>
>>42885566
>loses detail faster
You know that was a joke right?
>>
Archival, better for editing, will be good to have once a better lossy codec e.g. Vorbis becomes more mainstream

Not really meant for improved listening, but hey, if you have it available to listen to, why the hell not
>>
>>42885559
why not just use flac?

On a side note, is their a loseless format which is small?
>>
>mp3
>not glorious Opus

>>42887964
>>
>>42885441
In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state digital audio players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not all. Some support the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and may not even support MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid these patents. To call such players “MP3 players” is not only confusing, it also privileges the MP3 that we ought to reject. We suggest the terms “digital audio player,” or simply “audio player” if context permits.
>>
>>42888249
analog
>>
90% of the time, no. You can hear some minor differences if you know what you're listening for but I can only hear them on my monitors, a couple of open back hifi headphones and Shure SE535's, even then, it's not really a problem.

I usually use FLAC for archiving and home listening but, as I don't really have that many songs in my library (it's 80GB but the stuff I listen to regularly is only around 40GB), it makes no sense to compress it for my portable players. The other advantage of FLAC is that it's easier to search for than 320kbs mp3s.
>>
>>42885559
or use 64kbps HE-AAC for portable
>>
>>42888448
>tfw 2,750 songs on my shitty 32GB i5
>no gapless playback for anything except ALAC

why the hell did I buy this thing
>>
File: BR.png (4KB, 191x38px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
BR.png
4KB, 191x38px
>2014
>not listening to music with a higher bitrate than the average total for a YIFY encode.
>>
>>42885559
>>42888470

Don't forget about Opus :^)


>>42885682

You mean kilobits, not kilobytes.
>>
>>42888487
>i5

Forgive my ignorance, what player is that? Do you mean an iPhone 5? Personally, I just use a Clip+ because I don't want to risk my phone in an outside pocket if it rains or I crash the motorcycle.
>>
>>42888431
well
depends on how you look at it
>>
>>42885441
He, OP. Let me clarify this for you.

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.
>>
>mp3
>cbr

pls no

I'll even take wma over this shit
>>
In some uncommon signals it is noticeable, but you need good stereo speakers and subwoofwoofer and good soundcard which can output that 192kbps flac. Sometimes you can notice difference in low freq, but the hi freq is more noticeable.
Sometimes the MP3 is so ducked up, that even with 320kbps anything over 16khz is ripped off, as you can see in spectrum analyzer with player.
>>
>>42888548
yes an iPhone 5

i entirely regret it
>>
>>42885591
Nah, I can notice a difference between 192 kbps and 320 kbps. But not between 320 kbps and FLAC. I only use FLAC for archival purposes.
>>
>>42885441

Placebo.

Shit is as bad as the people who say you need a 4k screen on your phone.
>>
>>42888593
>this nigger
>>
>>42888808
I've got the files on my desktop, why the hell would I not listen to them?
>>
>recorded in 320kbps mp3
>ripped and converted into flac
literally no point for majority of the industry
>>
>>42888838

What?
If you have them, listen to them.

But they do not sound any different from a 320kbps track ripped from the original source.
>>
>>42888847
that's some fucking shitty recording, no way it's that prevalent
>>
>>42888770
Its ok foobar2000 is (probably) coming to mobile. iOS/Android/WP8.
>>
>>42888863

Oh, but it is, friend.
>>
>>42888861
I have to have a few albums in ALAC since the tracks all segue into one another, but I don't really perceive much, if any difference in quality between lossless and MP3 320.
>>
>>42888847
>320kbps mp3
This isnt true though, its all recorded in WAV or RAW, or generated from some DAW
>>
>>42888593
is this actually true?
>>
>>42888884

Not with the funding those fucktards are asking for.
>>
>>42888884
yeah but how do I know the mobile version won't suck absolute dick?

oh well, I'm planning on getting the LG G3 as soon as it drops anyway, just need to know what music apps on it support gapless MP3
>>
>>42888907
nah dbpoweramp realized how shittily they were doing and basically saved their ass. going forward they will match any donation made. they also retroactively matched which brought the total up to like 77k. So it might actually happen.

>>42888913
Because the desktop version is really good so the mobile probably will be too? Anyway I use poweramp. It has full gapless mp3 playback. really good player.
>>
>>42888949
I know how good foobar is, I use it

But I can't see a mobile version of it being very good
>>
>>42885441
The MP3 format is patent\copyright heavy from the Fraunhofer Society and isn't supported on Linux. Unless you download the extra codec packs from necessary to run it.

FLAC has the "free" in its name because it's an open format and royalty-free while being licensed under GNU, GPL, and BSD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac

Get FLAC today and use it. Spread the word.
>>
I have this album that plays back at 1078 kbs for some reason. It's flac. flac always sounds better to me.
>>
if youve got the space you should keep a flac copy for your backup and convert it to 320kbps for your mobile listening pleasures
>>
>2014
>Still using mp3

We have vorbis and opus, you know.
>>
>>42889149
Watch and cry as I convert your precious free, lossless audio format in a locked down, apple-only aiff.
>>
>>42889225
Apple actually made the specification of their own lossless format public not too long ago and I think there's at least one non-apple music player that has implemented support for it.

>In b4 the usual complaint about DRM on music in iTunes when they got rid of DRM back in 2006
>>
how do you even into using flac's? where do you get em?
>>
>>42889419
You import them from CDs as flac files when you use a decent ripping software, or occasionally while buying music directly from the artist/producer they provide flac files instead of mp3s.
>>
>>42889359
>buying music
>>42889419
Use a non-shitty player (so no iTunes/Windows Media Player) like foobar2000

FLACs generally come from CD/vinyl rips and you typically have to torrent them

There's Bandcamp as well, though, they distribute in FLAC as well as other formats
>>
>>42889419
google and private trackers
>>
>>42889452
>buying music through iTunes*
>>
>>42889447
>use a decent ripping software

Any suggestions? I have a pretty large selection of CD's to rip from.
>>
>>42889743
Exact Audio Copy
>>
>>42889743
EAC
>>
>what is bitrate
>>
>>42889767
>>42889783
Alright, thanks
>>
>>42889225
Why not ALAC? Are there any main differences between ALAC and aiff? Is it because aiff is more efficient and saves space?
>>
>>42890296
Both ok, alac is supposedly better for iOS devices as it's better for battery usage, but generally aiff is more useful for me as I only ever run lossless of my mac and it's better for using in Final Cut projects etc.
>>
>>42890434
Ahh. aiff is uncompressed. Gotcha.
>>
>>42890458
Well it's not quite that simple- alac is supposedly lossless but because it's in an mp4 container it's more likely to have errors in transmission etc.
>>
>>42889767
>>42889783
is there a difference between EAC and foobar's built in ripper?
>>
>>42885441
Flac is a storage format. If you don't want to archive your music or plan on transcoding it at a later date, there is no reason for you to use it. Hell, even 256kbps mp3 is great for listening.
>>
The question isn't "why should I use flac?". There is no question you should use flac. For archival anyway. Only a moron carries flac around on their mobile devices. You use your flacs as a base to encode from so you always have a clean copy.
>>
>>42890752
Why bother listening to something over your lossless copies if you're at home and have access to them
>>
>>42890778
this. FLAC is lossless but for how mp3s of good quality sound like the only thing different are some echoes and panning of instruments that if you don't hear carefully you wouldn't notice anyways, so yes, use flac only for archival purposes because they are ridiculously heavy, in some songs they do form a significant difference but those cases are rare
>>
>>42890817
yes, i have flacs in my laptop because i can't fancy in having an exclusive drive for them and sonce i hear music a lot of the time i really don't see the trouble, not for the lossless qualitiy but just because i have them already there
>>
File: opus-vs-ogg.png (65KB, 830x478px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
opus-vs-ogg.png
65KB, 830x478px
>There are people who still use MP3
>>
>>42887946
You know he is joking, right?
>>
>>42891196
Please no. Opus and Vorbis are both great vs others at low bitrate, but that's still too low for good music.
>>
>>42891441
They're fine for good music, especially on a portable player where you're not in ideal listening conditions even if you do manage to bring good equipment.
>>
>>42889767
>>42889783
Alright, so I ripped a couple of tracks from a CD, picked the "uncompressed" option. They are saved as .wav files, are about 40mb and have a bitrate of 1411 kb/s.

Did I do good?
>>
>>42891460
With a $25 pair of headphones, I can easily hear the difference between 96k and 128k Opus. Anything higher than that I can't, so I use 128k.

For Vorbis I'd go 160k.
>>
>>42891598
I was doing ABX testing on 96Kbps opus and the source audio and I had a hard enough time picking out which was which.
I have a pair of DT-880s and a Fiio E07k, so it's not as if it's an awful setup.
In before claims of me being deaf.
>>
>>42891568
No. Using the windows ripper is retarded. Go rip it with foobar or something
>>
>>42891688
I ripped it with EAC, I thought that was supposed to give me .flac, I even picked that option...
>>
what exactly would happen if i were to convert mp3's to flac's. would that make a difference in keeping the quality or is my thought process just retarded?
>>
>>42891629

Which sounds better to you? No cheating.

http://a.pomf.se/pzzxpo.opus
http://a.pomf.se/amssit.opus
>>
>>42885441
http://flac.streamchan.org:9001/flacstream.ogg

FLAC Internet radio, have fun. (play with foobar2000 or mplayer)
>>
>>42891722
never mind, I figured it out
>>
File: blank-005.jpg (330KB, 800x680px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
blank-005.jpg
330KB, 800x680px
>>42891742
I can't, I'm at work and all I have are my laptop speakers. By the time I get home this thread will probably be dead.
>>
>>42891723
When a lossless source is transcoded to mp3, part of the information is lost (that's why mp3 is lossy compression), but the mp3s will be significantly smaller than the original file. If you were to convert mp3s to flac, the flacs would have the exact same audio as the mp3s (although at larger file sizes), but not the same as the original files, since that information was lost when you converted the original files to mp3s.

>>42891742
Not him, but the one with the higher bitrate sounded better (I didn't check the file sizes before making up my mind). You should also have a 320 kbps mp3 for control.
>>
File: wat-079.png (418KB, 682x613px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
wat-079.png
418KB, 682x613px
>>42892082
>You should also have a 320 kbps mp3 for control.
The control should ALWAYS be source audio.
>>
>>42892149
I mean because the debate is between lossy formats now.
>>
>>42892082
thanks for answering but my original question was if it would prevent the loss of quality over time

i have some mp3 files that are not available anywhere in flac or any other source audio and im worried that theyll be complete crap in a few years. will converting them to flac prevetn them loosing quality over time?
>>
>>42892216
Oh, man, are you serious? That "mp3s degrade at a rate of 12kbps/year" is just a /g/ copypasta. If the files on your HDD get damaged then it's time to backup (if you didn't already), and buy a new HDD, because it's about to fail. Also, no format could protect your files from a faulty HDD.
>>
>>42892216
Let me guess, you've read the rotational velocidensity copypasta?
Mp3 doesn't lose quality over time, no digital audio format does.
>>
>>42892312
so what's the actual point of using flacs then?
>>
Maybe, probably as much a different from listening on a cheap amp as opposed to a $20,000 amp with sound rocks and random placebos that get rid of "negative energy"
>>
>>42892403
Archival and transcoding to other formats.
>>42892082 explained it pretty much.
Transcoding from lossy to lossy is something you should avoid.
>>
>>42892309
>>42892312
oh thanks. sorry im new to this board and didnt know it was just a copy paste
>>
>>42892214
And that's why you should use the source audio as the control. That's how a control works.
>>
>>42892403
>>42892448
Actually, let me add, in case it's not clear enough: archival of the ORIGINAL data. CD rips and such. You should use the original source if you want to convert to lossy.
Transcoding from lossy to lossless to lossy is the same as converting from lossy to lossy and a bad idea.
>>
>>42892520
I see. Thanks for clearing it up.
>>
>>42889743
Or, if on linux, any of the rippers that use cdparanoia/libparanoia (most of them).
>>
>>42889225
Holy fuck thats my favorite OCRemix album
>>
>>42891746
Werks with VLC too
>>
File: SoW-NSP_source.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
SoW-NSP_source.png
1MB, 1280x720px
My Opus shill thread died so I'm gonna repost the spectrograms from it.

Here I have the source audio.
>>
File: SoW-NSP_mp3V0.png (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
SoW-NSP_mp3V0.png
2MB, 1280x720px
>>42894120
Here's the LAME MP3 V0 encode of it.
>>
File: SoW-NSP_mp3V2.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
SoW-NSP_mp3V2.png
1MB, 1280x720px
>>42894136
Now of course, the rather aggressive cutting of higher frequencies is made more apparent when we drop MP3 to V2.
>>
File: SoW-NSP_Opus128.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
SoW-NSP_Opus128.png
1MB, 1280x720px
>>42894136
>>42894168

In contrast, even at 128kbps, Opus has a clean cutoff at 20KHz, retaining much more similarity to the source audio despite a much lower bitrate.
>>
Numerous tests have shown the threshold of audibility of mp3 artifacts is around 192 kbps.

That being said, .opus is the alpha lossy codec right now because it reproduces 20 Hz - 20 kHz, the entire human hearing range. 128 kbps (and possibly lower) opus is indistinguishable from lossless.

>2014
>not having your PMP filled with lossless-sourced .opus
>>
>>42886087
...actually, analog signals are susceptible to interference, so that anon has a point; if you were using a digital signal like USB or toslink, you'd be more apt to hear any differences.
>>
>>42895285
Analog is susceptible to interference but the size of the jack is not going to make any audible difference.
Also headphones/speakers which use USB tend to have more issues with interference than normal headphones due to shitty electronics and DACs.
>>
>>42895360
>the size of the jack
you're missing the point

>headphones/speakers which use USB
The ODAC uses USB and there's a reason for that. Digital signals are superior to analog signals. This is especially true when you're talking about the average computer, which generates quite a lot of signal noise. Remember that most fans function using electromagnets-- not good for analog signals.
>>
>>42891742
Just got my headphones out for this, if i had to i'd say the amssit is better.
>>
>>42885588
Fuck I can't tell what's a troll and what's serious these days.
>>
>>42896196
Why would you think I was trolling?
I was quite serious
Thread posts: 136
Thread images: 17


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.