FLAC Vs. Mp3-320kbps

**rockyrocks** · 07-01-12 at 10:15 AM

Well.. I have got some really old albums in my collection (Merel haggard, Bob Dylan's rare tapes etc) Replacing them might be a bit tough but popular and new artists (switchfoot or even later albums of Dolly Parton or Bob Dylan) should be there..

I have seen newer phones supporting more file types than the "new age" mp3 players!!.. I actually find it sad that FLAC is barely supported (or not supported) by most of the mp3 player..
Apple does have ALAC.. which I have never used but I assume it is similar to FLAC.. But finding content in ALAC is a rarity.. though FLAC to ALAC conversion might be on the same scale with the music sounding good..

andy_mitchelluk · 07-01-12 at 10:57 AM

I guess if you use iDevices then ALAC would be the one to go for. From what I quickly managed to find out, there's not many differences between them and they can both be converted from one to the other with no quality loss (as they're both lossless) iTunes can natively play ALAC but can't play FLAC (unless you get a plugin)

FLAC is natively supported by Android 3.1 and above (just in case you have or ever planned on getting an Android phone)

I don't know of any hardware that plays ALAC other than Apple's own stuff. FLAC is slowly being supported by more and more hardware devices so that's something to maybe think about as well.

A video guide on converting FLAC to ALAC using iTunes:

Code: Select All

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZZSO9PUd4

**Omega_Prime** · 07-01-12 at 12:30 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Mbbest

Yea, but try to listen FLAC song and same song in DTS 5.1 96/24 - it is clear difference (at least on my speakers). I love DTS.

Well my system is doing it to Pro logic II sound or DTS Neo if I wish it to be, I think I prefer Pro Logic II so I am gaining the same perceived perception of 'fullness' as you are but closer to what the sound should be.

**Mbbest** · 07-01-12 at 02:13 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by andy_mitchelluk

I prefer my SACD :) Shame they didn't make many SACDs.

And the main reason DTS 5.1 will sound better is the fact all 6 channels have been pre-rendered rather than the system having to create a surround effect from a 2 channel source.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not knocking DTS as it's a pretty good lossless codec.

Well, I would say some my thoughts about SACD but never got chance to hear it :))) - sure, everyone talks about it as best audio, maybe new bluray HD sounds can compare to it as I understand it

Quote: Originally Posted by Omega_Prime

Well my system is doing it to Pro logic II sound or DTS Neo if I wish it to be, I think I prefer Pro Logic II so I am gaining the same perceived perception of 'fullness' as you are but closer to what the sound should be.

Most of peoples I talked with (the ones who are pro with music quality and equipment) doesn't even think about listening sound in anything more then pure stereo, I don't know whats the catch but I love multi-channel :D

**clenchdwarf** · 07-01-12 at 02:18 PM

The Sansa Clip+ players handle FLAC just fine, and they have a reputation for sounding good. I found a 4 gig model in an opened box for $25. It has a micro SDHC slot, so for about $15 more I added an 8 gig card.

There is software than can verify lossless rips against the Accuraterip database - that gives some confidence that the quality is as good as the original CD. I've used Cuetools, but maybe there's something better?

Code: Select All

http://www.cuetools.net/wiki/Main_Page

**HeavyGrimm** · 07-01-12 at 03:21 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by blaxroze

WAV kicks FLAC ass

What a silly thing to say. There is NO DIFFERENCE between Wav and Flac, THEY ARE BOTH LOSSLESS. The reason why Flac is smaller is cos it cuts out the dead space. Wav is not a good format, it's bloated and doesn't conserve space.

Honestly, where do people come up with this nonsense?

DTS music depends on the person. I prefer Flac because it's lossless, DTS, much like MP3, is lossy. But then again, I don't listen to music through my speaker setup, primarily cos I don't wanna annoy the neighbors, but also cos there's so much extraneous sound coming from outside (cars, people shouting, etc), that the music gets distorted, anyway. I have an amp + really good Sennheiser headphones (HD 600, which I think is the best after the 800s obviously) that satisfy all my musical needs, and for that I definitely prefer Flac/Ape.

Alumni · 07-07-12 at 04:13 AM

I've started to replace my music collection with FLAC, and I think any serious music lover should do the same. You'll definitely appreciate the difference with good quality speakers; DTS capable is preferable because it enables speaker fill, aka. simulated surround with stereo sources.

I also recommend the following software for lossless audio:

dBpoweramp Music Converter: Quick and powerful conversion tool, supports Wave, FLAC, ALAC, etc. Also includes a plugin that lets Windows Explorer read lossless meta tags.
MediaMonkey: Plays FLAC files natively, can sync to devices with option to auto convert/mixdown to MP3.

vp10120 · 07-07-12 at 07:20 AM

FLAC in this case is definitely the quality winner, but since i want space and most of the music i listen are rip from CD quality so VBR 320Kbps is my choice.

rhodizzydude · 07-07-12 at 09:21 AM

FLAC is better but most of media player used mp3 format so I stick to 320kbps....

tinwolf · 07-07-12 at 10:22 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by rhodizzydude

FLAC is better but most of media player used mp3 format so I stick to 320kbps....

I try and find FLAC files and make the conversion to 320kbps myself. That way, I can be a little more confident about the conversion process, where sometimes i find a 320 file online that sounds more like an upconvert.
In terms of mobile devices, unless you carry a portable DAC with your music device filled with lossless files, it seems pretty futile. Especially since most portable headphones & IEMs are actually EQ'd to compensate for the smaller files.

Loora · 07-07-12 at 11:34 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Alumni

I've started to replace my music collection with FLAC, and I think any serious music lover should do the same. You'll definitely appreciate the difference with good quality speakers; DTS capable is preferable because it enables speaker fill, aka. simulated surround with stereo sources.

So you want lossless audio because of it's superior quality compared to lossy audio just so you can then mangle it through some shitty (yes, even DTS:NEO is shitty) DSP stereo -> multichannel filter trashing/distorting exactly those parts you want to preserve because they provide you with the superior listening experience. Kinda made me chuckle a bit :) No offense intended !

If you listen to music using ANY kind of DSP filter (room accoustic simulation, multichannel upconvert or whatever else ppl can come up with to destroy a quality recording) you don't need lossless audio and you don't need a "good" audio system. Upconverted multichannel audio does sound better than untouched audio on "cheap" systems that cannot reproduce a recordings original soundstage.

If, however, you have high quality playback capablilities then you wouldn't want anything to touch your audio files because the stereo soundstage a good system provides beats the crap out of every multichannel simulation.

johnney5 · 07-12-12 at 04:02 PM

So, are all DTS lossy? I'm just wondering because I think I remember reading that the Dark Side of the Moon "immersion" box set includes blu-rays with 5.1 surround -- it would be weird to have lesser quality on a format with such large capacity.

Quote: Originally Posted by Loora

If, however, you have high quality playback capablilities then you wouldn't want anything to touch your audio files because the stereo soundstage a good system provides beats the crap out of every multichannel simulation.

I have heard the same thing from at least one other person.

I was reading about "upconversions" and got pretty excited when I saw that one of my favorite CDs was available in a 5.1 "upmix" --- played the first song and couldn't believe how awful it sounded. The person who made (butchered) it claimed to have followed some "proper upmixing" guidelines... Either they just did a terrible job, or all upmixes just plain suck --- my guess is the former.

deadmort · 07-16-12 at 03:05 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Mbbest

Yea, but try to listen FLAC song and same song in DTS 5.1 96/24 - it is clear difference (at least on my speakers). I love DTS.

The good thing about flacs is that you don't need a dts decoder to play them

DTS is fine is you have the system to get the benefit out of them but there aren't that many about compared to flacs.

BTW: mp3 is old technology, I prefer aac if I'm going lossy.,

**wlad025** · 07-16-12 at 03:21 PM

However & luckily, nowadays you can listen & enjoy FLAC files in every single Android and iPhone smartphone. The sound difference compared to mp3 is obvious

07-01-12 at 10:57 AM	#16
andy_mitchelluk Novice Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Bedford, UK Posts: 152	I guess if you use iDevices then ALAC would be the one to go for. From what I quickly managed to find out, there's not many differences between them and they can both be converted from one to the other with no quality loss (as they're both lossless) iTunes can natively play ALAC but can't play FLAC (unless you get a plugin) FLAC is natively supported by Android 3.1 and above (just in case you have or ever planned on getting an Android phone) I don't know of any hardware that plays ALAC other than Apple's own stuff. FLAC is slowly being supported by more and more hardware devices so that's something to maybe think about as well. A video guide on converting FLAC to ALAC using iTunes: Code: Select All http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZZSO9PUd4

07-01-12 at 12:30 PM	#17
Omega_Prime Autobot Supreme Commander Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 3,569	Quote: Originally Posted by Mbbest Yea, but try to listen FLAC song and same song in DTS 5.1 96/24 - it is clear difference (at least on my speakers). I love DTS. Well my system is doing it to Pro logic II sound or DTS Neo if I wish it to be, I think I prefer Pro Logic II so I am gaining the same perceived perception of 'fullness' as you are but closer to what the sound should be. Last edited by Omega_Prime; 07-01-12 at 12:33 PM.

07-01-12 at 02:13 PM	#18
Mbbest No kitty! bad kitty!!! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Southpark Posts: 1,660	Quote: Originally Posted by andy_mitchelluk I prefer my SACD :) Shame they didn't make many SACDs. And the main reason DTS 5.1 will sound better is the fact all 6 channels have been pre-rendered rather than the system having to create a surround effect from a 2 channel source. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not knocking DTS as it's a pretty good lossless codec. Well, I would say some my thoughts about SACD but never got chance to hear it :))) - sure, everyone talks about it as best audio, maybe new bluray HD sounds can compare to it as I understand it Quote: Originally Posted by Omega_Prime Well my system is doing it to Pro logic II sound or DTS Neo if I wish it to be, I think I prefer Pro Logic II so I am gaining the same perceived perception of 'fullness' as you are but closer to what the sound should be. Most of peoples I talked with (the ones who are pro with music quality and equipment) doesn't even think about listening sound in anything more then pure stereo, I don't know whats the catch but I love multi-channel :D Last edited by Mbbest; 07-01-12 at 02:16 PM.

07-01-12 at 02:18 PM	#19
clenchdwarf Expert Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 820	The Sansa Clip+ players handle FLAC just fine, and they have a reputation for sounding good. I found a 4 gig model in an opened box for $25. It has a micro SDHC slot, so for about $15 more I added an 8 gig card. There is software than can verify lossless rips against the Accuraterip database - that gives some confidence that the quality is as good as the original CD. I've used Cuetools, but maybe there's something better? Code: Select All http://www.cuetools.net/wiki/Main_Page

07-01-12 at 03:21 PM	#20
HeavyGrimm Hellblazer Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: On a little rock floating in the vast emptiness of the multiverse Posts: 450	Quote: Originally Posted by blaxroze WAV kicks FLAC ass What a silly thing to say. There is NO DIFFERENCE between Wav and Flac, THEY ARE BOTH LOSSLESS. The reason why Flac is smaller is cos it cuts out the dead space. Wav is not a good format, it's bloated and doesn't conserve space. Honestly, where do people come up with this nonsense? DTS music depends on the person. I prefer Flac because it's lossless, DTS, much like MP3, is lossy. But then again, I don't listen to music through my speaker setup, primarily cos I don't wanna annoy the neighbors, but also cos there's so much extraneous sound coming from outside (cars, people shouting, etc), that the music gets distorted, anyway. I have an amp + really good Sennheiser headphones (HD 600, which I think is the best after the 800s obviously) that satisfy all my musical needs, and for that I definitely prefer Flac/Ape. Last edited by HeavyGrimm; 07-01-12 at 03:26 PM.

07-01-12 at 10:15 AM	#15
rockyrocks Elite Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 2,360	Well.. I have got some really old albums in my collection (Merel haggard, Bob Dylan's rare tapes etc) Replacing them might be a bit tough but popular and new artists (switchfoot or even later albums of Dolly Parton or Bob Dylan) should be there.. I have seen newer phones supporting more file types than the "new age" mp3 players!!.. I actually find it sad that FLAC is barely supported (or not supported) by most of the mp3 player.. Apple does have ALAC.. which I have never used but I assume it is similar to FLAC.. But finding content in ALAC is a rarity.. though FLAC to ALAC conversion might be on the same scale with the music sounding good..

07-07-12 at 04:13 AM	#21
Alumni Novice Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Australia Posts: 215	I've started to replace my music collection with FLAC, and I think any serious music lover should do the same. You'll definitely appreciate the difference with good quality speakers; DTS capable is preferable because it enables speaker fill, aka. simulated surround with stereo sources. I also recommend the following software for lossless audio: dBpoweramp Music Converter: Quick and powerful conversion tool, supports Wave, FLAC, ALAC, etc. Also includes a plugin that lets Windows Explorer read lossless meta tags. MediaMonkey: Plays FLAC files natively, can sync to devices with option to auto convert/mixdown to MP3.

07-07-12 at 07:20 AM	#22
vp10120 Expert Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Need to know? Posts: 584	FLAC in this case is definitely the quality winner, but since i want space and most of the music i listen are rip from CD quality so VBR 320Kbps is my choice.

07-07-12 at 09:21 AM	#23
rhodizzydude Newcomer Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 7	FLAC is better but most of media player used mp3 format so I stick to 320kbps....

07-07-12 at 10:22 AM	#24
tinwolf Newcomer Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 89	Quote: Originally Posted by rhodizzydude FLAC is better but most of media player used mp3 format so I stick to 320kbps.... I try and find FLAC files and make the conversion to 320kbps myself. That way, I can be a little more confident about the conversion process, where sometimes i find a 320 file online that sounds more like an upconvert. In terms of mobile devices, unless you carry a portable DAC with your music device filled with lossless files, it seems pretty futile. Especially since most portable headphones & IEMs are actually EQ'd to compensate for the smaller files.

07-07-12 at 11:34 PM	#25
Loora Apprentice Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 441	Quote: Originally Posted by Alumni I've started to replace my music collection with FLAC, and I think any serious music lover should do the same. You'll definitely appreciate the difference with good quality speakers; DTS capable is preferable because it enables speaker fill, aka. simulated surround with stereo sources. So you want lossless audio because of it's superior quality compared to lossy audio just so you can then mangle it through some shitty (yes, even DTS:NEO is shitty) DSP stereo -> multichannel filter trashing/distorting exactly those parts you want to preserve because they provide you with the superior listening experience. Kinda made me chuckle a bit :) No offense intended ! If you listen to music using ANY kind of DSP filter (room accoustic simulation, multichannel upconvert or whatever else ppl can come up with to destroy a quality recording) you don't need lossless audio and you don't need a "good" audio system. Upconverted multichannel audio does sound better than untouched audio on "cheap" systems that cannot reproduce a recordings original soundstage. If, however, you have high quality playback capablilities then you wouldn't want anything to touch your audio files because the stereo soundstage a good system provides beats the crap out of every multichannel simulation.

07-12-12 at 04:02 PM	#26
johnney5 Newcomer Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 5	So, are all DTS lossy? I'm just wondering because I think I remember reading that the Dark Side of the Moon "immersion" box set includes blu-rays with 5.1 surround -- it would be weird to have lesser quality on a format with such large capacity. Quote: Originally Posted by Loora If, however, you have high quality playback capablilities then you wouldn't want anything to touch your audio files because the stereo soundstage a good system provides beats the crap out of every multichannel simulation. I have heard the same thing from at least one other person. I was reading about "upconversions" and got pretty excited when I saw that one of my favorite CDs was available in a 5.1 "upmix" --- played the first song and couldn't believe how awful it sounded. The person who made (butchered) it claimed to have followed some "proper upmixing" guidelines... Either they just did a terrible job, or all upmixes just plain suck --- my guess is the former.

07-16-12 at 03:05 PM	#27
deadmort Newcomer Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3	Quote: Originally Posted by Mbbest Yea, but try to listen FLAC song and same song in DTS 5.1 96/24 - it is clear difference (at least on my speakers). I love DTS. The good thing about flacs is that you don't need a dts decoder to play them DTS is fine is you have the system to get the benefit out of them but there aren't that many about compared to flacs. BTW: mp3 is old technology, I prefer aac if I'm going lossy.,

07-16-12 at 03:21 PM	#28
wlad025 Expert Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 825	However & luckily, nowadays you can listen & enjoy FLAC files in every single Android and iPhone smartphone. The sound difference compared to mp3 is obvious