MP3 vs FLAC

[lordhutt]

I was thinking of upgrading my music collection to a lossless format like FLAC. However, I can't hear any difference between them....
I was wondering how many people here can actually tell the difference between them...

[olyteddy]

You'd have to re-rip your CDs to gain anything from FLAC. I got a bunch of Grateful Dead that was in FLAC and couldn't tell them from MP3s of the same show.

[nonoitall]

Yeah, there's no point converting an MP3 to FLAC; it will gain you nothing and waste space. If you have a CD or other lossless source, though, FLAC can be helpful in reducing disk usage without sacrificing quality. I usually can't tell the difference between lossless and MP3 until the MP3 drops below 160 kbps. It's up to you to perform your own listening tests and decide which one you prefer. If you have lots of hard drive space, there's not much disadvantage to storing your collection losslessly. If you don't have the space but still want quality, use a fairly high bitrate lossy format (192 kbps is transparent to most people with any decent codec).

[nickolasj80]

Since when are CD's lossless? It was my understanding that the only true losseless venue (and hence if the flac or ape is not taken from this source, kinda pointless) are LPs or other uncompressed analog format.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

/BTW didn't mean to hijack the thread, sorry about that

[guns1inger]

Lossless is a relative term. CDs are digitally lossless, in that they do not employ lossy compression techniques, and do not discard recorded data in that way something like MP3 does.

Are they lossless compared to pure analogue sound waves traveling from instrument to ear ? No. They are limited by the sample rate and frequency range.

[lordhutt]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was not upgrading my MP3's to FLAC...I am talking about re-ripped cd's.
But I still don't notice any difference.
I don't have anything under 160kbs in my mp3's I don't think.

And although I am obviously no expert here, I agree with guns1inger...lossless is relative. FLAC may not be the best sound you can ever get but what it means is that there is no loss in quality from cd to flac.
But since I can't seem to tell the difference between mp3 and flac anyway, and it seems I am not alone here then I am just curious why people use it at all.

I have plenty of hard space so that is not an issue. I was just trying to think of an excuse to go over to the flac side of the world.

I might just abandon the whole project....

[guns1inger]

It depends on what you are playing the audio back on, and what else you want to do with it.

Personally, I find MP3 muddies stereo separation and causes noticeable damage up to around 192 kbps. And at that bitrate, AC3 is a better codec for quality. But that is on reasonable equipment.

If you are listening on an MP3 player through crappy bud type ear phones then 128 kbps might be enough, and 160 certainly will be. MP3 players are not audiophile equipment.

I don't store any of my audio in a compressed format for listening unless it is going onto a DVD soundtrack.

The other issues with any lossy compression format is that repeated compression quickly destroys the quality. Just like re-encoding mpeg2 or mpeg4 video degrades the image, so re-encoding mp3 audio degrades the quality. Never rip to a compressed format if you intend to edit or work with the audio until the very last stage in the process.

[lordhutt]

Gotcha, I was thinking that the difference might be more noticeable on more high end equipment...which I have not tried the FLAC files on.
I am thinking I may just get everything in FLAC format and keep it archived on a hard drive. I can make good quality high bit rate mp3's from them for mp3 players or my car.
When I build my HTPC in the near future and have it hooked up to much nicer stereo system then I can use the FLAC format there.

Thanks for the replies by the way.

[nickolasj80]

IMHO, to get the most out of space and quality, VBR MP3 is the way to go. With a max of 320kbps and avg of 192-256, the sound will be very comparable, and even the most sensitive of ears will have a hard time hearing the difference.

[lordhutt]

@ nickolasj80
That's exactly what I did with my first test cd. CD to FLAC...FLAC to VBR MP3. I am satisfied with the results. I think I will redo my whole collection this way. When I originally did most of them...probably 10 years ago I didn't go higher then 160 kbs.

[nonoitall]

Lossless is a relative term. CDs are digitally lossless, in that they do not employ lossy compression techniques, and do not discard recorded data in that way something like MP3 does.

Yeah, that's what meant in my post when I said lossless. Sorry if I caused any confusion - still a little new here.