Now, this topic has become really heated in my class, so i thought I'd see what the an anime community would say about this topic.

Ok, basically

FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is a compression format that is aimed specifically at music. FLAC brags about its compression at 100% lossless. So every bit of sound (even the tiniest of sounds) will still be there when you rip a music from a CD.

MP3 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3) is, if you didn't know, lossy. Yes, the quality when you compress music to mp3 format goes down considerably. What mp3 does is that it removes all the "supposedly" unnecessary and "imperceivable by the human hear" pieces.

So

Being lossy as it is, why is mp3 actually popular? Well, a 6 min track (this is only a general estimation) at 128kbps would be about 6mb. At 192kbps its 9mb and at 320kbps its 14-15mb.

FLAC is about (once again, estimation) about 2x as as big as a 320kbps mp3 (so around 27-30mb for a 6 min track).

That said...

Can YOU actually tell the difference in the quality between a 320kbps mp3, which is the highest quality of mp3 (supposedly near lossless on judgment by the human ear) between FLAC, which is lossless?

Are you sure you sure that it wasn't only your imagination (or forced yourself) that heard this so called "i never heard this tiny sound on this song when i listened to it on a mp3 @ 320kbps" when listening to FLAC?

Is it really worth it to have so much space taken (30mb for a 6 min song? WHOA) with "just music" (*cough* gets stabbed by audiophiles *cough*) when you can get mp3 (which saves so much space).

Thoughts?

I don't think this belongs here. FLAC is definitely better. But in terms of Quality / Size, Mp3 is better (192 kbps is enough).

Oh FLAC is good when you want to make a back up of your precious audio CDS but do not want to sacrifice the audio quality. 192 kbps is good enough for human ear, but for precision audio, you might wanna go for 320.

Personally I can't tell any difference between MP3's at 320 Kbps (or even at half that) and my CD's (or the loss-less rips from them). Although my main computer has enough storage space to hold loss-less files the same isn't true for my laptop and portable music players. Several of my devices do not support flac anyway.

MP3 became popular due to the size of the files, when connection speeds were slower (56k modem) it was a lot easier to download a smaller file, also portable music players did not have so much memory. These are a couple of reasons for the popularity of MP3's over the larger loss-less formats.

Though I stopped using MP3 a few years ago, I tend to use AAC now.

This probably belongs more in the Motherboard section.

Music Lounge

Talk about your favorite albums and upcoming releases from home and abroad.

Motherboard

Technical discussion, got some leet hardware? New CPU being released? System 0wnz0rd by some driver? Discuss here!


Naw, being in the general is just about right

I got your point there.
Anyway, I use AAC now too. And m4a since I got my iPod.

check here for another heated discussion:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t57379.html

@~Aphrodite: see, all those people go into "the technical" side

its like the argument of DirectX 9 vs DirectX 10, or like below 800 dps mouse (at $10 each) VS Razor 4000dps mouse ($120? for a mouse lol) graphics cards etc... Of course, technically, DirectX10, 4000dps, and FLAC would be better

technically

what about the non technical side? Like, money...(hey, you need a better system for better stuff...and that costs).

I don't think you'll be needing a significant hardware upgrade if at all any, to play FLAC. And just think it this way: if you want to save space to save money, then use Mp3 (or any other good codec choices). But Mp3 is still a lossy compression, means that most inaudible sound signal was eliminated, this makes a great loss in playback in high precision audio or Ultra High Fidelity equipments even in 320 KBps (something like less higher frequency signals thus less fidelity). While FLAC itself compresses using mathematical algorithm to reduce size, thus keeping the original quality intact, or minimal loss. Also, keep in mind that quality of sounds in Mp3 below 128 KBps are significantly reduced (as in size).

I would suggest FLAC for audio archiving, if you want to back up all your audio CDs without sacrificing quality. Use Mp3 when space is limited, and for portable audio devices. AAC, Mp4, and OGG are sometimes argued to be better than Mp3. I think this is true; Mp3's main advantage is it's portability and compatibility as it is a widely accepted format than most later ones.

Oh, and answering your question: no, you can't tell the difference between 320 Kbps and FLAC by just listening to them. But it may become apparent in higher fidelity audio equipments. So if you just use a $20 headphones for your music, use Mp3 since it's widely supported (iPod doesn't support FLAC, so you have to convert it first, and if you indeed use iPod, use AAC instead), you can even use 192 KBps Mp3 and it will still sounds like the original. If you're an audiophile (like me) with super-expensieve-with-a-price-that-can-buy-a-car audio equipments (no, I don't have those), go for the FLAC.

Aphrodite, it is indeed possible for a human being to tell the difference between the two formats. It's a matter of who's the listener.

For instance, should you give 50 average people (randomly picked up on the street) to listen to the the same music file (without telling them the purpose and the difference), how many of them will say that file number 1 is better, how many will say that number 2 is better, and how many will say that there's no difference?
The average consumer won't even care which file he listens to, what he wants is to listen to that lousy shit called rap they dare call music at minimal cost of expenses and size.
Then there's my kind. I, like few that can be found today, am an audiophile as well as a musician with a perfect hearing. Thus, I require the highest quality.

Coincidentally, I own a X5 media player (Cowon, IAudio -- 20GB bought it for 1800NIS, approx. 450$ at the time, 2 years ago -- dully note that its cost was approx. 200$ in the states at the time), and recently (4 months ago) bought Shure's E2C (For 550NIS, roughly 150$ dully note that this is more than twice its cost in the states. Even though I wanted the SE500 -- but couldn't afford it. I'm underage, can't work without being exploited.), the X5 surprisingly supported FLAC after I installed Rockbox (a year and a half ago), and since then only been using it). I listen only to FLAC unless the music I want to listen to just so happens to be unavailable to me in such a lovely format, so am compelled to use MP3, and am saddened by this but can't complain.
Unlike the average person I therefore notice those little details so many fail to. And the major difference is: I appreciate those little sounds.

And for the past few months I've been dying to get A3! (Imagine a bazillion emphasis marks) I've considered taking drastic measures and becoming a menace to society just to get it. It's like, I can feel in my hands! I just don't have the money!) -- Same goes for the SE500. (I've actually been waiting for Shure's latest product for a long time now.)
The A3 here costs 1900NIS (approx. 540$ -- costs 200-400$ in the states). The SE500 costs 2000NIS (approx. 570$ -- actual cost in the states is 500$ from the official website. I guess I can't complain about this.)

Usually people upload Mp3s which sucks. I firstly look for FLAC, followed by APE, WMA (etc.), and when I lose all hope I turn to MP3. Luckily though, lately FLAC has been gaining incredible popularity.

In conclusion: stick to mp3s if you're an average consumer. Listen only to FLAC if you're an audiophile or/and a musician.

@~AgoNxRuS, well I suppose you're right. I don't have any good ears, but I do care about details and those background noises in musics I hear (like coughing or someone whispering in a classical concert). And I don't think anyone would argue that FLAC is better than 320KBps Mp3, but again, it back to your own taste. You can always test around to find what's best for you. And better yet, do a blind test for the most assuring option.

Audio equipments cost an arm and a leg if you want to go for the high end ones, but with simple enhancements you can at least tap into the world of high fidelity with tight budget.. I got an HD595 Sennheiser headphone last Christmas. Despite it's high fidelity and quality, it didn't sound just right in my iPod or headphone output in my PC. I plugged it into a small PA (a 1985 Pioneer PA from my grandparents -- that thing is older than me but still sounds clearer than crystal), which connected to my PC. With WinAmp + some DSP Plugins like iZotope Ozone (really nice) you can bring out the original richness (or somewhere near it) of an mp3 files or any other digital music compression formats. Using DSP plugins can be tricky but worth the time spent toying with it. Winamp also supports a variety of DSP plugins but i rarely found something i really like.

The last time I took a hearing test, I was able to hear flat up to the 24kHz test, the 25kHz test dropped off probably about 6dB by my estimation, and 26kHz was inaudible.

Personally, I think the subtle difference between PCM or losslessly-encoded PCM is worth the difference in storage space (going further, I prefer the sound of records to CD's. Records vs high-resolution PCM is a tougher call). Personally, I think you can hear a difference. But it depends on a lot of things. Your equipment, the quality of the source material, how well you can hear things, and how trained your ears are to listen to sounds properly. Though, I'm not sure it's a topic that's really worth arguing. Beyond your tastes changing and your ears getting trained to listen to music that's flat across the frequency range, the people who simply can't hear the difference will never be able to, and they'll never be able to hear things the same way as the people who can, so there's always going to be someone arguing adamantly that you can't hear the difference.

By the way, the 595's aren't going to sound good out of an iPod; they'll need an amp.

Orchid

By the way, the 595's aren't going to sound good out of an iPod; they'll need an amp.

Yeah, I realized that too. I meant that iPod (or my laptop's sound card) connected to the 595 didn't sound the way I wanted it to be, even with headphone amps. Besides headphone amps aren't really 'mobile' and fancy to carry around (I'm a girl!). I'll leave iPod with its original earphones (which is quite good I think, despite some lack in lower frequencies).

Sorry for the off-topic-ness.

They do make headphone amps about the size of iPod's, and you can get a pretty decent one for $100 or so if you shop around. But yeah, I wouldn't wear my full-size AKG K-701's in public. I've got Etymotic ER4's for that.

Thing is though, when people say that you have to have proper equipments and stuff, or "you" hearing the subtle difference...

well, the only time i ever listen to music is when im actually doing something else. And to actually hear the subtle (well, anything lower than 192kbp is just NO...) difference between 320 and FLAC, well, you kinda need to be actually concentrating on the music. Thats just not listening for pleasure...in my opinion.

Besides, id say i listen to music more outside...which means its through my neckband (lol im vain about my hair) and you just cant expect much lossless-"ness" from that.

And yes, proper sound systems (some surround sound systems are just heavily priced, decent PC's with proper sound cards...and well include the bigger HD's there) and some other more...well, i admit im probably below the normal audiophile but way above average listeners...but i just aint got enough money.

Yeah, that partially depends on your viewpoint. I actively listen to the music unless I'm reading or concentrating on something, and while high-bitrate MP3 is just fine for that duty for the most part, when something comes through that isn't proper it kind of ruins the experience for me (recordings of crowds at live shows are notorious for tricking a lot of MP3 encoders). A lot of MP3's are audibly compressed dynamically (what isn't anymore other than high-definition audio, really) as well as their standard picking-and-choosing of dropped data, and some codecs will actually boost certain frequency ranges to trick people into thinking fidelity hasn't been lost. Personally, I can't stand overly hot recordings (which is sad, considering a couple of my favorite records are way too hot on top... De-loused in the Comatorium comes to mind), and that's another thing I don't like about what MP3 encoding does to the sound.

But yeah, I see your point. For just running around or the kind of equipment you'd actually wear in public, it doesn't make as much of a difference.

Rather than repeating what has already been said here, I thought I would just offer my own perspective/situation.

I generally back up my DVD's on to my PC. Not the full dual-layered 8Gig+ worth of data. Instead I encode them with an x264 codec into a matroska container (I use some of the highest settings, takes approx. 26hrs+). The encoded video stream ends up being in the area of 1.2Gig alone and in my experience, the difference in quality is humanly indiscernible.

However, with the audio stream I change nothing. Maybe it's just me, but in times when I have encoded the audio streams into MP3 (LAME codec) the audio in the films just hasn't sounded the same. The same cannot be said for AAC, which fairs much better but still doesn't make the cut IMO. Thus, when it comes to film, 5.1 AC3 or better is all I'll accept. Actually, allow me to rephrase: for films which are driven by their audio track, I'll accept nothing less than 5.1 AC3.

Ofcourse when it comes to music which I'm listening to in the background, I couldn't really care less so long as it's at least 192k MP3 (preferably 256k). For the record:

Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Sound Card
Logitech z-5500

...and I don't consider myself an audiophile...