Where to buy losless music (FLAC)
- Thread starter elrasho
- Start date
I saw that in this thread: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18274279&highlight=flac but they only do 320kbps MP3s, I want FLAC
I noticed a big difference from playing through my receiver than my Logitech X450 speakers.
Could it be the logitechs were connected to my xfi xtreme gamer sound card where as the receiver is connected via HDMI to my 5850s onboard soundcard? Could it be the xfi was adding some affects to make the music sound better?
Oh I thought they did lossless.
Anyway, just buy CDs and rip them into your chosen lossless format.
I've for the xfi connected via Optical to the receiver but the thing is I don't get surround sound in games so I used the 5850s sound card as the default. I don't want to keep switching between the two
The receiver has got some post processing effects but I rather listen to my music the way the artisit wanted it to be listened to that's why I'm looking to get FLAC versions of my music.
I would but I have a very diverse range of music interests, it would be expensive and hard to find all he CDs that have the tracks I'm looking for. I'd rather pay something like £1 for each individual track and download in FLAC format.
I don't think you know what you're on about. How do you know that getting FLAC over 320 is going to sort the problem? You're honestly not going to notice the difference between the two.
What you're hearing is how an unprocessed, clean signal sounds. You're obviously used to a crap load of processing which was turned on with your X-Fi.
If you seriously think that going from 320 to FLAC is going to change a thing, you're wrong.
What equipment have you even bought? You say AV equipment, but that doesn't mean anything. It could still be total rubbish.
What you're hearing is how an unprocessed, clean signal sounds. You're obviously used to a crap load of processing which was turned on with your X-Fi.
If you seriously think that going from 320 to FLAC is going to change a thing, you're wrong.
What equipment have you even bought? You say AV equipment, but that doesn't mean anything. It could still be total rubbish.
Wahoa there tiger, calm down!
I've tested this by playing a 320kbps MP3 of a Michael Jackson track and then playing the same track after ripping it to FLAC. The FLAC one sounded louder, clearer, more diverse range and punchier.
My receiver is a Yamaha YHT294
For a start, you're using a low end AV reciever as a Hi-Fi amp which makes me question even further if you're actually going to be able to notice a difference.
Secondly, take that FLAC recording and downsample it to the 320kb/s MP3 yourself. Don't download two seperate tracks, physically convert the file yourself. You're definitely not going to notice any perceivable change of volume, that alone is making me question it being an identical source. Then compare the two.
Secondly, take that FLAC recording and downsample it to the 320kb/s MP3 yourself. Don't download two seperate tracks, physically convert the file yourself. You're definitely not going to notice any perceivable change of volume, that alone is making me question it being an identical source. Then compare the two.
Yep, Im sorry but there is no way that you will find that a 320kbps mp3 that has been ripped properly sounds crap. Find a cd and rip it to flac and 320kbps VBR mp3 and I would be surprised if you could tell the difference.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,765
To cut a long story short, any differences you can "hear" is almost certainly down to placebo, assuming the comparison is a valid one (level-matched using the same equipment for example). The brain is a very powerful postprocessor, and if you have a preconception that, say, an MP3 "should" sound inferior to an equivalent FLAC, then it's likely that you'll genuinely hear it that way.
The only way to be absolutely sure is with an ABX test, where you're asked to identify the sample without knowing beforehand what it is - head on over to hydrogenaudio.org if you want to find out more, but be prepared for a rough ride there if you make claims regarding sound quality without hard data to back it up.
Unfortunately, debates of this type tend to get quite tetchy - we objectivists can be less than tactful when someone in the "I know what I hear" camp doesn't see why they should carry out an ABX test for example, whereas they in turn tend to take it personally (perhaps understandably) when, as they see it, either their hearing ability or their integrity is being called into question.
Theoretically, no.
FLAC files are lossless, mp3 files are lossy. A FLAC file with a bitrate of 256kbps will still sound the same as the source material. An MP3 file with a bitrate of 256kbps will still be missing some elements of the original - normally the higher frequencies.
It's pretty rare to find 256kbps FLAC files though.
Only ones I have are from audiobooks, and thats only because the handling of internal cuesheets helps out and more importantly, they were smaller than the MP3's I tried using.Bitrates aren't really used with FLAC. 256kbps is an indication of quality with MP3 and other lossy formats. The higher the kbps the better the quality. FLAC files are compressed as well as they can be - its variable bitrate.
Practically, you will hear very little, if any difference between the files. I use FLAC as all my portable players support it natively and if needs be I can cross convert quickly and easily from FLAC to any other format.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,765
I think we're at cross-purposes here - 1411kbps is the bitrate for uncompressed CD audio (at 44.1 KHz sample rate). 16bits x 44.1 KHz x 2 channels = 1411 kilobits per second - WAV files ripped without compression from a CD will have this bitrate.
FLAC is a lossless encoder - it will shrink the files without discarding any information, so that when they're decompressed (eg during playback), they will be bit-for-bit identical to the original (like compressing/decompressing data files with WinZip or whatever). Losslessly compressed audio files usually end up around 1/2 to 2/3 the size of the original - the exact bitrate will vary depending on the compressibility of the source material, but it has no effect on the sound quality, which will always be identical to the source.
The only time you'd get 1411kbps FLAC files is if the raw audio data is completely incompressible, which wouldn't happen in practice.
MP3 is a lossy encoder - you can get much smaller file sizes, but only by permanently discarding information which the encoder algorithm decides is beyond human ability to perceive. That's why it's regarded as audibly inferior by people who reckon they can hear the "damage", although as I said, ABX tests often tend to show that the differences are in their head.
Hope that clarifies a little.
It's possible I guess, depending on the particular MP3 encoder and the source material, but again, an ABX test might surprise you.
Ahhhh I see! Thanks for clearing all that up mate, I'm gonna mess around with some FLAC and MP3 files and ask friends if they wanna take part in a little listening test
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
FLAC files are essentially doing the same thing ZIP files are doing. Try putting a WAV file into a ZIP file and you'll see that the file size will decrease substantially. Now unzip that file and you'll get your original WAV file back, exactly the same, bit for bit. FLAC does the same thing, except the compression algorithms are geared specifically for audio data so that better compression ratios are achieved (smaller file sizes). The compression algorithms essentially rearranges data so that it is more compact; nothing is discarded (hence the term 'lossless').
MP3 goes a step further, not only rearranging data, but actually discarded some of that data, data which then cannot be retrieved (hence the term 'lossy'). Put simply, if two sounds are very close to each other in terms of pitch and amplitude, humans cannot easily distinguish those two sounds and you will perceive them as one sound. The compression algorithms take this behaviour into account and identifies parts of the sound which it thinks you will not hear (because they are too 'close' sounding) and then combines them into one sound, hence requiring less data. The lower the bitrate, the more aggressive the algorithm is at deciding which sounds it thinks you will not hear. Of course, the actual mathematics behind all this is tremendously complex, but you get the basic idea and hopefully some appreciation as to just how amazing the technology is behind those 'crappy' mp3 files.
So what does this all mean to you? All other things being equal (source material, DAC, amp, cabling, software, etc), an MP3 at 320k, should be indistinguishable from the source audio. I can tell apart 192k MP3 file from the source audio, if I look for specific parts in specific songs and 128k MP3 files I can readily tell apart. That said, this is under blind testing conditions (I don't know what file I'm listening to beforehand), using a decent sound card and headphones and 'analysing' the music rather than listening to it.
MP3 goes a step further, not only rearranging data, but actually discarded some of that data, data which then cannot be retrieved (hence the term 'lossy'). Put simply, if two sounds are very close to each other in terms of pitch and amplitude, humans cannot easily distinguish those two sounds and you will perceive them as one sound. The compression algorithms take this behaviour into account and identifies parts of the sound which it thinks you will not hear (because they are too 'close' sounding) and then combines them into one sound, hence requiring less data. The lower the bitrate, the more aggressive the algorithm is at deciding which sounds it thinks you will not hear. Of course, the actual mathematics behind all this is tremendously complex, but you get the basic idea and hopefully some appreciation as to just how amazing the technology is behind those 'crappy' mp3 files.
So what does this all mean to you? All other things being equal (source material, DAC, amp, cabling, software, etc), an MP3 at 320k, should be indistinguishable from the source audio. I can tell apart 192k MP3 file from the source audio, if I look for specific parts in specific songs and 128k MP3 files I can readily tell apart. That said, this is under blind testing conditions (I don't know what file I'm listening to beforehand), using a decent sound card and headphones and 'analysing' the music rather than listening to it.