Be honest now...

Buchanan0204

Buchanan0204

Buchanan0204

Soldato
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Posts
5,158
Location
Scotland
Can anyone really tell the difference between a .flac and .mp3. Looking at the bitrate it's around 8 times greater and .flac should have course be noticeably better. However I just can't here the difference. I've compared so many songs to the .mp3 equivalent.

I'm listening through quality speakers connected to an AV amp. Also tried it on cheap speakers, headphones... nada.

Is it just me! Am I alone? Does everyone else here the quality increase?
 
I can definitely tell the difference, but it's more noticeable with higher end equipment. I have some in-ear monitors that whe fed with a 320kbps track sound amazing, but give it a FLAC and they absolutely SING!
 
Yes I can tell the difference, I've been into my audio for a long time and have good equipment so it's not a problem. HOWEVER, I still use MP3 (V0) for all my listening as just being able to hear a difference doesn't mean there is an appreciable quality difference in practice. I used lossless for listening for years and I don't feel I'm miss anything now that I use MP3 instead. I have everything in lossless as an archive but it simply sits there after I've converted to MP3.

So long as tracks are ripped properly so there aren't any errors and you use a good MP3 encoder (LAME) and settings (V0, don't bother with 320) then all is good. When I used to DJ I was playing on some ridiculously large systems with MP3 and Serato, it wasn't an issue on these either.
 
Depends on the bit rate of the mp3 file. If it's the standard 128kbps then of course you can hear a noticeable difference.
 
I recall that 320 kbps was originally selected as the upper limit of CBR MP3 as the devs decided it was as transparent as they were going to get with their lossy algorithm. As such, it's pretty damn hard to ABX it against lossless.

As I just found from a quick google:

Samples that can be ABXed at 320 kbps by people trained to hear artifacts are fairly rare.

Samples that can be ABXed at 320 kbps by people who are not trained to hear artifacts are (virtually) nonexistent.
Click to expand...

VBR -V0 on lame is even more useful as it ramps down when the bitrate isn't needed.

128 and 192 were pretty easy to spot last time I tried, haven't done any ABX ing with my newer gear tho.
 
If you really listen for artefacts on well produced music you can sometimes hear the difference, but you certainly can't tell on normal listening; to hear you'd have to be analysing to the point the music is no longer enjoyable.

As a general rule of thumb I can ABX 224 and CD, but not 256 and CD so all my portable audio goes to 256. I've had very mixed results with variable and for the small size increase I'd prefer to just use 256 and have done with it.
 
I'll be honest. I compared a 128Kbps .mp3 with a .flac and I was none the wiser. It was a little louder and more bass came through... however I'd lose money if I was blind folded. It's not like I'm old or anything and my hearing isn't as good as it used too be. I'm 21 and my hearings pretty good. Well I thought it was haha.

It must just be me. Looking at the stats it really should be fairly obvious the difference. Some people can't tell the difference between a bluray and a dvd and I think their drunk or on drugs... you guys probably think the same about me with this.

Ahwell. On the bright side, I can listen to 128Kbps mp3's on cheapo speakers and get the same effect as you would with a 5 grand setup :P can't be bad haha.
 
It does not sound like you are none the wiser because you spotted the difference straight away. Flac is louder and has more bass than 128kbps. Isn't that difference enough? It is for me.
 
I can't say I notice a difference. I'll take the space benefits of using 320 over lossless on my ipod any day.

Badly mastered music sounds bad in FLAC or MP3 though.
 
Buchanan0204 said:
I compared a 128Kbps .mp3 with a .flac and I was none the wiser.
Click to expand...

128 has come a long way, it's still far from transparent but the casual listener probably wouldn't be able to tell. Now take a 128 track ripped 5 years or so ago and it sounds dreadful! The algorithm has improved over the years a huge amount.

Shamrock said:
I can't say I notice a difference. I'll take the space benefits of using 320 over lossless on my ipod any day.
Click to expand...

I used to think that way, but when you want your music in something other than 320 mp3 it's a pita. Having your archive in lossless makes things a hundred times easier and with the current price:capacity on hard drives I can see no reason anyone who enjoys music to not pay what is less than a pair of cheap 'n' nasty headphones on a hard drive to keep a lossless copy. On the other hand for portable listening on a small device (don't know if you've got the SSD or HDD based iPod) having a lossless archive means you can convert to something smaller quick and easily.
 
Buchanan0204 said:
I'll be honest. I compared a 128Kbps .mp3 with a .flac and I was none the wiser. It was a little louder and more bass came through... however I'd lose money if I was blind folded. It's not like I'm old or anything and my hearing isn't as good as it used too be. I'm 21 and my hearings pretty good. Well I thought it was haha.
Click to expand...

MP3 was designed to -and does a good job of- encoding the most obvious bits of music well and sacrificing bits that are less noticeable. Thus, usually high frequencies and transients go first. This makes certain samples sound different, and as the highs go it's things like hi-hats and certain synthesised sounds which get badly represented.

If you try again with foobar2000 ABX plugin on a 128 kbps track and focus on the hi hats/cymbals compared to lossless you will probably hear what I mean.
 
I agree with Auraomega, if you know what to look for in specific songs, you could probably tell a flac file apart from a well encoded mp3, but at this point you will be analysing the music rather than listening to it and hence probably not enjoying it.

Also when comparing the two files, it has to be done in under blind testing conditions. If you know what file you are listening to, your results will be hugely flawed. This is probably why a lot people 'think' they can tell them apart, when in fact the differences were just in their mind. I've experienced this myself, only to be proven wrong when using proper blind testing.

All being said though, there are plenty of other reasons why you'd want to use a lossless codec instead of a lossy codec (and vice versa).
 
I was doing some testing with Radiohead's King of Limbs in flac and 320kbps. I really can't notice anything.:( I think my equipment is of reasonable enough quality to show any differences.

I agree with you Auraomega on a lossless archive for at home due to cheap storage, but for an ipod I'd really just rather have more music on it. Who knows when a spontaneous party will break out and I'll be ready with 120gb worth of albums.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom