Difference between FLAC codec and the rest

Associate
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Posts
259
There is any major quality difference between songs with the FLAC codec @ 320kbps and other songs which are using other codec but also are @ 320kbps?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,007
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
flac-encoded cd audio is typically at least 2-3 times that. to get a bitrate as low as 320k with flac, you would probably have to be encoding something like 22khz so 320k FLAC isnt really comparable to 320k LAME-encoded mp3s.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Dec 2006
Posts
15,370
Flac is lossless. If you encode a typical 44.1kHz music track to flac it will be around 800-1000Kbps. You cant compare lossless flac bitrates with lossy mp3 bitrates.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jan 2004
Posts
20,689
Assuming you encode from a lossless source FLAC is much much better than any other compressed format you can reel off.

You need good quality kit to hear that difference though. On mid/low-range soundcards/speakers/headphones youn will unlikely hear a difference between 256-320Kbp/s MP3 and FLAC.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Apr 2012
Posts
959
flacs tend to be higher bitrates, but if you have a file that actually says 320kbps and is a real flac, then it should still be better because it'll still be vbr. flac's a compression method that doesn't cut any info out, so technically you can't get better than flac (or other lossless compression methods).

this might be baloney. but this is what i understood of it.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 May 2011
Posts
5,549
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
FLAC is lossless, same as WAV. FLAC is however better in the fact that it can compress the file without losing any data, vastly reducing the size of it compared to the average WAV file.

Being able to hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC? HIGHLY exaggerated. It's almost impossible, even on blind tests, to make out that much difference. FLAC was designed as a storage format, so that you could convert it to other lossy formats easily, but always have the original lossless file on you. In that way, it's a library of songs, that can always be converted to the newest formats. Whereas with MP3, converting it to anything else would incur further data loss.

Basically, the difference should be almost impossible to notice. Keep FLACs for storage.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2004
Posts
3,115
Location
Bournemouth
Being able to hear the difference between 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC? HIGHLY exaggerated. It's almost impossible, even on blind tests, to make out that much difference.

No no no dont start this again :/ Everyones hearing is different! I can tell the difference on £30 headphones between the two lol. People who have bad eyesight cant tell the difference between dvd and blu ray, doesnt mean there isnt a difference.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jul 2004
Posts
4,087
Location
Shoreham by Sea
There must be other variables involved in hearing the difference between 320 mp3s and flac files. I don't know about anyone else but some mp3s sound better than others despite the fact that they're the same bit rate. I've never bothered reading into it but I figured there must be other settings involved in the initial rip of the song. Either that or they used some dodgy source initially like a stream or something.


In any case the difference has been explained - FLACs are higher quality but whether you can tell the different is a regularly discussed issue. Personally, I think if you just want good quality tunes and have the storage space then FLAC all the way :)
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2011
Posts
3,415
Location
London
Lossless all the way, I find they seem louder at the same volume at the very least than the equivalent mp3, I always have to turn the volume down when compared to an equivalent mp3.
Just think when using a digi cam, its nice to keep the RAW file, but a full quality JPG is barely any different.
 
Top Bottom