Flac vs 320kbps
- Thread starter UXB
- Start date
If you've got the hard drive space then archive to FLAC first and keep them as master copies and then you can just transcode the FLAC files to whatever you like for use on other devices that may not have much space or the need for high quality audio.
it's unlikely you'd ever hear the difference. most people who say they can never back up their claims with hard evidence.
having said that, i'd still rip to flac. CD ripping is a real PITA process so it's something you only want to do once. when you have a lossless copy, you're then free to convert to any codec you like in the future with the minimum of effort. if you rip to mp3, you're stuck with it because you should never transcode to any other format from a lossy source.
having said that, i'd still rip to flac. CD ripping is a real PITA process so it's something you only want to do once. when you have a lossless copy, you're then free to convert to any codec you like in the future with the minimum of effort. if you rip to mp3, you're stuck with it because you should never transcode to any other format from a lossy source.
As everyone else has mentioned, rip the CD as FLAC, and then if you want to store it on a portable device with limited storage, use MP3.
Although to be honest, with headphones and a Xonar DX, I can't really hear enough difference.
Although to be honest, with headphones and a Xonar DX, I can't really hear enough difference.
Another advantage of master copies in Flac is you can convert things for different purposes later. Either different formats or different bitrates. Every now and then I do the whole lot again from Flac to MP3 after Lame has gone through a couple of updates.
For those that claim that they can tell the difference; it's their hearing, it only matters to them. Even if these people can still tell the difference using a A/B test, it still only matters to them. For those who can, great; for those who can't, that's great also. What matters, is what the individual hears, not everyone else.
It's already been said, but I agree it's best to keep all rips as lossless, then take any conversions from those; even if you can't distinguish between FLAC and MP3. The way I see it; it's like measuring a piece of wood then cutting it, then using that piece of wood as a template to cut another, then that piece as a template and so forth. Eventually, the last piece of wood you cut will be a very different size to the first. If you did that with music files, you will eventually end up with something that probably isn't worth listening to. Best to keep a master and take all measurements from that, whatever it is.
It's already been said, but I agree it's best to keep all rips as lossless, then take any conversions from those; even if you can't distinguish between FLAC and MP3. The way I see it; it's like measuring a piece of wood then cutting it, then using that piece of wood as a template to cut another, then that piece as a template and so forth. Eventually, the last piece of wood you cut will be a very different size to the first. If you did that with music files, you will eventually end up with something that probably isn't worth listening to. Best to keep a master and take all measurements from that, whatever it is.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 956
Agree with others. FLAC is good for storage as it's lossless, but you won't hear much difference if any - surely not enough on any DACs or speakers designed for the PC, and not on any portable media player. There was actually an interesting survey I saw not too long ago where something like 50% of surveyed individuals (using a variety of equipment setups) thought they could easily tell the difference between flac and 320. Of those individuals, 80% did in fact consistently identify a difference between the two. They said they thought the 320 sounded better.
Some people can always tell the difference in proper blind testing, some people can't. As above, it's dependent on the individual. I don't want to sit doing tests all day, so I'm far happier knowing I've got an exact copy of my CDs instead of a reduced quality version that I might not tell the difference with.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 9,304
- Location
- United Kingdom
I've never been able to tell the difference tbh.
I am about to start ripping my cd collection to digital and would like to know the best format for it, i know that flac is the highest but is there that much of a difference between 320kbps and flac
Well it depends on you really. IF you are only going to be listening on cheaphone headphones/speakers you aren't going to be able to tell the difference.
But like the others said in this thread already the best option is probably to rip to flac.
What you could do of course is to rip one CD to flac and to 320kps mp3 and see if you notice the difference.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 1,404
- Location
- Reigate
I'd be more than happy to provide some hard evidence - how about a listening test? I am confident I would ace it...
I would argue there's a problem with your system if you cant but I have trained my ears since the age of 5 and work everyday in studios so go figure.
Wasn't meant to be a dig at anyone was just surprised by that comment!
I challenge you guys to listen to the same song MP3 vs FLAC and listen CAREFULLY to the cymbals of the drums especially. Also reverb tails are particularly effected by the lossy MP3 algorithms.
Now, when I was 18 I STARTED to hear a difference. Now I am 27 and can easily tell you bit depth and/or samplerate of professionally mixed and mastered records let alone if they're MP3 or FLAC!
Point I'm trying to make here is go ahead and rip in FLAC as HDD space is getting cheaper and your ears (believe it or not) actually become more refined the more you listen to music! I kid you not. So, whilst you may not notice a difference now give it 5 years or so and you MAY indeed notice a difference and have to re-rip everything! Nightmare.
Also, the quality and/or accuracy of your actual equipment makes a huge difference. I've spent thousands on mine...
Last edited:
note i used the words "unlikely" and "most" so as to not say it's impossible for everyone. i'll believe you. 
if by this you mean you hear the difference between hi-res lossless 24/192 against your standard 16/44 then i will reserve my right to be very sceptical indeed.
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
i'm an un-educated lout so a lot of it goes over my head but i understand the Listening tests section.
if by this you mean you hear the difference between hi-res lossless 24/192 against your standard 16/44 then i will reserve my right to be very sceptical indeed.
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
i'm an un-educated lout so a lot of it goes over my head but i understand the Listening tests section.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 1,404
- Location
- Reigate
Bit-depths are easy 
Samplerates not so....
Samplerates not so....
I'm no professional, but I enjoy my music.
I think I can notice a difference, it's possible it's a placebo effect I suppose. I have never taken a proper test, but if I play the same song ripped to the two formats I think I see a difference. Especially like when a symbol hisses after the dude's hit it.
If storage space is of concern to you, I'd say by all means rip to MP3 you wont notice a difference or have anything to compare it to. Hell I wish I had never gotten involved in quality audio, I used to be quite happy listening to MP3 128 on a 20pound MP3 player. Basically what I'm saying is, listen to the MP3s if they sound legit to you and you want to save some space, go for it.
I think I can notice a difference, it's possible it's a placebo effect I suppose. I have never taken a proper test, but if I play the same song ripped to the two formats I think I see a difference. Especially like when a symbol hisses after the dude's hit it.
If storage space is of concern to you, I'd say by all means rip to MP3 you wont notice a difference or have anything to compare it to. Hell I wish I had never gotten involved in quality audio, I used to be quite happy listening to MP3 128 on a 20pound MP3 player. Basically what I'm saying is, listen to the MP3s if they sound legit to you and you want to save some space, go for it.
you can always rule of out the effects of placebo/expectation bias by using foobar2000 and the foo_abx component. you can read this for more info: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295
don't feel you have to present any results on my account. i just don't care. i have rubbish hearing and a crap stereo but i still buy CDs and rip to flac. i just want flexibility for whatever comes further on down the line.
i'll still buy lossy files from the amazon mp3 store and even itunes but that's only when i want single tracks or they are digital exclusives you can't buy on CD.
that's not likely in this day and age. you can rip around 3000 CDs to flac per 1TB of disk space - but you do need to consider doubling up when thinking about backups.
i wouldn't sink to 128kbps but there really is nothing wrong with 20 quid devices. you can get a low capacity sansa clip and they are amazing players for the money. for one thing they support rockbox and proper gapless playback. i've read about so called "audiophile" devices which cost hundreds of dollars that pop and click on track transitions. they have no concept of gapless. the only reason audiophools think this is acceptable is because they cost so much.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,185
I archive to FLAC because I can ABX it, but only listen to MP3s in practice.
320 is a waste though, encode @ V2 or V0.
320 is a waste though, encode @ V2 or V0.
you can always rule of out the effects of placebo/expectation bias by using foobar2000 and the foo_abx component. you can read this for more info: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295
don't feel you have to present any results on my account. i just don't care. i have rubbish hearing and a crap stereo but i still buy CDs and rip to flac. i just want flexibility for whatever comes further on down the line.
i'll still buy lossy files from the amazon mp3 store and even itunes but that's only when i want single tracks or they are digital exclusives you can't buy on CD.
that's not likely in this day and age. you can rip around 3000 CDs to flac per 1TB of disk space - but you do need to consider doubling up when thinking about backups.
i wouldn't sink to 128kbps but there really is nothing wrong with 20 quid devices. you can get a low capacity sansa clip and they are amazing players for the money. for one thing they support rockbox and proper gapless playback. i've read about so called "audiophile" devices which cost hundreds of dollars that pop and click on track transitions. they have no concept of gapless. the only reason audiophools think this is acceptable is because they cost so much.
Hmm, that link was an interesting read. That guy put a lot of thought into this obviously. The tests seem pretty complex and I'm not really that bothered, I'll probably run them when I get some spare time.
As for the storage, I suppose I have lived in Africa my whole life so we are a bit behind in the money:capacity ratio. And I do get your point, it would have to be a pretty massive collection to worry about capacity being an issue, but the dude was obviously considering it to make the thread
Unfortunately my old player was not a Clip, was an lime green JNC device. 20 pounds is the equivalent of what I paid for it, not how much it was worth
. Yeah, rockbox is great, I use it on my Sandisk Fuze at the moment. Mine doesn't do gapless though
I don't think I've updated my rockbox for a good 3 years though.