No real difference between flac and 320kbps mp3?

[Moeks]

Errr ...no, where did I say you should rip music to 64k? ... music doesn't take up anywhere near as much space as full quality BR rips anyway, so it's nowhere near the same thing.

Apparently we have different priorities though, music, 2 channel audio quality is the most important aspect to me, everything else comes secondary to that.

Hence I still tend to buy dvds rather than blue rays, as the price difference isn't worth it for me, the picture quality difference doesn't really bother me all that much. I mostly watch American TV series anyway, rarely do I watch films ...maybe one a month.

The only area I would say I really appreciate full 1080P BR picture quality is with nature documentaries and some natural history stuff.

 

[JonnyGLC]

You need to spend some time reading audiophile equipment reviews and articles to start to understand what is meant by the various terminology used I think, having said that ...a lot of it is a fairly logical use of descriptive words really.

I know exactly what he is trying to say about the sound by the words he has used to describe it, and I used to think I knew what it meant, but I must confess that I didn't really understand it until I had heard such things for myself, and then I realised what was meant by 'air' and 'natural'. It's not just a sound either, it's the feeling of atmosphere that you get from a certain presentation of audio. Which might sound like bs too, but it's not, not to me anyway. I didn't really, truly 'get it' until I started to listen to highend equipment and then you have to get the synergy right too. You can do it with headphones much, much cheaper though ...that's the easiest way to get such a listening experience.

If you really don't understand it, and your ears are working as they should ...it's possibly because you haven't heard it.

No, I do understand it perfectly. It's just pretentious as **** and I can't stand it.

We're talking about the difference between 320 rips and FLAC. I understand and HAVE HEARD the difference between systems themselves, actual hardware. What I'm saying is ******** is the apparent difference between 320 rips and FLAC.

 

[Moeks]

Maybe, maybe not ...but the point you seem to be missing is, this is your opinion on the matter, it does not make it a certain truth.

Also, 320kbps MP3 is still missing information compared to a FLAC, WAV or whatever lossless format you like ...thus logic dictates that there is a difference ...there has to be because information is missing.

And the world of audiophiles is massively pretentious with huge amounts of snobbery, this is well known. It's not all hokum though, although no doubt there is plenty of it to go around.

 

[JonnyGLC]

Maybe, maybe not ...but the point you seem to be missing is, this is your opinion on the matter, it does not make it a certain truth.

Also, 320kbps MP3 is still missing information compared to a FLAC, WAV or whatever lossless format you like ...thus logic dictates that there is a difference ...there has to be because information is missing.

And the world of audiophiles is massively pretentious with huge amounts of snobbery, this is well known. It's not all hokum though, although no doubt there is plenty of it to go around.

I'm not trying to suggest that my opinion is actual fact at all, what I am saying is that the audible difference between 320 and FLAC is negligible. It's when people like subeke or whatever his name is try and make out that it's a huge difference, using poncy phrases that he's read some other 'audiophile' use on the Internet. If you haven't read his opinion yet on power cables yet, you really need to do so. Then you'll maybe see my issue here.

 

[probedb]

I'm not trying to suggest that my opinion is actual fact at all, what I am saying is that the audible difference between 320 and FLAC is negligible. It's when people like subeke or whatever his name is try and make out that it's a huge difference, using poncy phrases that he's read some other 'audiophile' use on the Internet. If you haven't read his opinion yet on power cables yet, you really need to do so. Then you'll maybe see my issue here.

Yup, it gives actual audiophiles a bad name. In a straightforward frequency test I found my limit to be around 15-16KHz which means in music it's likely even lower and I'm only 33.

I'm now happy (for the most part) with -V 2 using LAME using my iPod and Westone UM2s. Only reason I store my music on my PC as FLAC is because it acts as a backup and should another shiny lossy format come along I don't have to rerip, I just reencode. Same with MP3, if I want to reencode for the car (no point any higher than -V 5 in my car) then no need to rip and encode again.

It's also reasons like this I like hydrogen audio as a board for audio discussion. You post something like 'OMG LOLZ 24/96 sounds way better than 16/44' you better have the ABX results to show you heard any difference at all. Even that doesn't show that anyone else can hear it though.

...and as far as artifacts in MP3s you can train to know what to listen out for but then again if you're doing that you're not enjoying the music IMO

 

[Moeks]

If you haven't read his opinion yet on power cables yet, you really need to do so. Then you'll maybe see my issue here.

I haven't read it as it happens, I might do that later anyway.

probedb:

The thing is though a lot of this is entirely subjective, you can't really show results in a scientific way, it will change from one person to the next. That doesn't make it wrong or bs though.

 

[james.miller]

No, I do understand it perfectly. It's just pretentious as **** and I can't stand it.

We're talking about the difference between 320 rips and FLAC. I understand and HAVE HEARD the difference between systems themselves, actual hardware. What I'm saying is ******** is the apparent difference between 320 rips and FLAC.

320k as in 320k CBR ? (can you rip to 320k vbr ??). Frankly there is a difference as CBR isnt efficient and isnt foolproof. Its wasteful in its allocation of bits and doesnt allocate enough where its really needed - thats why VBR is preferred in general. But other than that there is material where the difference is quite apparent, but the majority of mainstream stuff doesnt qualify. So no, it isnt ****** at all.

I'm not trying to suggest that my opinion is actual fact at all, what I am saying is that the audible difference between 320 and FLAC is negligible.

Yeah, you are. If its negligible then it is there. if its there, then it isnt ****** is it?

Make your mind up.

I know from my own experience that its much easier to tell the difference with a decent set of headphones (my hd650s) than it is with something like my budget home cinema system. much easier. I bet you could probably do the same with the right material, but i guess that depends on what is negligable and what isnt.

I have no doubt that people will go to unbelievable lengths to prove there are the minutest differences and try their damnedest to convince the rest of us it was worth the £2.5k they spent on that DAC, or whatever other component they've just bought. But at the same time, I'm a realist. And i trust my ears.

 

[Spyhop]

This is the most boring recurring discussion on the net.

(So why am I in here? Good point. Door hits me on the way out)

 

[milkinc13]

In work a couple of days ago, 1 of my collegues said that MP3 sounds better than CD and he has seen scientific proof that there is no difference.
He was saying that it's been found that instead of going backward in audio we're goin forward as the quality from the highest goes:
vinyl
MP3
CD
me having heated discussion to him, but he's 1 of these people who won't back down so i let him "think" he was right.

back on topic not having heard FLAC, i can tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and uncompressed CD quality, it's not that hard, listen for the lack of sound and space in the track that MP3 has but the full dynamics that CD gives.

 

[Amraam]

I usually rip mine to 320 .mp4 aac. Sounds better than mp3, albeit marginally.

 

[Moeks]

There is actually some logic in some people thinking MP3 sounds better than CD, it doesn't of course ...with a half decent source, but if you play a cd on some cheap Argos mini system or similar, then you rip the cd to mp3 and you're listening to it through headphones rather than the mini system speakers than are shoved hard up against the unit and in turn the wall and on a hard wooden surface or some other terrible arrangement ...or if you just play cds on a computer and listen through the speakers ...then yes I can see why people might think MP3 sounds better, simply because the listening setup for the MP3 is probably rather better and less affected by outside interference ...such as an ipod with a pair of in ear phones.

MP3 absolutely isn't better than CD (it couldn't be better than the musical source material anyway), but under certain circumstances when all things most certainly are not equal ...it can be. Basically I think an ipod with a pair of IEM's is actually better to listen to music on than 'most' people's crappy CD playing setups, it's all in the setup.

 

[james.miller]

Thats right, in a similar vain to people thinking creative's crystallizer is actually a good thing. it is good...at compensating for awful speakers.

 

[divuk83]

Far as I know you can't rip a SACD, only the 16/44.1 layer. DVD-A you can with a lot of faffing, as I have done on the one I have.... Fleetwood Mac Rumours.

DBPoweramp has some codecs that can rip DSD (same audio as SACD) however no PC drives can read SACD yet. Maybe someday...

DBP can also rip HDCD's in 24bit but I thought that sounded slightly worse than the 16/44 rip I made of the same cd, I'm not quite sure how the codec works or if its doing a "propper" job of it.

Dave

 

[Fr0dders]

No, I do understand it perfectly. It's just pretentious as **** and I can't stand it.

We're talking about the difference between 320 rips and FLAC. I understand and HAVE HEARD the difference between systems themselves, actual hardware. What I'm saying is ******** is the apparent difference between 320 rips and FLAC.

i'm with you

theres far too much pretentious bull **** in the Hi-Fi industry, people telling you that in order for your speakers to sound their best they have to be on specially made £200 stands, and that the hifi cables shouldnt be allowed to touch the floor and need to be raised up on stands and all sorts.

Dont get me wrong, i'm not out to claim that 128kbs MP3 and proper CD sound the same, but some of the differences that claim to come from £50 a metre speaker cable etc.. are laughable.

 

[hux]

I do a lot of back to back listening of 320kbps/flac as that's the minimum i tend to tolerate.

The difference is hard for the untrained ear but it's there, say if it's diana krall i can pick out the piano keys being struck before the note, or her inhaling just prior to hitting a note, or how everything sounds much more spatial and i can place instruments in their exact positions.

I do however use sleek audio ct6 customs, which are renound for having a very accurate sound, can be boring but they'll pick out every detail, i easily pick up artists mistakes that they try to hide.

My ears tnough don't have the best range say 17hz to 18khz i do have great balance, the audiologist was very surprised how each ear performed exactly the same, probably explains why most mp3 players bar the s9/sansa clip sound unbalanced to me.

 

[Bubba]

I couldn't agree more, it's people like Mr Sukebe who i don't understand. There's of course going to be a discernible difference between poor bit-rate rips and quality 320/v0 rips, it's when people start trying to tell me they can hear a difference between things after that. It's even more annoying when they describe the differences to be "better low end control", having more "air" and that they're more "natural"... What? Because 320 rips sound unnatural and have less "air"?

I guess it's because I've not spend a ludicrous amount of money on a power cable that I'm unable to hear the difference?

I'm also not here just to pick an argument, I'm genuinely interested in the subject but it just astounds me that you still spout this rubbish on here.

There is a difference between mp3s and flac, but only on a good system, I know I can tell the difference as come some of my friends, some cant though, it is impossible for you to to know if someone hears a difference or not.

I am not saying the difference is huge but it is there and some people want that extra bit of "performance"

Just like car tuners tune their cars to get every last BHP from the engine and drop as much weight as possible, then why shouldnt people get the most out of their system, especially when hard drive storage is so cheap and FLAC isnt exactly huge.

Far as I know you can't rip a SACD, only the 16/44.1 layer. DVD-A you can with a lot of faffing, as I have done on the one I have.... Fleetwood Mac Rumours.

Oh my experience, over 25 years going from basic Nad amp to top end Linn.......and I frequently post

I didnt rip it myself, I downloaded it, here is what it states in the info. I dont really know if its true but it does sound very very nice, I have only listened to the 2.0 rip though, looking forward to the 5.1 rip when I finish my living room.

This is the new era of SACD ripping.

In the past we have only been able to rip SACDs by recording the multichannel analog outs of an SACD player and into our analog sound cards. Many people have used horrible Creative Audigy cards, and quality has been disappointing at best. Other rips that we have seen have been nicer, using the best that analog sound cards can offer from the likes of M-audio, Lynx, etc. However, quality has still suffered due to the multitude of problems that arise with analog capturing in general. Unless the SACD player used for the transfer is a very expensive one, the analog transfer quality will leave a lot to be desired.

But we now can celebrate in a new "standard" for SACD ripping. We can now capture a pure 24-bit PCM digital signal which is converted directly from the pure DSD stream from the disc - and this is achieved by using a special "modifed" SACD player. These modified players been around ever since the SACD format has, but they have always been extremely expensive (like, try a $2000 Denon player which you have to order from Switzerland). But things have progressed and a few companies are offering a modified version of the famous Oppo DV-980H player, which is well known for its affordability yet uncompromised quality - especially with regards to digital SACD output!

I have purchased such a player to make this SACD album available to you in the highest quality currently possible. The Oppo offers pure DSD output over HDMI 1.2 but it also gives the option for PCM output. The Oppo internally converts the DSD to PCM at 24-bit/88.2kHz and the "mod" captures this PCM signal and outputs it through three stereo S/PDIF (coaxial) jacks. To capture this glorious digital signal, I am using three M-Audio Delta 1010LT sound cards simultaneously. They each have a single stereo coaxial input, so in order to record all six channels simultanesously, three cards must be used. I'm using Adobe Audition 1.5 in multitrack mode to simultaneously record the 6 channels in real time, then I map the channels with Audition's "multichannel encoder", and export the individual mono wav channels. After that I split the album into the tracks and encode it to MLP with surcode, and author it to DVD-A with Discwelder Chrome. No editing of the audio signal is made in Adobe Audition, this is a straight digital capture of the signal and as close as you can get to copying an SACD disc-to-disc at the present time.

SACD ripping has now been taken to a level never attained before, and I hope that you enjoy the music, the surround/stereo mix and the wonderful audio quality of this album! If you do not have the original SACD and are able to purchase it at a reasonable price, I encourage you to buy it and enjoy the original DSD sound on the disc itself. If not, this is the best alternative way for you to enjoy it.