FLAC and mp3 question

i dont really listen to that much music but im starting to get into it, and im notice a new format called FLAC which i read its suppose to be higher quality due to no loss in the compression process as opposed to mp3 and other compression format, which i get the basic idea but dont know all the details, so my question is, is there really that big of a difference in quality? because the file size for FLAC music is significantly large than its mp3 counter part, and can ipods play FLAC or is a FLAC player needed to play these files? thanks for the help

Flac is not a new format.

And yes there is a massive difference to anyone with a half rate audio system between flac and mp3.

FLAC is close to Apple Lossless, which is the only lossless format the iPod/iPhone can play.

FLAC, WMA Lossless and Apple Lossless are good for audiophiles or for archiving, but if you kick up the bitrate on your mp3 encoder you can achieve some good results. Also, consider that you will only hear the difference if you have a good, expensive set of headphones.

Good to hear that you discovered FLAC. Although there are a number of players that support the format, it isn't the most efficient format for using on portable media players. A high quality level LAME encoded MP3 will yield the same percievable results.

But FLAC is important in archiving and storing your music however. Because FLAC is lossless, if a new format is developed in the future that has much higher quality than MP3 and an even smaller filesize you don't have to worry about substantial quality loss when going from FLAC to said new format. Whereas if you went from MP3 to that new format, you will lose too much quality. Also, because FLAC supports tags and album art, and has a generally smaller filesize, it is a better format than WAV as well.

Some players that support FLAC:

-Rockboxable portable media players

-Cowon, Sansa, Archos, and some IRiver portable media players

-Software such as Winamp, foobar2000, Media Monkey

You might want to check www.hydrogenaudio.com for more details.

You can't listne FLAC on iPod without software modding. But you can use ALAC music files with iPod. Since the quality is very similar i would stick to ALAC. Now the difference between ALAC/FLAC and mp3 is very noticeable. Since I started listening to ALAC, MP3's seem to me like an ALAC played from behind a concrete wall.

thanks for all the helpful info guys, i got one more question, how do i check what bit rate my ipod nano is? is there a way to config the bit rate or is it preset?

thanks for all the helpful info guys, i got one more question, how do i check what bit rate my ipod nano is? is there a way to config the bit rate or is it preset?

Guol

thanks for all the helpful info guys, i got one more question, how do i check what bit rate my ipod nano is? is there a way to config the bit rate or is it preset?

Guol

even audiophiles say that you cant tell a diff between v0/320 and FLAC. i have 300 dollar headphones and you cant tell really. FLAC is great for archival tormentor313

[QUOTE="tormentor313"]even audiophiles say that you cant tell a diff between v0/320 and FLAC. i have 300 dollar headphones and you cant tell really. FLAC is great for archival KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="tormentor313"]even audiophiles say that you cant tell a diff between v0/320 and FLAC. i have 300 dollar headphones and you cant tell really. FLAC is great for archival tormentor313

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="tormentor313"]even audiophiles say that you cant tell a diff between v0/320 and FLAC. i have 300 dollar headphones and you cant tell really. FLAC is great for archival tormentor313

He is correct when it comes to high end equipment. The first thing to suffer in music from either low quality or bad equipment are percussion instruments because of their highly dynamic nature.

[QUOTE="tormentor313"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] You can tell the difference for sure. WushuFighter

He is correct when it comes to high end equipment. The first thing to suffer in music from either low quality or bad equipment are percussion instruments because of their highly dynamic nature.

cymbals are also a problem area for all lossy codecs

If you don't have high-end headphones, 320k is fine

I have bose triport headphones and I can tell absolutely no difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC. Maybe it is because I only have realtek HD audio but still if it really was such a big deal, there should atleast be some difference as my headphones are among the best.

I have bose triport headphones and I can tell absolutely no difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC. Maybe it is because I only have realtek HD audio but still if it really was such a big deal, there should atleast be some difference as my headphones are among the best.

Gambler_3

I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of South Carolina. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.dont-read-this

edit: I'm googling and nothing is coming up

[QUOTE="dont-read-this"]I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of South Carolina. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.DivergeUnify

Sorry man, it was a joke post... Speaking seriously: If done good, compression (mp3) sounds like the real thing (FLAC), you won't notice the difference. Most of my music are 320kbps mp3, I used to have the FLAC counterparts but they are a waste of space, i noticed no difference. There are SOME people though that delude themselves into thinking they hear a difference to justify their expensive audio equipment.dont-read-this

Haha figured :P

most of my music is in 320kpbs and 440kpbs, some in WMA lossless. I have an 80 gig Zune so it's not really a problem. I met a guy at Panera Bread who strictly purchased CDs, ripped everyone of them in WAV and kept all of his music on a separate harddrive. He even had a dedicated CD ripper... Talk about overkill

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="dont-read-this"]I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of South Carolina. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.dont-read-this

You better be joking lol. If any alteration, even just one bit is lost, the whole damn file is corrupt.

FLAC, APE, TAK and other lossless formats are for music archiving. I use lossless to keep perfect digital copies of my music on my computer (for transcoding.) People who use lossless formats on a PMP, however, are really just wasting storage space for no perceivable sound quality gain. On my PC I listen to lossless simply because I have all of my music archived right there.

For normal listening on a PMP, you should be using something like (aoTuV) Vorbis if your player supports it, or AAC/MP3 if it doesn't. I have a majority of my stuff on my PMP in aoTuV Vorbis q6/q8, despite also having every single one of those tracks ripped to lossless on my computer.

[QUOTE="dont-read-this"]I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from the University of South Carolina. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.DivergeUnify

That's because it's a copypasta/troll from /g/

There's another amusing but shorter post claiming that files "lose bytes" over time when encoded to MP3.

I have bose triport headphones and I can tell absolutely no difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC. Maybe it is because I only have realtek HD audio but still if it really was such a big deal, there should atleast be some difference as my headphones are among the best.

Gambler_3

I noticed it, too, but don't use it because it doesn't work with my Zune.GodofBigMacs

[QUOTE="GodofBigMacs"]I noticed it, too, but don't use it because it doesn't work with my Zune.darkIink

Why use WMA lossless? It has a poor compression ratio, uses proprietary encoding, and inefficient tags.