I personally do not think you will hear much difference unless you have a decent, clean source, a pair of reference grade headphones or speakers and a clean background, ie power and internal noise is minimal. Say like a $150-200 external DAC, a pair of beyer 880 headphones or something like the WAF-1 speakers being the minimum. Even then the only difference you MIGHT hear is artifacts or compression and a slightly more restricted sound stage and range. So if you have the space go ahead. If not, go 320 and reduce it to 192 for portable. I strongly believe it's worth storing your music collection in lossless.
Blur Song 2 320 Kbps Vs Flac Free
This way you can always re-encode it in to the best format for a specific device you might be using in the future.For example, my current portable is my 32GB iPhone so I batch encode my FLAC library into 192k vbr AAC because thats the best codec available for my iPhone and that bitrate allows me to fit my collection.If I get a larger player in the future I can then simply re-encode my collection to 256k or 320k from the original lossless copies. I can't hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 V0, let alone MP3 320.
But I still have all my music ripped as FLAC. The reason is exactly what SirMaster explained: I want flexibility in transcoding to any format and bitrate I want for different purposes. For example, I batch encoded my entire library to MP3 V0 for storing on my work computer (where a 100 GB FLAC collection isn't exactly practical, but I still want the best quality possible), and MP3 V2 for my phone (where I've only got a 16 GB SDHC card to work with). Say MP3 falls out of vogue in a few years and some other lossy format like OGG or AAC is more supported by portable players, etc.? No problem for me. I'll just right click my whole FLAC library in foobar and overnight, I'll have everything in the new format.
Eh, I rip and store FLAC because I like knowing that nothing got lost between the cd and my speakers. That being said, it's definitely more piece of mind then a real SQ difference. I think if I look for it, I can distinguish ever so slightly more depth in Flac than in V0. But in honesty, were I to walk into my room and be informed one of my tracks was playing and to guess if it was playing in V0 or Flac, I would have no idea. Heck, don't let me get a frame of reference and play it once in each format, and I still doubt I would be able to tell which play was which.But yeah, if you are going to keep your collection in mp3, for the love of god don't store it in 320CBR, there is really no justification for that.
Encode it with the LAME codec and there will be no difference between the 320 and the V0 except the 320 will take up more space.EDIT: Just to note my speakers are Linn Majik 109s. Their setup could of course be better, for one thing they're on a desk instead of stands, but I think they're still good enough to distinguish the difference between flac and v0 if it's really there. Just saying, if you get a reference setup, v0s won't exactly make you feel like you wasted your money.2nd EDIT: Your poll is missing the option 'I may not be able to tell the difference, but find no reason to not keep a flac collection for peace of mind.' So I'm not voting. Click to expand.Anything less than $2000 is relatively entry level, so point is moot anyway. RC10s at full msrp are still considered entry level in the audiophile world which is where I was basing it from.Pertaining to this thread, I don't think you can justify spending more especially to mid range ballpark money $3k + just to hear the difference in lossless imo.
At the same time, its a good idea to keep FLAC files around for future tech. Hypothetically speaking: say couple years from now apple ipods and next gen smartphones get the ability to play FLAC files. Anything less than $2000 is relatively entry level, so point is moot anyway. RC10s at full msrp are still considered entry level in the audiophile world which is where I was basing it from.Pertaining to this thread, I don't think you can justify spending more especially to mid range ballpark money $3k + just to hear the difference in lossless imo. At the same time, its a good idea to keep FLAC files around for future tech.
Hypothetically speaking: say couple years from now apple ipods and next gen smartphones get the ability to play FLAC files. Click to expand.$2000 can get you a heck of a headphone setup though.Sennheiser HD800s can be found for $1000Pair those with a Benchmark DAC-1 Pre for $1000With that you could even differentiate between 16/44.1 lossless and 24/96 lossless.iPods and iPhones already play ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) which is similar to FLAC in that it's lossless compression. It also provides a similar compression ratio.Lots of users still buy iPod Classics because they have 160GB drives which is enough for over 5000 ALAC tracks.Still, FLAC is probably more universal on a PC, but you could easily convert to ALAC, sync to your iPod then then delete the ALAC. $2000 can get you a heck of a headphone setup though.Sennheiser HD800s can be found for $1000Pair those with a Benchmark DAC-1 Pre for $1000With that you could even differentiate between 16/44.1 lossless and 24/96 lossless.iPods and iPhones already play ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) which is similar to FLAC in that it's lossless compression.
It also provides a similar compression ratio.Lots of users still buy iPod Classics because they have 160GB drives which is enough for over 5000 ALAC tracks.Still, FLAC is probably more universal on a PC, but you could easily convert to ALAC, sync to your iPod then then delete the ALAC. $2000 can get you a heck of a headphone setup though.Sennheiser HD800s can be found for $1000Pair those with a Benchmark DAC-1 Pre for $1000With that you could even differentiate between 16/44.1 lossless and 24/96 lossless.iPods and iPhones already play ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) which is similar to FLAC in that it's lossless compression.
It also provides a similar compression ratio.Lots of users still buy iPod Classics because they have 160GB drives which is enough for over 5000 ALAC tracks.Still, FLAC is probably more universal on a PC, but you could easily convert to ALAC, sync to your iPod then then delete the ALAC. Click to expand.I agree with the going with lossless regardless bit.I can tell the difference, but the difference is not enough to justify a complete lossless collection.
I use FLAC whenever I can at home/PC because I know I've got nothing to lose as hard drive space is not an issue, so there's no reason not to get FLAC.I do however maintain a separate mp3 320 version of my library so I can fit it onto my iPhone. With limited space, I am prepared to sacrifice lossless quality for more tracks. Being on the go listening on the iPhone, there are too many distractions/ambient noise + I'm not really deeply immersed into the music while on the go, so IMO, lossless for portable non-home use is overkill. I have tried this test using my car audio system which almost 2000 watts RMS and cant tell the difference. I had flac files that were converted to.wav vs taking the flac files and encoding them to v0 vbr mp3 files.
Copy the theme file (.ath) into this Themes directory. Close directory. Open Alienware AlienFx. Select My Themes drop down. Alienware FX Theme Select. Alienware alienfx themes. Morphing Rainbow by Eleanor Alienware 17 R4 FX Theme - 'I attempted to create a subtly changing rainbow theme, as. Morphing Rainbow by Eleanor Alienware 17 R4 FX Theme. Orient Chill by James Alienware 17 R4 Fx Theme. Rainbow Theme by Hunter Alienware 17 R4 Theme. Rainbow by Mike Alienware 17 R4 Theme. Newest Themes. Morphing Rainbow by Eleanor Alienware 17 R4 FX Theme. Orient Chill by James Alienware 17 R4 Fx Theme. Flowing Colour Wheel by Drew Alienware 13 R3 Theme. Rainbow Theme by Hunter Alienware 17 R4 Theme. Snowstorm by ADagAvenger Alienware 15 R2 Theme. Rainbow by Mike Alienware 17 R4 Theme. Rainbow Theme By Jose Alienware 15 R3 Fx Theme - here is what Jose had to. Rainbow Effect By Parth Alienware 15 R3 Fx Theme has a rainbow effect on.
Granted my audio system in my car isn't exactly all 'top of the line' components which may void the test completely but the fact that I couldn't hear the difference was enough for me to just skip over keeping flac files. I certainly cant hear the difference on my computer speakers either so I dont see the point of wasting the space. I still have all of my cds so I can rip them to flac at a later date if I need/want to but for now I'm satisfied with my v0 vbr files. What EmptyQuarter said. I keep two complete libraries - same content, different bitrate - for stationary and portable use.One is FLAC, and currently the lossy library is in 256K MP3. I couldnt tell the difference till this last version of my car stereo. I went from older kenwood amps and low end JL components/ W0 subs, to all Zapco amps, with a dedicated Zapco DSP and Hybrid Audio Technologies components, with Image Dynamics subs.I can DEFINITELY hear a difference, and I couldn't before.
Don't get me wrong, 320 sounds excellent, but FLAC and just a regular old CD audio file, sound better. The largest difference came when I went to the L1 Pro tweeters, as the softer female vocals, and other high end tones are distinctly clearer between 320 and FLAC/CD Audio.It sort of sucks, at least half my music is almost unlistenable now. Its strange that a better stereo can make a bad recording (or rip in this case) sound even worse. But I have been slowly but surely either buying the CDs, or DLing them in FLAC and re-burning them to CD Audio so my HU can play them.That said, I have what at full retail (including the VERY extensive sound deadening and all the custom install work I have done) would likely be a close to $7k stereo if not more. (I work in a high end car audio/custom shop) My wife's car has what would amount to a roughly $1500 stereo (Diamond Audio D6 components a Diamond D3 8' sub in a sealed downfiring box) and Massive amps (massive brand, not size lol) and you absolutely cant tell the difference. In fact I doubt you could tell the difference from FLAC to 256.So for probably 95% of people, there wont be an audible difference.UNLESS you are talking about people like us ( H members) who tend to use higher end headphones when we are doing any sort of critical listening, in which case, I would bet you could tell the difference on some $250-400 cans.Also for the record on an Audigy and M-Audio AV40s I cant hear the difference at all.But I can DEFINITELY tell in my car. I have to say I never could tell a difference till I bought my first set of custom fit IEM's.
Everyone always says they cant tell a difference in the various formats RIGHT TILL they start listening to them on a decent system. Some systems you just will never get good sound from no matter what. A good amp or set of speakers can and will reveal compression artifacts and other faults with low quality rips. You can also find layers to music that you did not know even exist.
There are a couple of songs like Space Oddity (David Bowie) or Horse and Rider ( Steve Miller) that have very faint intro drum rolls. Most systems you think there are an extra 10 -15 secs of silence on the start of these tracks because they just cant pick up the faint drumming.So in the end I would agree with most of the comments. In many ways most average users will never be able to tell the difference in quality levels from source to source that just a fact of life. Some people have convinced themselves there can be no improvement and for those people there wont be. If you have the storage space and/or the audio set up I would say go lossless otherwise stick with MP3s.
A while ago, I decided to switch to MP3 music instead of CD’s, so I painstakingly ripped all my CD’s (500+) onto my computer. It’s much easier finding albums on a computer than it is sifting through piles of CD’s only to find out that I put the wrong CD in the case that I was looking for. Plus, I really love “super random” play.Anyways, I did all my encoding at 128kbps. After I finished (a week later!), I was talking to a friend of mine who had just finished doing the same thing with all of his CD’s, except he did then at 320kbps.He and everyone I spoke with told me that at 128kbps the audio is pretty much garbage and that I needed to do it all over again.I thought to myself: Why didn’t I rip them at 320kbps? Now I have to deal with inferior quality music or go through the entire ripping process again!”.
Can you hear the difference?In any case, I have a fun test for everyone: Listen to these 2 clips. One is encoded at 128kbps and the other is encoded at 320kbps (over twice the bit rate). Can you tell the difference? Well, if it is a calm song there is not much to encode due to low entropy. If you listen to a rock song at 128 kbps you should here a clear difference due to the high entropy ( much sound at the same time to encode ).
Besides mp3 is obsolete, you should use ogg vorbis or AAC (.mp4). All mp3 files sounds bad regardless the bitrate thus its hard to tell the difference of the two songs above, plus its a very low entropy song. If you compare ogg vorbis (128kpbs) and mp3 (128kpbs), same song, you should here a difference. Wow a majority of people are deaf haha More people thought 128 sounded better. Most people probably expected the 2nd to be the 320.
Thing is with good headphones. I have Sennheiser HD555’s its not hard at all to tell the difference.Also I reckon people could like the muffled blended together smoothed out sound that lower quality encoding brings out. Imagine it like the sustain pedal on a piano. Most novice pianists over use the sustain pedal because they think it sounds good. 320kb vs 128kb sounds a lot more Crisp. To say it a differnet way imagine a picture thats sharp and has some jaggies and you blur it a bit. It may look more appealing to some which is what in effect happens at lower quality encoding it audibly blurs it a bit which to some sounds better.
Im a musician and I prefer 320 because everything comes off more clear, crisp, and realistic. I could tell. Until portable flac players become a reality, last longer than 20 mins with playback, and youre not obsessed with backing up your entire mp3 collection to premium quality, stick with mp3! Ps if you intend to backup your collection for portable players on the move, dont go any higher than 192 kbps.
If its for pc listening on good speakers, go with mp3 320 kbps constant or a high variable bitrate. Variable will save you alot of space, but despite what some people will tell you, variable can often give you a clearer sound if you listen hard enough. Its because variable can give a wider/higher range of sound frequencies for your music. Hard to really tell, but for the nerds its true. So sometimes a lower bitrate vbr can sound better than a 320 kbps cbr. At a lower bitrate, rock music can sound a bit gargled, but if you prefer other styles then variable or constant around 192kbps may be enough for you, for both pc and portable player use.
Better yet, you wont have to convert your collection twice! П˜‰ Another thing to note that a high bitrate on a portable player will eat up those batteries, and some portable players wont work properly with variable bitrate mp3s (vbr) and will only prefer constant (cbr) mp3s, so try your player first with some tracks to make sure they will work ok with the method you choose to use. If youre not sure, try converting your music to different bitrates to decide what sounds best to you whilst not using up too much space on your portable mp3 player (as an example). Just dont play your music too loud whatever you choose to use! Lossless is overrated.
I chose 1; it sounded better than 2, which had some weird choppiness with the high hats, but other than that they sound almost exactly the same — and I had to use my ATH-M50’s and strain my head to hear it. Also had to turn off the Crystallizer on my Auzentech Prelude to be safe.Long story short it DOESN’T MATTER even with studio-grade equipment the difference is barely noticeable unless you really look for it — and if you’re just listening to your MP3s to listen for impurities then you aren’t actually enjoying them now aren’t you?Surely when you bought an iPod or whatever you were actually thinking of enjoying your music and not listening for holes in it, right?This is also the reason why I say Lossless is Overrated. Allo i got it wrong.
After listening to it about 20 times. I used $700 dollar noise cancelling headphones quietcomfort 3s which were not the best for this test. Despite this you want to go with 320kbps mp3s for sure but there is no point doing that any more. The only way to make and save your music now is with Flac. I recommend everyone to go with Flac even if you can’t hear the difference.
If you need to put it on your ipod convert the FLAC to AAC 320kbps or put it on as apple lossless. It’s easy to convert out of Flac. Flac is the way to go people for all future encoding of music.As for the difference. Well it doesn’t mean you need to throw out all your old MP3’s as if you can’t tell the difference then don’t worry, but if you get the chance slowly replace them all with FLAC.
People who can tell the difference are welcome to just start using FLAC.There is alot of very hard to get music, that is going to take a very long time, if ever to find its way into the Flac format. So we will be using Mp3’s and AAC for a while yet.The Future is flac tho!.
I just took this test and got it right.it was really easy to tell the difference between the two.why do you keep talking about high frequencies?the low frequency distortion is much more noticeable with this one.you don’t really need high quality phones or speakers to tell the difference between 128 and 320kbps.cause really, the numbers itself has a huge difference,what more of the sound quality?by the way, i took this test on my old laptopusing made-in-china-earphones that i got for about 2 bucks. Most of the modern, variable bit rate encoders (MP3, AAC or OGG) have improved dramatically in the last few years. Under most circumstances a 128k vbr encoded file is “good enough.” Hard drive space is so cheap now, the best thing to do is rip you CDs to something lossless (like FLAC or ALAC) and then just transcode to whatever you need. The best of both worlds. I’ve got over 13,000 songs encoded with FLAC that take up around 270GB of space.
With 500GB hard drives only costing about $50, why compromise?. After flipping between the clips twice it was easy for me to tell. I’m glad my ears didn’t fail me since I picked the correct answer. The first thing that clues me in to low bitrate files is the distortion in the higher frequencies. Like somebody else described, it’s got a sort of “swishy” sound to the cymbals and other high frequency content.
The attack of transients is where low bitrates really fail.This was a decent track to compare but there are many other clips that could be used that show far more dramatic differences. Try doing some clips with some audiophile music with lots of dynamic range.
Try something from the classic Thelma Houston cd from Sheffield Lab, even the nearly deaf could pick out the differences between 128k and 320k mp3s. This is an age old debate while the perception of audible distortion at lower bitrates is really dependent on the hearing of any given person, lower bit rates do in fact butcher singal quality especially with lower quality encoders.
Having ripped my collection a number of times first at mp3 CBR, then mp3 VBR, then m4a and now FLAC, I can testify that even if your hearing isn’t superb, you can experience a form of hearing ‘fatigue’ over time if you listen to low bitrate mp3s. You don’t notice it first but after some months it tends to get a bit annoying. I find that its best to over-due it a little even if you can’t immediately hear the difference. For tips, check out. Backing up your music collectiong (archiving) in mp3 is a bad idea, because you lose flexibility. The best thing would be do rip it to a some lossless format such as FLAC.
It takes up a lot of space but it is CD quality and it allows you to do whatever you want with it.Want to transcode it to 128kbps mp3 to your portable player? No problem.Want to listen to it on your high-end speakers without loss of information? No problem.Ripping to 320kbps mp3 robs you of that. If you want to transcode an already lossy mp3 to a lower bitrate you are going to end up with a worse sounding file than if you ripped CD - 128kbps directly. First of all, this was on of the best executed of these comparisons I’ve heard. I did get the answer right, but the differences were subtle.What always tips me off in these comparisons is the high-frequency percussion sounds (cymbals, shakers,etc).
In this example, as in the others I’ve heard, cymbals sound “smeared” in the low bitrate file. There’s a lack of ambiance and detail that lossy compression inevitably brings. And overall, there less of a sense of “space” in the lower rate file.And now a request: how about adding two more files to the comparison? One should be a completely uncompressed.wav, and the other should be a losslessly compressed file, such as a flac or alac. My guess is that very few people (including me) will be able to tell the difference between the 320K MP3 and the flac or.wav. But the comparison between the 128k file and the lossless/uncompressed files should be more dramatically obvious than the difference between the 128 and the 320.P.S.
I took this test with a pair of Koss PortaPros ($40) plugged directly into my PC’s generic onboard soundcard. Using better equipment (digital out from the PC, with outboard dac and amp, better phones) would probably throw the differences into bolder relief.