Does anyone know anything about the .flac format?
- Thread starter deathstrike from hell
- Start date
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
Karmic
speedy meatmonger
DreamNeonBlack
Member
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
no probs
it's a very stable format too, in regards to that question, been around for quite a while and is widely used
it's a very stable format too, in regards to that question, been around for quite a while and is widely used
hangtime
lurker turned poster
what do u need to play .flac though? ive got a few albums in that format and i cant listen to them....anything besides winamp? i hate that app
Captain Beard
No longer active
- Sep 6, 2001
- 28,010
- 99
- 48
Not a fan of FLAC. Any good VBR mp3 will produce near the same results in a smaller package. Argue all you want, I've extensively compared both.
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
I agree, LAME encoded mp3s can be virtually the same , sonically. FLAC does have it's uses though, mainly as previously mentioned among bootleg traders, because you can reconvert back to CD format with no issues, unlike mp3.
Lord Foul
I don't spank men
I wonder what percentage of people can reliably tell CD from 192 LAME encoded MP3 in a double-blind A/B test.
Most good audio players have plugins available for FLAC; also, you can download FLAC-WAV and FLAC-MP3 converters easily.
As for the potential differences between MP3, it depends a lot on what content is there and how it was mixed and encoded. Anything in mono, speech, a lot of classical and jazz, and country can get away with lower bitrates than rock and metal. The main difference comes down to how well you can hear high frequencies (and of course how detailed your system can be) - I can 'reliably' hear a lot of theft-protection systems, CRT whine, fluorescent lights, and other such things that a lot of people can't hear, and I can tell the difference between anything with a low-pass as extreme as the average MP3 encoder. You're not hearing it through iPod plugs, or desktop gaming speakers, but if your hearing is all there (and I know that's a big 'if' given that this is a metal forum) you can tell MP3 from WAV through a pair of PX100s up to 160kbps without a second guess if you use something like TGE as reference. At 320kbps it's very hard to hear the 'normal' content but to the best of my knowledge that high content is still lost. I've personally been tested for hearing quite a bit above the norm, and I pulled off that same double-blind test in a prior challenge over SHN and OGG, but given the extent to which I see 128kbps MP3s I'd assume that I'm not exactly normal.
Oh, and try Fraunhofer's MP3 encoder, if you can - smokes LAME, no question. Fraunhofer developed the technology, and are still doing it better than anyone else that I've heard about.
Jeff
As for the potential differences between MP3, it depends a lot on what content is there and how it was mixed and encoded. Anything in mono, speech, a lot of classical and jazz, and country can get away with lower bitrates than rock and metal. The main difference comes down to how well you can hear high frequencies (and of course how detailed your system can be) - I can 'reliably' hear a lot of theft-protection systems, CRT whine, fluorescent lights, and other such things that a lot of people can't hear, and I can tell the difference between anything with a low-pass as extreme as the average MP3 encoder. You're not hearing it through iPod plugs, or desktop gaming speakers, but if your hearing is all there (and I know that's a big 'if' given that this is a metal forum) you can tell MP3 from WAV through a pair of PX100s up to 160kbps without a second guess if you use something like TGE as reference. At 320kbps it's very hard to hear the 'normal' content but to the best of my knowledge that high content is still lost. I've personally been tested for hearing quite a bit above the norm, and I pulled off that same double-blind test in a prior challenge over SHN and OGG, but given the extent to which I see 128kbps MP3s I'd assume that I'm not exactly normal.
Oh, and try Fraunhofer's MP3 encoder, if you can - smokes LAME, no question. Fraunhofer developed the technology, and are still doing it better than anyone else that I've heard about.
Jeff
Lord Foul
I don't spank men
It's more common than that. Don't tell me you can't hear the 'washy' sound in those low-bitrate files; it's that same thing in most encoding.
Jeff
Jeff
hangtime
lurker turned poster
Flac is for people who are anal about the music they are converting and don't want to compress it to lousy MP3 .
MP3 are fine for everyday people with regular systems but I can also hear the difference on my system in my car because I have multiple amps/speakers and great alpine head unit crossed over of course.
I convert from FLAC,SHN and APE to WAV and then burn for flawless results .
MP3's are for average Joe's
MP3 are fine for everyday people with regular systems but I can also hear the difference on my system in my car because I have multiple amps/speakers and great alpine head unit crossed over of course.
I convert from FLAC,SHN and APE to WAV and then burn for flawless results .
MP3's are for average Joe's
It also makes a huge difference if you know someone will be re-encoding MP3 later - I can't count the times I've had someone send me a CD in 320kbps or high VBR only to find that the person before had burned from MP3 as well and the sound was shit.
Lossy encoding - yet another gift that keeps on giving.
Jeff
Lossy encoding - yet another gift that keeps on giving.
Jeff
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
Well of course for audiophiles, there IS obvious difference between FLAC and mp3s of any codec. Loss occurs in any sort of compression, thusly named lossy. I can easily hear it even when not using my top notch Sennheiser cans through a high end system, even in something as basic as my car speakers, but you have to weigh the trade off. If I want quality, I'll use the actual CD, I won't waste space having FLAC encodes of everything I listen to. I enjoy the convenience of the mp3, lucky me.
And as for Fraunhofer encodes sounding better than LAME? Highly dubious. While they have improved on the quality, finally, in recent builds, LAME is constantly being tweaked to the point of maximum optimization. And while I have noticed in the past Fraunhofer trouncing LAME at lower bitrates (i.e. 128kbps), if you're bothering with that, then what's the point?
In the end, it's all down to the individual listener, if you don't hear the difference, there's no big deal.
And as for Fraunhofer encodes sounding better than LAME? Highly dubious. While they have improved on the quality, finally, in recent builds, LAME is constantly being tweaked to the point of maximum optimization. And while I have noticed in the past Fraunhofer trouncing LAME at lower bitrates (i.e. 128kbps), if you're bothering with that, then what's the point?
In the end, it's all down to the individual listener, if you don't hear the difference, there's no big deal.
Captain Beard
No longer active
- Sep 6, 2001
- 28,010
- 99
- 48
I use specialized software on the pc and in the car to compensate for the loss. FLAC has no advantages on my system. Even with the cans. I have the same as Derick. 
XtremeParanoia
Waste of Space
how do you compensate for a low pass filter. the data in the higher frequencies has be cut to the point of most of the data not being there. boosting the upper frequencies or running an exciter won't put the original material back in.
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
I use specialized software on the pc and in the car to compensate for the loss. FLAC has no advantages on my system. Even with the cans. I have the same as Derick.
I can't believe I slipped and said 'cans' to be honest, an utter faux pax.
It was the heat of the moment
(Telling me what your heart meant
Heat of the moment shone in your eyes)
...........
And now you findddddd yourself in '82,
The disco hotspots hold no charm for youuu
You cant concern yourself with bigger thingsssssss
You catch the pearl and ride the dragons wingsssssssssssssssss!
