FLAC VS MP3? Well, here's my "take it with a grain of salt" answer.

[SSL]

I did not see that one, my bad.

 

It's all good, I only checked because they had only two posts.

[headnail]

I am not out to troll anyone nor attempt to convince anyone to go out and blow their monthly salary on audiophile gear or cables, these are my opinions based on my experience.

You don't think the difference between lossy and lossless becomes more apparent on a decent pair of cans as compared to the earbuds that came with your phone?

As for power supply, I am sorry but I find that linear power supplies produce better results, a cheap simple test and one can determine whether or not they feel the same, a transformer, a rectifier, a few capacitors and a linear regulator and a dac that can be switched from USB power to externally powered is enough.

Same goes for cables, go grab some 0.7-1.0mm solid core copper cables from your local hardware shop (mains hook-up wire) and smack them between your amp and speakers.....chances are you will hear a difference compared to your multi stranded standard cables...hell they will probably sound better than 95% of the "audiophile" cables that will cost you an average monthly salary.

There is empirical reasoning as to why there will be a differance under all three scenarios above of course

[SSL]

There is empirical reasoning as to why there will be a differance under all three scenarios above of course

 

Do feel free to share them with us, then, rather than hinting at them cryptically with a flippant wink.

[headnail]

Main reasonsings (yes there are others....but you are obviosuly well aware of them):

 

Frequency response

Switching noise

Resistance

 

I'd be more than glad to hear your views within the current context, rather than "witty" one liners...

[LeeWonky]

-snip-

 

 

-snip-

 

 

-snip-

I don't see the point of how higher end gear can make any difference on FLAC vs 320kbps mp3 when the algorithms on mp3 have been improved over the years that its just pointless.

A static amp's supposed to amplify, and one of the major factors on how good a static amp is on how low can it keep the noise floor while its being cranked up. A tube amp will, if not bound to, introduce color, as well as some distortion. A DAC is supposed to convert digital/binary into analogue, as what the name says.

Cables? 24awg OCC Copper Liz cable can be done in a DIY fashion or have someone do it for you. Even Audeze and Sennheiser can and have fucked up their own stock cables for some of their headphones.

The volatile factor goes into headphones. When does the diminishing return start hitting? As far as I can remember, it starts hitting so hard at USD$1k and becomes really hard for the purchase to make sense unless ones income is large enough that its justifiable.

[Philosobyte]

In a few veterans' interviews I was denoising a few days ago, I frustratingly discovered that conversion from .wav to 128kbps mp3 in Presonus Studio One 3 increased background noise by quite a bit. I think this means the algorithm compressed the audio's dynamic range. 

 

Perhaps this is not an issue with good recordings where noise is almost nonexistent, but these interviews were recorded by students on phones and the noise was barely audible when I finished denoising them (probably around -40 to -50 dBfs?), but became distracting once converted to 128kbps mp3. That's a real, noticeable difference in quality for my use scenario. 

[headnail]

I had the opportunity to test a wide range of "flagship" headphones from AKG (Q701 - should not be in the category at all in my opinion), Audezee (LCD 2/3/X) and Sennheiser (HD 600/800), thanks to a friend of mine who went on a bit of a spree (followed by a firesale . To be fair I think diminishing returns on headphones kick in way before 1k, I'm personally quite content with my AKG K240s, I do however do most of my listening on my speaker set-up.

 

While I fully agree that tubes add some harmonic distortion (2nd mostly) I have grown accustomed to it and prefer it over solid state amps/output buffers, that and the fact that i've past the point of diminishing returns....basically no going back for me Having said that I did play around with a TDA7294 a while back that ended up producing decent results (speaker amp).

 

I've played around with quite a few DACs and have realized that not all DACs produce the same sound signature, even identical DACs yield different results in different implementations.

Since this is one of my hobbies I personally tend to experiment and build my own and with the risk of sounding like a typical "audiophile" I find it that multibit DACs in general produce a more "musical and natural" sound as compared to their modern sigma-detla counterparts (which to me sound a bit jagged) then again my experience with them is not as extensive as multibits.

 

To be fair for headphone cables I experimented quite a bit on my K240s with numerous cables (nothing ridiculously expense) and to my surprise found that the cable I preferred the most was some old school Russian solid core copper cable, however it was not really practical (too stiff) so I went back to my stock cable, especially once I saw how the signal is transferred from the left headphone to the right, over the metallic frame that holds the cups!

 

By higher end gear I mean headphones that have a frequency response that actually allows you to hear the difference in the higher end of the frequency range.

 

I have not played around with 320kbps mp3s in quite a while since I made the move to WAV/FLAC, but from what I recall there was significant "shelving" of high frequencies back in the day, can't comment on how algorithms have improved nowadays.

 

128kbps mp3 was horrible before and unless the codec is fundamentally altered I just don't see how algorithm improvements alone can yield substantially better results today

[SSL]

I had the opportunity to test a wide range of "flagship" headphones from AKG (Q701 - should not be in the category at all in my opinion), Audezee (LCD 2/3/X) and Sennheiser (HD 600/800), thanks to a friend of mine who went on a bit of a spree (followed by a firesale . To be fair I think diminishing returns on headphones kick in way before 1k, I'm personally quite content with my AKG K240s, I do however do most of my listening on my speaker set-up.

 

While I fully agree that tubes add some harmonic distortion (2nd mostly) I have grown accustomed to it and prefer it over solid state amps/output buffers, that and the fact that i've past the point of diminishing returns....basically no going back for me Having said that I did play around with a TDA7294 a while back that ended up producing decent results (speaker amp).

 

I've played around with quite a few DACs and have realized that not all DACs produce the same sound signature, even identical DACs yield different results in different implementations.

Since this is one of my hobbies I personally tend to experiment and build my own and with the risk of sounding like a typical "audiophile" I find it that multibit DACs in general produce a more "musical and natural" sound as compared to their modern sigma-detla counterparts (which to me sound a bit jagged) then again my experience with them is not as extensive as multibits.

 

To be fair for headphone cables I experimented quite a bit on my K240s with numerous cables (nothing ridiculously expense) and to my surprise found that the cable I preferred the most was some old school Russian solid core copper cable, however it was not really practical (too stiff) so I went back to my stock cable, especially once I saw how the signal is transferred from the left headphone to the right, over the metallic frame that holds the cups!

 

By higher end gear I mean headphones that have a frequency response that actually allows you to hear the difference in the higher end of the frequency range.

 

I have not played around with 320kbps mp3s in quite a while since I made the move to WAV/FLAC, but from what I recall there was significant "shelving" of high frequencies back in the day, can't comment on how algorithms have improved nowadays.

 

128kbps mp3 was horrible before and unless the codec is fundamentally altered I just don't see how algorithm improvements alone can yield substantially better results today

 

Pretty sure no one is arguing that 128kbps mp3 is anything other than horrible. However, by that token, you don't need anything special in the way of gear to hear how bad it is.

 

I don't doubt that there are stinker headphones out there that seriously lack extension on both ends. But, the level at which it's possible to get acceptable audio is very low these days. Plenty of headphones under $100 or even $50 will do just fine. As I'm sure you are aware, there is more to the sound quality compromise of mp3 than just bandwidth limiting - dynamic range compression, time smearing/pre-rining, phase shift and so on.

 

Main reasonsings (yes there are others....but you are obviosuly well aware of them):

 

Frequency response

Switching noise

Resistance

 

I'd be more than glad to hear your views within the current context, rather than "witty" one liners...

 

Again, if you'd like to explain your claims for the benefit of others, feel free.

[Donk Quixote]

The type of music matter greatly.  Classical, or anything where a lot of stuff with a lot of things is happening, is easier to detect compression.  Synthesized crap like Blame It On The Alcohol probably sounds exactly as good at 64kbps as it does lossless (and it's very best at 0kbps).  

 

I'm sure the type of headphones matter.  My AD500x when gaming I can pick up shuffles, whispers, and footsteps a lot better.  It's not that those sound aren't in other headphones, it's just they bring them forward in the soundstage.  I imagine that means some headphones expose compression better than others (even if the other headphones are technically better).  

 

Familiarity with both the source material and the headphones/speakers will also make a difference.  If you don't know what something supposed to sound like it will be very hard to pick up on compression.

 

With all that said I don't notice much of a difference between 320kbps and Flac.  Lower than that can be annoying sometimes.  Also worth mentioning some people have golden ears.  I think I read somewhere that less than 5% of the population can hear the difference between uncompressed source material sound and Dolby or DTS encoded versions.  These may be the same people who have "perfect pitch", the ability to accurately identify a musical note without a reference tone.

[headnail]

I think you pretty much covered the frequency response side of things, let's skip the linearity of it for the time being

As for switching noise - ground noise, I have yet to find a switching solution that produces better results, both sonic and visible - measured with a decent analogue oscilloscope , than linear regulators. My latest experiments involved a raspberry pi 2 that I plan to use as a streaming device linear was the way to go, the effects in terms of fidelity where tighter low range and clearer highs, better soundstage positioning. Even though the raspberry is hooked up to an external USB the effects where audible and visible on the scope in terms of reduced noise.

As for cables...have not devised a proper instrument test methodology but the fact of the matter is I hear a differance between different speaker/headphone cables. Having said that I do not condone going out and blowing thousands on "mystical" cables...I have found what works for my system and I like it

Speaker cables are perhaps the easiest tot test, like I said this is my hobby, so I experiment and play around until I find what sounds best to me.

If you have not try the cheap solid copper speaker cable, it's not convenient nor practical but the results might surprise...

[SSL]

The type of music matter greatly.  Classical, or anything where a lot of stuff with a lot of things is happening, is easier to detect compression.  Synthesized crap like Blame It On The Alcohol probably sounds exactly as good at 64kbps as it does lossless (and it's very best at 0kbps).  

 

I'm sure the type of headphones matter.  My AD500x when gaming I can pick up shuffles, whispers, and footsteps a lot better.  It's not that those sound aren't in other headphones, it's just they bring them forward in the soundstage.  I imagine that means some headphones expose compression better than others (even if the other headphones are technically better).  

 

Familiarity with both the source material and the headphones/speakers will also make a difference.  If you don't know what something supposed to sound like it will be very hard to pick up on compression.

 

Audio Technica open phones tend to boost the mids, particularly around the 3kHz range.

 

Familiarity with both the source material and the headphones/speakers will also make a difference.  If you don't know what something supposed to sound like it will be very hard to pick up on compression.

 

With higher quality compression, then maybe. Lower quality requires no frame of reference other than the ears.

 

These may be the same people who have "perfect pitch", the ability to accurately identify a musical note without a reference tone.

 

I doubt it, it's a different skill and one that can be learned given enough time and effort.

 

I think you pretty much covered the frequency response side of things, let's skip the linearity of it for the time being

As for switching noise - ground noise, I have yet to find a switching solution that produces better results, both sonic and visible - measured with a decent analogue oscilloscope , than linear regulators. My latest experiments involved a raspberry pi 2 that I plan to use as a streaming device linear was the way to go, the effects in terms of fidelity where tighter low range and clearer highs, better soundstage positioning. Even though the raspberry is hooked up to an external USB the effects where audible and visible on the scope in terms of reduced noise.

As for cables...have not devised a proper instrument test methodology but the fact of the matter is I hear a differance between different speaker/headphone cables. Having said that I do not condone going out and blowing thousands on "mystical" cables...I have found what works for my system and I like it

Speaker cables are perhaps the easiest tot test, like I said this is my hobby, so I experiment and play around until I find what sounds best to me.

If you have not try the cheap solid copper speaker cable, it's not convenient nor practical but the results might surprise...

 

Fair enough, I guess. Not going to argue that a clean power supply can't reduce noise.

 

Thing is, I prefer flexible cables - even if there is an audible difference, solid wires just seem dumb.

[Sauron]

My 0.02$:

 

If you're an audio editor, use flac so you get full access to the exact recording. Loosing information to compression would be likely to hinder your work.

 

If you aren't, go for HQ mp3 (or ogg or whatever) - the difference is unnoticeable to the ear and I'd bet the guys who got this test correct had lucky guesses.

[theonly500]

FLAC only makes sense to me, when I want to use to output the sound through a PA. Otherwise you would have to go extreme with your cables and soundcards. Most Built in PC soundcards are presetted to 44.1 kHz. Which improves soundqualitiy if your card can multisample for one audioframe. But otherwise you can't hear any siginificant difference above 2-4 times the sample rate of your card.

 

Large PAs however use to make encoding errors sound way stronger than they are. Simply due to the power they provide.

 

For normal Persons which want to listen music on their Phone 192 kHz is more than enough since most phones can't go that high. At least I'm able to destiguishe a mobile from a PC. So FLAC is only something for Persons dealing with big PAs and if your at it you should know what you're doing and pick the best for you.

 

Like the OP said audiphiles can find out which is which but some average listener can't hear it.

[iShad]

I never understood the point of this debate, even if the differences are difficult to detect or not audible, so what...? Grab lossless files whenever you can, what's the downside other than file size? Hard drives are dirt cheap nowadays, and there's also Tidal subscription if space is an issue.

[LeeWonky]

I'd bet the guys who got this test correct had lucky guesses.

If you read everything, #6 had a headache. They both (#6 and #8) took it seriously. More serious than everyone else in the test.

Like the OP said audiphiles can find out which is which but some average listener can't hear it.

Please do not twist my words.

I never understood the point of this debate, even if the differences are difficult to detect or not audible, so what...? Grab lossless files whenever you can, what's the downside other than file size? Hard drives are dirt cheap nowadays, and there's also Tidal subscription if space is an issue.

Because its been a pointless debate on telling a person how to listen to one's music. Like... whats wrong with 320kbps? I mean, shit, this debate has been up for a fairly long time... sometimes I don't get the point that some people bring up things like "You need higher end gear" and what not to tell the difference. If the difference was night and day, it'd be like 11pm and 1 or 3am night and day kind of difference (to me atleast... well, 11pm and 3am looks pretty dark, evenly dark, anyways here in my country). Plus, there are guys like me who really wanna fill the fuck out of an SD card and/or internal storage of a DAP with as many songs as we can.

[Sauron]

If you read everything, #6 had a headache. They both (#6 and #8) took it seriously. More serious than everyone else in the test.

 

I have no doubt they were taking it seriously, but biology says they couldn't possibly be able to tell the difference. 320khz mp3 easily covers the full audible range without compression artifacts.

[SSL]

I never understood the point of this debate, even if the differences are difficult to detect or not audible, so what...? Grab lossless files whenever you can, what's the downside other than file size? Hard drives are dirt cheap nowadays, and there's also Tidal subscription if space is an issue.

 

Can also argue that if the differences of 320 mp3 are not audible, what are the downsides other than ... nothing!? FLAC has the downside of less efficient space utilization. mp3 has no downsides if you can't hear the difference, and it is more widely supported.

 

Now, I personally rip to FLAC these days, but I forward this as a logical argument.

[LeeWonky]

I have no doubt they were taking it seriously, but biology says they couldn't possibly be able to tell the difference. 320khz mp3 easily covers the full audible range without compression artifacts.

Fair enough.

[Sauron]

Can also argue that if the differences of 320 mp3 are not audible, what are the downsides other than ... nothing!? FLAC has the downside of less efficient space utilization. mp3 has no downsides if you can't hear the difference, and it is more widely supported.

 

Now, I personally rip to FLAC these days, but I forward this as a logical argument.

 

yeah, flac is only worth it for audio editors

[LeeWonky]

yeah, flac is only worth it for audio editors

For audio editing, FLAC to audio editors, producers, mixers, etc... basically guys who take music production seriously, even as a hobby, is what RAW is to photographers. Atleast, to my understanding, since some utaite's I've met in person always say they have to have the raw recording in the the lowest to near-zero compression that they can... per track (if I heard or remembered it correctly). #6 and #8 aren't the utaite's I've met, but they take music production seriously that they both took a program in music production in college. They said they just need uncompressed audio recording for piece of mind that they have "some room to breath" which is vague as fuck to me, but oh well. They do like having the final output in 320kbps or even 256kbps because it ain't a pain to upload since their professor makes them submit their outputs in something as long as 30 minutes... and its a pain to upload on soundcloud. Thats what they told me, and since me, #6, 8, and the rest who were in this little not-really-scientific experiment live in a country where our up and down speeds are crap... even if our plans are unlimited, even to the fine print, it just throttles... sometimes takes a day to upload one audio file.

I don't know, nor do I remember the proper terms in music production. My thing's more on the listening side, not music production. So, sorry if I got the terms wrong.

[Sauron]

For audio editing, FLAC to audio editors, producers, mixers, etc... basically guys who take music production seriously, even as a hobby, is what RAW is to photographers. Atleast, to my understanding, since some utaite's I've met in person always say they have to have the raw recording in the the lowest to near-zero compression that they can... per track (if I heard or remembered it correctly). #6 and #8 aren't the utaite's I've met, but they take music production seriously that they both took a program in music production in college. They said they just need uncompressed audio recording for piece of mind that they have "some room to breath" which is vague as fuck to me, but oh well. They do like having the final output in 320kbps or even 256kbps because it ain't a pain to upload since their professor makes them submit their outputs in something as long as 30 minutes... and its a pain to upload on soundcloud. Thats what they told me, and since me, #6, 8, and the rest who were in this little not-really-scientific experiment live in a country where our up and down speeds are crap... even if our plans are unlimited, even to the fine print, it just throttles... sometimes takes a day to upload one audio file.

I don't know, nor do I remember the proper terms in music production. My thing's more on the listening side, not music production. So, sorry if I got the terms wrong.

 

The reason they need uncompressed files is that if they're going to modify the frequencies they had damn better be all there, because if any of them fall from ultrasound or subsound to audible any compression would be a lot more noticeable in the finished product.

[LeeWonky]

The reason they need uncompressed files is that if they're going to modify the frequencies they had damn better be all there, because if any of them fall from ultrasound or subsound to audible any compression would be a lot more noticeable in the finished product.

Now I know better. Thank you

[SSL]

LeeWonky Sauron I'm pretty sure WAV and AIFF are used for professional audio editing. FLAC is purely an archival format.

[LeeWonky]

LeeWonky Sauron I'm pretty sure WAV and AIFF are used for professional audio editing. FLAC is purely an archival format.

Oh my

[Pomfinator]

Yup, Logan sends off Zweihander music to Bandcamp as a WAV, who then compresses it to distribute.