Flacs vs Mp3's

[bomerr]

Was that mp3 file converted from the same source? What codec did you use? Which "digital connection" did you use? What was the difference(s) you could discern?

flac album i got off torrent. converted it to apple lossless so it'd play on the iPhone and also mp3 highest variable rate using iTunes. 

 

i was using an iPhone with a digital connection to the headunit i.e. the dock cable versus using the DAC on the iPhone and outputting the sound through the headphone port. 

 

difference was everything was more clear and crisp especially with regards to the bass response. Best way to sum it up would be the audio equivalent of increase resolution for video. 

[ShearMe]

flac album i got off torrent. converted it to apple lossless so it'd play on the iPhone and also mp3 highest variable rate using iTunes. 

 

i was using an iPhone with a digital connection to the headunit i.e. the dock cable versus using the DAC on the iPhone and outputting the sound through the headphone port. 

 

difference was everything was more clear and crisp especially with regards to the bass response. 

 

That doesn't sound like a reliable ABX test.

[bomerr]

That doesn't sound like a reliable ABX test.

ya you're right. I should have got a studio microphone out, recorded the audio then analyzed the waveform to confirm what my ears could already tell  :rolleyes:

[Godlygamer23]

ya you're right. I should have got a studio microphone out, recorded the audio and then analyzed the waveform to confirm what my ears could already tell  :rolleyes:

Because your ears are super reliable, right? And your brain doesn't manipulate things, right? Oh right, it does. I forgot.

[bomerr]

Because your ears are super reliable, right? And your brain doesn't manipulate things, right? Oh right, it does. I forgot.

uhm ya they are reliable, about as reliable as my eyes are at telling the difference between 60fps and peasant. 

 

what's so hard for you to believe about lossless (flac) being noticeable on a $1500+ audio system. 

[KaminKevCrew]

uhm ya they are reliable, about as reliable as my eyes are at telling the difference between 60fps and peasant. 

 

what's so hard for you to believe about lossless (flac) being noticeable on a $1500+ audio system. 

Maybe it has to do with the FACT that I can't tell the difference on a $44,000 sound system in a treated room. (and a system that I am intimately familiar with, too)

[Godlygamer23]

uhm ya they are reliable, about as reliable as my eyes are at telling the difference between 60fps and peasant. 

 

what's so hard for you to believe about lossless (flac) being noticeable on a $1500+ audio system. 

It's not a truly objective test. Your brain manipulates the world around you and will make you believe something has a particular effect when it doesn't(Placebo).

[bomerr]

Maybe it has to do with the FACT that I can't tell the difference on a $44,000 sound system in a treated room. (and a system that I am intimately familiar with, too)

maybe your ears are broken.

 

on a good system lossless v lossy becomes apparent. on a meh system not so much. end of discussion. 

 

It's not a truly objective test. Your brain manipulates the world around you and will make you believe something has a particular effect when it doesn't(Placebo).

 

I didn't go into the test with the belief that flac would sound better, hoping that the test would confirm said beliefs. I merely wanted to see if there was  difference and if flac was worth the extra storage space. 

[pas008]

maybe your ears are broken.

 

on a good system lossless v lossy becomes apparent. on a meh system not so much. end of discussion. 

 

 

I didn't go into the test with the belief that flac would sound better, hoping that the test would confirm said beliefs. I merely wanted to see if there was  difference and if flac was worth the extra storage space. 

no, even comparing headphones side by side your brain plays tricks with ya

 

you believe in goblins and unicorns too?

[KaminKevCrew]

maybe your ears are broken.

Considering that I get perfect scores on all of my hearing tests, then request that they do some tones that I shouldn't be able to hear, but then I hear them, my ears certainly are not broken.

 

I didn't go into the test with the belief that flac would sound better, hoping that the test would confirm said beliefs. I merely wanted to see if there was  difference and if flac was worth the extra storage space. 

Just because you didn't think that flac would make a difference does not mean that you didn't have a preconception about it, and therefore, you were probably affected by placebo.

[ShearMe]

ya you're right. I should have got a studio microphone out, recorded the audio then analyzed the waveform to confirm what my ears could already tell  :rolleyes:

 

Thats not what ABX entails necessarily.

 

 end of discussion. 

 

Why do you get to decide the end of the discussion?

[KaminKevCrew]

Why do you get to decide the end of the discussion?

lol!

[pas008]

Thats not what ABX entails necessarily.

 

 

Why do you get to decide the end of the discussion?

he needs to attend to his unicorn

[vyogan]

:blink: Calm down people!

 

Why can't everybody just agree to disagree? I mean, whatever makes them happy right? If they think they hear a difference, so be it.

 

I personally can't hear a difference. Even a 320kbps mp3 file (when encoded well) is more than pleasing enough to my ears given a good system. I'd rather enjoy the music more than worry about whether I hear an insignificant difference or not. I can't even tell the sound difference between my motherboard's DAC to my external DAC. Maybe there is, but it's so microscopically different that it doesn't affect my experience in enjoying music.

 

Also let's not forget that our brains are easily fooled, look below:

 

[BoredErica]

First off, why are you complaining? Nobody was telling you to run errands or do what you don't want to do. Make it clear first, the 'taking it to HA', is it what I want or what you want? Because I never said or implied anything even remotely close to 'taking it to HA'. Now if it's what you want, why are you complaining to me?

 

The plot is very simple, I said yes, you said no. I said I'm ready and willing to give the test subjects, testing methods, and procedures for you to recreate. You're free to make your choice. You want to challenge my test data or methods or results, sure, why not. I like to be challenged, as that's one of many ways to learn. If I'm proven wrong, then I'll say I'm wrong. You want/need to ask somebody else (in this case, people in HA), that's your privilege, not your liability. Hell even if you wanna take this all the way up to MIT, then go ahead. Just don't put it on me, because I never told you to do anything you don't want to.

 

The way the wording is, it sounds as if what you're saying is 'You're wrong. I don't know what or how, but you're still wrong. To know what or how, I need to ask more knowledgeable people, but I don't want to, so stop asking me to prove you're wrong and just accept that you're wrong'

The last time we went around this barbecue, you remember how it went? It turns out you tried but what you did didn't make any sense. Likely this is just another episode of that. It's abundantly clear that I'm the one what wants you to take it to HA because you're playing with tests you don't understand.

 

I'm asking you to do your due diligence it fact-checking your findings. That's what I want, yes. That's not what you want or else you would've done it already. At this rate my attitude will be no better than what you will get from HA themselves, but if I did do the relay I won't be able to explain it as well as they, in which case taking it from the source (HA) makes more sense. I've done it before for you regardless of whether you asked for it or not, and I don't want to do it again.

 

There has been enough blind tests to prove that cables don't make a difference so you have to jump through more hoops to make your argument more compelling. It's like coming up with a new test for radiometric dating proving that the earth is 6000 years old. I can't exactly prove to you that you're wrong, but before I take whatever the finding is on board, I want some good sources to verify. So while your rhetoric might sound good on paper, no dice.

 

Why am I complaining? Because I don't like wrong info being strung about, that's why.

 

 

I just want to make it clear:

Of all the people that still believe in cables, I like you the best. But this subject just drives me crazy. I think you have an open mind and you're not always wrong. Hell, I take back what I said about the snobbishness with that $2500? flac player. You were right. But not here, I think you're wrong. I think sometimes your mind is too open. When we're doing these kinds of tests we have to be very careful we know what we're doing. For example, when I was doing the amp powering the headphones thread, I took an entire week writing because I was scared my information would be wrong. It was my job to curate the content.

[BoredErica]

Why stop at audible differences? The differences should be obviously better. I'm sure plenty of expensive gear sounds different than something like the O2, but do they really improve the audio in any way?

I was being more lenient. But this is like the religion debate all over again and I've been down that road. Eventually I got everything I wanted to know and I stopped arguing because fuck it. Others can go believe in whatever and continue to persuade others, I'm just tired. Somehow audio still gets me riled up.

 

Although I think my quality of life will increase once I stop responding to these threads, and the improvement won't be placebo either.

[SSL]

:blink: Calm down people!

 

Why can't everybody just agree to disagree?

 

Because this shit isn't subjective. If people disagreeing or not being "calm" gets your knickers in a knot, you might as well not leave the house; disagreement is part of life.

 

Why do you get to decide the end of the discussion?

 

Fucking A.

 

I was being more lenient. But this is like the religion debate all over again and I've been down that road. Eventually I got everything I wanted to know and I stopped arguing because fuck it. Others can go believe in whatever and continue to persuade others, I'm just tired. Somehow audio still gets me riled up.

 

Although I think my quality of life will increase once I stop responding to these threads, and the improvement won't be placebo either.

 

Yeah, sounds familar. I think we may be attracted by the odor of BS.

[TumbleButt]

I voted for Potato because I like potatoes....




In all seriousness, nowadays I get the FLAC and lossy/mp3 version of the song at whatever bitrate is available. To a degree, I stopped caring nowadays if FLAC is still better than MP3 or if lossy is acceptable enough that its indistinguishable. I just care more about how its produced/mastered. If I paid for a bitch that recorded his or her music with a motherfucking mod-mic WITHOUT even using noise removal alone, then shit... 


I'm not in a position whether this argument should end, but hey... whatever. My thread on my opinions on an argument about PC vs Console got locked in a day without me having my 2nd (or was it 3rd) reply, but then topics like this about FLAC vs MP3/Lossy is alive and crazy. To be fair, FLAC vs MP3 is much safer than a PC vs Console topic.

[ajaxburger]

my friend who claims himself to be an audiophile also claims that he can tell the difference between flacs and mp3's, but after listening to both, I believe that this is only due to the placebo effect, and the difference is negligible. The flac was also 48 mbs, while the mp3 was 16. What do you guys think?

Turnip

Lol I doubt anyone can tell the difference without a trained ear and a high DAC and pair of headphones.

[xtroria]

that's complete BS.

I could definitely tell the difference between apple lossless (converted from flac) and mp3 on my car audio setup ONCE i switched to a digital connection. and by car audio setup i mean alpine headunit, rockford fosgate amps, focal speakers and JL subwoofers.

with the right equipment and setup the difference is noticeable.

HA! My $500 headphone setup and $800 iem setup doesnt tell me any discernable different between 320kbps and flac. I hope you didnt live in a cave because you should know about the npr test

[BoredErica]

 

I voted for Potato because I like potatoes....


In all seriousness, nowadays I get the FLAC and lossy/mp3 version of the song at whatever bitrate is available. To a degree, I stopped caring nowadays if FLAC is still better than MP3 or if lossy is acceptable enough that its indistinguishable. I just care more about how its produced/mastered. If I paid for a bitch that recorded his or her music with a motherfucking mod-mic WITHOUT even using noise removal alone, then shit... 


I'm not in a position whether this argument should end, but hey... whatever. My thread on my opinions on an argument about PC vs Console got locked in a day without me having my 2nd (or was it 3rd) reply, but then topics like this about FLAC vs MP3/Lossy is alive and crazy. To be fair, FLAC vs MP3 is much safer than a PC vs Console topic.

I agree with you... Retarded mastering is a ton more important than whatever minuscule difference flac has the potential to make. I've asked myself why these guys are getting paid.

 

The stereotype is that audiophiles worry all about their expensive cables and amps and dacs, when audio engineers look at room treatment and meticulously perfected EQ after grabbing a pair of speakers that have low distortion.

 

I tried to start a legitimate, fact-based, no trolling thread about PC vs Consoles. I was new to LTT forums so I didn't foresee the shitstorm that was to come.

 

Although upon further reflection, either I have to concede that arguing about PC vs Consoles is a perfectly understandable and legitimate enterprise (I dunno, big words are popping into my head right now), or I have to say both PC vs Console wars and audio wars make no sense. For example, I am not really into cars. The thought of people arguing about what parts should be in a car and how to do this vs that is such an alien idea to me. But just like how people argue about consoles vs PC, people argue about how to maintain a car, what engine oil to use, and really over anything for any hobby.

Evening perspective, if you care.

 

 

HA! My $500 headphone setup and $800 iem setup doesnt tell me any discernable different between 320kbps and flac. I hope you didnt live in a cave because you should know about the npr test

And I'm going to hold an opinion that is somewhat fringe even here in LTT among sub regulars: There's really not that much difference between a $300 headphone and a $1500 headphone. Distortion should be very low, not audible. Speakers have higher distortion but what people really look for is the perfect sound signature. The HA belief is that EQ is the way to go. (Well, room treatment too, if they're speakers.)

 

I'm also not too keen on repeatedly saying that I have HD800s and I can't hear a difference. But whatever. I'm pretty sure the one guy on HA that actually managed to pass repeated abx testing for a limited selection of tracks didn't use uber expensive equipment either. I'm not wholly convinced that expensive equipment makes it easier to hear a difference. It might be the case, but it's being used far too often as an excuse to continue saying that lossless sounds better, as if it actually does for the large majority of people. People expect the next coming of Jesus because of the price tag of products and I think it's a mistake to just brush off disagreements with lossless simply because the guy doesn't have megabuck gear. Everybody can be a champ that passes blind testing on the internet, and only the poster himself knows if what comes out of his mouth is the truth.

 

 

Turnip

Turnips taste bad and you should feel bad.  :angry:

[xtroria]

I agree with you... Retarded mastering is a ton more important than whatever minuscule difference flac has the potential to make. I've asked myself why these guys are getting paid.

The stereotype is that audiophiles worry all about their expensive cables and amps and dacs, when audio engineers look at room treatment and meticulously perfected EQ after grabbing a pair of speakers that have low distortion.

I tried to start a legitimate, fact-based, no trolling thread about PC vs Consoles. I was new to LTT forums so I didn't foresee the shitstorm that was to come.

Although upon further reflection, either I have to concede that arguing about PC vs Consoles is a perfectly understandable and legitimate enterprise (I dunno, big words are popping into my head right now), or I have to say both PC vs Console wars and audio wars make no sense. For example, I am not really into cars. The thought of people arguing about what parts should be in a car and how to do this vs that is such an alien idea to me. But just like how people argue about consoles vs PC, people argue about how to maintain a car, what engine oil to use, and really over anything for any hobby.

Evening perspective, if you care.

And I'm going to hold an opinion that is somewhat fringe even here in LTT among sub regulars: There's really not that much difference between a $300 headphone and a $1500 headphone. Distortion should be very low, not audible. Speakers have higher distortion but what people really look for is the perfect sound signature. The HA belief is that EQ is the way to go. (Well, room treatment too, if they're speakers.)

I'm also not too keen on repeatedly saying that I have HD800s and I can't hear a difference. But whatever. I'm pretty sure the one guy on HA that actually managed to pass repeated abx testing for a limited selection of tracks didn't use uber expensive equipment either. I'm not wholly convinced that expensive equipment makes it easier to hear a difference. It might be the case, but it's being used far too often as an excuse to continue saying that lossless sounds better, as if it actually does for the large majority of people. People expect the next coming of Jesus because of the price tag of products and I think it's a mistake to just brush off disagreements with lossless simply because the guy doesn't have megabuck gear. Everybody can be a champ that passes blind testing on the internet, and only the poster himself knows if what comes out of his mouth is the truth.

Turnips taste bad and you should feel bad. :angry:

Wow wow wow, now that's too far.HD800 sounds downright amazing

[BoredErica]

Wow wow wow, now that's too far.HD800 sounds downright amazing

Some people are radical Islamists.

 

I'm a radical HA-ist.

 

Although, that phrase sounds pretty retarded to say out loud, lol. 

 

I didn't go into the test with the belief that flac would sound better, hoping that the test would confirm said beliefs.

Shit like this is why the aliens won't talk to us.

[You_are_a_cunt]

Everytime I read flac I think about this:

 

Also, with high-end audio equipment you can tell the difference. Most consumer grade stuff? Not really.

[KaminKevCrew]

Some people are radical Islamists.

 

I'm a radical HA-ist.

 

Although, that phrase sounds pretty retarded to say out loud, lol. 

 

Shit like this is why the aliens won't talk to us.

What is HA? hehehe, I don't know all of the internet places...

 

HA! My $500 headphone setup and $800 iem setup doesnt tell me any discernable different between 320kbps and flac. I hope you didnt live in a cave because you should know about the npr test

Well, as I said, my 40+ thousand dollar sound system wouldn't create a discernible difference, so there's that...

 

I mean, regardless, I rip my CDs into .WAV, but I have tons of space, and I like the thought of being able to burn a CD that is exactly the same as the original... It does not have anything to do with whether or not I can hear a difference...