MP3 vs FLAC: Lossy VS Lossless

[Vitalius]

Hey guys,

This video: 

I tried this with my own files (MP3 VS FLAC in this case) and I couldn't tell a difference. I got a 50% on the test with 8 trials and realized that perfectly implies I was guessing. 

However, I do acknowledge that my speakers/audio equipment are "run of the mill". I would like it if someone with awesome speakers, DAC/Sound Card, and an AMP would test this. Just to see. And be honest. Preferably 10 or so trials.

I just couldn't tell a difference at all. 

Thanks,
Vitalius.

[ShearMe]

For most music it rarely makes a difference.

[jbr]

For most music it rarely makes a difference.

 

 

Consult your local Otologist and or Audiologist

 

 

Or have a serious look at the speakers/Headphones you are using.

[Vitalius]

Consult your local Otologist and or Audiologist

 

Or have a serious look at the speakers/Headphones you are using.

I would love to know what you hear as a difference between them. So that I can look for it. Honestly. I expected to hear more static background noise or the sounds that are similar in tone to blend together more on Lossy format tracks. Neither happened.

[Irontheater]

Not all speakers can reproduce sounds accurately enough to explicit difference between FLAC and MP3, and not everyone knows what to search for in a song to see if it was compressed or not.

 

If you just want to hear a song in a general way, ie words, rhythm, general feel, you probably won't notice any difference.

 

If you want to hear the clear cymbal sound, completely independently from the other sounds, if you wanted to isolate the bass guitar and separate it from bass drums instances and background static, or in a general way, hear every note "alone", independently, you are going to need FLAC(or wma lossless) and good speakers/cans.

 

Edit: Also, a note I forgot, if you are listening to 320kbps .mp3 files, it's going to be close to impossible to distinguish their sounds from FLAC, unless you had audiophile grade equipment.

[Gorgatron]

Hear the difference, because hearing is believing.

[h264]

Consult your local Otologist and or Audiologist

Or have a serious look at the speakers/Headphones you are using.

I doubt there's anything wrong with his hearing. Let's see you beat that test! You've gotta get it right at least 9/10 times BTW.

[Kuzma]

I doubt there's anything wrong with his hearing. Let's see you beat that test! You've gotta get it right at least 9/10 times BTW.

I got 6/8 meh I'll do it again.

[ShearMe]

Consult your local Otologist and or Audiologist

 

 

Or have a serious look at the speakers/Headphones you are using.

 

I think you should have a serious look at the equipment I am using.

[jbr]

I think you should have a serious look at the equipment I am using.

 

Ok, So millions of people worldwide are suffering from a mass delusion?

 

 

The human eye can't see more then 30 frames per second...........120hz are no different then 60hz............HDTV and Blu-ray have no visible difference over Standard Definition, it's all a mass conspiracy to take our money.

[h264]

Ok, So millions of people worldwide are suffering from a mass delusion?

 

That's right, it's called "expectation bias" and it affects all our senses, not just hearing.

[jbr]

That's right, it's called "expectation bias" and it affects all our senses, not just hearing.

 

Wow, those lizard people are pretty powerful critters.

 

 

[Vitalius]

Ok, So millions of people worldwide are suffering from a mass delusion?

 

 

The human eye can't see more then 30 frames per second...........120hz are no different then 60hz............HDTV and Blu-ray have no visible difference over Standard Definition, it's all a mass conspiracy to take our money.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Kinda.

Going from MP3, as I understand it, to FLAC is like going from 4K 23" monitor to an 8K 23" monitor. At a certain point, increasing quality is pointless because it's near perfect as is. You won't notice the extra quality unless you have an amazing system (in the example's case, a larger monitor, like 50") to notice the difference when most people have mediocre to "ok" equipment (17"-23"). When you reach retina display level PPI, it's pointless to increase resolution because the difference literally cannot be seen. This is similar, imo, to how going from MP3 to FLAC works for most people.

There is a difference. You just have to have the kind of hardware to experience it. Like having a 50" monitor VS a 23" monitor when going from 4K to 8K. Essentially the same thing. 

Kinda exactly like how I won't notice the difference between JPG and PNG images unless I look at them at high resolution on a large screen in detail. 

That's my situation. I have crappy TV speakers. I mean, they are loud and the sound is good enough for normal stuff, but trying to hear the difference between file formats for songs with these speakers is like the above examples with 4K -> 8K.

[h264]

Wow, those lizard people are pretty powerful critters.

 

 

 

Sorry to let you down, but music is still pretty one dimensional.  Most modern "lossy" algorithms produce transparently audible output if encoded from a lossless source.  This was most definately not the case ten years ago (I'm looking at you, fraunhoffer mp3 encoder!), but things have changed.  We have the LAME encoder, which fixed mp3, and Vorbis is even better.  Audio data takes such little space now though that it's almost time to shove the whole lossy audio compression thing into the trash can.  That and picture compression.  Screw that.

[Vitalius]

Sorry to let you down, but music is still pretty one dimensional.  Most modern "lossy" algorithms produce transparently audible output if encoded from a lossless source.  This was most definately not the case ten years ago (I'm looking at you, fraunhoffer mp3 encoder!), but things have changed.  We have the LAME encoder, which fixed mp3, and Vorbis is even better.  Audio data takes such little space now though that it's almost time to shove the whole lossy audio compression thing into the trash can.  That and picture compression.  Screw that.

Things like that do matter for websites and such. Particularly for people with data caps (God, I hate data caps). 

I understand that stance from a personal perspective though.

[h264]

There is a difference. You just have to have the kind of hardware to experience it. Like having a 50" monitor VS a 23" monitor when going from 4K to 8K. Essentially the same thing. 

Kinda exactly like how I won't notice the difference between JPG and PNG images unless I look at them at high resolution on a large screen in detail.

 

apples to oranges again, mainly since the bottleneck here is your ears (uhh, Brain, actually). Which is why mp3 works (well, we know now it's not as perfect as we assumed it was at 192Kbps 20 years ago, but we do know the MAJOR ways to make it sound the same to your ears).

 

It was never the point that lossless codecs would sound better.  Like creasing a piece of paper, if I have a lossless codec I can start with a fresh sheet each time.  If I use lossy codecs, I have no idea what'll come out in the copier since it's somewhat crumpled.

[h264]

Things like that do matter for websites and such. Particularly for people with data caps (God, I hate data caps). 

I understand that stance from a personal perspective though.

 

True, yeah, but leave your family photos alone.  The artifacts mess with my OCD.

[ShearMe]

That's why we listen to music over and over instead of consuming the information once and discarding it afterwards - in the moment that all those sounds surround you, your brain can't possibly catch every single detail let alone compare it with another piece or song or differently encoded file.