Audio Format - Best Quality

[Guest]

So I was wondering what the best audio format is. I don't care about size, I'm fine with a massive file, I just want the best quality available. I was told lossless was the direction to aim for and then FLAC should be a good option, but i just want to make sure. Additionally, which format is best for ripping a disc? 

[Asher Schwartz]

FLAC is rated at sometimes 800kbps (can get higher). Sometimes at 500kbps or so. The standard MP3 gets to 320kbps. The sound of a flac is crisp and clear, and can get rid of some of the hiss you may hear. It also produces near live quality as if you were there when they recorded the song. I would recommend this to anyone looking to have high quality music.

With this, you need a great set of speakers like bose or something to the sort that is rated really high. You also need a high quality dac rated at playing flac files at their best

[Guest Kloaked]

Depends on what format and bitrate the disc has. You're not going to get an actual "high quality" FLAC file from a CD with low bitrate tracks on it, for example. I don't know of any CDs that have lossless formats but I'm not ruling it out since I just don't know 1000%. Just don't expect your CD files to sound better if you rip them to FLAC instead of MP3.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Asher Schwartz said:

FLAC is rated at sometimes 800kbps (can get higher). Sometimes at 500kbps or so. The standard MP3 gets to 320kbps. The sound of a flac is crisp and clear, and can get rid of some of the hiss you may hear. It also produces near live quality as if you were there when they recorded the song. I would recommend this to anyone looking to have high quality music

Thank you! So in very short summary, FLAC is better/higher quality than MP3? (I'm making notes for referencing so I just want to be sure. )

[xentropa]

Mathematically speaking, .wav is completely uncompressed digital audio.  So that would be the upper limit in "quality" I suppose.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Depends on what format and bitrate the disc has. You're not going to get an actual "high quality" FLAC file from a CD with low bitrate tracks on it, for example. I don't know of any CDs that have lossless formats but I'm not ruling it out since I just don't know 1000%. Just don't expect your CD files to sound better if you rip them to FLAC instead of MP3.

It sounds like you're talking about a bottleneck there. So you're saying it would depend on the disc and it would be possible that both formats MP3 and FLAC would sound the same if the bitrate is low enough, right? 

[Railgun]

The best formats are wave and FLAC but remember that the song itself needs to be in good quality, too. This has kind of been my struggle since most of the music I listen to is soundtrack and it's hard to get downloads that aren't trashy youtube rips or anything like that

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Railgun said:

The best formats are wave and FLAC but remember that the song itself needs to be in good quality, too. This has kind of been my struggle since most of the music I listen to is soundtrack and it's hard to get downloads that aren't trashy youtube rips or anything like that

"wave"? Do you mean "WAV" or something? 

[Asher Schwartz]

3 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Thank you! So in very short summary, FLAC is better/higher quality than MP3? (I'm making notes for referencing so I just want to be sure. )

Yes that is correct. The higher the bitrate, the better the sound. You need to make sure though as kloaked said, the CD has to be flac inside before you can get the real flac sound. If you rip from a standard CD to flac, you will get better sound than mp3 but it wont be the best you can get with flac

[captain_to_fire]

You're good with 256 kbps .m4a (aac)

[Majestic]

8 minutes ago, Asher Schwartz said:

The sound of a flac is crisp and clear, and can get rid of some of the hiss you may hear.

How does increasing the dynamic range of an existing file get rid of the noisefloor? I thought the science was settled on this topic, but apparently people are finding new and innovative ways to spew nonsense.

 

Unless ABX tests show people being able to discern 320kbps from FLAC, it's pointless to take up so much space.

[Railgun]

2 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

"wave"? Do you mean "WAV" or something? 

yeah. Wave = .wav

[Railgun]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

How does increasing the dynamic range of an existing song get rid of the noisefloor? I thought the science was settled on this topic.

 

Unless ABX tests show people being able to discern 320kbps from FLAC, it's pointless to take up so much space.

lolno. You can tell the difference. If you have good headphones and you find a good song (especially electronic or at least something mainly using saw) the lack of noise becomes obvious and very blissful

[Railgun]

1 minute ago, Railgun said:

lolno. You can tell the difference. If you have good headphones and you find a good song (especially electronic or at least something mainly using saw) the lack of noise becomes obvious and very blissful

and to clarify:

 

noise is what we call that hissing sound in the background of songs. Can be caused by all sorts of things, even electrical interference in your hardware.

[Asher Schwartz]

You do need a great pair of speakers and a quality dac which can be pricy. I would recommend that you stick with just 320kbps mp3 as it is hard to discern between that and FLAC. I use 320 kpbs and FLAC when the FLAC is actually in the highest quality. It is pretty hard for me to tell the difference and I wouldnt waste hard drive space on FLAC myself. You can hold more 320kbps mp3 on a hard drive than FLAC. To be clear, the flac of Sugar by Robin Schulz is 26.3mb with flac and is 10mb with 320kbs mp3

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Asher Schwartz

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Majestic said:

How does increasing the dynamic range of an existing file get rid of the noisefloor? I thought the science was settled on this topic, but apparently people are finding new and innovative ways to spew nonsense.

 

Unless ABX tests show people being able to discern 320kbps from FLAC, it's pointless to take up so much space.

Well if people are unsure about what they're doing like myself, I would take up the extra space just to be sure I'm getting it rather than a lower quality >.>

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Asher Schwartz said:

You do need a great pair of speakers and a quality dac which can be pricy. I would recommend that you stick with just 320kbps mp3 as it is hard to discern between that and FLAC. I use 320 kpbs and FLAC when the FLAC is actually in the highest quality. It is pretty hard for me to tell the difference and I wouldnt waste hard drive space on FLAC myself. You can hold more 320kbps mp3 on a hard drive than FLAC. To be clear, the flac of Sugar by Robin Schulz

Why would I need a "great pair of speaker and a quality DAC"? Is that for FLACs only or something or?... 

[Majestic]

6 minutes ago, Railgun said:

lolno. You can tell the difference. If you have good headphones and you find a good song (especially electronic or at least something mainly using saw) the lack of noise becomes obvious and very blissful

If you try hard enough, you can always "notice a difference". It's because your brain is looking for it, ABX tests never show similar results. Or even remotely.

 

5 minutes ago, Railgun said:

and to clarify:

 

noise is what we call that hissing sound in the background of songs. Can be caused by all sorts of things, even electrical interference in your hardware.

Yes I know what white noise is, but you can't suppress noise by simply adding bits or in any other way increasing the dynamic range. The hiss is still the same dB in accordance to the music. Ofc. hiss can also arrise on your setup, but i'm talking waveforms/source here. 

 

EDIT: The only thing that lowers noisefloors is good recording equipment. 

[xentropa]

2 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Why would I need a "great pair of speaker and a quality DAC"? Is that for FLACs only or something or?... 

DAC is what converts 1s and 0s into analogue sound.  While your FLAC may have no noise, harmonic distortion etc, a poor DAC (and speakers) will add those things to what you hear.

[Asher Schwartz]

1 minute ago, IAmLamp said:

Why would I need a "great pair of speaker and a quality DAC"? Is that for FLACs only or something or?... 

The dac is for being able to output the high quality without lowering the quality. I have two phones with different dac and playing the same song on both, one of them lowers the quality and the other preserves the quality. The speakers need to be better because without this, a dac is useless as it will produce a higher sound but the speakers wont be able to reproduce the sound quality to the fullest.

[Guest Kloaked]

3 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

It sounds like you're talking about a bottleneck there. So you're saying it would depend on the disc and it would be possible that both formats MP3 and FLAC would sound the same if the bitrate is low enough, right? 

Yes. Wherever you're getting the data from is how it'll sound no matter what you do to it if you upscale it, which is what you'd be doing if you ripped a typical CD to FLAC instead of MP3. The only difference with the file would be the file size, not actual quality since the data that was "shaved off" whenever the original was put onto the disc isn't going to be on the disc.

 

3 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Why would I need a "great pair of speaker and a quality DAC"? Is that for FLACs only or something or?... 

The DAC is what takes the data and turns that data into actual sound, basically (there's more details but that's the gist).

 

Unless you have a DAC that can output 32-bit analog and a high bitrate then you will not get that extra data to your headphones or speakers, for example.

[Railgun]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

If you try hard enough, you can always "notice a difference". It's because your brain is looking for it, ABX tests never show similar results. Or even remotely.

 

Yes I know what white noise is, but you can't suppress noise by simply adding bits or in any other way increasing the dynamic range. The hiss is still the same dB in accordance to the music. Ofc. hiss can also arrise on your setup, but i'm talking waveforms/source here. 

lolno (again). First off, it might be worth mentioning that once you notice something (like a lack of noise) after looking for it, you will continue to notice it even when you are relaxing.. But the important thing that you haven't understood is that your brain will pick up on these things regardless of whether you are seeking them out or not. You will notice these things subconsciously and the quality of your experience will change a little bit but you may or may not know why. That is the main importance of small details like noise reduction. Details in anything (not just sound quality) are literally just as important as the main focus.

 

Also, it isn't just about the noise. Idk if you've heard the difference between a low quality saw and a high quality saw but one of them is cancer to my ears.

[Majestic]

9 minutes ago, Railgun said:

lolno (again). First off, it might be worth mentioning that once you notice something (like a lack of noise) after looking for it, you will continue to notice it even when you are relaxing.. But the important thing that you haven't understood is that your brain will pick up on these things regardless of whether you are seeking them out or not. You will notice these things subconsciously and the quality of your experience will change a little bit but you may or may not know why. That is the main importance of small details like noise reduction. Details in anything (not just sound quality) are literally just as important as the main focus.

 

Also, it isn't just about the noise. Idk if you've heard the difference between a low quality saw and a high quality saw but one of them is cancer to my ears.

"lolno" 

> continues with subjective drivel.

 

Nobody is debating whether a noisy recording induces more or less listeners fatigue, and overcompression can be noticeable. Which you can clearly see in a waveform. But 192-320kbps is usually the point where ABX tests stop noticing difference. Even in terms of listeners fatigue.

 

And neither does FLAC lower the noisefloor of a recording, compared to 320kbps. Mastering and recording are infinitely more important than filesize.

 

And this is coming from a dude with a hearing that still reaches well over 20khz with plenty of decent audio equipment. The difference is in your head only.

 

 

[Guest]

So is the best format possible FLAC then? That's what it sounds like from what I'm seeing. 

[Railgun]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

"lolno" 

> continues with subjective drivel.

 

Nobody is debating whether a noisy recording induces more or less listeners fatigue, and overcompression can be noticeable. But 192-320kbps is usually the point where most stop hearing the difference. Even in terms of listeners fatigue.

 

And neither does FLAC lower the noisefloor of a recording, compared to 320kbps. Mastering and recording are infinitely more important than filesize.

 

 

...Yes. I know that. That wasn't what we were arguing about LOL

I never said FLAC will lower the noisefloor on its own. If you remember, I stated that having a good recording is also necessary. But you can't take a good recording and expect it to sound the way it should on an mp3. You need a lossless container.

 

The only part of this argument that is opinion driven is the part about who can notice the difference. I believe that EVERYONE can as long as they have the proper hardware and software. It's a shame that so many people are satisfied with low quality material because they haven't experienced anything better and don't understand why they would need the quality to be higher.