MP3, FLAC, Apple Lossless and WAV...

Veddernarian · October 2013

In your opinion, what is the highest sound quality? That if I made a CD out of it, it would sound the closest to the CD received in the mail? I'm guessing, not MP3 but of the other's, what is your pick?

PH20 · October 2013

FLAC

Pap · October 2013

This^

Veddernarian · October 2013

THANKS!

guitar101 · October 2013

Wav for sure.

Zod · October 2013

I think technically lossless tech would be similar?

So technically wouldn't FLAC, Apple Lossless and WAV all be the same sound quality?

That being said I think the FLAC has the biggest non sound benefits. It's not a propietary format so it works easily all on all sorts of hardware/software configurations (unlike apple lossless). FLAC files are smaller than WAV so I think they win out there.

Veddernarian · October 2013

guitar101 wrote:

Wav for sure.

A long time ago, I had something called, I think, Flac front end and if I remember correctly, its purpose was to create a wav from a flac so I could burn a CD. I had Nero to burn the CD. I know a lot has changed since then. I want to download the highest quality format so that if something extra comes and it is a song, I would burn a CD and I want the best quality available. Curious on people's thoughts on FLAC vs. WAV

norm · October 2013

WAV = CD

all the others are compressed in some way

nomorecrackpipes · October 2013

norm wrote:

WAV = CD

all the others are compressed in some way

Correct.

I can't speak for AAC, but a FLAC comparison was done a number of years ago where there is a slight data loss converting from the WAV to FLAC and back. No one could pinpoint where the loss occurred, but it's there.

grazman · October 2013

WAV is CD quality so is best format, but that is still compressed to fit on a CD. I saw on the order page High-Definition WAV files so I don't know if they are better than CD WAV files.

ForceofNature101 · October 2013

If you use a quality converter there is no different between WAV and FLAC so go with FLAC because WAV takes up a lot more space

darthvedder · October 2013

Most burning programs burn WAV to CD. With FLAC, either the burning program (I've heard Nero can do this on-the-fly) or you have to convert to WAV before burning. So, if a CD is your goal, go with WAV.

drummerboy_73 · October 2013

WAV is the closest thing to raw PCM audio. FLAC is "lossless" in the sense that the file contains all the data necessary to decompress into a WAV file that's identical to the original source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format

Zod · October 2013

There's a reason they label things as lossless. They are lossless. The quality is the same as the original cd. There is nothing lost in compression (unlike mp3 where there is).

SHN was the original lossless format. It seemed to get superseeded by FLAC. Some profit companies have their own propietary formats like Apple Lossless.

There's a reason they call them lossless (And a reason the files sizes don't compress nearly as small as an mp3).

FLAC is cd quality. So was SHN and propietary formats like Apple Lossless.

WhyNotSweden · October 2013

Zod wrote:

There's a reason they label things as lossless. They are lossless.

Lossless it is

buck502000 · October 2013

I've got all that apple stuff - so I use Apple lossless. It might be a bitch when I change to something different in the future. I.E. computer, phone, Ipod. I have ripped 500+ CD's in the Apple format too. Good thing I didn't sell/trade those discs in.

verceman · October 2013

Just read this very interesting article about th edifferences between file formats.

http://warmleftovers.wordpress.com/2012 ... important/

No, FLAC Does Not “Sound Better,” And You Are Not An Audiophile Because You Use It – Here’s What It Actually Is And Why It’s Important
3 Replies
Yet another sound-related post – lately, I have heard more and more individuals preaching the sonic virtues of FLAC with literally no idea what they are talking about. They spout annoying, misleading, elitist crap that has no basis in reality whatsoever. Let’s learn about FLAC, why it’s good, and why it isn’t, shall we?

What in the fuck is “FLAC”?

FLAC is an audio encoding format. It’s also a very good one for a number of reasons. FLAC is a “lossless” format, meaning none of the data from the source recording is compressed or removed (assuming you use the same bit depth [not the same thing as bit rate] and frequency range). This is inarguably a good thing. Lossless is the word of the year (or last 3) among audiophiles (and those who like to consider themselves audiophiles), but the implications of lossless have been twisted and manipulated in ways that are just not factually supported.

Why is FLAC awesome (and is it awesome)?

Yes, FLAC is awesome. Really, it is – as much as I hate FLAC listening purists, FLAC has a real place in the digital audio world that should not be overlooked.

You probably know of one other lossless audio format (even if you don’t know it’s lossless) called .WAV. Yep, that same, good ‘ol format that your Windows system sounds are encoded in (though that’s 8-bit and usually mono). WAV preserves 100% of audio information in 16-bit 44.1KHz stereo format when ripping audio from a CD.

FLAC is better than WAV for two reasons. First, it does everything WAV does (lossless audio), but in a much smaller package (WAV is extremely inefficient in its use of space). Second, it allows the use of more tags (including “illegal” tags in Windows) for marking files. That’s it. Otherwise, same juice, different label. WAV does have the advantage of being more editing / DJ-friendly (also less work for the CPU since it’s hardware decoded), but that’s not really relevant to what we’re talking about here.

This gets us to why FLAC is awesome. It’s all about preservation and archiving! FLAC uses less space than WAV, and allows more precise tagging, making it ideal as a long-term digital storage medium for audio. No matter how many times you copy it (well, in the relative sense), generation after generation, the source audio remains virtually unaltered.

Real audiophiles love FLAC because it helps preserve recordings in their original state, even after multiple rips, digital copying, etc. And because it does so in a comparatively space-efficient format.

This is why MP3′s are bad for archiving. MP3′s have something of a poor generational half-life. You start with an MP3 rip of a CD – even at 256Kbps, you’ve already lost audio information. That MP3 then gets sent to a friend of yours, who burns it on a CD. More data lost (probably a fair bit, too). Your friend loses the digital original, and re-rips the MP3 from the CD to give it to a friend – by now, there is a very noticeable loss in audio quality in the file. Errors and irregularities have started popping up, and in the strictly archival sense, the song is now basically worthless as a record of the original.

Why FLAC isn’t awesome (read: it’s not because it “sounds better”).

If I have one more person tell me that they “refuse” to listen to their music collection in anything but FLAC, I’m just going to start linking to this with only the word “bullshit” in response, because FLAC stupidity is reaching epidemic proportions.

The reason most audiophiles like FLAC has very little to do with the actual quality of the audio. Talking about FLAC as the “superior listening format” just makes you sound like an uninformed prick. Saying you use FLAC because it “sounds better” is like saying you only drink your wine at 53.7 degrees Fahrenheit because that is the “best temperature.” To both people making such statements, I would have this to say: get the fuck over yourself. It’s nothing more than self-perpetuating elitist spew.

You store your audio in the most optimal format available because that means that whenever you do finally decide to make copies, burn CDs, or transcode it, you’re using the best source possible. You don’t buy a $100,000 wine cellar so your wine is at a 53.7 degree drinking temperature, you buy it so your wine lasts as long as physically possible - again, it’s all about preservation.

Yes, FLAC has the complete audio source, and from a strictly technical perspective, is qualitatively superior to even a 320Kbps MP3. However, anyone claiming to be able to consistently tell the difference between the two correctly in a true blind test is just absolutely full of shit. A properly encoded* 256Kbps MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from its FLAC counterpart in a “better vs. worse” sense even with very good audio equipment.

*Yes, there are bad MP3 encoders out there. Eg, old versions of LAME – and they do sound worse and are more error / artifact-prone.

Unless you’re using an audio setup that reaches into the thousands upon thousands of dollars, sorry, I just refuse to believe you can hear the difference unless you’ve got pitch-perfect ears or have spent years and years doing professional audio work. Even many of those people will tell you that, if the difference is there, it doesn’t matter – your ears aren’t an audio-measuring supercomputer, much like your tastebuds aren’t a mass spectrometer.

The bottleneck is always your equipment.

Audio equipment is one of those things you can spend small fortunes on to get the “very best” products out there. And that’s because the very best products require expensive components and materials, extremely precise and specialized construction techniques, and levels of perfectionism in engineering that border on the absurd. And at that point, even if the end product is better, you reach a level of diminishing returns that make such investments unwise for most people (unless you have the money to burn).

Equipment is bar-none the best way to improve the quality of your sound. Equipment is like the engine and ignition components of your car – audio format is like the brand of gasoline you use. Sure, it can make a difference, but only if you go out of your way to actually use something that is bad. Otherwise, it’s insignificant in the larger scheme of things. Would you pay $0.20 more a gallon if Shell guaranteed its gas improved the power output of your car by 0.08%? No – not unless you’re the lead engineer of an F1 team. That’s what FLAC audio quality is – it’s the last little bit you can squeeze out of a near-perfect setup.

You know how Pandora at 128Kbps sounds coming out of my big 300W reference bookshelf speakers through a dedicated stereo amplifier? Fucking fantastic – and don’t tell me otherwise.

Bronx Bombers · October 2013

My collection is mostly mp3 with the bulk being 320 and 256 . I have plenty of apple lossless and flac files and I cannot tell the difference between them and the mp3's. I use grado rs1 cans with a $450 amp to listen to music most of the time and the only time I notice any difference is when you listen to a 128 file vs 256 or 320. I would have no problem upgrading the files if there was a noticeable difference but I can't tell maybe I need new ears.

Zod · October 2013

When SHN (and then FLAC) first came out the average bit rate on mp3's was a lot lower. IE in the day of napster and early mp3 trading you were lucky to get 128kbps mp3's. The old tagging system of mp3's also left little clicks between tracks if you trying to burn an album (especially a live album) DAO.

With storage getting bigger over the the last 15 years the quality of mp3's have gone up. Usually the standard is around 256 variable bit rate. The sound quality on those are so much better that the ones from the early days of mp3 (back when something like broadband internet was only available to portions of the population).

So the difference between lossless and mp3 is definitely smaller than it was 10 to 15 years ago.

As for me. I tend to use FLAC for the home stereo and my cowon s9 portable player (which at 4 years old still seems to sound better than any modern samsung or apple phone). My car stereo has a usb port for a flash drive, so I use mp3's in the car. My car stereo is also pretty meh. It has a $179 dollar deck hooked up to the crappy stock car speakers

FLAC would be pointless in the car.

As storage space continues to get bigger I wonder if mp3 will phase out. Mostly because mp3 became popular because of storage space constraints.

I completely agree that on a lot of system you'll be hard pressed to hear the difference between a flac and well encoded mp3, but why not use FLAC if space isn't an issue?

DrewTangDMB · October 2013

Is there no way to burn the lightning bolt download from ten club store?

MP3, FLAC, Apple Lossless and WAV...

Comments