Sign In:     

Forum: General Discussion

Topic: Flac V MP3

This topic is old and might contain outdated or incorrect information.

I've recently started using flac whenever possible.

I might be imagining it but I feel I can tell the difference by listening to the voices of the singers.
It's like there in the room with me !
It feels real !

I should not be able to tell the difference, but can I ?

Note : the frequency range of a flac file is greater than a similar high quality mp3.
 
Posted Wed 16 Sep 15 @ 1:48 pm
There is a difference weather u can hear it or not
Mp3 - lossy compression
Flac - lossless

That should say it all
 
http://www.digitaldjtips.com/2015/09/3-timeless-tips-for-modern-djs-from-a-veteran/

Digital DJ Tips have run an interesting article encouraging the use of lossless formats.
I agree with the thrust of their argument which encourages DJ's to promote high sound quality.

With reference to samples I've always avoided sirens, horns, and explosions, but after doing a little reading I found their plentiful use in Reggie and similar genres was quite acceptable. I have started doing mini sets which are reminiscent of WW2 !
Have I lost the plot ?
Anyway it's fun.

Note : I like Phil Morse's website, and am a regular visitor. As long as Atomix gets a fair review I have nothing bad to say about http://www.digitaldjtips.com/
 
As far as i can tell FLAC only makes sense when using extremely good HIFI systems or very good Headphones (Sennheiser, Bose, ...).
For partys and other events i am sure that it makes no difference if it's FLAC or 320 kbit/s MP3.
But since i like to have the best sound possible i convert all FLAC files that i get to 400 kbit/s VBR AAC files (iTunes format).
This way the music is even clearer than MP3, but still lossy and far smaller than FLAC.
I would even say that 256kbit/s MP3 would be enough for a party, but with decent headphones you can clearly hear the difference betwenn 256 and 320.

Regards,
Daniel
 
These two formats, FLAC & 320 kbit/s mp3, makeup 95% or more of my music.
I need a few months of playing both formats side by side before attempting to come to a conclusion.

The 128kb/s mp3 of @ 15 years ago, along with the blue screen of death did help get computer based DJ's a bad reputation.
It's almost surprising that we survived.
Mind you I had my twin CD players to help carry the newly born computer music technology.

I suspect the lossless formats represent the mature method of presenting computer based music.
The mp3 will die.
 
if the space on your HDD is no problem, you must use the less compression possible, your equipment will "look" and hear it " shiny",
remember old times, there was not compression on vinyl, or cds and you can hear the full spectrum of sound..

... try Stairway to Heaven, @ 128kbps, vs Stairway to Heaven on Flac Encoding, what do you think?

GK
 
check you all this quick comparison between compression formats, mp3,
the firt is mp3@192kbps, cuts on 15-16khz frequencys
the second is AAC@256 VBR , reaches peaks on 20 khz


GK
 
GKAudiO DJ wrote :
check you all this quick comparison between compression formats, mp3,



GK


Woah dude, be careful.
Never compare the quality of different music files.
If you want to compare them,
get a true WAVE file and convert it down to the different formats,
then it's a valid result.

Ofcourse MP3 is not as high quality as AAC (.m4a) because it can only contain up to 320 kbit/s of audio stream,
while AAC can hold up to 400 kbit/s.
When comparing quality, you'd always need FLAC or WAVE, but it's all about the compromise between size and quality.
And for some, MP3 is enough and others need less compressed audio.

Cheers,
Daniel
 
thanx for the FB,
GK
 
Also, you compare a mp3 at 128kbps to a FLAC? Of course it you could hear the difference. The same with the 192 comparison. If you wanted to be fair, why not use 320kbps mp3? I mean, you were trying to be fair, right?
 
AMAHM you made this statement "Also, you compare a mp3 at 128kbps to a FLAC?"

I've read this thread 10 times.
I can't find the basis for your statement?

Nobody in this thread has compared a 128kb/s mp3 to a flac file.
That would be stupid.
If I found a 128kb/s mp3 file on my hdd it would go straight into the bin.
We have moved on from @ 15 years ago.
I mostly use high quality mp3 (320kb/s) or flac.
Can I tell the difference between them?
I thought I could in the quality of the human voices.
Maybe not.
However the flac did sound good.
 
GKAudiO DJ wrote :
... try Stairway to Heaven, @ 128kbps, vs Stairway to Heaven on Flac Encoding, what do you think?GK


Please try to keep up, and read the thread before you post
 
AMAHM +1
 
I should not have missed that, I saw Led Zeppelin in the 70's performing that song. They were promoting their Led Zeppelin 4 album, which I then bought. It should still be in my roof. I wonder if it plays?
They had very little power in those days. I remember reading that, and thinking my current main rig had an equal amount of power to what they had !

I've not researched my facts, it's off the top of my head.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Let's stay on topic.
 


(Old topics and forums are automatically closed)