Why do people use flac files?

[Mozart]

Is there any difference between a 320 kb/s mp3 and a 700 kb/s flac except that the flac one takes up more space and doesn't play on my ipod? Either people who use flac files have some sort of super human hearing or they are idiots. I don't understand it, there is absolutely no difference that my ears can pick up. Do you use flac or mp3?

[Mark]

Is there any difference between a 320 kb/s mp3 and a 700 kb/s flac except that the flac one takes up more space and doesn't play on my ipod? Either people who use flac files have some sort of super human hearing or they are idiots. I don't understand it, there is absolutely no difference that my ears can pick up. Do you use flac or mp3?

Because FLAC isn't a lossy format (removes no digital information, simply stores it more effectively, like a .zip file). It means you need only rip once, then you can make a lossy version for your iPod (or whatever player) for use on the move.

[Kullervo]

You can also rip to Apple Lossless for CD quality audio on your iPod. Anyone that says they can tell the difference between 300 kbps mp3 and Flac is lying.

[Mark]

Anyone that says they can tell the difference between 300 kbps mp3 and Flac is lying.

Except those who clearly weren't lying when they correctly identified a 128, 192, 320 and WAV original in the blind test I carried out here on the forum not long ago.

[Choo Choo]

Yes, exactly.  Try playing them through a "proper" hifi system rather than PC speakers, and then see if you can tell the difference.

[Mozart]

Except those who clearly weren't lying when they correctly identified a 128, 192, 320 and WAV original in the blind test I carried out here on the forum not long ago.

Shananigans! Shananigans I say! There is no difference between lossless and 320kb/s mp3.

[Kullervo]

Yes, exactly.  Try playing them through a "proper" hifi system rather than PC speakers, and then see if you can tell the difference.

Well, that *would* make a big difference, but with computer speakers or headphones they are identical.

[71 dB]

Shananigans! Shananigans I say! There is no difference between lossless and 320kb/s mp3.

There is but does it make any difference in portable players? When I listen to music with my iPod outdoors the listening experience is limited by many aspects:

1. Wind. Masks the music a lot no matter how loud I listen to the music.
2. iPod output amplifier. It's driven with a low voltage battery! It's not High End!
3. Traffic noise and all other background noise.
4. Sennheiser PX-200 phones are very good but not High End.

These 4 things limit the sound quality, not low bitrate of lossy coding. My 2 years old iPod does not support lossless so I use 192 kbps AAC. That's good enough. Period.

[71 dB]

Well, that *would* make a big difference, but with computer speakers or headphones they are identical.

In fact low quality speakers may reveal the artifacts more easily. Lossy coding assumes more or less transparent sound reproduction. Nasty resonances and colourizations may reveal coding artifacts that would stay hidden with high quality system. 

[Mozart]

There is but does it make any difference in portable players? When I listen to music with my iPod outdoors the listening experience is limited by many aspects:

1. Wind. Masks the music a lot no matter how loud I listen to the music.
2. iPod output amplifier. It's driven with a low voltage battery! It's not High End!
3. Traffic noise and all other background noise.
4. Sennheiser PX-200 phones are very good but not High End.

These 4 things limit the sound quality, not low bitrate of lossy coding. My 2 years old iPod does not support lossless so I use 192 kbps AAC. That's good enough. Period.

Strange, when I put my ipod on, I can never hear anything else. I was crossing the street once, and got terrified because I saw a car pass near me without hearing it. It didn't come close or anything, but it made me jump. There is no wind in southern california, but in Providence it never really affected it.

[71 dB]

Strange, when I put my ipod on, I can never hear anything else. I was crossing the street once, and got terrified because I saw a car pass near me without hearing it. It didn't come close or anything, but it made me jump. There is no wind in southern california, but in Providence it never really affected it.

Phones gives an attenuation of perhaps 20 dB on average. Traffic noise is easily 80 dB so you still have 60 dB of traffic noise. Music masks some of it but on the other hand traffic noise masks music!

No wind in Southern California? 

[head-case]

Shananigans! Shananigans I say! There is no difference between lossless and 320kb/s mp3.

This is proof that civilization can regress as well as advance.  We now have a generation whose ears have been so blown out by ear buds and iPods that they can't distinguish gross degradation of audio quality. 

[Kullervo]

This is proof that civilization can regress as well as advance.  We now have a generation whose ears have been so blown out by ear buds and iPods that they can't distinguish gross degradation of audio quality. 

Gross degradation? Give me a break. 320 k/s is hardly gross degradation. Why does it matter, anyway? People listening to flac are just as likely to miss details in the music as people listening to mp3. If I want CD quality I'll listen to a CD. Oh, but I'll be causing the regression of society as well, since I listen on headphones and can't hear a damn thing.

[Mozart]

No wind in Southern California?  Huh?

Yeah, I had this silly idea that when it rains people are supposed to hold their umbrellas over their heads. It doesn't rain much here but from my experience thats the way it works. In Rhode Island, I did that and got soaked! You need to hold the umbrella in front of you because the wind makes the rain come in at like a 30 degree angle...

Gross degradation? Give me a break. 320 k/s is hardly gross degradation. Why does it matter, anyway? People listening to flac are just as likely to miss details in the music as people listening to mp3. If I want CD quality I'll listen to a CD. Oh, but I'll be causing the regression of society as well, since I listen on headphones and can't hear a damn thing.

Ohh ignore him, he is a head case!

[head-case]

Ohh ignore him, he is a head case!

Apparently my fears about the decline of civilization are unfounded.

[Redbeard]

Mark's original reply really nailed it from my perspective.  I don't use FLAC in a portable player, or even when listening to music on my PC (my favorite software player won't play FLAC).  I use it to store a ripped music from CD in a lossless format that takes half the storage space of a wav file and also allows meta data tags.  From here I can easily make lossy copies in whatever format/quality I wish for use in a portable player, etc.

FYI, the reason I rip the CDs and store them in FLAC in the first place is so that I can box up the original CDs and store them out of the way.  I understand why some people enjoy displaying their CD collection, but for me it takes up more space than I want it to (even with my meager collection).  I keep the originals, but in a closet instead of on display. 

[Kullervo]

Ohh ignore him, he is a head case!

As his total lack of posting anything more than pithy remarks and generally negative comments would support.

[DavidW]

Well, that *would* make a big difference, but with computer speakers or headphones they are identical.

Yup there is software out there to abq that.  Instead of saying I'm awesome, I know what's different!  You put your ears to the test instead.  On crappy computer/sound card/bargain pc speakers, can't tell a thing.  I might be able to if I still had my higher end gear.  I think that mp3s start to sound transparent once you start getting past ~220.  And so comparing ~320 mp3 to flac has got to be hard unless you have excellent gear and ears.

Elgar talked about artifacts-- that is one thing is that you can actually train your ears to hear the artifacts.  Why would you want to do that though?  That would be terrible!

[71 dB]

Elgar talked about artifacts-- that is one thing is that you can actually train your ears to hear the artifacts.  Why would you want to do that though?  That would be terrible!

The idea of audio compression is based on the fact that even trained ears can't hear everything. Temporal and spectral masking effects of hearing makes it physically impossible. However, it is difficult to simulate human hearing and the masking effects accurately. Some of the coding artifacts can be detected. The lower bitrate the more detectable artifacts. Nobody can detect most artifacts of a 320 kbps mp3. It's a small amount of artifacts that the people with trained golden ears can detect. These artifacts are a result of less than perfect simulation of human hearing.

Psychology plays a role here. People tend to exaggerate the problems in lossy sound because they know how low the bitrate is. Surely an 128 kbps mp3 must be very poor in quality because it has only 1/11 of the information the original wav has! Well, in reality the differences in sound quality are amazingly small considering the huge reduction in bitrate.

15 years ago people used C-cassettes in portable players (Walkmans, remember?) Those casettes had lots of noise, distortion and flutter. The sound really was poor! Compared the that technology even 128 kbps mp3s are High End!

[Daverz]

Is there any difference between a 320 kb/s mp3 and a 700 kb/s flac except that the flac one takes up more space and doesn't play on my ipod? Either people who use flac files have some sort of super human hearing or they are idiots. I don't understand it, there is absolutely no difference that my ears can pick up. Do you use flac or mp3?

Wow, totally lossless compression is only twice the size of an mp3!  Cool!  Why bother with mp3s then?