Why do people use flac files?

[71 dB]

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

If your player supports lossless format there isn't much reason not to use it.

People, you have the choice. Use whatever format you want and stop criticizing other people for using something else... 

[head-case]

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!

I'm not concerned with portable music.  I  have no illusion that the old walkman was a source of exquisite sound.  But recently I went to an audio equipment store and the sales person was prepared to demo a pair of $3000 speakers with an iPod.   That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

[DavidW]

Thanks for the detailed, insightful post Elgar!

[71 dB]

Recently I went to an audio equipment store and the sales person was prepared to demo a pair of $3000 speakers with an iPod.   That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

Yes, ridiculous. 

Thanks for the detailed, insightful post Elgar!

You are welcome DavidW!

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

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?

Simple. Lossless files are a base for archiving and later treatment.

[Bonehelm]

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.

Wow. Rofl, just rofl.

An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...

So you are able to ABX 200kbps+ AAC tracks against the original? Or are you just another commedian?

[Kullervo]

Wow. Rofl, just rofl.

An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...

I think he was trying to say that sound quality is not as important on a portable player.

[71 dB]

Wow. Rofl, just rofl.

An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...

It's not your business what satisfies me. Did you even understand my point?

[Bonehelm]

It's not your business what satisfies me. Did you even understand my point?

Of course it isn't. For all I know, you've been listening to composers who don't even matter in the past. Dittersdork, Elgar, blah blah blah. If those bunch can already satisify your musical needs, then I'm just awfully sorry for you.

Rofl...

[orbital]

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!

I remember the first walkman we had. A Sony that looked more or less like a brick!
This one:


It had a demo cassette though, one side was the 1st movement of Grieg's PC the other some type of jazz I think. This must be my first classical experience, I remember finding the music quite frightful actually 

[head-case]

I remember the first walkman we had. A Sony that looked more or less like a brick!
This one:


It had a demo cassette though, one side was the 1st movement of Grieg's PC the other some type of jazz I think. This must be my first classical experience, I remember finding the music quite frightful actually 

One thing I'll say, this forum is refreshingly free of nut-jobs who claim that any analog system is intrinsically superior to a digital source because of "bit jitter", "time domain error", quantization noise. etc.

[71 dB]

One thing I'll say, this forum is refreshingly free of nut-jobs who claim that any analog system is intrinsically superior to a digital source because of "bit jitter", "time domain error", quantization noise. etc.

Those analog nut-jobs have huge misunderstandings of digital technology.

Of course it isn't. For all I know, you've been listening to composers who don't even matter in the past. Dittersdork, Elgar, blah blah blah. If those bunch can already satisify your musical needs, then I'm just awfully sorry for you.

Rofl...

You don't even know which composers I listen to and how much. You think I listen to Dittersdorf every day, don't you? You are so wrong. I'm sure I listen to some of your favorite composers too. I am sorry for you because you have a need to mock me just because I have personal opinions and taste.

[Gurn Blanston]

Wow. Rofl, just rofl.

An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...

Of course it isn't. For all I know, you've been listening to composers who don't even matter in the past. Dittersdork, Elgar, blah blah blah. If those bunch can already satisify your musical needs, then I'm just awfully sorry for you.

Rofl...

If you actually sat down and evaluated your contribution to this discussion in the cold light of day, hopefully you would come to the realization that it has been wholly negative. If you can't add anything (not even good comic relief), why don't you choose a thread that can benefit from your wisdom?

[71 dB]

If you actually sat down and evaluated your contribution to this discussion in the cold light of day, hopefully you would come to the realization that it has been wholly negative. If you can't add anything (not even good comic relief), why don't you choose a thread that can benefit from your wisdom?

Thanks for the support Gurn Blanston! Bonehelm clearly dropped the ball with these messages. If he knew more about sound reproduction, audio coding and human hearing he might realise it's not that brainless to be satisfied with 192 kbps AAC sound with portable players in heavily compromised listening environments.

As Mark stated, the sound quality problems of historical recordings are gigantic compared to the problems of mp3 and similar audio coding. Still people are satisfied with historical recordings (well, I am not that satisfied...).

[Lethevich]

it's not that brainless to be satisfied with 192 kbps AAC sound with portable players in heavily compromised listening environments.

Not to mention on completely shitty equipment! iPods and their ilk probably supply the lowest audio quality after a walkman casette player...

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

If he knew more about sound reproduction, audio coding and human hearing he might realise it's not that brainless to be satisfied with 192 kbps AAC sound with portable players in heavily compromised listening environments.

BTW aac bitrates are no more bound to block sizes as mp3 (..96 128 160 ...). I'd say with nero aac probably any average bitrate output with more than 120 kbps is overkill on portable solutions.

Bonehelm is the hero of wisdom who found out "aac isn't even lossless". Yay, t311 NOOZ!!!11!. Bonehelm: You might end in recognizing a CD "isn't even lossless". Maybe you'd avoid listening to music then and refuse to write in a music related forum. Maybe you go out and fight imperialism.

This would be good news, indeed.

[Bonehelm]

The point is, I feel sad for people who choose to listen to low quality music when they can stay home and listen to 400+kbps flacs and apes like I do.

[head-case]

As Mark stated, the sound quality problems of historical recordings are gigantic compared to the problems of mp3 and similar audio coding. Still people are satisfied with historical recordings (well, I am not that satisfied...).

It's one thing to be satisfied with a poor recording because that it was the only thing available when an artist was performing.  It is quite another thing to be satisfied with a poor recording because you don't want it to take up too much room on your iPod.   

[The Mad Hatter]

The point is, I feel sad for people who choose to listen to low quality music when they can stay home and listen to 400+kbps flacs and apes like I do.

You're making the mistake of assuming that people have time to stay at home and listen to music. I certainly don't - most of the music I listen to, I listen to while moving around. And if I do listen to music at home, I listen to the CDs