Why do people use flac files?

[71 dB]

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.

When I am home I listen to CDs and SACDs. When I must go somewhere I have to be satisfied with lesser sound quality. Better then nothing.

BTW, Flacs are more than 400 kbps, about twice that much. 

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.  

Low bitrate does not COMPLETELY ruin the enjoyment for me. The reason for this is I have knowledge of audio reproduction, audio coding and human hearing in order to have a rational attitude on the issue. I also have sense of proportion.

[Bonehelm]

When I am home I listen to CDs and SACDs. When I must go somewhere I have to be satisfied with lesser sound quality. Better then nothing.

BTW, Flacs are more than 400 kbps, about twice that much. 

Low bitrate does not COMPLETELY ruin the enjoyment for me. The reason for this is I have knowledge of audio reproduction, audio coding and human hearing in order to have a rational attitude on the issue. I also have sense of proportion.

Smart guy, learn to read. See that little sign beside my "400kbps"? Grade 2 math? Ring any bells?

and just FYI, my winamp player says 4xx kbps whenever I play my .flac files. It can jump to 500 sometimes, however.

[mahlertitan]

actually, i have seen anywhere between 400 to 900 plus kbps in flacs/ape, but, i never keep any of my music in this form, i always would convert them to 320 kbps mp3, for very obvious reasons:

1. user friendly, it's easier to manage mp3 files on a computer, e.g add album cover, comments, editing, etc....
2. Ipod friendly, i do not believe that there is an ipod out there that reads Ape or Flac
3. saves up some disk space, 320 mp3 takes up less room than flacs/ape. 
4 Compatibility, if i were to share my music with another individual(s), it would be easier for them to access, assuming not everyone has a flac/ape supported mediaplayer.

[71 dB]

Smart guy, learn to read. See that little sign beside my "400kbps"? Grade 2 math? Ring any bells?

and just FYI, my winamp player says 4xx kbps whenever I play my .flac files. It can jump to 500 sometimes, however.

Some parts of the music may compress to 400 kbps but other parts take more space. Anyway, I don't use flac so maybe I don't know...

[PSmith08]

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.

Why on Earth are you using a computer or portable listening device for serious listening? Lossless or not, that equipment chain just isn't as good as a decent CD player (or turntable), (tube, if that's your thing) amp, and either good headphones or respectable speakers. I'll admit that for casual listening or space considerations, I use my iMac or iPod. Still, if I want to get seriously into a CD, I break out a CD player. Not even a super-good one at that. I also get a drink or two and settled into my easy-chair, but that's a personal choice. You could, conceivably, construct a computer setup with enough HD space, a decent processor, a good sound card, and an external amp that could handle serious music - but you'd spend enough that a CD setup would not be that much more expensive. Computers and iPods, though, are the antithesis of serious listening. Music that demands your full attention isn't going to get better because you can check your e-mail, GMG, and CNN as you listen to it. To be blunt, you can feel sorry all you want, but you're not doing that much better yourself.

Of course, when you get into historical recordings - or even stuff made before the DDD days (including some early DDD recordings) - it doesn't matter what bitrate you make your rips at. Wilhelm Furtwängler's 1937 London performance of Beethoven's 9th is not going to suddenly sound great in a FLAC rip. Furtwängler's 1950 premiere of Strauss' Vier letzte Lieder would sound the same at 96 kbps as it did at 400+ kbps. Trust me. It just doesn't have a very good source. That matters infinitely more than bitrate or bitrate pity.

[mahlertitan]

Why on Earth are you using a computer or portable listening device for serious listening? Lossless or not, that equipment chain just isn't as good as a decent CD player (or turntable), (tube, if that's your thing) amp, and either good headphones or respectable speakers. I'll admit that for casual listening or space considerations, I use my iMac or iPod. Still, if I want to get seriously into a CD, I break out a CD player. Not even a super-good one at that. I also get a drink or two and settled into my easy-chair, but that's a personal choice. You could, conceivably, construct a computer setup with enough HD space, a decent processor, a good sound card, and an external amp that could handle serious music - but you'd spend enough that a CD setup would not be that much more expensive. Computers and iPods, though, are the antithesis of serious listening. Music that demands your full attention isn't going to get better because you can check your e-mail, GMG, and CNN as you listen to it. To be blunt, you can feel sorry all you want, but you're not doing that much better yourself.

Of course, when you get into historical recordings - or even stuff made before the DDD days (including some early DDD recordings) - it doesn't matter what bitrate you make your rips at. Wilhelm Furtwängler's 1937 London performance of Beethoven's 9th is not going to suddenly sound great in a FLAC rip. Furtwängler's 1950 premiere of Strauss' Vier letzte Lieder would sound the same at 96 kbps as it did at 400+ kbps. Trust me. It just doesn't have a very good source. That matters infinitely more than bitrate or bitrate pity.

agreed, I still listen to music on my computer though, but i don't do anything else while i am listening to the music.