CD vs FLAC. Which is better?

[Rupam]

I was just wondering after reading the thread getting-more-out-my-lyrita , that they can really help in this mystery on CD Vs FLAC , as I understand they are able to decipher changes in sound based on various parameters when compared to self.

Writing this , as did the experiment this afternoon.

.. i tried a lot to distinguish doing some conversion from
( leave alone the CD )
Wave -> flac ,
Wave -> Mp3(192 and 320)
flac -> Mp3(192 and 320)
my perception of difference was nil , null, blank , dash dash dash. nothing...
all were sounding the same to me.
on PC based STX -> shure SE310 (win 8 ),
on Pc based X-Fi Extreme gamer -> shure SE310 (XP prof ) , bitmatched enabled
on PC based X-Fi Titanium -> shure SE310 (XP home ) , bitmatched enabled
on laptop ( some Dolby Home Theater v4 ) -> shure se310 (win 8)

comparison is between these files on each machine ( not on different PCs - which is obviously miles apart) - all are in the same room but on different shelf/platform/tables with different config.

Looks like , I'm happy with what ever substandard/moderate "Ear" I have. I may never understand few Theories/Rationalization.- may be I'm not the right person to comment on these difference in the first place.

You have a Lyrita and I just can't believe that you don't distinguish between wav and mp3 ? I think your CDs dont do justice to your system.

Google "Gershwin Ravel Debussy from SACD in WMA Professional 96khz 24bit multichannel" and you will have a HD trrack at your disposal. hyeah:



Use it just for testing purpose.... make mp3 and flac from it and then see you don't notice any difference.

 

[manoj.p]

can't get to last page.

 

[asliarun]

Are these two statements not contradicting with each other?

Ah Santy, as you keep poking holes, I keep stitching

Jokes apart, in my second statement I actually meant mp3 in lower bit rates. I have heard a lot of mp3 in 128kbps CBR and it sounds compressed. It sounds like a blanket has been thrown over the performers. Now I also listen to a lot of rock and a fair amount of the heavy stuff. In some cases, the music itself or the recording itself is such that I am sometimes thankful for the lack of detail. Example - music with a fair amount of distortion.

Try Murray ostril by godspeed you! Black emperor for example. It is a breathtakingly beautiful song but there are patches when the guitarist goes crazy with a screwdriver on his electric guitar.

 

[asliarun]

You have a Lyrita and I just can't believe that you don't distinguish between wav and mp3 ? I think your CDs dont do justice to your system.

Google "Gershwin Ravel Debussy from SACD in WMA Professional 96khz 24bit multichannel" and you will have a HD trrack at your disposal. hyeah:



Use it just for testing purpose.... make mp3 and flac from it and then see you don't notice any difference.

Many many people with revealing systems or headphone setups have not been able to make a difference between 320kbps mp3 and wav.

Not trying to rehash the age old argument, just saying that it is not that uncommon based on what people are reporting.

To be fair as well, any comparison should be made with normal music a person hears. That's why we buy an audio system to begin with. If a lower resolution system is able to play the music we like, it is a good enough system or a good enough audio format. Don't you agree?

 

[Staxxx]

I must confess that I am also a little surprised by some of this discussion. I do find a certain difference between regular CD WAV files and hi-rez files. This is harder to define as it is a certain ease, airiness and naturalness which is easier heard than described. But between compressed MP3 and WAV there is a very discernible difference, IMHO, which it appears that some good people miss....could it be the system, could it be the recording, could it be the ambient noise or set up in the room....I am not sure why.

 

[sbg]

You have a Lyrita and I just can't believe that you don't distinguish between wav and mp3 ? I think your CDs dont do justice to your system.
.

..oops. I dont.
Where ever my comparison was in the above, I was only referring to my ability to discern the differences wrt others Ability.

I dont think I have any revealing setup, or that, natural ability to pick up the subtle differences is lacking in me.

I'm mostly on the PC for songs, and seldom on the other setup(which is mostly for movies)
sony /PC/ps3-> denon 2310 -> fostex FE126En or RTI A7s.

 

[Santy]

It is wrong to conclude anything by listening to just a couple of tracks. But on my HTPC, yesterday I played a FLAC file of Diana Krall's Temptation and compared it with the test CD I got from an FM. The CD was played on the 1k worth optical drive. FLAC was only 741 kpbs. Software was same... foobar.

The difference did exist. The FLAC was muffled at all frequencies above vocal range and the imaging was slightly smeared. The CD had much lesser noise floor, a dark background which made the vocals come out lively. The Stimela Coaltrain track was also compared same way but the difference was not as much (FLAC again was only 740 kbps). Still the CD playback sounded thick that was to my liking; with the trumpets sounding more crisp and drums being punchy, mild difference though.

Yes I do understand that its not a proper comparison because
(i) transport is different
(ii) FLAC could be of poor quality.

I will tonight check again by ripping the tracks as WAV, convert to FLAC and then post the results here. Any suggestions of best software for converting WAV to FLAC?

 

[sbg]

It is wrong to conclude anything by listening to just a couple of tracks. But on my HTPC, yesterday I played a FLAC file of Diana Krall's Temptation and compared it with the test CD I got from an FM. The CD was played on the 1k worth optical drive. FLAC was only 741 kpbs. Software was same... foobar.

Santy, you are referring to the test disc used in mumbai meet? from Dinyar?

Editing this post for possible objectionable matter per HFV rules: Thanks santy for pointing out

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Santy, until you make your own FLAC from that CD, there is no valid comparison at all. If you can rip the CD, the software probably has (should have!) the option to rip to different formats, lossy and lossless.

Just one thing, which I probably said before: enlist help of family or friend a do a blind test. Or find a way to click between sources, and click too often to remember. Partially sighted is better than completely sighted testing!

Even with fully-sighted testing on file formats, every time I find some detail that I think has nailed a difference, I go back and find the same detail in the other file, previously unheard. In the end I loose patience and ...just play some music instead . Anyway, I'll have a try with the Audio Diffmaker, mentioned above, one day soon.

It is harder to do blind testing on the longer-term-AB rather than quick-AB testing. However, lower-bit-rate MP3s are not even claimed to come close to the original. Get down to the bitrates used, for instance, on some internet broadcasting, and you will very soon notice that even speech is fatiguing.

 

[Rupam]

...Any suggestions of best software for converting WAV to FLAC?

dbpoweramp music converter is all you need.

 

[sbg]

Just one thing, which I probably said before: enlist help of family or friend a do a blind test. Or find a way to click between sources, and click too often to remember. Partially sighted is better than completely sighted testing!

Blind TEST

this can be done and here is my way of doing it.

1.have the audio files of short length -say, 1 minute
2.having the option set to Play "Random" in the player
3.Run any Screen Recorder - capturing the file being played randomly
(have the same 2 files in the playlist - say 5 times - playlist will have 10 songs)
4.Switch off the monitor.
5.If you have multimedia keyboard, use next to play next random file
esle let it play the entire duration(it should play randomly)
6.Have a note pad with pen/pencil or your ipad to note down your comments.
7. when done, replay your recording and list which file played when and compare with your notes.
8. if you are dead on - which is better that the other ,you are indeed a very Blessed Person!

Note:
I guess the sample size of 5 listening of each format should be fair enough . Else , if you feel bored/monotonous , you can reduce the sample size to 3 ( 6 in the playlist) as this may effect the last 4 or the rest listening as "Man when this will be over!" state of mind.

Higher the sample size better are results,If Ego will be an issue - do not try this under any circumstances hyeah:- not good for your well being.
Keep your mileage per your Quest for knowledge.

repeat the excercise when in self-doubt.

 

[Rupam]

That's why we buy an audio system to begin with. If a lower resolution system is able to play the music we like, it is a good enough system or a good enough audio format. Don't you agree?

Ofcourse but a good quality not only increases the level of pleasure but it also do justice to the fellow singer, musician.

People listen to Lata, Asha, Rafi on Chinese mobile phone, and they do enjoy. Don't you think they will enjoy more if they could get a nice upgrade.

As human being we always strive for improvement. In video domain we have achieved great improvement over the decades : VHS> Laserdisc>VCD>DVD>Bluray.

But in audio domain, the evolution is somehow lost.
We started with analogue LP>Vinyl>Cassette>CD>??? but then again Analogue is coming back. Are we going through loops........?

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

repeat the excercise when in self-doubt.

I think it is more important to do you when one feels one is not in doubt. Get pretty-much certain, and then see if one can reproduce the certainty blind. Of course, that can pose even greater threats to the ego.

I can also get a bit like hard work --- which, in my book, is the only valid reason not to do systematic testing :lol:

IIRC, the last time I attempted this, I lined up different tracks in Audacity, and found some way to solo them by mouse click without seeing. There has to be easier ways --- and yours might well be one

 

[esanthosh]

Just one thing, which I probably said before: enlist help of family or friend a do a blind test. Or find a way to click between sources, and click too often to remember. Partially sighted is better than completely sighted testing!

Wouldn't ABX Comparator accomplish the same thing - since he is using foobar? Is it not trustworthy?

 

[SunnyBoi]

CDs for me. Compared couple of U2 and Rush CDs and FLACs from what.cd. Sounded better on CDs all the time.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Wouldn't ABX Comparator accomplish the same thing - since he is using foobar? Is it not trustworthy?

Oh, sorry... yes, no doubt it would. I don't use Windows so can't comment on Foobar, but yes, I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[trittya]

Are these two statements not contradicting with each other?

Nope, both are true, the latter especially so, in case of bad recording/mastering(the same 'cut' on both CD vs Other vs Other ie A-B comparison, all other things remaining same).
I'd ONLY call it cause for consolation, though.
Nothing to pen home about, IMO.
Either way, a flaw is a flaw, just that they sometimes help each other, these flaws.
Do hope you got my drift, mate.

Cheerio

 

[trittya]

You have a Lyrita and I just can't believe that you don't distinguish between wav and mp3 ? I think your CDs dont do justice to your system.

Methinx having a Lyrita (or any other "hi-end" amp) has little to do with being able to distinguish between a wav and a (say, 320 kbps) mp3/FLAC/ALAC file.

The amp just plays what it being fed, right?
No amp can pour hot water on dung and call it gravy !!!:lol::lol:

No offense meant, my friends, so don't take none.
Just stands to LOGIC, really.
Cheerio, ALL

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I thought I would have a go with Audio Diffmaker, so I downloaded it ...and found that it only handles WAV files. it is designed for comparison of components, not file formats.

 

[sanjsin9]

flac is the better i believe