CD vs FLAC. Which is better?

[sbg]

And about wav vs flac, I personally always found wav files are far better in audio quality than FLAC. There is no confusion.

This is because the player(codec) is not able to the same justice to both the files

Wouldn't this be the best way to A:B WAV and FLAC through the same chain?

The same chain will always mean, the FLAC to be decompressed (all in real time to what ever - loss-less or with-loss), converted to WAV and use the same codec to play as used for the other original wave file.

If both match up, then the playback processes are different.

This is what I had been trying to Convey since AAaaaaages!!!
Manoj, you are my Savior!

....My turn Over.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

If anyone is seriously interested in putting some work into such comparisons, there are tools such as Audio DiffMaker.

All that is required is some work, reasonable equipment, and reasonable ears. No more excuses about "resolving systems," or "golden ears!"

Doesn't this process require ultra-high end recording equipment?
No, because DiffMaker doesn't try or need to accurately reproduce music -- it is only trying to help detect whether anything has changed, which is a much less demanding requirement. It doesn't matter if the difference that DiffMaker finds might not be perfectly reproduced -- only that the difference is left intact enough to hear.

The sound card used doesn't need to be completely transparent or of highest pedigree. It only needs to be capable of responding to any differences that may occur (even if those differences aren't reproduced perfectly) and of not burying any significant differences in added noise.

How can you tell whether the equipment was good enough in a DiffMaker result? You can listen to the result, and note the level of any difference and/or decide if any remaining noise is high enough to be maybe covering something that may be important. In other words, if the gear isn't good enough, you'll be able to hear it, it won't make a difference go silent.

Well, as noted above, I have some difficulty with the reasonable ears. Oh, and work... :lol:. And MS Windows. But I should give it a try one day.

 

[esanthosh]

The same chain will always mean, the FLAC to be decompressed (all in real time to what ever - loss-less or with-loss), converted to WAV and use the same codec to play as used for the other original wave file

I mentioned...

Play both files using foobar 2000 (WASAPI) using the ABX comparator and see if you can determine WAV file correctly

Whatever be the process of conversion / complexity associated with FLAC vs processing plain old WAV, ABX comparator is designed to test the audibility of such a difference. It has been regularly used to check the audible difference between MP3 and FLAC with interesting results. Why not try and use it for WAV and FLAC?

I neither have golden ears nor do I own a costly high resolving gear. But, it would be interesting if someone else with either or both can do this and post the result.

 

[thevortex]

Actually any MP3 above 192 kbps is actually not too bad* (disclaimers apply). 320 kbps vs FLAC is perhaps a bit subjective. There are not too many differences that can be easily gleaned out. But then, as with all things musical this too could be personal

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I don't use MP3 much. For no particular reason other than it being an open codec, i tend to use OGG for portable playing, but I don't do enough travel listening to be bothered to work out what might be best. However, I think that what has changed MP3 is variable bit rate.

 

[Rupam]

Thad E Ginathom sir which headphone do you have? I'm interested in good headphone. another question , what do you prefer CD or FLAC?

 

[jay0505]

I like the feel of holding a CD in my hands especially with the original artworks and covers. Buying/downloading flac takes that feeling away.

I enjoy CDs more than even hd flac files at times, because of the above reason. Somehow seeing the album cover on my ipad doesn't feel as good as going through the artworks of CD (or LP).

Hey I am new to the forum but I had some experience with my untrained ears about this and found:
Flac and Wav both if played from a hard disk has bit lesser quality than those played through a CD Player. Not arguiing... may be my system forced me to reach to such an opinion.

Regards,
Jay

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

The easy question ... Audia Technica ATH-AD900. Open backed.

I don't really have a favourite media format, because in day-to-day terms, I've left the handling of those wonderful LPs and their covers rather in the past. I still quite like the fact that a CD is a thing but have got more and more PC-based over the last five years.

Only thing is... I tend to play CDs on the hifi, and other stuff on the PC. Different experience.

I used to store my pc-based music as WAV files, because I then thought it was "closer" (in theory) to the CD source. Now I use FLAC. My ears are no longer up to format wars, even between me and myself. I still enjoy the music, and expect to for quite a while to come. Well, hope to

On the practical side, although I no longer offer the current evidence of my own ears, I have been using computers for over twenty years and, broadly, believe that I have a common-sense, if neither deep nor exceptionally technical, understanding of them. I'm no hardware engineer --- but I was a systems manager for a couple of decades. I still enjoy these conversations

 

[esanthosh]

Hey I am new to the forum but I had some experience with my untrained ears about this and found:
Flac and Wav both if played from a hard disk has bit lesser quality than those played through a CD Player.

This - I can agree: CDP can be better than a PC. PC is not always an optimal transport - depends on so many other things.

I am just curious. I use VBR files in my 4GB limited Sony E353, a combination of FLAC and mostly 320kbps MP3 in my portables, WAV in my QA350 transportable rig, FLAC on the PC. But, whether one format is 'superior' to another does not make the cut on my '10,000 things I must know before I die'.

I can agree that some people have better hearing and ability to discern differences more than others.

I also agree that FLAC needs to be 'unzipped' before playing and that has a processing overhead. But, does this small 'overhead' matter when it comes to PCs?

Let's take the case of Altmann Tera Player - a tiny, screen-less player that plays up-to 24/192 files, but only WAV.

When asked about whether he will support FLAC in the future, this was his reply

Yes, I understand what you mean, and I am sorry that this is not possible.

In order to enable the high sample-rates in the small form-factor of the Tera-Player, I had to use a very small ARM-chip with very low power consumption.

While on 'normal' DAPs the program memory for the operating system alone is in the range of megabytes, the chip on the Tera-Player has only some kilobytes for code storage. The Tera-Player is not programmed in high-level language (like C) but it's code is written in ARM assembly language which is extremely dense and extremely fast. This was the only way to make a device capable of hi-rez audio so small.

The tradeoff with this approach naturally is that there is neither program- nor data-memory left for doing elaborate file conversions.

Similar is the case with QLS QA350, which supports only WAV at 16/44.1.

I can understand if a tiny ARM processor with few KB of memory cannot do it. He mentions that even DAPs (which do not use high-end processors) have MBs of memory for programming. Would it be so difficult for the powerful real world CPUs and RAMs to decode FLAC? Is there a real, discernible impact on the final sound?

.....Or do we slow down time to the 4th level of inception, imagine ourselves as small as a bit and worry about the big bad processor not sending us out of the mile long conveyor belt in a (1927's) Metropolis setting?......

 

[Staxxx]

.....Or do we slow down time to the 4th level of inception, imagine ourselves as small as a bit and worry about the big bad processor not sending us out of the mile long conveyor belt in a (1927's) Metropolis setting?......

I was in Coimbatore yesterday playing golf...had I known there was a Metropolis fan there I would certainly have made an effort to meet you and hear your system

 

[Nikhil]

I have CDs that sound much better than many flacs that I have picked up from around the place. FLAC is highly over rated in terms of actual use. Not because of the format and technology etc. Its just that there are so many poor files converted to flacs floating around - the source or original rips being so varied in quality. I don't even bother with "flac" anymore. I just use my ears to listen to the file and if its better on my setup then that's what matters.

 

[manoj.p]

FLAC is highly over rated in terms of actual use. Not because of the format and technology etc. Its just that there are so many poor files converted to flacs floating around - the source or original rips being so varied in quality.

Is it fair to criticize the format because someone does a shabby job at conversion? Most of the flacs in internet space are mp3s converted to flac. Its not wise to compare it that way. If one wants to compare, compare apple to apple. A CD and converted flac, played on same exact components. Lot of members have stressed this enough, but somehow this doesn't sink in and still continued with rants and complaints.

If downloads are future, then FLAC is the only one format at the moment we can look for which maintains original quality, whether dismiss it because of misgivings or sheer ignorance. Otherwise, apple, amazon and host of other music selling stores are very happy with selling mp3's.

 

[asliarun]

Is it fair to criticize the format because someone does a shabby job at conversion? Most of the flacs in internet space are mp3s converted to flac. Its not wise to compare it that way. If one wants to compare, compare apple to apple. A CD and converted flac, played on same exact components. Lot of members have stressed this enough, but somehow this doesn't sink in and still continued with rants and complaints.

If downloads are future, then FLAC is the only one format at the moment we can look for which maintains original quality, whether dismiss it because of misgivings or sheer ignorance. Otherwise, apple, amazon and host of other music selling stores are very happy with selling mp3's.

IMHO, the biggest challenge for someone who likes to listen to audio of a certain quality is finding well recorded music. Even most of the CDs I personally own are recorded terribly. I think it is a reflection of the state of the recording industry. Rahman to this credit, has done more to improve recording quality than even the quality of music he produces.

Personally, I found a big jump in quality when I moved from magnetic tapes to metal/chrome tapes, and a dramatic jump in quality when I moved from tapes to CDs. However, I really feel that CDs when compared to FLACs or even 320kbps mp3s are barely distinguishable - in the sense that the differences become minor enough that other changes such as changes to components start making a far bigger impact on music quality. If I had to start building an all digital library, I would still probably go with WAV if I had enough space or FLAC if I had a bit lesser space (both ripped from CDs) but that is only because it is guaranteed lossless and guarantees that subsequent re-rippings will not degrade the quality further, not because 320kbps mp3s are significantly inferior in terms of quality.

I really hope that Neil Young's initiative in improving audio quality takes off and is "done right". Despite easy access to streaming media, it is become increasingly harder to find good new music, and then harder still to find good new music that is recorded well. I'm not a recording engineer but even the "new style of recording" generally sounds really harsh to me, no matter what audio format I use. (Ironically, compressed formats sometimes dial down the harshness because of the lack of detail).

 

[gobble]

I once downloaded mp3s released directly an artiste and created by the studio itself. They were pretty enjoyable to listen to and I heard them regularly for many months -even though it was discernible that "information" or cues were missing in the mp3 compared to CD.

--G

 

[Nikhil]

Is it fair to criticize the format because someone does a shabby job at conversion? Most of the flacs in internet space are mp3s converted to flac. Its not wise to compare it that way. If one wants to compare, compare apple to apple ....

My comments were not directed at the FLAC format per se but to the general way in which quite a few assume that if a file is in flac format its going to be high quality. Obviously source matters. So does your equipment.

As always ... Use your ears.

 

[manoj.p]

IMHO, the biggest challenge for someone who likes to listen to audio of a certain quality is finding well recorded music. Even most of the CDs I personally own are recorded terribly. I think it is a reflection of the state of the recording industry. Rahman to this credit, has done more to improve recording quality than even the quality of music he produces.

Personally, I found a big jump in quality when I moved from magnetic tapes to metal/chrome tapes, and a dramatic jump in quality when I moved from tapes to CDs. However, I really feel that CDs when compared to FLACs or even 320kbps mp3s are barely distinguishable - in the sense that the differences become minor enough that other changes such as changes to components start making a far bigger impact on music quality. If I had to start building an all digital library, I would still probably go with WAV if I had enough space or FLAC if I had a bit lesser space (both ripped from CDs) but that is only because it is guaranteed lossless and guarantees that subsequent re-rippings will not degrade the quality further, not because 320kbps mp3s are significantly inferior in terms of quality.

I really hope that Neil Young's initiative in improving audio quality takes off and is "done right". Despite easy access to streaming media, it is become increasingly harder to find good new music, and then harder still to find good new music that is recorded well. I'm not a recording engineer but even the "new style of recording" generally sounds really harsh to me, no matter what audio format I use. (Ironically, compressed formats sometimes dial down the harshness because of the lack of detail).

Recording and mastering has always been dependent upon the composer/mixer. There are good mixes where enough care has been taken to get the most out of it. And there have been equally bad mixes. I wish lots of golden days of Hindi movie music is restored and done justice but that's not the case. Recently, with digitally created music, its all the more problematic. There is lot of music with just noisy instruments pretending to create music. This is geared more towards headphone market where one hears the music inside of head instead of a sound-stage.

I do listen to MP3's as well, but very well know their limitations. Then there are CD's which are good and bad. You rightly pointed, some of AR Rehman's music is simply great and well mastered as well.

 

[esanthosh]

My comments were not directed at the FLAC format per se but to the general way in which quite a few assume that if a file is in flac format its going to be high quality. Obviously source matters. So does your equipment.

FLAC is a high quality format for those who rip their own CDs

It's never the 'format', but the quality of recording and mastering which is important. Even genuinely purchased Hi-Res can be brick-walled. In those cases, a MP3 rip of an old recording might actually be better than 24/96.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

...Flac and Wav both if played from a hard disk has bit lesser quality than those played through a CD Player. Not arguiing... may be my system forced me to reach to such an opinion.

Maybe your CD player had a hand in it too. Taken to extremes would be comparing a high-end CD player and comparing it to the output of a low-end on-board-dac laptop. When you look at that case it should be obvious that the comparison is nothing to do with the format, or whether the data is stored on a CD or a HDD. At every step on the ladder, no doubt, it is possible to put together CD-based systems that will beat PC-based systems and PC-based systems that will beat CD-based systems.

As always ... Use your ears.

and, just to be on the safe side, check out the frequency range of "high-res" music just to be sure it isn't up-sampled CD!

 

[Santy]

However, I really feel that CDs when compared to FLACs or even 320kbps mp3s are barely distinguishable

Ironically, compressed formats sometimes dial down the harshness because of the lack of detail.

Are these two statements not contradicting with each other?

 

[sbg]

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.