The differences between FLAC and MP3, Lossless vs Lossy

[persiflage]

Hemant,

In terms of SQ - Apple Lossless is a good format by definition; since there's no information lost during encoding.

The only thing is being proprietary, Apple Lossless may not enjoy the wide hardware support that FLAC would. But if you don't see yourself using any device other than the iPod, by all means rip to the Apple format.

 

[hdgopala]

hdgopala: know how to get itunes to recognise/ play FLAC?

I have heard of a number of ways to do this, but never bothered trying them. Will do some research later and will let you know.

If not, how to put FLAC into an OGG container? Apparently iTunes can now play this.

The good thing about the latest FLAC encoder (version 1.2.1) is that it can take in a FLAC file as input and generate a new FLAC file as output while retaining all metadata! Let us put this to good use then.

Try this on one FLAC file first:

flac --no-delete-input-file -V --ogg -8 <input-file>

If it works in iTunes, then use Foobar2000 to set up a custom "encoder" with the above switches (will help with this if you need it), load all the songs in Foobar2000, select all songs, right-click -> convert -> choose your new custom encoder and happily watch your old FLAC files turn into Ogg FLAC files.

 

[arj]

hdgopala: know how to get itunes to recognise/ play FLAC?

Nice thread I personally prefer APE played via Foobar and followed by FLAC as they support Tags much better. (can we retain all the original tag info in Wav ?)

Regarding the quesion on iTunes compatibility, the only way I could get around to do this was by converting FLAC to WAV (can be done via batch mode with some converters and then importing into iTunes.)

But Foobar2000 get my vote as well as one of the best players around..especialy with the nuo of plugins available to customise it.

regarding the question of lossless vs 320 KBP it is quite difficult to distinguish between the two in most systems. but aparently in highly resolving systems it comes across quite clearely in compicated passages.


anyway i keep them at lossless only..why take a risk for the future....

 

[hdgopala]

hdgopala: know how to get itunes to recognise/ play FLAC?

Hi persiflage.

Apparently, it is possible to play FLAC files in iTunes. You need to install XiphQT first. I also read that the FLAC files that you want to play in iTunes must be Ogg FLACs, not native FLACs.

Hence, try converting your native FLAC files to Ogg flac using the method I told you. Then, try and play the file in iTunes (after installing XiphQT of course!).

Tell me how it works out.

 

[superczar]

for everyday usage, i am happy with 256+ vbr mp3

having said that, I still remember how I encoded all the ACDs I had access to (and there were tonnes) during my college days in the hostel to 128 kbps

which is why for now, am just archiving my FLACs since storage is cheap anyway

 

[persiflage]

hdgopala,

I already have XiphQT installed. Let me check out the ogg FLAC conversion tonight.

Many thanks.

persiflage

 

[moserw]

dont worry, mate. you can't tell because there is NO difference. FLAC and CD recordings are bit-perfect.

FLAC is analogous to using ZIP to compress files. there is no loss in data. only better compression.

the best thing about FLAC, IMHO, is that using the cue sheet, one can obtain perfect replicas of the ripped CD. Also, for portable use, copies of the FLAC file can be transcoded to your lossy format of choice. Personally i ditched the physical CD's a long time ago. I'm slowly replacing all my 320kbps mp3's with fresh FLAC copies.

I too am on the way to replacing all my mp3s. I am new to FLAC and have a question that I would like clarified. Are all FLAC files in 5.1 and good to go on my HT or are they 2 channel or 2 channel upmixed to 5.1? A quick reply and all help would be appreciated!!!

 

[venkatcr]

I too am on the way to replacing all my mp3s. I am new to FLAC and have a question that I would like clarified. Are all FLAC files in 5.1 and good to go on my HT or are they 2 channel or 2 channel upmixed to 5.1? A quick reply and all help would be appreciated!!!

Moser, when you convert a two channel music from a Redbook CD to FLAC or any other format, what you will get is only two channels. You can play them on ANY system, but as two channel stereo. There is no up mixing or anything possible, unless it is a trick done by your receiver. Even that I doubt. To get 5.1 you need the sound to be encoded in Dolby Digital or DST or numerous variations of these two. Generally unless you are specifically buying a DVD-A or a SACD where the music is recorded and mixed in multi-channel, you will get only 2 channel stereo. When you play this through a AVR, you will hear the music through the front two speaker - what most AVRs call FRONT L&R.

Cheers

 

[moserw]

Ok. That explains things. Guess I need to look for source material that is in 5.1 and not 2 channel that is upmixed or anything else. Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

 

[venkatcr]

Though I don't like John Atkinson for his arrogance, I love him for his sticking to good music, and flexibility. Some time ago I wondered if he will ever even consider digitized music, and now he is a staunch supporter. Surprise, surprise!!

Anyhow to come to the point, here is an article on the file formats. I think John's wordings here (do I hear a pleading from his side? - please guys dont spend money on a good system, and then screw it up by feeding junk to it.) kind of put an end to the discussion.

Computer Audio
Music Served: Extracting Music from your PC:MP3? FLAC? AAC? AIF? WAV?
Sidebar: MP3? FLAC? AAC? AIF? WAV?

Readers continually ask us which file format they should rip their CDs to. Low-bit-rate MP3s are tempting to many because they maximize the number of songs that can be stored on a given hard drive. On the other hand, the AIF and WAV formats are claimed to be of true "CD quality." Is this true? And what about FLAC and ALC?

In March 2008 I wrote an article on this subject. I urge you to read it, but in a nutshell: For serious listening, we do not recommend any of the lossy-compressed formats??MP3, AAC, WMA??at any bit rate. AIF and WAV are, respectively, Apple- and Windows-based standards of describing the CD's audio data; both are uncompressed and both are true "CD quality" and therefore recommended.

The AIF or WAV file that represents a three-minute song on a CD is typically 30??40 megabytes in size. This file can be squashed down to 3??4MB by using MP3 encoding at 128kbps, but to achieve this degree of compression, real audio information must be eliminated??hence the term lossy compression. Data are not discarded arbitrarily; instead, the MP3 codec examines the musical spectrum in each slice of time and, using a model of human hearing, decides what can be safely discarded. If this codec has been properly implemented with the right psychoacoustic assumptions, the musical information represented by the lost data may not be missed by most listeners most of the time. But it most certainly will be missed by some listeners with some music some of the time. And at some time, that listener will definitely be the person who has ripped all his CDs as low-bit-rate MP3s and then got rid of the discs!

So to us at Stereophile, the question of which lossy codec is "the best" is moot. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you're going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it.

We recommend that, for serious listening, audiophiles use uncompressed audio file formats such as WAV or AIF??or, if file size is an issue because of limited hard-drive space, a lossless format such as FLAC, WMA Lossless, or ALC. These will be audibly transparent to all listeners at all times with all kinds of music through all systems. If you simply must use lossy coding, use AAC at its highest bit rate of 320kbps rather than MP3.

Lossless compression is benign in its effect on the music. Similar to LHA or WinZip computer data crunchers, lossless compression packs the data more efficiently on the disk, but the data read out are identical to the data that went in. Lossless compression can give you a reduction in file size of 40??60% of the original, which is why something like FLAC is often used by music servers.??John Atkinson

Cheers

 

[afj]

is there any lossless format that i can download from the net and burn on a cd and play on a cdp. if so any recommended sites. from what i understand flac / ape files that are available cannot be played through a cdp

 

[moserw]

is there any lossless format that i can download from the net and burn on a cd and play on a cdp. if so any recommended sites. from what i understand flac / ape files that are available cannot be played through a cdp

You will need to burn them as Audio CDs for them to play on a CDP. Any free s/w will do the burning and I would recommend Ashampoo Burning Studio. Apart from that you would need to burn on an Audio CD and not on a DVD for them to play on a CDP. Alternatively if you only want to back them up then you can burn them as Data Discs on a DVD too.

 

[afj]

thanks moserw. also congrats on 100 reputations. any idea if there are any sites that i can download these files from - paid / unpaid

does that mean a cdp will play flac / ape files

 

[moserw]

also congrats on 100 reputations.

Thanks...

does that mean a cdp will play flac / ape files

A CDP will not play FLAC/APE files. In fact FLAC/APE files are ripped from an Audio CD and converted to FLAC or other non-lossy formats. So basically when you burn FLAC or other files as an Audio CD they are converted back to Audio CD content i.e. files with .cda extension. The s/w like Ashampoo will do this conversion so you have to specify "burn as Audio CD" and also use a 700 CD for this as they will not be burnt on a DVD for the reason the DVD will not play on a CDP.

Sending you a PM for other details.

 

[deba]

Honestly speaking I cannot hear any difference between my MP3 256Kbps CBR and Standard Audio CDs......:lol:....seems my ears are in poor state.......

 

[moserw]

Honestly speaking I cannot hear any difference between my MP3 256Kbps CBR and Standard Audio CDs......:lol:....seems my ears are in poor state.......

Actually for MP3s 256 KBPS onwards the quality does get good especially if its in VBR. For a mobile/iPod etc. you cannot make out a difference after 128 KBPS.

Where the difference is perceptible is when you have high-end revealing gear especially in terms of speakers. The difference between FLAC/WAV/Audio CD and lossy formats like MP3 is quite revealing indeed as the equipment gets better. In fact on some high-end speakers the difference was like night and day for me. For the average Hi-Fi equipment most use the difference will not be much perceptible, that or like you said the ears might be in a poor state.

 

[linenthu]

Music consists of many different components which are not all audible in the same way. For example, a gentle flute may not be audible if a trumpet is sounded at the same time. Of course, the flute is still present but the listener is simply not able to perceive it at the given moment: in short, the flute is masked by the trumpet.

Many characteristics of human auditory perception are utilized by perceptual audio codecs. Parts of the music which are well-perceived are represented very precisely, while other parts that are not very audible can be represented with lower accuracy. Inaudible information will be discarded. In our example, the trumpet will be represented with great precision and the flute considerably less so. This flexible way of representation helps to reduce the amount of information to be transmitted or stored (file size) and, at the same time, introduces an error (noise) signal. Ideally, this so-called coding noise is masked similarly to the flute signal in the previous example. The smaller the bit-rate of perceptual audio codecs, the less accurately the overall music signal can be represented. Beyond a certain limit (i.e. at very low data rates), the introduced coding noise no longer remains hidden (masked) from the human listener.



Source : Fraunhofer IIS Homepage

 

[linenthu]

Read this for more info

Free Lossless Audio Codec - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[smedhavi]

Honestly speaking I cannot hear any difference between my MP3 256Kbps CBR and Standard Audio CDs......:lol:....seems my ears are in poor state.......

No, your audio setup is.
If you care to confirm, take some of your favorite audio CDs, as well as their MP3 rips, and audition some good speakers and electronics. Make sure you are using stereo equipment not HT gear.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[musicmypassion]

I have a simple question... If we convert a MP3 song to FLAC, will there be any difference in SQ because when the file was compressed, it would have lost some amount of data from it. When we convert the file, the size definitely increases, but how about the SQ??