The differences between FLAC and MP3, Lossless vs Lossy

[moserw]

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??

No, data lost cannot be recovered.

 

[linenthu]

No .... some frequencies are removed during mp3 encoding process it cannot be retrieved... its lost and its permanent... if you transcode an mp3 file back to flac or wav ...only the file size will increase not its quality..

 

[square_wave]

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

In a high-end perfectly setup system, The supposedly less inaudible flute can be seen (heard) as - placed a few behind the trumpet and a few feet to either side with space around the instrument. It will be very much integral to the entire performance and will be have due importance. If you play an Mp3 file through the same system, all this is lost.
The so-called perceptual encoding works only for low resolution audio systems (mobile versions as well as other such). It has no place in hi-end audio.
Mp3 = "convenience audio

 

[moserw]

Well the really high-end speakers will actually differentiate each instrument. You will even hear the singer's breath, they are that good. Soundstage and imaging are terms that better explain it. In actuality music is recorded that way. We have been fed all sounds garbled as one by Mid-Fi and Hi-Fi systems. Once you hear an audio CD on a high-end CDP and speaker system there is no going back. You will really hear new things even on the same old music that you have been hearing for years.

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

 

[deba]

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??

Once you convert to MP3 from CDs the loss already takes place , so converting them back to FLAC does not bring back the lost data...so the sound quality will not improve because considerable amount of data is lost in the process of making MP3........

 

[deba]

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

Dear Sharad,

Presently I am using the following equipment:
Rotel RA1070 Integrated Amplifier.
Rotel RCD 06 CD Player.
B&W CM5 Speakers.


Very truly speaking after listening to 2 channel stereos for years I really avoid myself from getting into the 5.1 Club........

I use Adobe Audition 2.0 and now 3.0 to make my MP3s , they sound well at high bitrates and find them very close to original CDs. To play MP3s I use a standard Sony DVD Player.

Thanks.

 

[venkatcr]

Very truly speaking after listening to 2 channel stereos for years I really avoid myself from getting into the 5.1 Club........

I feel a lot of people are getting confused.

A two channel music is meant for stereo reproduction and nothing can beat that. Similarly a Dolby Digital or DTS is meant for reproduction across six channels and even the most expensive and well designed two channel system cannot hold a candle to a decent AVR. Most important, a stereo system will miss out completely on the centre channel and the LFE out where the bulk of the Dolby / DTS data is concentrated. A stereo amp just cannot create the ambience that an AVR can. Watching a movie using a 2 channel amp, however well designed and made, is always a compromise.

A good AVR can make some attempt to play stereo music well as it shuts off all other channel and uses just the Front L&R. But how can a decent stereo amp even attempt at a 5.1 reproduction when it does not even have those channels?

I would suggest for people who can afford it to work towards having a stereo amp for music and an AVR for movies. If you have a decent stereo system, even a 15 to 20K AVR will work better at delivering movies. Similarly if you have a decent AVR, a 15 to 20K stereo amp will deliver music better. A simple speaker switch will allow you to use the same front speakers for both tasks.

Cheers

 

[smedhavi]

Venkat sir, you are absolutely right, but we are talking about only two channel audio sources in this thread.

Deba,
I am curious about the source device you are using for playing MP3 and the DAC. Must be really great for it match up to the CD quality.
You might want to check out some more revealing and warm source for playing CDs.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[linenthu]

You can never achieve the quality of an audio cd in mp3 ...irrespective of the application you use to encode/transcode.... In no way its possible..

 

[linenthu]

What's the link between avr and this thread ... is someone watching me

 

[venkatcr]

I was just commenting on Deba's statement about 'getting into the 5.1 club'. My apologies if I have intruded.

Cheers

 

[moserw]

I was just commenting on Deba statement about 'getting into the 5.1 club'. My apologies if I have intruded.

Cheers

Ha ha. Venkat sir I believe as always you've said the right thing and made perfect sense...

 

[linenthu]

This is India...

 

[deba]

Venkat sir, you are absolutely right, but we are talking about only two channel audio sources in this thread.

Deba,
I am curious about the source device you are using for playing MP3 and the DAC. Must be really great for it match up to the CD quality.
You might want to check out some more revealing and warm source for playing CDs.

Thanks,
Sharad

For me the Rotel CD Player serves good at present.......but occassionally use a Sony DVD Player to play MP3s. Its always a true fact that more you invest the better sound you get.........

 

[smedhavi]

Hi Deba,

I have not tried Rotel CD players before, but I am still not able to understand/accept how it could not sound any better than a Sony DVD Player playing MP3s. Rotel makes reasonably good amplifiers. They are not exactly known for their CD players, but I still expect them to be of decently good quality.

It would be great if other members, with more first hand experience with Rotel CD players, could chip in.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[deba]

Hi Deba,

I have not tried Rotel CD players before, but I am still not able to understand/accept how it could not sound any better than a Sony DVD Player playing MP3s. Rotel makes reasonably good amplifiers. They are not exactly known for their CD players, but I still expect them to be of decently good quality.

It would be great if other members, with more first hand experience with Rotel CD players, could chip in.

Thanks,
Sharad

Dear Sharad,

Now you see why I said in my first reply to this thread that its my ears thats poor not my equipment but you said the opposite and rather stated my equipments to be "poor".Its your words not mine.

Its true that no DVD Player can match the sound quality of a good dedicated CD Player , in this case its a Rotel versus a cheap Sony DVD Player. But very few people can appreciate the superior sound quality and thats where MP3s comes in. Its never an audiophile format but a format that can please thousands of listeners which includes me.I find Mp3 mastered at high bit rates to be very close to the original.

Thanks.

 

[smedhavi]

Hi Deba,

I still believe your years are just fine
Most of the people who say that they cannot differentiate between good and bad sound, are just not paying enough attention.

I am sure you can differentiate, otherwise you would not bother to invest in all this equipment.

I am still curious on what could be wrong with the setup which makes a Rotel dedicated CD player sound as bad as a Sony DVD player playing an MP3

Regards,
Sharad

 

[marsilians]

... Rotel makes reasonably good amplifiers. They are not exactly known for their CD players, but I still expect them to be of decently good quality.

Rotel CDPs are pretty good and comparable to NAD. The 1072 has tight bass, excellent mid range and good highs. They mate very well with Rotel receivers and amps obviously but also other ones like parasound, adcom, etc. Do a search on the forum for other feedback.

Personally they are not comparable with something like the Arcam or Naim but these things costs a fair bit too.

 

[deba]

Hi Deba,

I still believe your years are just fine
Most of the people who say that they cannot differentiate between good and bad sound, are just not paying enough attention.

I am sure you can differentiate, otherwise you would not bother to invest in all this equipment.

I am still curious on what could be wrong with the setup which makes a Rotel dedicated CD player sound as bad as a Sony DVD player playing an MP3

Regards,
Sharad

My ears are excellent - I am not paying enough attention to sound quality - I can differentiate hence the investment - High Bitrates Mp3 sound very poor compared to a Audio CD...... Thanks Sharad........

But I am still curious on how many will be able to tell the difference between a MP3 mastered at 256kbps and above and a audio CD in blind A/B testing.

There is an article on this:http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html

Do a very simple test yourself and record a 18000Hz Signal in uncompressed wav format in Adobe Audition (Generate > Tones) and convert it into MP3 128Kbps after playing the wav file and see for yourself the difference in reproduction.
Absolutly no loss even at 128Kbps.( See The Frequency Analysers set at Linear View) The same goes for low frequency generation and any sine waves or squared sine wave. I have done repeated experiments with MP3 and come to the conclusion that its very difficult for a average Human Listener to differientiate between them.You can try this with any Brown/ Pink or White Noise set at spatial stereo / inverse or mono and let me know what difference you are getting.Auditory Masking that is used in Mp3 design is almost impossible to identify at high bit rates by any average human.

 

[marsilians]

To make matters worse, the newer audio recordings do not adhere to the quality reproduction as the older ones. Seeing the amount of lossy rips that people perform, the recording companies have decided to bring the quality very close to mp3s.

So in essence one may not notice that big of a difference between mp3 rips vs. newer recordings.

The digital remasters of originals however are still very very good though.