The differences between FLAC and MP3, Lossless vs Lossy

[alpha1]

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:MP3 vs. CD Audio Quality Tests

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.

Though i do believe in the gist, but I cannot agree fully to your experiment.
The sound that we hear from musical instruments is not pure sine waves at single frequency.
It is a complex wave which can be thought os as composed of lots of sine waves. Mostly harmonics.
And another thing to note is that it is not that a single instrument is playing a single note.

Differnet instruments play differnet notes simulataneously. This interharmonic modulation is something that you can hear and feel even though mathematically you can show that mp3 at 128 kbps retains same sine wave at 18000 Hz.

However, I do agree - 256 kbps offers a reasonable accuracy of signal, that mortal human beings will fail at the double blind test.

I will fail at 192 because of the reasons I posted earlier.

 

[smedhavi]

I think, I we can easily sense the DAC signature, if not the compression. I have no scarcity of hard disk space. So there is no reason to consider going lossless now, when the HDDs are getting cheaper by the day. What is still preventing me using HDD based music for primary listening is probably the DAC.

I have the following to options for digital music as of today:

1. Redbook CDs + NAD C542 CD player + NAD C372 amp + MA RS6 speakers
2. Flac on HDD + WD TV HD as transport + DAC in Denon AVR 2809 (with AL24 processing in pure direct mode) + NAD C372 amp (as power amp) + MA RS6 speakers

It not just me, but also my wife, daughter and a teenager nephew, who prefer option 1 for all their listening. The only solution I see is a CA DACMagic. I would have preferred a DAC from NAD, but they have confirmed that they do not have any plans to release such a product.

By the way, the WD TV HD transport is not the culprit here. I have confirmed that NAD C542 connected to Denon via SPDIF is indistinguishable from WD TV HD connected via optical or HDMI. Of course I have tried the DVD/Blu-ray players too.

Now you know why I cannot digest the fact that a Sony DVD player, playing MP3s, sounds as good as the Rotel CD player playing CDs. I still believe that there is more to this setup than meets the eye here.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[deba]

I think, I we can easily sense the DAC signature, if not the compression. I have no scarcity of hard disk space. So there is no reason to consider going lossless now, when the HDDs are getting cheaper by the day. What is still preventing me using HDD based music for primary listening is probably the DAC.

I have the following to options for digital music as of today:

1. Redbook CDs + NAD C542 CD player + NAD C372 amp + MA RS6 speakers
2. Flac on HDD + WD TV HD as transport + DAC in Denon AVR 2809 (with AL24 processing in pure direct mode) + NAD C372 amp (as power amp) + MA RS6 speakers

It not just me, but also my wife, daughter and a teenager nephew, who prefer option 1 for all their listening. The only solution I see is a CA DACMagic. I would have preferred a DAC from NAD, but they have confirmed that they do not have any plans to release such a product.

By the way, the WD TV HD transport is not the culprit here. I have confirmed that NAD C542 connected to Denon via SPDIF is indistinguishable from WD TV HD connected via optical or HDMI. Of course I have tried the DVD/Blu-ray players too.

Now you know why I cannot digest the fact that a Sony DVD player, playing MP3s, sounds as good as the Rotel CD player playing CDs. I still believe that there is more to this setup than meets the eye here.

Thanks,
Sharad

Time and again you have made the mistake of comparing the Rotel with the Sony..which I have not...The main issue here is between Lossy and lossless compression codecs.......Its known to everyone that a $4000 CD player cannot sound the same as a $250 one. The Rotel CD Player do not play mp3 so the alternative that I had was a Sony DVD Player. To make any comparison between playing formats you have to keep your setup CONSTANT (very important factor) ......play the audio CD and then play the high bitrate mp3 in the same deck ( in this case a Sony DVD Player) side by side and see for your self the difference.

I dont think I have said that my Rotel CD Player and the Sony DVD Deck sounded the same....if I have ever said that then I am 100% wrong.I wanted to compare between Mp3 format and standard audio CD.

I am trying to compare between playing formats and you are trying to convince me that there is a difference beween Rotel and Sony Players.......Sorry if you cannot digest mine ...for I cannot yours......:lol:

 

[moserw]

Well Sharad if you have a PC then see if you can borrow an Asus soundcard specifically the Essence STX or audition it. It costs around 8K and compared to the 23K of DacMagic. Here are the DacMaigic specs at Specifications / DacMagic Digital to Analogue Converter / Digital to Audio Converters / Products / Cambridge Audio and Wolfson Microelectronics plc: WM8740 and the specs of the Asus Essence STX at ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Audio Converters and CODECs - Digital to Analog (DACs) - PCM1792A - TI.com.

I've not heard the DacMagic personally, but its been "not recommended" by quite a few on this very forum when I was considering it. I'm more than happy with the Asus SC. It's specs are way beyond anything I've used or come across (quite a few of them costing quite a bomb in terms of USD).

I think, I we can easily sense the DAC signature, if not the compression. I have no scarcity of hard disk space. So there is no reason to consider going lossless now, when the HDDs are getting cheaper by the day. What is still preventing me using HDD based music for primary listening is probably the DAC.

I have the following to options for digital music as of today:

1. Redbook CDs + NAD C542 CD player + NAD C372 amp + MA RS6 speakers
2. Flac on HDD + WD TV HD as transport + DAC in Denon AVR 2809 (with AL24 processing in pure direct mode) + NAD C372 amp (as power amp) + MA RS6 speakers

It not just me, but also my wife, daughter and a teenager nephew, who prefer option 1 for all their listening. The only solution I see is a CA DACMagic. I would have preferred a DAC from NAD, but they have confirmed that they do not have any plans to release such a product.

By the way, the WD TV HD transport is not the culprit here. I have confirmed that NAD C542 connected to Denon via SPDIF is indistinguishable from WD TV HD connected via optical or HDMI. Of course I have tried the DVD/Blu-ray players too.

Now you know why I cannot digest the fact that a Sony DVD player, playing MP3s, sounds as good as the Rotel CD player playing CDs. I still believe that there is more to this setup than meets the eye here.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[deba]

Though i do believe in the gist, but I cannot agree fully to your experiment.
The sound that we hear from musical instruments is not pure sine waves at single frequency.
It is a complex wave which can be thought os as composed of lots of sine waves. Mostly harmonics.
And another thing to note is that it is not that a single instrument is playing a single note.

Differnet instruments play differnet notes simulataneously. This interharmonic modulation is something that you can hear and feel even though mathematically you can show that mp3 at 128 kbps retains same sine wave at 18000 Hz.

However, I do agree - 256 kbps offers a reasonable accuracy of signal, that mortal human beings will fail at the double blind test.

I will fail at 192 because of the reasons I posted earlier.

You are 100% right that what we want to hear and what we hear in our audio systems is Music not Sine Waves. I have mentioned the above simple experiment because it is one of the thousands experiments being conducted by sound engineers around the world.There are very complex lab experiments on the subject but they are very difficult to conduct at our homes. If any of the Lossy formats at high bitrates were that bad then the subject of PsychoAcoustics would have been proved wrong. We study it because we believe it exists and its proved.

Let me repeat again that mp3s mastered at 256kbps and above is extremely difficult to distinguish from audio cds and thanks for agreeing.

Thanks.

 

[smedhavi]

I dont think I have said that my Rotel CD Player and the Sony DVD Deck sounded the same....if I have ever said that then I am 100% wrong.I wanted to compare between Mp3 format and standard audio CD.

I am trying to compare between playing formats and you are trying to convince me that there is a difference beween Rotel and Sony Players.......Sorry if you cannot digest mine ...for I cannot yours......:lol:

Deba Sir, I just wanted to make sure that your earlier comment below was an opinion, and not an observation, as such a scenario is not possible in your setup.

Honestly speaking I cannot hear any difference between my MP3 256Kbps CBR and Standard Audio CDs......:lol:

You would always hear a difference, though you would not know whether it is due to the CD player or because of compression. This is the reason why it was important for me to understand this accurately. I'm sorry if I irritated you in the process.

I understand that we are discussing formats here, but we cannot evaluate formats in isolation. We do need to account for all other variables in the analysis of variance. The equipment involved has a big impact and needs to be considered at all times.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[square_wave]

Y

Let me repeat again that mp3s mastered at 256kbps and above is extremely difficult to distinguish from audio cds and thanks for agreeing.

Thanks.

Deba,
What are you trying to prove ?
That you could not make out differences in an mp3 and cd version when you played both on a sony dvd player ?
What does this prove ?

 

[linenthu]

You are 100% right that what we want to hear and what we hear in our audio systems is Music not Sine Waves. I have mentioned the above simple experiment because it is one of the thousands experiments being conducted by sound engineers around the world.There are very complex lab experiments on the subject but they are very difficult to conduct at our homes. If any of the Lossy formats at high bitrates were that bad then the subject of PsychoAcoustics would have been proved wrong. We study it because we believe it exists and its proved.

Let me repeat again that mp3s mastered at 256kbps and above is extremely difficult to distinguish from audio cds and thanks for agreeing.

Thanks.

What do you mean by mastered @ 256Kbps.. Are you trying to say that you are encoding/trascoding @ 256Kbps....

 

[deba]

What do you mean by mastered @ 256Kbps.. Are you trying to say that you are encoding/trascoding @ 256Kbps....

Thats right......the difference between the original and the mp3 version is very difficult to notice at 256Kbps and above for an average human............

 

[deba]

Deba,
What are you trying to prove ?
That you could not make out differences in an mp3 and cd version when you played both on a sony dvd player ?
What does this prove ?

.......This proves that Mp3 mastered at high bitrates are almost indistinguishable from the audio cd for any average listener. I have tried it with a Sony DVD Player, any one can try it with a dedicated cd player if it has a mp3 playability, the result will be same......try this by blind A/B switching with anyone. Very few people will be able to tell the difference.........

 

[deba]

Deba Sir, I just wanted to make sure that your earlier comment below was an opinion, and not an observation, as such a scenario is not possible in your setup.

You would always hear a difference, though you would not know whether it is due to the CD player or because of compression. This is the reason why it was important for me to understand this accurately. I'm sorry if I irritated you in the process.

I understand that we are discussing formats here, but we cannot evaluate formats in isolation. We do need to account for all other variables in the analysis of variance. The equipment involved has a big impact and needs to be considered at all times.

Thanks,
Sharad

What ever I have said so far has been my repeated observation . I fail to understand what scenario is not possible in my setup. Theoritically and technically there is always a difference between MP3 and audio cds, no one will ever deny that fact.When you compare formats always keep in mind that you have to keep your equipment setup constant.......in other words dont change your amp or speaker while making the comparison.No you have not irritated me at all.


"We do need to account for all other variables in the analysis of variance" - There are no variables as I have said you keep your setup constant and make A/B switching between Audio CD and High Bitrate MP3.This simple experiment can be carried out in any low or high end setup......Do not play the audio cd in a high end cd player and then the mp3 in a low budget player, your comparison will be misleading.

Try making a blind A/B testing between audio cd and mp3 without changing your setup, and I am confident that very few people will be there who can tell the difference.You can do this in any audio setup of your choice.

 

[vinodh]

hi i am not able tp play .flac audio file in my hts 3565 player can somebody help me out to play this files

 

[moserw]

hi i am not able tp play .flac audio file in my hts 3565 player can somebody help me out to play this files

FLAC will not be supported. You will have to burn them as Audio CDs and only then they will play.

 

[vinodh]

i have .flac files in my pendrive can i burn those files into a cd using nero and play it in my hts

 

[moserw]

i have .flac files in my pendrive can i burn those files into a cd using nero and play it in my hts

Yes you can, but burn as an Audio CD only and you also have to use a 700 MB CD for it, will not work on a DVD. Better to get a re-writable CD for this purpose.

 

[vinodh]

Yes you can, but burn as an Audio CD only and you also have to use a 700 MB CD for it, will not work on a DVD. Better to get a re-writable CD for this purpose.

Thanks for your suggestions will try it today

 

[Rockfella]

Re-writable CD?? When will he listen to music? :sad:

Yes you can, but burn as an Audio CD only and you also have to use a 700 MB CD for it, will not work on a DVD. Better to get a re-writable CD for this purpose.

 

[manniraj]

Re-writable CD?? When will he listen to music? :sad:

You have just disturbed a 3 yr old thread.

Thanks

 

[kingajit]

In the above post Stereophile is correct when he points out that it does not make sense in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you're going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it. Garbage IN Garbage OUT!

We digitise due to space restraints, ease of use , better organisation etc.,

WAV format is the closest you will ever come to a CD recording. Do a simple test....convert a Lata Mangeshkar song with plenty vocals and little background music ...say the song from Mahal - aayega aane wala. Convert this into FLAC, WAV, Apple lossless mp3 etc.,

Say an hour before you retire to bed ...play the FLAC or any other format first followed by the WAV format. Notice the change in the state of your mind when you play the WAV format....you will tend to close your eyes, have a very relaxed feeling.....now go back and again play the FLAC / Apple lossless etc., ...you will note that your state of the mind changes ....you are no longer feeling relaxed or want to close your eyes! Wav format has a certain sweetness which lacks in FLAC/Apple lossless.

I have tried this again and again with various songs and it is the same feeling every time.
Why record in FLAC? Flac is a good format as it helps you convert from one format to another. The downside is unlike Apple lossless it is not recognised by major players and can suddenly cease to exist. You cant playback the FLAC if you are on the go and have it stored on your own server...You can do that with MP3. There are hardly any phones or portable players which will support FLAC playback.

There are now FLAC formats which go beyond the levels of flac 96khz 24 bit....i have heard side by side comparison in studios for flac 96khz 24 bit and those upsized to above , no doubt the higher khz/bit had a lot more details like you could hear the breathing of the artist, the plucking of the strings etc.,....but thats not what the sound engineer wanted you to hear! it was unpleasant to listen to and fatiguing! Upscaling is not always better and same goes for higher resolution formats.

Why record in MP3? A MP3 at 320kbps is arguably the best value for size product and can be accessed remotely say when you are in the car or travelling etc.,. Most servers convert the files to MP3 when you access them on the go. Very good for tagging, embedding photos, met data etc., and the same can be reflected/supported on your instruments if your files are MP3.

Why record in Apple lossless? Apple lossless and FLAC are quite close, you will continue to enjoy the support of Apple , major brands are apple compatible, they can be played on apple products. Future proof your recordings by saving them in apple lossless format.
To sum it up whenever you decide to digitise your collection you need to save them in atleast 4 diif formats i.e. FLAC, Apple lossless, Wav and MP3.

When you are digitising a large collection it is prudent that you find a partner and give him a backup copy of your collection so that in the event something goes wrong with your copy you will have the backup copy of your friend & vice versa.

Needless to say that the software and hardware you use for your conversion will affect the quality of your recording. i.e at least use a dvd drive when ripping.

Do a small batch first , enjoy them , identify the issues involvedtake a break and then go for the entire collection.
Cheers
Ajit

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

...play the FLAC or any other format first followed by the WAV format. Notice the change in the state of your mind when you play the WAV format....you will tend to close your eyes, have a very relaxed feeling.....now go back and again play the FLAC / Apple lossless etc., ...you will note that your state of the mind changes ....you are no longer feeling relaxed or want to close your eyes! Wav format has a certain sweetness which lacks in FLAC/Apple lossless.

Blind test? Did you know which one you were listening to? If you did, then psychology and expectations would have as much to do with the results as ears and audio.

play the FLAC or any other format first followed by the WAV format. Notice the change in the state of your mind when you play the WAV format....

This is really a very unfair statement ...because you are lumping lossy and lossless compression all together. Really you can't do that: lossy compression does not even pretend to produce exactly the same result.

There is a phenomenon of fatigue that is claimed to be associated with lossy compression, especially with highly compressed MP3. This would certainly explain the phenomenon you describe. I do not have any scientific reference for this, but I do believe it even though I can only claim subjective experience. it is like getting irritated by speech or music that you know you should be enjoying. But I do not think you can lump FLAC in with this. If you think so, then, if you have not done so, please set up some blind test for yourself.

I agree that it is a little hard to blind test high-bit-rate MP3s, as they are very good indeed these days --- but the effect may not be the same after prolonged listening. one would have to do longer sessions rather than quicker AB switching. I would not normally use MP3 except for travel. There is, on a home system, no need at all for lossy compression, so, however good it may actually be, why risk it?.

Whilst one could apply what-if thinking to FLACs too, there is not only no need, but they have the advantage over WAV files of tagging. Whilst I used to save all as WAV, I now see it as a mistake. I wish I'd used FLAC --- but I'm glad I did not use MP3.


NB: edited because, after posting, I thought one phrase might come across as rude, and it certainly wasn't meant to be