BodiesWithoutOrgans
Member
I'm listening to Ace of Base album Flowers (Brilliant Album BTW) both in 320kbps & FLAC and cannot tell the difference.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Honest Question - is there a difference between 320kbps & FLAC
- Thread starter BodiesWithoutOrgans
- Start date
- Status
BodiesWithoutOrgans
Member
bennywhatever
Member
"huge" is subjective. It's a minor difference in sound to mere mortals.
If you have good sound equipment and you're paying attention, yes you'll hear a difference - some things get lost in compression and you'll find new little nuances, and the clarity will be a little better. If you're listening on $5 earbuds, it's all going to sound the same.
John Kowalski
Banned
Can't play information that isn't there to start with.
While i don't want to speak for the OP, i'm guessing he means the source is CD or better
Diprosalic
Banned
the difference is in the imagination of the listener.
I think the op is talking about a audio cd being ripped two times as flac and mp3, and the difference between the two, not such a useless scenario.
Corpsepyre
Banned
Yes, you can. As said earlier, you need decent gear to do so. Prime-rib headphones or a big Hi-Fi sound system do the trick. FLAC, if not encoded from 320 kbps MP3 or worse, always sounds more...immense, lets say.
The evidence seems to suggest that from a human perspective, there is no difference. I haven't ever found a well-conducted study that suggests that any group of people can reliably tell the difference between 320 and FLAC, regardless of the equipment.
I spend hours a day transcribing music and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between v2 and FLAC unless maybe I listened to them side by side.
I spend hours a day transcribing music and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between v2 and FLAC unless maybe I listened to them side by side.
soundahfekz
Member
I'd wager that it would depend on the source material and genre.
Music typically produced from a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) can pull sounds from all kinds of different sources varying and bitrate, encoding, etc. FLAC or .WAV won't jazz up any compression that already exists within a composition, so for music that is sourced in this matter, there are elements within where there will be no discernible difference between a 320kbps file.
I've done music production for 14 years and I'd never complain about hearing 320kpbs instead of FLAC. The equipment investment just isn't worth it for average consumer.
Music typically produced from a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) can pull sounds from all kinds of different sources varying and bitrate, encoding, etc. FLAC or .WAV won't jazz up any compression that already exists within a composition, so for music that is sourced in this matter, there are elements within where there will be no discernible difference between a 320kbps file.
I've done music production for 14 years and I'd never complain about hearing 320kpbs instead of FLAC. The equipment investment just isn't worth it for average consumer.
This.
But the source material matters a lot also, If the source master is good, the diffrence will be noticable, if it is bad you probably won't be able to tell the diffrence.
ConsumerSquare
Member
I took a double blind test of this once and identified around 60% of the samples correctly. But this required me to play back certain sections multiple times, and usually the biggest giveaway (for me) was the higher bitrate tracks were more spacious. So there is a difference.
I still roll with 320 mp3s, though. I'm a big believer that music is best heard live, and lord knows you aren't getting fidelity at a punk show in a repurposed paint store with a sound guy paid in beer.
Audiophilia is for rich homebodies.
I still roll with 320 mp3s, though. I'm a big believer that music is best heard live, and lord knows you aren't getting fidelity at a punk show in a repurposed paint store with a sound guy paid in beer.
Audiophilia is for rich homebodies.
theignoramus
Member
I can tell the difference between Mp3 and FLAC with classical music and or anything involving rich and multi-layered instrumentation.
Listen to the album Thriller in mp3. Do it again in FLAC. You should notice a difference.
Listen to the album Thriller in mp3. Do it again in FLAC. You should notice a difference.
teruterubozu
Member
Neither can I. In my younger days perhaps.
Correct. Transcodes of lossy format into lossless just means you end up with large file representing a shitty quality recording.
But a proper straight waveform straight to FLAC will be high quality.
cheezcake
Member
I have a good pair of headphones and a decent sound card in this PC though and even then it depended on the type of music it was playing. I could hardly tell the difference in the grungy track but the jazz was night and day, bass sounds much fuller in 320kbps.
I seriously doubt I could tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC
Phat Michael
Banned
Bullshit. I can tell and I have the equipment to back it up.
OP you haven't told us your setup at all.
What amp do you have? Dac? Headphones? What Media Player are you using?
I have mp3,flac, DSD and 384khz wav files of some of the same tracks. You can tell the difference on a good setup.
UncleCross
Member
Technically? Yes, there can be an audible difference. This comes with some limitations though. As has been mentioned before, the quality of your equipment (and your room, if you're using speakers) plays a role. There's also the quality of the encoder and the encoding settings chosen for the .mp3. Certain recordings and instruments are more telling too. It also helps if you have good hearing, know what to listen for, and you pay very close attention to the track.
Even then, you probably will only notice it on a rare occasion. Your average person likely won't hear difference at all. If you're curious about how your own system, sources, and ears stack up, you can always test it with ABX software. It's a blinded test so you should get more objective results. Off the top of my head, I know Foobar has a plugin and I think there's an iOS app.
I did this myself with a dozen or so high bitrate AAC tracks awhile back. I could only tell the difference on two. And there was a statistically significant difference on only one track (though the other was very close). If you're not familiar with statistics, this means there's a 5% chance or less that I'm getting it right by pure guessing. Interpret that as you will, OP.
Even then, you probably will only notice it on a rare occasion. Your average person likely won't hear difference at all. If you're curious about how your own system, sources, and ears stack up, you can always test it with ABX software. It's a blinded test so you should get more objective results. Off the top of my head, I know Foobar has a plugin and I think there's an iOS app.
I did this myself with a dozen or so high bitrate AAC tracks awhile back. I could only tell the difference on two. And there was a statistically significant difference on only one track (though the other was very close). If you're not familiar with statistics, this means there's a 5% chance or less that I'm getting it right by pure guessing. Interpret that as you will, OP.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I have a good pair of headphones and a decent sound card in this PC though and even then it depended on the type of music it was playing. I could hardly tell the difference in the grungy track but the jazz was night and day, bass sounds much fuller in 320kbps.
I seriously doubt I could tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC
Yes, I have my computer hooked up to a home stereo system, quite easy to tell the difference between 128 and 320. 320 is damn good though. If anyone has a test between 320 and something uncompressed like FLAC I'd like to see it.
Edit: Shit, I remember when 128 was the standard for mp3 purchases. You were far better off buying the CD and ripping it yourself then. Now it's negligible.
The attempts of people just like you to prove this claim have categorically failed in a properly controlled environment.
Frankly, it's doubly preposterous if you're claiming you can tell the difference between FLAC and WAV.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
No one ever tested under controlled environment, using high end audio equipment, has ever been able to statistically consistently tell the difference between 320kps and uncompresed CD.
DOWN
Banned
Discussed this recently
The answer is basically there is no proven perceivable quality difference in the big ABX results, and it is unlikely for even astute listeners to find characteristic differences in the sound (characteristics which don't even necessarily have relationship to the quality or indication of whether one is more similar to the original or not).
But enthusiasts like to claim they have dog ears, and as it was well said, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
The answer is basically there is no proven perceivable quality difference in the big ABX results, and it is unlikely for even astute listeners to find characteristic differences in the sound (characteristics which don't even necessarily have relationship to the quality or indication of whether one is more similar to the original or not).
But enthusiasts like to claim they have dog ears, and as it was well said, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
I *think* 320kbps mp3 exhibit some roll-off around 18kHz onwards so you can probably tell the difference if you know the music you're listening to very well, its mastered very well, you're not suffering from hearing damage, and you're paying a lot of attention. Maybe that accounts for lossless formats sometimes being described as having better soundstages and sounding more airy...or whatever.
I keep things lossless for archival purposes. I don't see a reason not to use lossless if you have access to it with the price of storage being quite low these days. 'That's my opinion on the matter.
To answer the OP's question, good quality music (from a technical point of view) is generally format irrelevant and has everything to do with production. As an example: the original release of Paul Simon's Graceland is much better sounding than recent releases. The difference in quality should be extremely obvious if you use You Can Call Me Al as a comparison track. Both the same album and probably based off the same source but completely different production decisions result in two very different sounding albums...320kbps mp3 and lossless file formats aren't the most important things in the grand scheme of things I guess.
I keep things lossless for archival purposes. I don't see a reason not to use lossless if you have access to it with the price of storage being quite low these days. 'That's my opinion on the matter.
To answer the OP's question, good quality music (from a technical point of view) is generally format irrelevant and has everything to do with production. As an example: the original release of Paul Simon's Graceland is much better sounding than recent releases. The difference in quality should be extremely obvious if you use You Can Call Me Al as a comparison track. Both the same album and probably based off the same source but completely different production decisions result in two very different sounding albums...320kbps mp3 and lossless file formats aren't the most important things in the grand scheme of things I guess.
Mhmm. Especially if I'm going to transcode the audio at some point, I want to start with the best source possible.
Besides, even if I don't have the best kit to hear the difference now... that might not be true in the future. So why not start with the best option and go from there?
I would pay the extra 20 cents for ALAC lossless iTunes downloads, if they offered them. That's the main reason I don't buy digital except when I have iTunes gift cards.
Jesus Carbomb
From Water into Guinness
You need the right boutique cables hooked up to your gear to be able to tell the difference.
Chainsawkitten
Member
They are different things. MP3 is a lossy format, FLAC is lossless. If you take that 320kbps MP3 file and recode it with the same settings a million times (take the result, encode that, take that result and so on) it'll sound way worse by the end. Take a FLAC file and recode it with the same settings a million times though and it'll sound the same.
For a final export high quality mp3 is fine and there's not really much of a perceivable difference (if any). For intermediate files and archival purposes, lossless is definitely what you want (though intermediate files are usually WAV, not FLAC).
If you listen to cymbals or any other high pitch sound, you can usually tell a difference. They'll sound warpy if it's compressed. A lot of people have some hearing damage and can't really hear high pitches, though.
I don't know about hearing a difference between 320 and lossless, but 192 is barely listenable and under 192 sounds like complete trash.
I don't know about hearing a difference between 320 and lossless, but 192 is barely listenable and under 192 sounds like complete trash.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
I thought I heard somewhere that MP3 was considered lossy because it tosses out frequency ranges that humans don't typically hear which makes compression much more efficient.
But is it implausable to believe that there might be an incentive to do that as a quick and dirty solution to drive sales (offering a flac version which the consumer will connect with a higher quality sound, even though it isn't)? Might not be the case in OP but I wouldn't find it shocking if a little scandal like this would happen.
Chainsawkitten
Member
Bandcamp has FLAC.
- Status