Alright I heard that FLAC audio files were higher quality than the average Mp3/Mp4 file.
So my questions are:
1. Is it the best quality audio file?
2. Are there any portable music players that support FLAC?
3. Can you burn FLAC files to a CD?
4. Is there a website or anything that sells FLAC files?
1. That depends who you ask. FLAC is the same quality as the audio CD it is ripped from. If you think CDs sound the best, then you'll think FLAC is the best sounding audio file.
2. The new Creative Zen X-Fi does. I'm sure many others do as well.
3. You can burn anything to a CD.
4. Yes, anywhere that sells CDs. :v:
1. FLAC is lossless, so it will be the same quality as the source you ripped it from.
2. Yes, but not many mainsteam ones do. Older iPods running a 3rd party firmware such as RockBox can.
3. Yes.
4. Not that I know of, FLACs are an unpopular format for online stores as they are large files to download.
Ninja'd :argh:
Alright, I didn't really have any idea on the quality or what they were at all.
From the FLAC files I have, they run around 900khz. Your normal mp3 file will range from 96khz to 320khz. I love having FLAC files but I honestly can't hear the difference past 256khz. It really just comes down to a preference.
Oh. And I forgot. If you use winamp, winamp will convert your FLAC files to mp3 if you sync it with an ipod. You are able to tell winamp the quality of your mp3's that have been converted from FLAC.
the average person can't tell the difference past 192kbps, do NOT waste your time, HD space, and bandwidth with FLAC.
audiophiles fucking love it but audiophilia is a world of placebos and $5,000 cables anyway and isn't based on science at all
science says FLAC is a waste of time
I rip my CDs in FLAC because I want to have a 1:1 copy in case I ever lose the physical media.
Personally, I can tell the difference between an MP3 encoded at 192kbps and a FLAC rip, a 192kbps MP3 and a 320kbps MP3, but not a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC rip.
[editline]01:52AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Creesco;18726237]From the FLAC files I have, they run around 900khz. Your normal mp3 file will range from 96khz to 320khz. I love having FLAC files but I honestly can't hear the difference past 256khz. It really just comes down to a preference..[/QUOTE]
I'm going to assume you mean kbps. Your media player may say they're at 900kbps, but they're actually 1411kbps (CD audio when expressed in kbps). The difference comes from the fact that FLAC files are losslessly compressed, making them slightly smaller than the raw audio on the CD. (They're like ZIP files, in a way)
iTunes won't support FLAC. :(
Any decent music players such as foobar2000 do.
1. Yes, it is
2. Not a lot as far as I know, but if it supports OGG it should support FLAC
3. Yeah, but a CD reader probably won't read the FLAC files
4. Most online music stores only sell 320kbps MP3 as their highest quality
[QUOTE=Enishi;18726633]iTunes won't support FLAC. :([/QUOTE]
That's because iTunes is an absolute piece of shit.
I've noticed that on a good sound system, FLAC just sounds sharper. I don't know exactly what the difference between, say, MP3 V0 and FLAC is, but the difference is very audible given a good audio set up. I always rip in FLAC, but I convert it to MP3 for my iPod, because honestly, the differences can't be noticed at all on it.
iAudio's and the Zen X-Fi support FLAC, if I remember correctly.
There is FLAC support on creative and cowon players. FLAC is the original recorded quality of the CD.
I can easily hear the difference between flac and mp3. Flac just sounds so much cleaner for some reasons.
The gaps are more empty in FLAC.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18726340]the average person can't tell the difference past 192kbps, do NOT waste your time, HD space, and bandwidth with FLAC.
audiophiles fucking love it but audiophilia is a world of placebos and $5,000 cables anyway and isn't based on science at all
science says FLAC is a waste of time[/QUOTE]
yeah man just like how i can't see the difference between a dvd and a blu ray oh wait
[QUOTE=Rusty100;18728162]yeah man just like how i can't see the difference between a dvd and a blu ray oh wait[/QUOTE]
yeah except anybody can see that difference and ABX studies show people can't tell the difference between 192 and 320 audio
shitty attempt at sarcasm bro
if the hydrogenaudio forums, a site dedicated to audio quality and encoding, can't tell the difference, I'm pretty sure nobody can
faggot
[quote]Flac just sounds so much cleaner for some reasons.[/quote]
[quote]I don't know exactly what the difference between, say, MP3 V0 and FLAC is, but the difference is very audible given a good audio set up.[/quote]
notice how neither of you gave actual examples as to where the quality was better
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo[/url] read it and weep
[QUOTE=sin2051;18732626]yeah except anybody can see that difference and ABX studies show people can't tell the difference between 192 and 320 audio
shitty attempt at sarcasm bro
if the hydrogenaudio forums, a site dedicated to audio quality and encoding, can't tell the difference, I'm pretty sure nobody can
faggot
notice how neither of you gave actual examples as to where the quality was better
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo[/url] read it and weep[/QUOTE]
I wish I could quote and represent my perception of sounds on a forum, but I can't.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18732626]
faggot[/QUOTE]
You're trolling a thread about audio formats.
Fucking internet.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18732626]yeah except anybody can see that difference and ABX studies show people can't tell the difference between 192 and 320 audio
shitty attempt at sarcasm bro
if the hydrogenaudio forums, a site dedicated to audio quality and encoding, can't tell the difference, I'm pretty sure nobody can
faggot
notice how neither of you gave actual examples as to where the quality was better
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo[/url] read it and weep[/QUOTE]
Uh, no matter what, if you have a good pair of headphones or speakers, you will definitely hear the difference between any MP3 file and a FLAC file. (Good being HD280s, AD/A700, Z-5500, etc)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;18735221]You're trolling a thread about audio formats.
Fucking internet.[/QUOTE]
being aggressive means I'm trolling? sorry the truth hurts
people who hoard stolen music in a format they can't tell the difference of touch nerves of mine, sorry
[QUOTE=Odellus;18735433]Uh, no matter what, if you have a good pair of headphones or speakers, you will definitely hear the difference between any MP3 file and a FLAC file. (Good being HD280s, AD/A700, Z-5500, etc)[/QUOTE]
Uh, I have better headphones than the ones you listed and there is no difference. Quit fucking fooling yourself, nancy boy. Science doesn't lie.
Want to try for yourself? Get Foobar2000 and its ABX component. Then come back and tell me you can tell FLAC from 192kbps MP3.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18735601]being aggressive means I'm trolling? sorry the truth hurts
people who hoard stolen music in a format they can't tell the difference of touch nerves of mine, sorry
[/QUOTE]
Why are you assuming they pirated it?
[QUOTE=sin2051;18735601]
Want to try for yourself? Get Foobar2000 and its ABX component. Then come back and tell me you can tell FLAC from 192kbps MP3.[/QUOTE]
i was bored so I actually tested this and I got them all right to 16 trials
I might be doing something wrong though. In fact, I will report back with more results because I'm bored enough now to do this.
[QUOTE=sin2051;18735601]being aggressive means I'm trolling? sorry the truth hurts
people who hoard stolen music in a format they can't tell the difference of touch nerves of mine, sorry
Uh, I have better headphones than the ones you listed and there is no difference. Quit fucking fooling yourself, nancy boy. Science doesn't lie.
Want to try for yourself? Get Foobar2000 and its ABX component. Then come back and tell me you can tell FLAC from 192kbps MP3.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I will.
[editline]07:03PM[/editline]
Yeah I just compared Daft Punk - Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger FLAC to 192kbps MP3. FLAC sounds better. I don't get why you're trying to prove that lossless audio sounds the same as some crap MP3.
[editline]07:05PM[/editline]
You know, I'm done with this argument. If you think 192kbps MP3 sounds better than 1400kbps FLAC you're an idiot.
[QUOTE=cryticfarm;18736038]i was bored so I actually tested this and I got them all right to 16 trials
I might be doing something wrong though. In fact, I will report back with more results because I'm bored enough now to do this.[/QUOTE]
like not properly encoding
[QUOTE=Odellus;18736117]You know, I'm done with this argument. If you think 192kbps MP3 sounds better than 1400kbps FLAC you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]
the numbers are bigger so obviously it's better
[QUOTE=sin2051;18736181]like not properly encoding
the numbers are bigger so obviously it's better[/QUOTE]
In this case, yes.
[editline]07:08PM[/editline]
bye
[QUOTE=Odellus;18736232]In this case, yes.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to err on the side of more intelligent people and say that scientists and people who study encoders as a hobby (the Hydrogen-Audio folk) know more about the subject than you. And are right. And you are wrong.
if you can tell the difference at 192kbps you are either:
a) fooling yourself (see: placebo effect)
b) encoding to 192kbps poorly (see: quick and dirty transcodes with no regard for quality, you might as well download off limewire etc)
[QUOTE=sin2051;18736327]
b) encoding to 192kbps poorly (see: quick and dirty transcodes with no regard for quality, you might as well download off limewire etc)[/QUOTE]
can foobar LAME conversion be counted as fine?
did a test:
13/16, TTA vs 192KPBS
[QUOTE=sin2051;18736327]I'm going to err on the side of more intelligent people and say that scientists and people who study encoders as a hobby (the Hydrogen-Audio folk) know more about the subject than you. And are right. And you are wrong.
if you can tell the difference at 192kbps you are either:
a) fooling yourself (see: placebo effect)
b) encoding to 192kbps poorly (see: quick and dirty transcodes with no regard for quality, you might as well download off limewire etc)[/QUOTE]
I'll bet that some people can hear higher frequencies than others.
It's like how some people claim they can see a difference between 50 and 60 fps, and when tested, actually can. But some people can't see the difference between 35 and 50.
Obviously somewhere around 192kbps is where you stop hearing, but other people might have higher thresholds.
Plus, some people can hear lower frequencies than others, why not higher?
FLAC files are most commonly available on pirating websites I shit you not. So if you bought an album through itunes, that sucks.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.