# The differences between FLAC and MP3, Lossless vs Lossy



## Armadi110

you should put a pic up for a WAVE format, 24bit 96khz ftw


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Armadi110* 
you should put a pic up for a WAVE format, 24bit 96khz ftw

I would have, but Adobe Audition does not support 24bit/96khz.. atleast when I try to load the file nothing happens. I believe the data would look the same as lossless though.


----------



## dskina

Great.


----------



## tehpwnerofn00bs

Which lossless formats do ipods support?

Also, what is a good, free app for ripping my CD's into aforementioned ipod-supported format?


----------



## dskina

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tehpwnerofn00bs* 
Which lossless formats do ipods support?

Apple Lossless codec


----------



## Odyn

Also, you want to look out for this little bugger here:









Do you see the line going through it? It means that the original source (what the recording was taken from, whether it be master tape, CD etc), was NOT a lossless format, and thus its considered lossy and not very good. Just my $0.02


----------



## gonX

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Odyn* 
Also, you want to look out for this little bugger here:









Do you see the line going through it? It means that the original source (what the recording was taken from, whether it be master tape, CD etc), was NOT a lossless format, and thus its considered lossy and not very good. Just my $0.02

Aka, most likely a vinyl or tape.

*EDIT*

Also I had a little lol at this guide. My friends says that I'm too touchy, supposedly you can't hear a difference between 128 and 192, or 192 and 320.
I can't hear that big a difference between 192 and 320, but it's there. The way of ripping the CD is also an important step of it all. If you rip it too fast, you'll have the ability (lol) to get clicks, pops and ambient noise on your file.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tehpwnerofn00bs* 
Which lossless formats do ipods support?

Also, what is a good, free app for ripping my CD's into aforementioned ipod-supported format?

The best programs would be:
Exact Audo Copy (EAC - Free, and a very confusing application to learn)
Easy CD-DA Extractor (Costs)

I use Easy CD-DA Extractor. It will convert virtually any format to another format as well as rip to any format. Remember to set the highest error checking quality, as well as CRC checking and verify data boxes. It takes alot longer but you'd be surprised how many times a RIP gets bad CRC checks which means something didn't go right.

*Remember: Converting lossy to lossless (AKA MP3 to FLAC) will not increase quality and will only use more space on your hard drive, infact if you do this it my be lower quality than the MP3 was to begin with. There is no way to convert lossy to lossless, however you can convert lossless to lossy which is the same thing as ripping from the CD.*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Odyn* 
Do you see the line going through it? It means that the original source (what the recording was taken from, whether it be master tape, CD etc), was NOT a lossless format, and thus its considered lossy and not very good. Just my $0.02

Yea most lossless files (espically ones that come from CDs in the 70s and 60s) will be alot lower, but lossless should never be below the 18500HZ line. If it is, you program just go a transcode (someone converted a MP3 to lossless, so its just a big MP3 quality file)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gonX* 
Aka, most likely a vinyl or tape.

*EDIT*

Also I had a little lol at this guide. My friends says that I'm too touchy, supposedly you can't hear a difference between 128 and 192, or 192 and 320.
I can't hear that big a difference between 192 and 320, but it's there. The way of ripping the CD is also an important step of it all. If you rip it too fast, you'll have the ability (lol) to get clicks, pops and ambient noise on your file.

It really depends on the persons ears and what setup you have. My HT speakers cost more than most peoples cars, and the difference between 320KBPS and lossless was rather big. My friend who is not a audiophile agreed he could hear a difference between them, but said he didn't care about quality as long as he had music. Some people are like that I guess


----------



## Highly-Annoyed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Murlocke* 
99% of human ears should be able to tell the difference between 192KBPS and 320KBPS MP3s on almost any setup.

With respect, I'm a bit dubious about this statement. Do you have any proof to support it? Everything I've read about people being able to tell different MP3 versions apart shows that, actually, the majority can't tell the difference. Certainly, most people can't tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless, based on what I've read anyway.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Murlocke* 
Converting a MP3 to lossless will not work and *will certainly feel up your hard drive* faster with music that is the same or worse quality than it was before you converted.

LOL! Dirty so-and-so, feeling up ma' hard drive







.

Seriously, though, I'd love to see some data on people being able to tell 192kbps, 320kbps and lossless apart.

Also, did you include variable bit rate MP3s? They dial down the bit rate for quiet sections of music in a track and dial it up for more complex sections, resulting it a smaller file, with great sound quality throughout.

Nice straightforward analysis otherwise!

Highly-Annoyed


----------



## TheLegend

Just as a clarification the iPod will support FLAC and many other formats through the use of Rockbox firmware.

I've had it installed for a while now and love how customizable everything is. The bundled apps and games are awesome!

http://build.rockbox.org/


----------



## version2

I get this skip sound on the first second when I play .flac in VLC media player. Otherwise it plays well.


----------



## TheLegend

Quote:


Originally Posted by *version2* 
I get this skip sound on the first second when I play .flac in VLC media player. Otherwise it plays well.

Use foobar2k or JRiver Jukebox.


----------



## Truambitionz

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Armadi110* 
you should put a pic up for a WAVE format, 24bit 96khz ftw

Is irrelevant when ripping from a CD because the format from a CD is 16bit and 44.1khz.
Maybe you ment it differently but if thats how you're ripping music then you're wasting probaly twice as much hardrive space.


----------



## H3||scr3am

so question? y is this awesoem guide in the software and coding section? It should be in the audio and soundcards by my watch... or in the off topic somewhere...


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H3||scr3am* 
so question? y is this awesoem guide in the software and coding section? It should be in the audio and soundcards by my watch... or in the off topic somewhere...

Ill get it moved.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Highly-Annoyed* 
With respect, I'm a bit dubious about this statement. Do you have any proof to support it? Everything I've read about people being able to tell different MP3 versions apart shows that, actually, the majority can't tell the difference. Certainly, most people can't tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless, based on what I've read anyway.

No proof on that, all my friends can hear a difference between them, including myself.. Most people I talk to that listen to music alot can as well. I guess I just assumed most people could hear the difference.

I removed the sentence from the post.


----------



## Pibbz

I don't mind listening to MP3s on my iPod or in my car since usually it's just background music at those times. For more serious listening times I'll load up my FLAC hard drive, or for EQ'ing a room I always go with a CD I keep a collection primarily of FLAC, 320kb MP3s, and 128kb AAC. The difference between lossy and lossless are night and day to most trained ears. It always baffles me how many DJs will use MP3s.


----------



## Aura

Nice guide 'locke.

Being a heavy supporter of FLAC and EAC, I might add this little tidbit -

Quote:

Buy the standard cd's and rip them yourself using Exact Audio Copy.

It's absurdly simple to setup and begin ripping if you use this guide.
It took me literally 5 minutes to get EAC setup for compressing to FLAC using this guide.

As for the difference between lossy and lossless, it is very much dependent on the listener and the equipment being used. With my soundcard/speakers, the format was irrelevant. With my DAC/amp/headphones, I ended up ignoring the large portion of my collection that was ripped in lossy. The improved transparency/detail was rather astounding. It is unfortunate that lossy has become such a popular medium for music, when it is generally rubbish compared to lossless redbooks and vinyl.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aura* 
Nice guide 'locke.

Being a heavy supporter of FLAC and EAC, I might add this little tidbit -

It took me literally 5 minutes to get EAC setup for compressing to FLAC using this guide.

As for the difference between lossy and lossless, it is very much dependent on the listener and the equipment being used. With my soundcard/speakers, the format was irrelevant. With my DAC/amp/headphones, I ended up ignoring the large portion of my collection that was ripped in lossy. The improved transparency/detail was rather astounding. It is unfortunate that lossy has become such a popular medium for music, when it is generally rubbish compared to lossless redbooks and vinyl.

Edit - just discovered that the old guide I used is no longer available. This one looks pretty decent. FLAC's documentation page also features 3-4 more links to guides.

Oops, forgot to put in what rippers to use. I don't use EAC because its harder to tag songs and it seems to be insane with how much it checks to see if it is EXACT. I use Easy CD-DA Extractor, with CRC checking and verfying, as well as the highest error correction quality, I feel that its plenty. It also uses accurate rip.


----------



## Aura

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Murlocke* 
Oops, forgot to put in what rippers to use. I don't use EAC because its harder to tag songs and it seems to be insane with how much it checks to see if it is EXACT. I use Easy CD-DA Extractor, with CRC checking and verfying, as well as the highest error correction quality, I feel that its plenty. It also uses accurate rip.









I love how thorough EAC is - I've ripped plenty of disks that were practically unreadable by the amount of scratches, etc. The error correction is dead-useful, especially if you're looking to borrow disks from friends whom may have not treated them very well previously.

Also, I re-edited my first post. I found the guide, it had just been moved around a little bit.


----------



## tehpwnerofn00bs

What's the best place to download lossless music from?


----------



## Namrac

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tehpwnerofn00bs* 
What's the best place to download lossless music from?

Straight from CD is easiest.


----------



## triggerc

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Namrac* 
Straight from CD is easiest.

QFT. Rip your own with Exact Audio Copy, and support your favorite artists at the same time. Not to mention that years down the road you'll enjoy having a physical copy of your favorite music.


----------



## TheLegend

Not many places will allow downloads of lossless music. As stated from before, ripping from CD is the best and easiest way to achieve lossless music.


----------



## triggerc

If you do want to download lossless music, you need to be prepared to maintaining a good ratio, unless you have a uber fast upload connection you'll need to upload your own stuff anyway.


----------



## tehpwnerofn00bs

I've been ripping my CD's now for about an hour with EAC. Should the rate be 44100 or 48000Hz? I though it was going to be 48kHz, but its in 44.1...


----------



## TheLegend

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tehpwnerofn00bs* 
I've been ripping my CD's now for about an hour with EAC. Should the rate be 44100 or 48000Hz? I though it was going to be 48kHz, but its in 44.1...









44.1 is what most production CD's are mastered in. You probably won't be able to tell with your equipment with anything higher.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tehpwnerofn00bs* 
I've been ripping my CD's now for about an hour with EAC. Should the rate be 44100 or 48000Hz? I though it was going to be 48kHz, but its in 44.1...









99% of a CDs are in 44.1 because 99% of people cannot tell the difference of anything higher. You need some really high end equipment and some good ears to tell the difference. I can tell the difference between 44.1khz and 96khz but not 44khz and 48khz. However the 96Khz stuff i've sampled was also in 24bit, so it might of just been the fact that it was 24bit.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *tehpwnerofn00bs* 
What's the best place to download lossless music from?

I'm going to assume you mean legally downloading, and I have not came across a site that allows you to legally download lossless music. You will need to buy the physical CDs and rip. Any other methods I can't talk about here.









Amazon Merchant sells most used CDs for $3-$5 a piece, which isn't bad at all considering a game is $60.


----------



## triggerc

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Murlocke* 
99% of a CDs are in 44.1 because 99% of people cannot tell the difference of anything higher. You need some really high end equipment and some good ears to tell the difference. I can tell the difference between 44.1khz and 96khz but not 44khz and 48khz. However the 96Khz stuff i've sampled was also in 24bit, so it might of just been the fact that it was 24bit.









I think it's the 24 bit that makes the difference. At least I can't tell the difference with rock in SACD compared to a regular CD, but classical is much easier to notice the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1. I've read in a number of places that 44.1khz is more than enough for all intensive purposes.


----------



## JoeUbi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Murlocke* 
The best programs would be:
Exact Audo Copy (EAC - Free, and a very confusing application to learn)

Confusing? Not too much.

http://xs.vc/eac/

There is a guide that will lead you through every step in the process of setting up a "Proper" rip using EAC. It'll also show you how to output a .log and a .cue file so you can make a copy of the CD identically to the original.

Also V0 and 320 KB/s have nearly the same quality. If I recall correctly, V0 retains 92% of the original quality, while 320 retains about 94% of the original quality. The main difference is the size of the file, V0 files are about 25-30% smaller. V0 is a much better encoder setting than 320.

FYI: V0 = LAME encoder "Extreme Setting"


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JoeUbi* 
Confusing? Not too much.

http://xs.vc/eac/

There is a guide that will lead you through every step in the process of setting up a "Proper" rip using EAC. It'll also show you how to output a .log and a .cue file so you can make a copy of the CD identically to the original.

Also V0 and 320 KB/s have nearly the same quality. If I recall correctly, V0 retains 92% of the original quality, while 320 retains about 94% of the original quality. The main difference is the size of the file, V0 files are about 25-30% smaller. V0 is a much better encoder setting than 320.

FYI: V0 = LAME encoder "Extreme Setting"

Yea, V0 seems to be the most popular. My entire music collection is in lossless though because i'm picky like that.


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Highly-Annoyed* 
With respect, I'm a bit dubious about this statement. Do you have any proof to support it? Everything I've read about people being able to tell different MP3 versions apart shows that, actually, the majority can't tell the difference. Certainly, most people can't tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless, based on what I've read anyway.

I tend to agree, but I think the quality of the speakers or headphones you're listening to play a huge part as well. If you've got a crappy set of either, you're unlikely to tell the difference between 320 vs 192.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElMikeTheMike* 
I tend to agree, but I think the quality of the speakers or headphones you're listening to play a huge part as well. If you've got a crappy set of either, you're unlikely to tell the difference between 320 vs 192.

In my car I cannot tell the difference between 320kbps and 192kbps, on my computer and home theater it's a clear difference. I use stock speakers of course in my car.

I have klipsch promedia 5.1 Ultra speakers for my computer, which are some of the best "boxed" speakers you can get for the computer and there is a *very* small difference between lossless and 320KBPS on them. However on my Home Theater speakers (Roughly $3,000 for the speakers/sub/receiver) there is a clear difference.

So I agree, no point in getting lossless music or even 320kbps if you are on $20 speakers.


----------



## triggerc

Yeah, the better your equipment scales the more noticeable the difference between different recording qualities become. 128kbps sound truely crappy with a decent setup.


----------



## Namrac

Headphones are also generally easier to spot the differences with than speakers, in my experience. Of course, I've got a loooooot more experience with quality headphones than I do quality speakers.


----------



## Duckydude

This is what a 24 bit, 96khz wave file looks like for anybody that is interested:










The red arrows shows where a CD quality file (16 bit 44.1Khz) would cut off at, as a 16 bit environment only stores audio data up to around 22000hz. A 24 bit enviornment stores audio data up to around 48000hz. I ripped this file from a DVD-Audio disc of Once Upon A Time - Simple Minds.


----------



## jhotmann21

luckily my hearing isnt the greatest due to too many loud band practices and concerts so they all sound the same to me! downside is ill be deaf if i get to age 70


----------



## JoeUbi

Holy poop this is some crazy good fidelity. Notice how there are no mastering lines. This is from a Vinyl Rip I am currently working on, it's Yes - Yessongs for those interested.


----------



## Namrac

Mmmmmmmmmmm vinyl.


----------



## Shin2k35

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Odyn* 
Also, you want to look out for this little bugger here:









Do you see the line going through it? It means that the original source (what the recording was taken from, whether it be master tape, CD etc), was NOT a lossless format, and thus its considered lossy and not very good. Just my $0.02

Anyone mention that FLAC is also lossy? There's a compression ratio of about 60% or similar. The only true lossless is WAV, iirc.


----------



## procpuarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shin2k35* 
Anyone mention that FLAC is also lossy? There's a compression ratio of about 60% or similar. The only true lossless is WAV, iirc.

no it *COMPRESSES* like a ZIP file. MP3's *TAKE AWAY*.


----------



## Rushnerd

_*"Wav giveth, and Mp3 taketh away"*_


----------



## BlankThis

I'm personally a big believer in 320kbps MP3s. I do hear the difference between MP3 and Lossless but I found 320kbps MP3 the best combination between sound quality and size









~B~


----------



## Rushnerd

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BlankThis*


I'm personally a big believer in 320kbps MP3s. I do hear the difference between MP3 and Lossless but I found 320kbps MP3 the best combination between sound quality and size









~B~


If size is a defining factor, I wholly agree...now tell that to Jobs >_>


----------



## OpTicaL

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shin2k35* 
Anyone mention that FLAC is also lossy? There's a compression ratio of about 60% or similar. The only true lossless is WAV, iirc.









LOL









Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlankThis* 
I'm personally a big believer in 320kbps MP3s. I do hear the difference between MP3 and Lossless but I found 320kbps MP3 the best combination between sound quality and size









~B~

VBR ftw! If your a believer in quality AND size VBR is the way to go. The graphs speak for themselves. 320kbps is bloat, silence in music does not require 320kbps.


----------



## Rushnerd

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Duckydude*


This is what a 24 bit, 96khz wave file looks like for anybody that is interested:










The red arrows shows where a CD quality file (16 bit 44.1Khz) would cut off at, as a 16 bit environment only stores audio data up to around 22000hz. A 24 bit enviornment stores audio data up to around 48000hz. I ripped this file from a DVD-Audio disc of Once Upon A Time - Simple Minds.


That says it all right here, no need for words!!


----------

