FLAC vs 192kbps MP3 - can you really tell the difference?

[FelixDeCat]

I got a hold of some FLAC files by The Cars. One song is one I didnt have in my collection because the CD is scratched called "Lust For Kicks" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpIz7LgILGA

I converted a 29199kb FLAC file to 5113kb 192kbs MP3. Ive listened to both with my old $160 Kenwood headphones & I really cant tell much of a difference other than MAYBE the cymbals and drums have a teeny bit more definition. But I have to really listen for it, and I might just be imagining it. D:

Can you tell the difference?

ps. He's got his plastic sneakers, she's got her robuck purse, he's got his butane flicker, she's got it worse. And they blame it all on lust for kicks.

 

[rcpratt]

Not enough that I care, that's for sure.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Nope, never been an audiophile, I have $30 Logitech speakers hooked up to my onboard sound and I listen to almost all my music on Pandora and YouTube, and I'm totally fine with that.

 

[Spikesoldier]

absolutely.

i converted a flac ripped cd to mp3 320kbps. and did a back to back comparison.

can definately hear some missing tones, especially in the higher ranges.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Not on the bulk of my crappy audio equipment.

 

[FelixDeCat]

absolutely.

i converted a flac ripped cd to mp3 320kbps. and did a back to back comparison.

can definately hear some missing tones, especially in the higher ranges.

Thats the thing. To me "treble" is everything. I love definition! But I dont know if its worth making my 8GB 1000 file mp3 collection into a 40GB FLAC monster!

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Only with my Ultimate Ears TripleFi 10s and my car sound system.

I cant tell with my Logitech Z-2300s or my Sennheiser PC350s.

 

[Krynj]

I can't, no. I'm usually fine with 192kbps. Beyond that, it's hard for me to tell. I mostly tend to stick to VBR these days, just because.

I remember the early days of MP3s, where everybody was happy to make mix CDs with god awful 96kbps MP3s, and nobody seemed to be able to tell the difference. Yuck.

 

[AMDZen]

Not enough that I care, that's for sure.

This.

As long as the MP3's are done right, which IMO is a VBR using 192 and 256 as low and high rates, that way you get the extra quality when its really needed

 

[Anubis]

yes

most of the time i can tell between flac and V0 VBR

 

[FelixDeCat]

I can't, no. I'm usually fine with 192kbps. Beyond that, it's hard for me to tell. I mostly tend to stick to VBR these days, just because.

I remember the early days of MP3s, where everybody was happy to make mix CDs with god awful 96kbps MP3s, and nobody seemed to be able to tell the difference. Yuck.

One thing is for sure I hate the sound of obvious compression. But you are right, in the early days with dialup thats all you could get.

 

[Wyndru]

I can never tell the difference (unless it gets real low kbps), but aren't there programs out there that can determine the difference for you? Similar to PSNR testing for video codecs?

 

[lxskllr]

Depends on what it is. I usually don't care, but bagpipes especially suffer from compression. I prefer flac for bagpipes.

 

[gorcorps]

No, not on my Cowon mp3 player or my PC with decent headphones. I've ran proper double blind studies using foobar2000 on the PC and found that at about V2 is where I can't tell the diff between mp3 and lossless. In fact even my "audiophile" buddies were pretty much just guessing. I'm not saying that NOBODY can tell the difference, but I bet a lot of folks who think they can might be surprised if they gave themselves a blind test and the mp3s were encoded properly. There seems to be a pretty substantial favoritism in FLACs favor, but when you don't see what you're listening to it's surprising how similar they sound.

Everybody's ears are different though, and it also depends quite a bit on hardware and music production itself. Sensitive ears with minimal loss and good headphones will change things vs. a deaf teen with ipod buds.

 

[SKORPI0]

Yes, with a good set of speakers. Can tell if it is 192 kbps vs. 320 kbps, just need to know what to listen for. With crappy speakers, nope.

I've got some friends who can't see the difference between DVD (480p) vs. Blu-ray (1080p) on a 55" plasma.

 

[Krynj]

I've got some friends who can seem to see the difference between DVD (480p) vs. Blu-ray (1080p) on a 55" plasma.

That's not very difficult, at all.

 

[gevorg]

Depends. With iPhone's shitty iBuds, any mac/dell laptop, generic computer speakers, generic car audio, there is no difference.

With my affordable HomeTheater/HiFi system, easily.

Also, a lot of modern music is mastered like crap, so it doesn't matter how good is your audio system or even if you use 128kbps vs FLAC.

Garbage In -> Garbage Out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Absolutely, especially on the high end. Similarly, newer, well-pressed vinyl with a good record player sounds better than a CD, especially on the low end.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Not often, but often enough.

Besides, space is cheap. My music server has all of my 1,000+ CDs in a little over 300 GB of space. A 1 TB HD is often under $50.

Also, keeping my master copy as lossless I can transocde to lossy formats as needed without the quality drop from lossy-to-lossy transcoding.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Also, a lot of modern music is mastered like crap, so it doesn't matter how good is your audio system or even if you use 128kbps vs FLAC.

Garbage In -> Garbage Out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

This is also an important consideration.

 

[AMDZen]

Yes, with a good set of speakers. Can tell if it is 192 kbps vs. 320 kbps, just need to know what to listen for. With crappy speakers, nope.

I've got some friends who can seem to see the difference between DVD (480p) vs. Blu-ray (1080p) on a 55" plasma.

Thats like comparing apples to hippos. And you're friends are obviously blind

 

[amdhunter]

I can tell the difference, but only when I use my high end optical cables on my 256-bit DAC converter through my tube amps.

 

[gorcorps]

Depends. With iPhone's shitty iBuds, any mac/dell laptop, generic computer speakers, generic car audio, there is no difference.

With my affordable HomeTheater/HiFi system, easily.

Also, a lot of modern music is mastered like crap, so it doesn't matter how good is your audio system or even if you use 128kbps vs FLAC.

Garbage In -> Garbage Out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

I can't watch the video, but I'm assuming it has something to do with the loudness wars and the ridiculous compression they do to music to get it peak volumes across the board. IMO this is what really sounds bad these days, and what a lot of old timers blame on the transition from vinyl to CD. Shitty sounding production will still sound shitty on vinyl like it does digitally. People claim a lot of albums they have on vinyl and CD sound worse on the CD, which may be true... but a large amount of albums were reproduced, compressed, and cranked to 11 which sounds terrible. A true 1:1 vinyl copy would have sounded fine.

 

[SKORPI0]

Thats like comparing apples to hippos. And you're friends are obviously blind

So true, I had to point out some finer details that are present on Blu-rays not present on DVDs. Rarely watch DVDs if Blu-rays are available, if not oh well. :\

 

[AstroManLuca]

Upscaled DVDs vs. Blu-Rays is one thing, but my father in law can't tell the difference between SD and HD sports broadcasts on his TV. To be fair, the screen is too small and too far away to get the full benefit of HD, but still, SD sports games look like mushy, blobby ass compared with HD broadcasts.

I think he'd see the difference if I was able to show him a side-by-side comparison.