FLAC vs MP3

[TheNinja]

For example the LiveMetallica.com website allows you to download concerts in 2 formats FLAC and MP3. FLAC is a little more expensive but my main concern is that I don't want to hassle with finding more conversion software or plugins for players. I like the MP3 b/c it's what I'm used to and I can quickly create an audio CD from it.
The question is, "Is there a big noticable difference between FLAC and MP3 sound quality?"

 

[MBony]

Good question, I'd like to know as well.

 

[Derango]

It depends on the person. If you can't tell the difference between an mp3 and a CD, then you might as well just get the mp3 version.

 

[pulse8]

If you plan on keeping the files for a long time, I'd get the FLAC. You can burn them to a CD, it'll be the same as the original and you can rerip it to whatever format you want.

 

[DaveSimmons]

FLAC converts to exact CD quality WAV files that you can then re-encode as MP3 (at your choice of bitrate), AAC for iTunes, etc.

You can play flacs in foobar2000 and also use it to decode to WAV or burn to CD.

(Hydrogen Audio is down for server maintenance, but normally you can visit www.hydrogenaudio.org for info on FLAC and foobar).

My music server uses FLAC, it takes about 300 MB per CD but it's nice knowing there is no lossy compression in my music playback.

 

[rh71]

I heard the 3-5-04 FLAC versions of Metallica's performance. Comparing it with the old MP3 versions of all the live stuff of theirs I've had, it sounds EXACTLY the same to me.

I can see the benefit if it were studio stuff, but this live stuff sounds no different no matter the version. The file size is enormous too... comparable to WAV. No thanks.

 

[Viper GTS]

FLAC is lossless.

Using Grado SR-60's (good compared to most consumer junk, mediocre at best in the hi-fi world) I can easily tell the difference between WAV (the equivalent of FLAC), 320 VBR AAC, and 320 VBR MP3.

No, the difference between FLAC and high quality lossy formats isn't huge. But FLAC gives you the ability to do whatever you want without dealing with multiple levels of compression artifacts. Start with WAV every time & the results will be far better.

LiveMetallica's FLAC downloads are a bargain at $13 vs $10 for 128K MP3's (garbage).

Viper GTS

 

[TheNinja]

thanks for the input guys.

 

[Maleficus]

To help you figure out the quality difference to you I ripped Bush - Personal Holloway.

Hopefully this helps, I personally hear virtually no difference on my Klipsch 4.1's or Sennheiser HD 497's which like Viper's aren't great but aren't crap either.

PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE

Flac files are kinda big and i don't have unlimited bandwidth

Songs

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Maleficus
To help you figure out the quality difference to you I ripped Bush - Personal Holloway.

Hopefully this helps, I personally hear virtually no difference on my Klipsch 4.1's or Sennheiser HD 497's which like Viper's aren't great but aren't crap either.

PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE

Flac files are kinda big and i don't have unlimited bandwidth

Songs

You the man MaleFicus! I will have to download these when I get home from work in about 5 hours. Save some bandwidth for me you ATOTers . MaleFicus for Elite!!!

 

[MBony]

Is there much difference in FLAC vs. SHORTEN? Now that I know what FLAC is, it seems this is the same as a shorten (.shn) file. Is there a difference?

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: MBony
Is there much difference in FLAC vs. SHORTEN? Now that I know what FLAC is, it seems this is the same as a shorten (.shn) file. Is there a difference?

Just 2 ways of doing the same thing really.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: MBony
Is there much difference in FLAC vs. SHORTEN? Now that I know what FLAC is, it seems this is the same as a shorten (.shn) file. Is there a difference?

Just 2 ways of doing the same thing really.

also file sizes.