Author Topic: Audio file quality poll  (Read 1395 times)

penguinpirate  539

  • Super User
  • Posts: 354
  • Rate: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality vote
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2017, 06:29:12 am »
Some stuff I can hear a difference some not, I have noticed some CDs are pretty low quality and in that case nothing will make it better.
But for me, I just like to have it lossless, no matter what happens in future you always got the source you started out with so you can use that to create any file you like.
I am the same with videos too, I like to have source if I can, especially for archiving.

cubbie  4

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Rate: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2017, 04:11:54 pm »
These days, I mostly listen to various sub-genres of electronic music & I still only choose to download FLAC/Lossless.  IOW, Lossless is not a preference only for those listening to genres like classical or jazz.

MikeBy  2

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Rate: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2017, 02:11:58 am »
mp3, fast internet doesn't exist here, and I can't really hear the difference anyway.

Spoetzl  146

  • Uploader
  • Posts: 61
  • Rate: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2017, 07:03:36 pm »
I prefer FLAC.  Even a lot of audiophiles dispute whether 24b and other higher formats bring anything more to the table.  The public generally thinks that more information is better, but there may be some issues with the reasoning.  Assuming both formats of the music come from the same master, there's little-to-no difference.  Most of the extra data is outside of the limits of human hearing, thus doesn't create an audible difference.

Rather than spend money, space, and time on SACD's, etc., you might be better off investing in an external DAC (digital-to-analog converter) that provides better performance than a higher bitrate alone... or do both SACD and DAC, but the DAC first.  You must have digital outs from your source and an external amplifier for for it to work though, so it's only if you're pretty serious about your sound.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 08:06:16 pm by Spoetzl »

xSnowLeopardx  7

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Rate: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality vote
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2017, 11:52:12 pm »
Loving FLAC, but listening to a lot of 320 kbps too.
(For non-digital : Vinyls > CD's in my opinion) :smiley:

Exactly this :p

B3XM4N  50

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Rate: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2017, 12:55:10 pm »
Porque no las dos? [Translation: Why not both?]

What I mean by that is that I like FLAC, so that if I have to burn to CD for a friend, then I'm getting the original CD quality. Plus, as someone said, you can convert to any format required. I've been redownloading a lot of discographies that I previously only had in mp3.

That said, I've got an iPod Classic connected to an FM transmitter in my car, so mp3 is all I need for that purpose. Also, if it's something I'm not sure I'll like, I'll get the mp3 down first. If I like, then I'll look for FLAC, but if not, then why waste the time/space/effort?

As for vinyl rips/24 bit, well I'm only listening to music in my car on on my computer, so there's no need for these in my case.

Moses_Aaron  179

  • Verified Uploader
  • Posts: 145
  • Rate: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2017, 01:15:17 pm »
If I had to choose between iTunes and mp3(CBR or VBR) doesn't matter, I would choose the former hands down.

Because though mp3 delivers that extra sound in your ears-its for them who don't 'relish' their music as iTunes stands for quality. Not to mention the smaller size. The smoothness in the sound is incredible-so is the clarity in the latter.

As for FLAC-I believe that its for music lovers who are paranoid about the stuff they listen to. There is hardly any difference between 320kbps and the same; not to mention the extra space it takes up.

Jim_Hawkins  534

  • Member
  • Posts: 407
  • Rate: 127
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2017, 06:29:36 pm »
Well, got a spectro of my ears, and the conclusion is that too high-level quality is unnecessary, I will not perceive it !  :cry:

So, with a good MP3, I can feel fine...

Superbikemike  1491

  • Super User
  • Posts: 1185
  • Rate: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2017, 07:22:38 pm »
dosent matter.... 1st i have to listen to it regardless of what file it is....  flac or other wise you can still end up with crap either way..
then i convert it to mp3.. for me its about the quality of the audio not the container its in  :tongue:

Jim_Hawkins  534

  • Member
  • Posts: 407
  • Rate: 127
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2017, 07:45:18 pm »
dosent matter.... 1st i have to listen to it regardless of what file it is....  flac or other wise you can still end up with crap either way..
then i convert it to mp3.. for me its about the quality of the audio not the container its in  :tongue:

Totally agree, pure common sense !  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:  :clap:

Moses_Aaron  179

  • Verified Uploader
  • Posts: 145
  • Rate: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2017, 10:30:00 pm »
I'll be uploading detailed information regarding file qualities soon - but as for the difference between FLAC and 320kbps mp3 - there is hardly any difference, if you are listening to music over good headphones(not too costly ones, which would let you perceive even the slightest changes in frequencies and 7.1 Dolby Surround Digital Sound Systems, used in studios and so on).

Basically mp3 is a witty manifestation of psycho acoustics, where 'quiet' sounds are removed.

When we perceive a loud sound, a low sound exactly beside it isn't perceived by our ears. Factual science like this is used for mp3 encodings.

Now FLAC might contain audio, which might be well above 22kHz-the MAXIMUM which can be perceived by a human being. So we could easily clip that out and save on space. Therefore paranoia, in this respect is useless as well.

I would recommend FLAC for old soundtracks, as no loss in quality could be compromised. Also FLAC is good for slow and soft soundtracks, because we need to listen to those subtle nuances and tonal changes per second.

But it isn't really necessary for something like rock, pop etc. mp3 or better iTunes(AAC) audio would do just fine.

Moses_Aaron  179

  • Verified Uploader
  • Posts: 145
  • Rate: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2017, 10:34:58 pm »
In the voting options, iTunes(AAC) must be added because the way I see it-it is the future of music industry, because ultimately, we have to face a space crunch at some point of time. It might be after a month, or after 120 - but believe me, we will for sure.

maxblues  834

  • Elite Uploader
  • Posts: 793
  • Rate: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2017, 02:22:42 am »
A reply to Moses_Aaron concerning lossy/lossless a.k.a. mp3 vs. FLAC

I agree with you, that with the most players/headphones/devices you can't hear the difference. But with a better equipment you will hear the difference.

I don't agree in following points:

1) CD-Quality (16bit 44.1kHz) is limited with 22kHz. Lossless encoding reduces the data volume - but when you decode it to wav, you get the same data in the same CD quality.
I tested it with various encoding tools and compared the source data with the encoded data - bit for bit. If you use the right tools, you get the identical data. You can see it in the added spectros: from FLAC back to wav.

Here is the FLAC spectro:



and here is the decoded wav spectro - you see it's identical:


2) If you convert CD to mp3 (or wav to mp3) you loose data and not only "quiet sounds" as you postulated. If you decode mp3 back to wav (CD quality) you can't get the lost data back - which means it's lower quality than the original source (lossy). You can see it in the spectros (the same song as above converted to mp3 and re-encoded to wav)

Here is the mp3 spectro - compared to FLAC & wav above, you see it's cut off:



An here is the spectro from mp3 re-encoded to wav - still cut off:





« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 02:27:00 am by maxblues »

Forestheart  463

  • Uploader
  • Posts: 361
  • Rate: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2017, 09:36:39 am »
I like the FLAC, APE, WavPack, ALAC, ... but there are times when vinyl just sounds better than anything else :rofl:

Moses_Aaron  179

  • Verified Uploader
  • Posts: 145
  • Rate: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Audio file quality poll
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2017, 08:38:38 pm »
@maxblues:

You are correct about the wav and flac conversions. Indeed when we convert a CD file to FLAC, sound(db) decreases-and its the same for wav.

My point is for FLAC files - you cannot hear minor differences(which seem to matter) unless you possess a device incredibly powerful to notice those slightest of sound differences.

I'll ask you a question frankly- do you upload the 24bit vinyl uploads for the common people, who generally listen to their stuff on average quality speakers? If yes, then I'll rest. :)


If no, then that's exactly what I mean. Most people can't even spot the difference because of the medium sensitivity of their devices.


-->> About mp3 quiet sounds.

Those aren't my postulates. Its science. You could look up Psychoacoustics.

Data is lost for sure-but only which cannot be heard by a normal human ear. If you've got the ears of a bat, the eyes of a rat and the magnanimity of a cat, I'll rest, again :D
The compression/conversion/encoding's better done in aac-but mp3 is fine.


Btw-your mp3 graphs are of filtered encodings - you could leave them unfiltered(i.e without the cut-off filter). Then 'less data' would've been lost, and the persons who can hear sounds more than 20kHz could spot some of those missing sounds.


Now I'm no sound expert-but I enjoy a good(not just the tunes, but the quality as well) music when I hear one. Are people not buying vinyl rips then? The answer is yes indeed, they are buying.
But when you compare that percentage to people buying iTunes, or even mp3, you'll find that the ratio --> 0.[tends to zero]

<<And now even less, since you are uploading vinyl rips>> :P