320kbps vs Flac

[JHF1870]

I just downloaded another copy of Imagine Dragons - Demons to test the quality difference.

At first I knew which one was which, and I successfully managed to convince myself the flac sounded crisper and that I could hear the definite difference.

However when I mixed the two up, they sounded identical, and I couldn't tell the difference.

Anyone experimented with this?

BTW I just tested my headphones, and I could only hear up to about 16000hz. Razer Carcharias

 

[alfy!]

320kbps is fine (in fact VBR rips are my preference). Anything more is overkill.

 

[He_Beast]

I rip to FLAC, but it's for archival purposes, really. We're not too far from heavily compressed audio being a relic anyway, so hopefully soon everybody can finally stop arguing about it.

 

[Silent Alarm]

320kbps is fine (in fact VBR rips are my preference). Anything more is overkill.

This is it. I can barely tell the difference considering I'm usually doing other things when I listen to music. The only time I can tell the 320/FLAC difference is on the train or when I'm doing nothing but spinning an album. It's ludicrous having these massive files on your computer when 320 is close enough, and then VBR barely worse.

 

[alfy!]

I wonder if there is a study on whether the ear can actually pick up the differences between 320kbps and FLAC. I seem to remember reading one years back, but can't recall where.

 

[timtamWB]

The difference is really negligible.

 

[JHF1870]

The difference is really negligible.

Yeah, I tried it and couldn't tell the difference at all, as much as I tried. ITs amazing how much you can convince yourself the flac is better when you know which one it is.

 

[timtamWB]

Yeah, I tried it and couldn't tell the difference at all, as much as I tried. ITs amazing how much you can convince yourself the flac is better when you know which one it is.

I do an audio production course, and we've actually done studies of this in a class. So about 15 people in the class, plus the teacher, that all mix audio, and one of them had 2 different versions of the same song, one FLAC and one 320, and he told us the first one he played was FLAC, and the 2nd was 320. Most people thought that the first one sounded crisper and cleaner, with the others hearing no difference.

He then told us he'd lied, and the first one was actually 320. It's really only your perception of it that makes it sound better, the fact that you're thinking "This is FLAC, so it should sound better", not the quality of the audio.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Disagree with others. Can hear the difference in songs I'm familiar with on a decent sound system, and my hearing isn't special.

With the speed of modern broadband/cable and the low cost of storage, there's no reason to put up with lossy compression if you really enjoy listening to music (as opposed to jogging with an iPod etc).

 

[Dory_77]

Disagree with others. Can hear the difference in songs I'm familiar with on a decent sound system, and my hearing isn't special.

With the speed of modern broadband/cable and the low cost of storage, there's no reason to put up with lossy compression if you really enjoy listening to music (as opposed to jogging with an iPod etc).

I'd say the bolded is the most important thing in all of this. If you want music to sound good, invest in good speakers/sound system rather than relying on crappy headphones or computer speakers. That's far more important in the chain of things affecting the sound before you start worrying about what format it's in.