I made blind tests a few years ago comparing several CD tracks to a 320kbps MP3 version of it(that I did encode myself to ensure it's high quality), and while I was able to tell which one is which, I had to listen very carefully and switch back and forth several times between MP3 and uncompressed. The difference was extremely subtle, so much that I really wouldn't be able to tell if I couldn't directly compare back and forth both. I was also using closed back headphones for that test, which eliminated ambiant noise and helped me concentrate solely on what's playing. Bottom line, for me at least, it's not worth bothering for pretty much any real world listening scenarios. There is no way I can listen to random music playing and say "this isn't a CD, it's 320kbps MP3". However, I can absolutely spot a 128kbps MP3. I think MP3 get a bad rap because of that, ~20 years ago, when Internet speeds and bandwidth were limited, most MP3 files you'd find on the internet were 128kbps and sometimes even lower, and I think people associate MP3 as a whole with those.
@@violetpurrpelle7131 define "wide frequency response". The human ear can hear between 20Hz up to 20KHz. Any halfway decent sound system will cover these frequencies.
@HCkev - Thanks for that info! I'm working on ripping music CDs into a good quality format to transfer onto good USB storage to play in the car. I was wondering which format tends to have better compression for storage 320kbps MP3 vs FLAC?
@@steveg6199 FLAC is lossless, that means it's compressed, but get decompressed before being played, so there is no loss of quality over the original audio file. This result in the best quality, but also bigger file sizes as it still need to retain all the audio information. USB flash drives of decent capacity are fairly cheap now, so that's a viable solution, as long as your car support it. Note that some cars may only support flash drives up to a certain capacity, I would take a look about what your specific car stereo supports before buying something like a 512GB flash drive(although you probably don't need nearly as much capacity, unless you've got an absolutely massive music collection) Otherwise, I would suggest using OGG or AAC if your car supports it. They're both lossy formats like MP3, but they've got better audio quality (320kbps OGG and AAC will have better audio quality than 320kbps MP3). OGG is also royalty free unlike MP3 and AAC. Otherwise a good 320kbps MP3 will be more than high quality enough for casual listening in a car.
I think I've only heard the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 and lossless under very specific circumstances, which is a raw drum recording, where an extremely sharp snaredrum transient is preceded by total silence. In that case there will typically be a slight pre-ring, other than that I feel that people need to prove they can hear the difference in a blind test or shut up. I have still to see anyone do it reliably. What I CAN hear, though, is an extremely annoying 1094 Hz tone all the way through the video, which a simple notch filter or noise reduction plugin should've had no problem dealing with.
Yes, I noticed it in Taylor Swift song "So it goes..." The MP3 official version sound have some noisy background and disorted but FLAC version sounds crystal clear. Even Tyla "On and On" on FLAC, that I notice the full surround back vocals and all instrumentals combined.
It's obvious that FLAC is lossless and MP3 is lossy but... I disagree with Paul when he says that perhaps a bad recording it doesn't matter... Just I am verified that if the original recording is a good one, and you get an MP3 file from it... it's really very dificult to distinguish between the MP3 file and the FLAC one. MP3 256 kbps or above can sound really very good if the original source is a good one.
He thinks the problem is bad recordings, but the truth is that flac and MP3 both have the ultrasonic frequencies stripped from the files. That is the problem with both flac and MP3.
Paul, I’ve been watching your video for over a year now and I wish you or someone else would do PS Audio product reviews or even instructional videos on your products. You really have great products and more ppl should know.
lots of people do reviews of PSA gear. a search will reveal oodles of them. as for instructional videos... i *wholeheartedly agree.* maybe this would bring them to see how poorly written are their owners manuals.
Thanks for the 'plastic' comparison! I am sure that even those who have not involved deeper into lossless formats will understand you. I have an audio library of about 12,000 tracks (of all genres) that I have created over the years in MP3 format (320kbit/s). For the last 2 years, I have been slowly 'translating' that library into FLAC format. Of course you can't do it directly! Literally, I re-record each track individually, from quality sources, but now in FLAC. This can be very hard work, but if you really love music it's not hard, it can even be relaxing because you're listening to music you like... I still listen to my MP3/320 too, the difference is really small but noticeable. The motivation for lossless is to pair permanent storage of good sound that is available to you independent of the stream. In the meantime my file has grown to 14 thousand tracks! Fortunately, memory capacity is no longer an issue.
I seem to be able to tell about 2/3 of the time. Usually it's because the MP3 version sounds slightly "scuffed" in some places or an existing error sounds even worse. Even today though, the difference is so minor to me that I may as well just use MP3s. Rule of thumb for me is if I have to be actively looking out for differences then I'll go with the space saving one, and while space is no longer a major issue given multi TB drives, across my whole music library that's still enough to "pay" for a 4K movie over a 1080p one, and I see the difference between those whether I want to or not. With all that being said, I didn't grow up an audiophile, we used the internal TV speakers until relatively recently for TV and ordinary PC speakers for music, so I guess my ear just isn't trained for the difference. Getting decent sound systems was, to me, a far greater jump than any perceivable difference between MP3 and FLAC
As we age we start experiencing the hearing loss of the high frequencies as early as our twenties. Lower range loss comes later. So it is like we are the MP3’s after a while, cut off in high's and lows. And it gets narrower as time goes by. Good old Neil Percival Young may as well record his next album in a Barn!
The idea that hearing loss at higher frequencies means that we can't hear differences in recording quality is completely inaccurate. I've witnessed plenty of recording engineers sneer and jeer at the idea that since older folks can hear above 10k anymore that good sound is wasted on them. It's astonishing what kind of disconnect there is on this subject.
We can still perceive the ultrasonic frequencies and get pleasure from them. It is why vinyl has had a resurgence. If FLAC and MP3 were any good then vinyl would now be extinct.
Listen flac and mp3 of same song, after that I can pick which one is flac or mp3. But, randomly playing song, then pick up which is flac or mp3. Absolutely impossible to me. So, just enjoying music now.
what's the best way to connect PC to amplifier to have best quality when playing FLACs? My amp have optical in, so I thought maybe I could get audio card for PC with the optical out , do you think it's worth it or just mini jack out analog from PC to the amp would do without much difference?
I can hear the rather small difference between MP3/320 and FLAC @ 44100 Hz on many -- probably most -- of the stuff in my collection of CD rips, and I'm 74. When I first started ripping my CDs to files, I used MP3/160 and MP3/192 -- that was a mistake, because as I got accustomed to MP3/320 and (especially) FLAC I had to dig out the original CDs from my stash (in a storage unit) and rip them all over again.
It's what I and several others used to call "the big re-rip". I only did it once. First time was ripping and compressing to Atrac 3 for a Sony hard disc player in 2005. Second time was to FLAC in 2007-2008 although I have since been going over some of those again updating tags. But that's relatively easy with tools like MP3tag (works well for FLAC, ALAC, etc.).
BECAUSE you are 74 and have bad hearing - the psychoacoustic model behind mp3 falls in pieces when you don't hear frequencies which are supposed to mask the missing piece of the algorithm
@@Harald_Reindl -- Well then, FLAC solves the problem for us old-timers. Actually my hearing is pretty good other than the typical age-related loss up in the 5-digit frequencies -- I confess I can't hear squat past 12kHz.
@@Wizardofgosz -- Yes -- in an anechoic chamber under the personal supervision of Dr. Floyd Toole, Dr. Wolfgang Klippel, and the accounting firm of Price-Waterhouse. :-)
Here are some of the absolute best sounding albums in MP3 form I have come across and the reasons I think they translated to mp3 so well. Rhinoplasty (remastered) by Primus in 320 mp3 sound literally outrageously good. Salival by Tool in mp3 sounds absolutely phenomenal and no different than lossless. Remastered Thriller... 25th and 40th sound no different lossless.. KID A MNESIA by Radiohead... that whole era... sounds utterly brilliant and no loss. In Rainbows as well. It depends on the music of course, and heres why. Converting to lossy reduces certain information more than others... at least audibly. Transients, for whatever reason, get slightly murkier the more loss. So a snare drum that sounds huge and in your face lossless, the more you compress it becomes less present. So the absolute peak volumes lose their information. Probably anything that hits 0db or even above gets eliminated as you go. You hear the lossy attack the cymbals hardest usually. The higher up the frequencies you go is the more complexity and nuance, exponentially, and more information required to keep them clean. The higher frequencies also tend to have more dynamics. Quieter stuff is lost sooner than louder. You can notice a cymbal fade away perfectly losslessly. Go to lossy and more and more you hear the cymbal fade into either digital artifact sounds or blankness, an absence of audio information as opposed to maybe the room sound etc. Most of the best recordings out there for lossy were actually loud to begin with. When you convert to lossy, the kinds of audio info you lose makes it beneficial for you to make your mix as loud as humanly possible. On In Rainbows... they don't have a lot going on with cymbals... and when they do its pretty tight cymbals... tappy instead of splashy and washy. Very dry and percussive cymbals. So that frequency area can be more dedicated to other things, such as the vocals. Things convert better when there is less going on. That's why lossy recordings of JUST vocals and guitar sound exactly the same as lossless in most cases. (I am talking about 256 kbps or higher... below 256 I will never touch unless its the only thing that exists of the recording). So leave a bunch of room for every instrument. And then utterly fucking crank em as hot as they go before bad stuff happens. Tends to convert to lossy quite well. It's a huge part of why LOUD won the loudness wars.
I seem to recall seeing carefully-executed tests of musical material under double-blind conditions and at different compression settings using high-quality codecs. The results were that mp3 at 128K was surprisingly good, with about 60% success (50% success would mean they couldn't tell the difference). Anything at 192 or above and the human ear couldn't reliably discern the difference. I did some of my own casual tests on my PC years ago using Vegas video, a program with audio origins and which quite precisely handled audio sampling and mixing. I could easily take a wav source, make an mp3 copy, and then subtract the two on separate tracks. Wav from Wav gave precisely zero. mp3 from wav (or the inverse) gave a highly-muted "chuffing" effect when high frequencies were present. The question then became: If I take the original wav and added the chuffing, could I hear the chuffing? If you are honest and do it double-blind, I'd bet a Double-Double you couldn't. The chuffing was substantially quieter than the source. And if the test was run at higher mp3 bitrates, the chuffing was even softer. So it's entertaining to hear folks talk about the "wretched" mp3 sound quality. Show me the double-blind tests that prove your point.
When the mind goes into analytical mode to "find a difference", it short circuits by about 85%-95%, the subconscious subjective "Muse of the Groove" part of the brain that thoughtlessly and non-analytically gets taken and gripped by a vibe that makes the foot tap and the head sway. So, if the mind with only 10% of its subconscious muse being active, gets a 60% in AB testing, that means it will actually be a HUGE EARTHQUAKE of a difference over extended listening over weeks, months, or a lifetime. Thus, AB tests by their very nature are anti-musical. When improving one's audio system with subtle upgrades, the only thing you can really do is change one element and listen for a week or so, then go back. I mean sure, sometimes there is a night-and-day type of difference you can hear even analytically. Frequency response is one such thing, you can instantly pick out if something has more or less bass. But musicality like transient alignment and shape, artifacts coming from the 20kHz filter that cause pseudo-audible nano-pricking needles in the treble, and countless other things, are very hard to A/B unless you're a trained audiophile addict with years of experience. But that doesn't mean these people can HEAR better than you, they are just more easily able to tap into the subconscious qualities you're not aware of, from years of experience. But the "whatever-it-is-that-makes-my-foot-tap and my hands-clap", that goes away when A/B testing because the mind is an analytical mode, it's losing the forest for the trees.
It all depends on the system. I keep both FLAC and MP3/320 libraries of my ripped music (about 10k CD's) on my NAS drives. On my high-end home system I can hear the difference but on my car's audio system (I have an upgraded system that I installed), I can not hear the difference. In fact I choose to use MP3/320 music in my car because the system can index and search the music much faster than if I use FLAC files.
when youre ready to *_upgrade_* your upgraded car system... Focal speakers, K2 or higher. Mosconi amps, Pro or higher, Mosconi Aerospace DSP. i surely was b l o w n away by the difference.
Do you just mean that you would record with the distortion (for example) already intended by the instrumentalist vs recording relatively clean and introducing distortion FX post capture? It seems like the advantages and disadvantages to that is already well-known. I would say it defintely makes sense to try to work out your sounds before recording, to maximize the sonic potential of the recording itself, although with the dynamic range available with digital recording and DAWs, i'm not sure theres even an advantage anymore. Especially now you've baked-in the sound which may prevent further experimentation (which could be good sometimes heh). Maybe i am misunderstanding you.
I'd love to see a follow-up on the advancements of AI in comparison and the reverse aspect of taking the compressed MP3 etc and "upscaling" to a higher quality via means of AI interpretation. AI has done some impressive stuff, and the old black and white video restorations have been quite impressive when done correctly.
That has already been done years before AI was a thing by Sony for both MP3 and FLAC. I am very satisfied with the results as it brings both closer to vinyl and live music quality.
Before encoding, converting, ingeniering and all that stuff it is all about that way it is recorded, its ils sound designed and well mixed. Whatever the artists you are converting for doing the comparaison. A good sound engenier will give a perfect 320 MP3 with a minimum loss by inverted phase and there you know that you have the best quality on your FLAC or whatever.
I just did a blind test: the same track in mp3 and FLAC, stereo to mono and reduced db levels, switching left to right and back after x seconds. It was a hardstyle track. It’s most noticeable when the bass drops, the uncompressed side being clearer and with more boom, sharper punches (idk how audiophiles call this) but while it is noticeable, it’s minor, but something you’ll definitely hear once you’re used to FLAC.
A few years I ripped my CD collection to wma. I don't know what I was thinking. It's only about 100 CDs so not a big deal to redo them in wav but does anyone have any advice on this? Is wma bad? I can't find any videos on wav vs wma.
I rip eachCD to WAV, FLAC and MP3 so I have a copy for outside or garage(MP3) one to pass to Google Music (FLAC) and my master archive and for listening in my sound room (WAV). Stopped WMA years ago and just went with the 3 above.
In my case, there are plenty of MP3s I’ve accumulated and play via my car stereo or through Airplay on my HomePod, that are simply unlistenable on my actual stereo. Paul is right in that higher resolution MP3s can sound better than the more compressed, but depending on how revealing you’re system is, you’re likely to hear a difference between formats/files.
Well most people only stream music from Spotify etc. So let the service determine your streaming speed and the send you appropriate quality audio. If the Internet speed is high, Spotify etc should stream lossless audio automatically. So whether or not one can really make out the difference or not, what's the harm in streaming lossless audio if the internet speed is fast. I think Spotify already does this, I'm not sure though. CZcams determines the video quality automatically (and hence the audio quality too)
In my recording studio I had a pro tools 192 system hooked to my Ssl G plus running a Studer 827 lock to an Atari MTR 90 and I would mix to the 192s also at 96K also at 48 also to a two track Ampex 102 at 30 IPS and I could compare the sounds the same time through the center section of the Ssl. I had a guy came by the mastering place where he mastered A album I did to a cd I did. The cd sounded great . He did a great job. We played the cd at the same time as I did play the 192 mix. I A B the songs and he said that’s my version and and I said no it’s not and stopped the 192 mix so he realized which one was which. He said I can’t believe your original mix sounds so much better, which he had never heard because he used the 96k mix which requested. I said your 16 bit 44.1 doesn’t have a chance against a 192 mix so much more bits. It’s like a pea shooter to canon. The drag is most people will never get to compare the huge difference like I could with my killer setup. And 16 bit 44.1 destroys mp3s for breakfast. If people knew things would be closer to what Neil is trying to get done.
The other reason is cause of their ear , ear did not educate for better sound , maybe did not hear very good sound at-least and I am sure They can not do hear the differences, but some digital amplifiers also can not handle in perfect sound, and sound is like one line Thats all . but I think , a person who does not recognize the Differences , First, Does not have good ear , Second Placement of speakers , and Experience in High end and hifi sound ! Even In the Bass can hear the differences.
I just ripped a cd in at mp3 320 rate. I also ripped it at Flac 880. I then checked out the difference using a program that could look at the spectrum. The MP3 peaked at 18khz while the Flac went past 22khz. This was a cd that I was very familiar with listening to it many times. The MP3 at first sounded very nice and in my car it was good. However when I compared it to the Flac version on my stereo system, the high end sizzle was there on the Flac and CD but not on the MP3. We are talking about some very high frequencies that take some effort to hear. It also takes a good stereo system. My speakers can go as high as 25khz.
Maybe I damaged my hearing over the years but I'm only 36 years old and the highest frequency range I can hear is between 14k-15k, according to an online test. So I guess that's one reason why I can't hear any difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC...
@@timothycannata You may not be able to hear them but the ultrasonics do have a positive effect on the brain. It's why vinyl is still popular and why many people think it sounds better than flac.
I think it boils down to hard drive disk space. I've been DL'ing a lot of music off CZcams, althought I don't even bother if the upload isn't in 1080p or greater, and I use another website that allows me to download in 320kbps. I can hear a major difference between songs I've accidentally DL's from a 720p host vs 1080p host, there's so much clarity in the track. But I don't think I have enought hard disc space to DL all those songs again in WAV format. I listen to alot of electronic music, and although I don't have a super high end system in my bedroom, it's def noticable.
FLAC files contain much more data but can the human ear really take full advantage of this information? Humans typically hear frequencies up to about 20 kHz (less as we get older, maybe 10 kHz). Using Nyquist's theorem, this implies that we need to sample at a minimum rate of about 40 kHz and use as much bit depth (bits resolution per sample) as possible. I have some FLAC files sampled at 192kHz played which theoretically reproduces frequencies up to 96 kHz - which humans cannot hear. So why do we actually hear any difference between super FLAC and compressed decent mp3 files (sampling at a minimum 40 kHz)? Is sampling potentially "overkill" sampling in FLAC having an effect at lower audible frequencies - not just extending the upper end frequencies? There seems to be a BIG communication gap between audio engineeers and audiologists who measure the human ear's perfromance and its sampling "bottleneck" ! Our ear drums can only wiggle uo to 20 kHz ! Can you suggest scientific peer-reviewed articles, co-authored by audio engineers and audiologists working together as a team to test "double-blinded" listeners? Thank You.
@@dtz1000 I agree if you mean upper harmonics of musical notes of lower frequency. However, the first overtone of a 10 kHz fundamental note is its octave = 20 kHz and that is getting close to what the human ear cannot hear. So if your music is rich in frequencies of < 10 kHz, you might hear its harmonics better with a "lossless" file like WAV or FLAC.
@@MyJ2B No, I mean frequencies higher than 20khz are important and those frequencies are missing from both MP3 and flac. Most instruments emit those frequencies and vinyl also reproduces them. They have been shown to have a positive effect on the human mind. It is why I believe many people prefer vinyl.
@@dtz1000 I am referring to the mechanical properties of the human ear and its frequency repsonse specification (as a microphone). If you are aware of other possible pathways with higher frequency links to the human brain, please provide the peer-reviewed scientific article. My background is physics - not physiology.
@@MyJ2B The study is called, "Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect". It was published in the Journal of Neurophysiology.
Personally I checked different MP3 formats. With medium priced speakers and background noise I could not hear a difference between 128 and 192 MP3 files. With good headphones I could hear the difference right away. Would FLAC sound better? Maybe on the headphones...
@@edgar9651 Encoders have changed a lot over the years. Back in the early 2000s there were obvious differences between some MP3 encoders, and the problem with downloading already compressed files is that you have no idea how they were processed previously, even if the last used encoder is shown in the metadata.
I agree. Nirvana Unplugged in New York and even better Alice In Chains Unplugged are amazing. I think the AIC is perhaps the best sounding live recording I have ever heard.
I use to rip CDs to some compressed format FLAC, APE, etc. I resently inherited some CDs from my uncle and now that I have 11 TB I dicied to rip to wave files. I was very suprised when I listed to those file and they sounded better on my system then Flac 48/24.
Do you mean FLAC 48/24...? Since CDs use a 44.1kHz sample rate at 16 bits per sample, that would imply a fractional upscaling (44.1 to 48). Depending on the algorithm, perhaps you were hearing some up-sampling artefacts.
@@Harald_Reindl, bit-perfect does not mean sonically perfect, e.g., jitter. I think that up-sampling artifact is a plausible answer, and it could be just my imagination.
@@tebbywafer1665 hell which jitter and upsampling artifact? technically a FLAC is similar to a ZIP just wit the compression algo optimized for audiodata - the whole damned file is uncompressed and buffered long before it plays
@@Harald_Reindl, ok, sure. I am reminded that only young physicists make breakthroughs because they don't know any better. Why don't you give it a try for yourself and prove that you are correct?
Why dont audiophiles talk about room acoustics or studio acoustics, microphones, microphone techniques, microphone preamps, studio monitors used etc. WAY more impact than power cables or speaker cables?
@@googoo-gjoob but....when saying a particular recording is "hot" or "transparent" or whatever....zero attention is paid to recording equipment....and there are 100s of components involved. Many of the positive responses to a playback system are more connected to the recording equipment than the playback...or at least equally impacted. I would buy more recordings if I could filter by microphone and recording venue.
I had a terrible Sony music player that made everything sound horrible no matter what it was. So I would look at your player before anything else. The best Sony music players will make MP3s sound really good.
If MP3 and compression compresses out the noise out of silent parts... then I'm OK with that. BUT ... once you do know the difference and can appreciate the dynamics VS compression, you're going to want the dynamics preserved as much as possible.
Most instruments emit ultrasonic sound and those frequencies have been shown to have a positive effect on humans. So you should not be ok with those frequencies being removed. Vinyl doesn't remove them but FLAC and MP3 does. That's why many prefer vinyl.
Yes I made the mistake many years ago when first ripping my CDs to my server to use both variable and low bit rate mp3 conversions. I have tens of gigs of it! It is just fine for background music through my sound bar and dumped onto an SD for my car (which has a high-end Bose system). But when I sit to listen, a turntable is the only source connected in that system. Though you have me wondering about adding DSD capabilities Paul!
To me MP3 kills most of the spatial information in the music, in terms of soundstage, instrument placement / separation, and clarity. With complex music it falls apart completely. To be able to hear that, it's super important that the system is set up properly with respect to the room; before I learned how to properly place my speakers I couldn't hear it anywhere near as readily as I can now, using the same PS Audio Sprout 100 that Paul is referencing, and a pair of GR Research XLS Encore speakers, so nothing super special. Now it's so obvious when I listen that it's impossible not to notice. In addition I also find that MP3s tend to be noisier, veil a lot of the information, and particularly with complex music passages it all just becomes a hash of noise where sounds otherwise distinct blend to a big mess. It's fine for background music, car listening, etc. The person sending in the question can either do nothing and hopefully be happy with how things sound, or get curious to find out why they can't hear a difference. There should be a noticeable difference on most well set up systems (even rather pedestrian ones like mine).
Whether there is an audible difference or not, I insist on lossless. And believe me --- there have been some AWFUL recordings from EVERY era. I know becuase I collect old, older, and stupidly-older stuff.
I bought a new Diana Krall CD and it sounded terrible, I put it down to my old ears at first then played an old Groundhogs vinyl from the 70s and it sounded great, not the ears, just poor production values.
FLAC files nul against wavs, MP3s don't. 320kbps generally the standard where it don't hurt the ears played loud in a club, but can still hear a difference.
I love how he praises records which are also lossy and inferior to MP3 haha. Did you know records lose a little bit of quality every time you play it? 🌈
i think he praises records because they're imperfect and vinyl has a particular warm sound that me and many others really love compared to the complete clarity of digital audio that can cause some cd recordings to sound a bit harsh in comparison
Records include a lot of ultrasonic frequencies that are also present in the original music. Flac and mp3 have almost no ultrasonic frequencies. That's why records, even with all their faults, are much more pleasurable to listen to than flac and mp3.
Paul is trying to sell his very expensive equipment to you. When your about 20 your hearing is going down the hill. When you’re 50 the most people can hear between 14 and 16 kHz. When you are used to your music on your own system and you play it on another system it sounds different, but better !!! I dont know.
come back when TB micro-sd cards for my smartphone are out and no I don't want to go back to the days where I had to think which music I like to take with me when it can carry the whole library
I think that if you are playing MP3 and high-quality flac on a computer, tablet, phone, etc, you probably won't hear a difference because they will both be equally bad.
I cam here searching for the best audio format: MP3? FLAC? WAV? OGG? But you listen to your music on a turntable?!?! That's all I need to know. Moving on to the next video....
I've done a lots of tests on this topic. With my old ears the best mp3 at 320kbs is infinitely worse than flac. I use mp3 for the flash drive in the car but not where you can appreciate good quality sound.
FLAC sucks! I did a lot of comparison. Blind, not blind, whatever. FLAC sounds maybe a little cleaner, but it is losing the original recording intendancy, such as some noises etc. FLAC losing original recording charm and even in some cases STEREO effects. Oh, people...
I made blind tests a few years ago comparing several CD tracks to a 320kbps MP3 version of it(that I did encode myself to ensure it's high quality), and while I was able to tell which one is which, I had to listen very carefully and switch back and forth several times between MP3 and uncompressed. The difference was extremely subtle, so much that I really wouldn't be able to tell if I couldn't directly compare back and forth both. I was also using closed back headphones for that test, which eliminated ambiant noise and helped me concentrate solely on what's playing.
Bottom line, for me at least, it's not worth bothering for pretty much any real world listening scenarios. There is no way I can listen to random music playing and say "this isn't a CD, it's 320kbps MP3".
However, I can absolutely spot a 128kbps MP3. I think MP3 get a bad rap because of that, ~20 years ago, when Internet speeds and bandwidth were limited, most MP3 files you'd find on the internet were 128kbps and sometimes even lower, and I think people associate MP3 as a whole with those.
What speakers/system are you listening on? You can definitely tell the difference on a large sound system with a wide frequency response.
@@violetpurrpelle7131 define "wide frequency response". The human ear can hear between 20Hz up to 20KHz. Any halfway decent sound system will cover these frequencies.
@@HCkev True. And if I'm a vampire, I can hear ant's fart with 7.1 Surround Sound . Well, I'm a human so I just listen to FM Radio 128kbps instead.
@HCkev - Thanks for that info! I'm working on ripping music CDs into a good quality format to transfer onto good USB storage to play in the car. I was wondering which format tends to have better compression for storage 320kbps MP3 vs FLAC?
@@steveg6199 FLAC is lossless, that means it's compressed, but get decompressed before being played, so there is no loss of quality over the original audio file. This result in the best quality, but also bigger file sizes as it still need to retain all the audio information. USB flash drives of decent capacity are fairly cheap now, so that's a viable solution, as long as your car support it. Note that some cars may only support flash drives up to a certain capacity, I would take a look about what your specific car stereo supports before buying something like a 512GB flash drive(although you probably don't need nearly as much capacity, unless you've got an absolutely massive music collection)
Otherwise, I would suggest using OGG or AAC if your car supports it. They're both lossy formats like MP3, but they've got better audio quality (320kbps OGG and AAC will have better audio quality than 320kbps MP3). OGG is also royalty free unlike MP3 and AAC. Otherwise a good 320kbps MP3 will be more than high quality enough for casual listening in a car.
I think I've only heard the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 and lossless under very specific circumstances, which is a raw drum recording, where an extremely sharp snaredrum transient is preceded by total silence. In that case there will typically be a slight pre-ring, other than that I feel that people need to prove they can hear the difference in a blind test or shut up. I have still to see anyone do it reliably.
What I CAN hear, though, is an extremely annoying 1094 Hz tone all the way through the video, which a simple notch filter or noise reduction plugin should've had no problem dealing with.
I found it so incredibly funny that it's running in the back
MP3 tends to sounds a little noisier, lighter/thinner sound while FLAC has a more quiet background, fuller sounding as well.
Correct.
I've seen people do double blind a and b testing and they couldn't tell the difference half the time.
Yes, I noticed it in Taylor Swift song "So it goes..."
The MP3 official version sound have some noisy background and disorted but FLAC version sounds crystal clear.
Even Tyla "On and On" on FLAC, that I notice the full surround back vocals and all instrumentals combined.
It's obvious that FLAC is lossless and MP3 is lossy but...
I disagree with Paul when he says that perhaps a bad recording it doesn't matter...
Just I am verified that if the original recording is a good one, and you get an MP3 file from it... it's really very dificult to distinguish between the MP3 file and the FLAC one.
MP3 256 kbps or above can sound really very good if the original source is a good one.
He thinks the problem is bad recordings, but the truth is that flac and MP3 both have the ultrasonic frequencies stripped from the files. That is the problem with both flac and MP3.
Paul, I’ve been watching your video for over a year now and I wish you or someone else would do PS Audio product reviews or even instructional videos on your products.
You really have great products and more ppl should know.
lots of people do reviews of PSA gear. a search will reveal oodles of them.
as for instructional videos... i *wholeheartedly agree.* maybe this would bring them to see how poorly written are their owners manuals.
Thanks for the 'plastic' comparison! I am sure that even those who have not involved deeper into lossless formats will understand you. I have an audio library of about 12,000 tracks (of all genres) that I have created over the years in MP3 format (320kbit/s). For the last 2 years, I have been slowly 'translating' that library into FLAC format. Of course you can't do it directly! Literally, I re-record each track individually, from quality sources, but now in FLAC. This can be very hard work, but if you really love music it's not hard, it can even be relaxing because you're listening to music you like...
I still listen to my MP3/320 too, the difference is really small but noticeable.
The motivation for lossless is to pair permanent storage of good sound that is available to you independent of the stream.
In the meantime my file has grown to 14 thousand tracks! Fortunately, memory capacity is no longer an issue.
I seem to be able to tell about 2/3 of the time. Usually it's because the MP3 version sounds slightly "scuffed" in some places or an existing error sounds even worse. Even today though, the difference is so minor to me that I may as well just use MP3s. Rule of thumb for me is if I have to be actively looking out for differences then I'll go with the space saving one, and while space is no longer a major issue given multi TB drives, across my whole music library that's still enough to "pay" for a 4K movie over a 1080p one, and I see the difference between those whether I want to or not.
With all that being said, I didn't grow up an audiophile, we used the internal TV speakers until relatively recently for TV and ordinary PC speakers for music, so I guess my ear just isn't trained for the difference. Getting decent sound systems was, to me, a far greater jump than any perceivable difference between MP3 and FLAC
As we age we start experiencing the hearing loss of the high frequencies as early as our twenties.
Lower range loss comes later. So it is like we are the MP3’s after a while,
cut off in high's and lows.
And it gets narrower as time goes by.
Good old Neil Percival Young may as well record his next album in a Barn!
The idea that hearing loss at higher frequencies means that we can't hear differences in recording quality is completely inaccurate. I've witnessed plenty of recording engineers sneer and jeer at the idea that since older folks can hear above 10k anymore that good sound is wasted on them. It's astonishing what kind of disconnect there is on this subject.
@@Joshualbm Did ya get my Neil Young reference? LoL I just bought a pair of reference monitors. sitting in the sweet spot, I have new ears.
@@x1625 Yes, I have friends who've been in that pond.
We can still perceive the ultrasonic frequencies and get pleasure from them. It is why vinyl has had a resurgence. If FLAC and MP3 were any good then vinyl would now be extinct.
Hi Paul...just curious...does the Sprout have enough power to drive your LS50's at enjoyable levels at home?
Listen flac and mp3 of same song, after that I can pick which one is flac or mp3. But, randomly playing song, then pick up which is flac or mp3. Absolutely impossible to me. So, just enjoying music now.
Yep, that is what it is about, enjoying the music. If we have enjoyment then the technical specs are moot.
How do you know/verify that FLAC files are from lossless source and you're not actually just buying a lossless of a lossy?
Just tried a couple of samples, none made noticeable difference in my ears. However I'll still keep flac for the masterpieces just out of respect.
what's the best way to connect PC to amplifier to have best quality when playing FLACs?
My amp have optical in, so I thought maybe I could get audio card for PC with the optical out , do you think it's worth it or just mini jack out analog from PC to the amp would do without much difference?
if youre ripping cd's for your own 128kbps
320kbps mp3, wav, flac if you're sharing.
I can hear the rather small difference between MP3/320 and FLAC @ 44100 Hz on many -- probably most -- of the stuff in my collection of CD rips, and I'm 74. When I first started ripping my CDs to files, I used MP3/160 and MP3/192 -- that was a mistake, because as I got accustomed to MP3/320 and (especially) FLAC I had to dig out the original CDs from my stash (in a storage unit) and rip them all over again.
It's what I and several others used to call "the big re-rip". I only did it once. First time was ripping and compressing to Atrac 3 for a Sony hard disc player in 2005. Second time was to FLAC in 2007-2008 although I have since been going over some of those again updating tags. But that's relatively easy with tools like MP3tag (works well for FLAC, ALAC, etc.).
BECAUSE you are 74 and have bad hearing - the psychoacoustic model behind mp3 falls in pieces when you don't hear frequencies which are supposed to mask the missing piece of the algorithm
Were the comparisons double blind?
@@Harald_Reindl -- Well then, FLAC solves the problem for us old-timers. Actually my hearing is pretty good other than the typical age-related loss up in the 5-digit frequencies -- I confess I can't hear squat past 12kHz.
@@Wizardofgosz -- Yes -- in an anechoic chamber under the personal supervision of Dr. Floyd Toole, Dr. Wolfgang Klippel, and the accounting firm of Price-Waterhouse. :-)
God bless you sir
Here are some of the absolute best sounding albums in MP3 form I have come across and the reasons I think they translated to mp3 so well. Rhinoplasty (remastered) by Primus in 320 mp3 sound literally outrageously good. Salival by Tool in mp3 sounds absolutely phenomenal and no different than lossless. Remastered Thriller... 25th and 40th sound no different lossless.. KID A MNESIA by Radiohead... that whole era... sounds utterly brilliant and no loss. In Rainbows as well.
It depends on the music of course, and heres why. Converting to lossy reduces certain information more than others... at least audibly. Transients, for whatever reason, get slightly murkier the more loss. So a snare drum that sounds huge and in your face lossless, the more you compress it becomes less present. So the absolute peak volumes lose their information. Probably anything that hits 0db or even above gets eliminated as you go.
You hear the lossy attack the cymbals hardest usually. The higher up the frequencies you go is the more complexity and nuance, exponentially, and more information required to keep them clean. The higher frequencies also tend to have more dynamics.
Quieter stuff is lost sooner than louder. You can notice a cymbal fade away perfectly losslessly. Go to lossy and more and more you hear the cymbal fade into either digital artifact sounds or blankness, an absence of audio information as opposed to maybe the room sound etc.
Most of the best recordings out there for lossy were actually loud to begin with. When you convert to lossy, the kinds of audio info you lose makes it beneficial for you to make your mix as loud as humanly possible. On In Rainbows... they don't have a lot going on with cymbals... and when they do its pretty tight cymbals... tappy instead of splashy and washy. Very dry and percussive cymbals. So that frequency area can be more dedicated to other things, such as the vocals. Things convert better when there is less going on. That's why lossy recordings of JUST vocals and guitar sound exactly the same as lossless in most cases. (I am talking about 256 kbps or higher... below 256 I will never touch unless its the only thing that exists of the recording).
So leave a bunch of room for every instrument. And then utterly fucking crank em as hot as they go before bad stuff happens. Tends to convert to lossy quite well. It's a huge part of why LOUD won the loudness wars.
I seem to recall seeing carefully-executed tests of musical material under double-blind conditions and at different compression settings using high-quality codecs. The results were that mp3 at 128K was surprisingly good, with about 60% success (50% success would mean they couldn't tell the difference). Anything at 192 or above and the human ear couldn't reliably discern the difference.
I did some of my own casual tests on my PC years ago using Vegas video, a program with audio origins and which quite precisely handled audio sampling and mixing. I could easily take a wav source, make an mp3 copy, and then subtract the two on separate tracks. Wav from Wav gave precisely zero. mp3 from wav (or the inverse) gave a highly-muted "chuffing" effect when high frequencies were present. The question then became: If I take the original wav and added the chuffing, could I hear the chuffing? If you are honest and do it double-blind, I'd bet a Double-Double you couldn't. The chuffing was substantially quieter than the source. And if the test was run at higher mp3 bitrates, the chuffing was even softer.
So it's entertaining to hear folks talk about the "wretched" mp3 sound quality. Show me the double-blind tests that prove your point.
When the mind goes into analytical mode to "find a difference", it short circuits by about 85%-95%, the subconscious subjective "Muse of the Groove" part of the brain that thoughtlessly and non-analytically gets taken and gripped by a vibe that makes the foot tap and the head sway. So, if the mind with only 10% of its subconscious muse being active, gets a 60% in AB testing, that means it will actually be a HUGE EARTHQUAKE of a difference over extended listening over weeks, months, or a lifetime.
Thus, AB tests by their very nature are anti-musical. When improving one's audio system with subtle upgrades, the only thing you can really do is change one element and listen for a week or so, then go back.
I mean sure, sometimes there is a night-and-day type of difference you can hear even analytically. Frequency response is one such thing, you can instantly pick out if something has more or less bass. But musicality like transient alignment and shape, artifacts coming from the 20kHz filter that cause pseudo-audible nano-pricking needles in the treble, and countless other things, are very hard to A/B unless you're a trained audiophile addict with years of experience. But that doesn't mean these people can HEAR better than you, they are just more easily able to tap into the subconscious qualities you're not aware of, from years of experience. But the "whatever-it-is-that-makes-my-foot-tap and my hands-clap", that goes away when A/B testing because the mind is an analytical mode, it's losing the forest for the trees.
It all depends on the system. I keep both FLAC and MP3/320 libraries of my ripped music (about 10k CD's) on my NAS drives. On my high-end home system I can hear the difference but on my car's audio system (I have an upgraded system that I installed), I can not hear the difference. In fact I choose to use MP3/320 music in my car because the system can index and search the music much faster than if I use FLAC files.
when youre ready to *_upgrade_* your upgraded car system... Focal speakers, K2 or higher.
Mosconi amps, Pro or higher, Mosconi Aerospace DSP. i surely was b l o w n away by the difference.
Do you just mean that you would record with the distortion (for example) already intended by the instrumentalist vs recording relatively clean and introducing distortion FX post capture? It seems like the advantages and disadvantages to that is already well-known. I would say it defintely makes sense to try to work out your sounds before recording, to maximize the sonic potential of the recording itself, although with the dynamic range available with digital recording and DAWs, i'm not sure theres even an advantage anymore. Especially now you've baked-in the sound which may prevent further experimentation (which could be good sometimes heh). Maybe i am misunderstanding you.
I’m really hanging out for some grunge coming out of octave.
Finding version of flac in some songs is tough
Do Vinyls get ripped to FLAC?
Studios who do it properly, will actually make a mix specifically for MP3. And i absolutely
I'd love to see a follow-up on the advancements of AI in comparison and the reverse aspect of taking the compressed MP3 etc and "upscaling" to a higher quality via means of AI interpretation.
AI has done some impressive stuff, and the old black and white video restorations have been quite impressive when done correctly.
That has already been done years before AI was a thing by Sony for both MP3 and FLAC. I am very satisfied with the results as it brings both closer to vinyl and live music quality.
Before encoding, converting, ingeniering and all that stuff it is all about that way it is recorded, its ils sound designed and well mixed.
Whatever the artists you are converting for doing the comparaison.
A good sound engenier will give a perfect 320 MP3 with a minimum loss by inverted phase and there you know that you have the best quality on your FLAC or whatever.
I just did a blind test: the same track in mp3 and FLAC, stereo to mono and reduced db levels, switching left to right and back after x seconds. It was a hardstyle track. It’s most noticeable when the bass drops, the uncompressed side being clearer and with more boom, sharper punches (idk how audiophiles call this) but while it is noticeable, it’s minor, but something you’ll definitely hear once you’re used to FLAC.
Which of the two had the punchier bass?
A few years I ripped my CD collection to wma. I don't know what I was thinking. It's only about 100 CDs so not a big deal to redo them in wav but does anyone have any advice on this? Is wma bad? I can't find any videos on wav vs wma.
I rip eachCD to WAV, FLAC and MP3 so I have a copy for outside or garage(MP3) one to pass to Google Music (FLAC) and my master archive and for listening in my sound room (WAV). Stopped WMA years ago and just went with the 3 above.
WMA is lossy - and it's terrible - a Microsoft codec? Why in the world?
In my case, there are plenty of MP3s I’ve accumulated and play via my car stereo or through Airplay on my HomePod, that are simply unlistenable on my actual stereo. Paul is right in that higher resolution MP3s can sound better than the more compressed, but depending on how revealing you’re system is, you’re likely to hear a difference between formats/files.
I only use .MP3 because the widest variety of players support it. It's a motion-picture compression that somehow got adopted for audio.
Same, using mp3 320kbps for my music.
Most likely, because the original recording has been mastered badly. That's why you don't hear a difference.
Well most people only stream music from Spotify etc. So let the service determine your streaming speed and the send you appropriate quality audio. If the Internet speed is high, Spotify etc should stream lossless audio automatically.
So whether or not one can really make out the difference or not, what's the harm in streaming lossless audio if the internet speed is fast. I think Spotify already does this, I'm not sure though. CZcams determines the video quality automatically (and hence the audio quality too)
In my recording studio I had a pro tools 192 system hooked to my Ssl G plus running a Studer 827 lock to an Atari MTR 90 and I would mix to the 192s also at 96K also at 48 also to a two track Ampex 102 at 30 IPS and I could compare the sounds the same time through the center section of the Ssl. I had a guy came by the mastering place where he mastered A album I did to a cd I did. The cd sounded great . He did a great job. We played the cd at the same time as I did play the 192 mix. I A B the songs and he said that’s my version and and I said no it’s not and stopped the 192 mix so he realized which one was which. He said I can’t believe your original mix sounds so much better, which he had never heard because he used the 96k mix which requested. I said your 16 bit 44.1 doesn’t have a chance against a 192 mix so much more bits. It’s like a pea shooter to canon. The drag is most people will never get to compare the huge difference like I could with my killer setup. And 16 bit 44.1 destroys mp3s for breakfast. If people knew things would be closer to what Neil is trying to get done.
🤣😂🤣
The other reason is cause of their ear , ear did not educate for better sound , maybe did not hear very good sound at-least and I am sure They can not do hear the differences, but some digital amplifiers also can not handle in perfect sound, and sound is like one line Thats all .
but I think , a person who does not recognize the Differences , First, Does not have good ear , Second Placement of speakers , and Experience in High end and hifi sound ! Even In the Bass can hear the differences.
Or a person hearing the difference have terrible damaged ears resulting in the psychoacoustic model no longer working
I just ripped a cd in at mp3 320 rate. I also ripped it at Flac 880. I then checked out the difference using a program that could look at the spectrum. The MP3 peaked at 18khz while the Flac went past 22khz. This was a cd that I was very familiar with listening to it many times. The MP3 at first sounded very nice and in my car it was good. However when I compared it to the Flac version on my stereo system, the high end sizzle was there on the Flac and CD but not on the MP3.
We are talking about some very high frequencies that take some effort to hear.
It also takes a good stereo system. My speakers can go as high as 25khz.
Maybe I damaged my hearing over the years but I'm only 36 years old and the highest frequency range I can hear is between 14k-15k, according to an online test. So I guess that's one reason why I can't hear any difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC...
@@timothycannata You may not be able to hear them but the ultrasonics do have a positive effect on the brain. It's why vinyl is still popular and why many people think it sounds better than flac.
Mastering is the priority. You can't squeeze any track with bad mastering and thinking the 96khz file of it can sound better.
No, the priority should be reintroducing the ultrasonic frequencies that ignorant engineers stripped out of FLAC and MP3.
I think it boils down to hard drive disk space. I've been DL'ing a lot of music off CZcams, althought I don't even bother if the upload isn't in 1080p or greater, and I use another website that allows me to download in 320kbps. I can hear a major difference between songs I've accidentally DL's from a 720p host vs 1080p host, there's so much clarity in the track. But I don't think I have enought hard disc space to DL all those songs again in WAV format. I listen to alot of electronic music, and although I don't have a super high end system in my bedroom, it's def noticable.
I am personally fine with mp3 320 kbps, but I also have to say that I don't have any great audio setup.
FLAC files contain much more data but can the human ear really take full advantage of this information? Humans typically hear frequencies up to about 20 kHz (less as we get older, maybe 10 kHz). Using Nyquist's theorem, this implies that we need to sample at a minimum rate of about 40 kHz and use as much bit depth (bits resolution per sample) as possible. I have some FLAC files sampled at 192kHz played which theoretically reproduces frequencies up to 96 kHz - which humans cannot hear. So why do we actually hear any difference between super FLAC and compressed decent mp3 files (sampling at a minimum 40 kHz)? Is sampling potentially "overkill" sampling in FLAC having an effect at lower audible frequencies - not just extending the upper end frequencies?
There seems to be a BIG communication gap between audio engineeers and audiologists who measure the human ear's perfromance and its sampling "bottleneck" ! Our ear drums can only wiggle uo to 20 kHz !
Can you suggest scientific peer-reviewed articles, co-authored by audio engineers and audiologists working together as a team to test "double-blinded" listeners?
Thank You.
Why do people still buy vinyl and prefer it to flac? It's because ultrasonics are important.
@@dtz1000 I agree if you mean upper harmonics of musical notes of lower frequency. However, the first overtone of a 10 kHz fundamental note is its octave = 20 kHz and that is getting close to what the human ear cannot hear. So if your music is rich in frequencies of < 10 kHz, you might hear its harmonics better with a "lossless" file like WAV or FLAC.
@@MyJ2B No, I mean frequencies higher than 20khz are important and those frequencies are missing from both MP3 and flac. Most instruments emit those frequencies and vinyl also reproduces them. They have been shown to have a positive effect on the human mind. It is why I believe many people prefer vinyl.
@@dtz1000 I am referring to the mechanical properties of the human ear and its frequency repsonse specification (as a microphone). If you are aware of other possible pathways with higher frequency links to the human brain, please provide the peer-reviewed scientific article. My background is physics - not physiology.
@@MyJ2B The study is called, "Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect". It was published in the Journal of Neurophysiology.
This is certainly a gathering of audiophiles 😅...
Personally I checked different MP3 formats. With medium priced speakers and background noise I could not hear a difference between 128 and 192 MP3 files. With good headphones I could hear the difference right away. Would FLAC sound better? Maybe on the headphones...
128 sounds like shit - but we have 2022 and lame VBR exists for a long time
@@Harald_Reindl Maybe I should have mentioned that I tested this at the time when I downloaded some of those files from Napster...
@@edgar9651 Encoders have changed a lot over the years. Back in the early 2000s there were obvious differences between some MP3 encoders, and the problem with downloading already compressed files is that you have no idea how they were processed previously, even if the last used encoder is shown in the metadata.
"Pure crunchy-grunge records"?
🎶🤔🎶
Prove you can hear a difference please
Regarding good recorded grunge, those MTV live records from the 90s are some of the best ever.
I agree. Nirvana Unplugged in New York and even better Alice In Chains Unplugged are amazing. I think the AIC is perhaps the best sounding live recording I have ever heard.
I use to rip CDs to some compressed format FLAC, APE, etc. I resently inherited some CDs from my uncle and now that I have 11 TB I dicied to rip to wave files. I was very suprised when I listed to those file and they sounded better on my system then Flac 48/24.
That's nonsense - the L in FLAC is pretty clear - what you get out is bit perfect after decompress
Do you mean FLAC 48/24...? Since CDs use a 44.1kHz sample rate at 16 bits per sample, that would imply a fractional upscaling (44.1 to 48). Depending on the algorithm, perhaps you were hearing some up-sampling artefacts.
@@Harald_Reindl, bit-perfect does not mean sonically perfect, e.g., jitter. I think that up-sampling artifact is a plausible answer, and it could be just my imagination.
@@tebbywafer1665 hell which jitter and upsampling artifact? technically a FLAC is similar to a ZIP just wit the compression algo optimized for audiodata - the whole damned file is uncompressed and buffered long before it plays
@@Harald_Reindl, ok, sure. I am reminded that only young physicists make breakthroughs because they don't know any better. Why don't you give it a try for yourself and prove that you are correct?
Why dont audiophiles talk about room acoustics or studio acoustics, microphones, microphone techniques, microphone preamps, studio monitors used etc.
WAY more impact than power cables or speaker cables?
because we have zero control over any of the items youve listed, except the 1st. and we speak *volumes* about that one.
@@googoo-gjoob but....when saying a particular recording is "hot" or "transparent" or whatever....zero attention is paid to recording equipment....and there are 100s of components involved.
Many of the positive responses to a playback system are more connected to the recording equipment than the playback...or at least equally impacted.
I would buy more recordings if I could filter by microphone and recording venue.
@@googoo-gjoob but you guys waste thousands of dollars for a dumb cable instead invest in your room
I had a lot of good music I thought lol, I bought a pretty decent system recently and all the MP3's that I have sound horrible!
I had a terrible Sony music player that made everything sound horrible no matter what it was. So I would look at your player before anything else. The best Sony music players will make MP3s sound really good.
If MP3 and compression compresses out the noise out of silent parts... then I'm OK with that.
BUT ... once you do know the difference and can appreciate the dynamics VS compression, you're going to want the dynamics preserved as much as possible.
Most instruments emit ultrasonic sound and those frequencies have been shown to have a positive effect on humans. So you should not be ok with those frequencies being removed. Vinyl doesn't remove them but FLAC and MP3 does. That's why many prefer vinyl.
Yes I made the mistake many years ago when first ripping my CDs to my server to use both variable and low bit rate mp3 conversions. I have tens of gigs of it! It is just fine for background music through my sound bar and dumped onto an SD for my car (which has a high-end Bose system).
But when I sit to listen, a turntable is the only source connected in that system.
Though you have me wondering about adding DSD capabilities Paul!
hehe...... he said 'high-end Bose'
@@googoo-gjoob It's in the car! Perhaps "expensive" is more accurate? But in an Audi everything is! 😞
@@glenncurry3041 , dont laugh. i have many thousands in my truck stereo. where did you get 'Audi'?
@@googoo-gjoob A5 from an Audi dealer.
@@glenncurry3041 , when you get the chance... rip out that stuff.
speakers..... FOCAL amps & dsp... Mosconi. youll never look back.
To me MP3 kills most of the spatial information in the music, in terms of soundstage, instrument placement / separation, and clarity. With complex music it falls apart completely. To be able to hear that, it's super important that the system is set up properly with respect to the room; before I learned how to properly place my speakers I couldn't hear it anywhere near as readily as I can now, using the same PS Audio Sprout 100 that Paul is referencing, and a pair of GR Research XLS Encore speakers, so nothing super special. Now it's so obvious when I listen that it's impossible not to notice. In addition I also find that MP3s tend to be noisier, veil a lot of the information, and particularly with complex music passages it all just becomes a hash of noise where sounds otherwise distinct blend to a big mess. It's fine for background music, car listening, etc. The person sending in the question can either do nothing and hopefully be happy with how things sound, or get curious to find out why they can't hear a difference. There should be a noticeable difference on most well set up systems (even rather pedestrian ones like mine).
People always say they can notice a difference between MP3 and FLAC, but when they do A-B tests they fail to identify the right files.
Mp3 is 90 % what flac is
As long as 320kbs not discernible to 99% of listener public
This.
2:44 _wishful thinking_
Whether there is an audible difference or not, I insist on lossless.
And believe me --- there have been some AWFUL recordings from EVERY era.
I know becuase I collect old, older, and stupidly-older stuff.
I bought a new Diana Krall CD and it sounded terrible, I put it down to my old ears at first then played an old Groundhogs vinyl from the 70s and it sounded great, not the ears, just poor production values.
FLAC trumps MP3 everyday
Bro flac is 1000+ kbps compared to mp3 with 320 kbps
Vinyl would probably be equivalent to 10000 kbps if FLAC is 1000+ kbps.
FLAC files nul against wavs, MP3s don't. 320kbps generally the standard where it don't hurt the ears played loud in a club, but can still hear a difference.
I love how he praises records which are also lossy and inferior to MP3 haha. Did you know records lose a little bit of quality every time you play it? 🌈
Wtf u talking about , fool ?
i think he praises records because they're imperfect and vinyl has a particular warm sound that me and many others really love compared to the complete clarity of digital audio that can cause some cd recordings to sound a bit harsh in comparison
Records include a lot of ultrasonic frequencies that are also present in the original music. Flac and mp3 have almost no ultrasonic frequencies. That's why records, even with all their faults, are much more pleasurable to listen to than flac and mp3.
Paul is trying to sell his very expensive equipment to you. When your about 20 your hearing is going down the hill. When you’re 50 the most people can hear between 14 and 16 kHz. When you are used to your music on your own system and you play it on another system it sounds different, but better !!! I dont know.
With terabyte hard-drives, mp3 should be dead.
come back when TB micro-sd cards for my smartphone are out and no I don't want to go back to the days where I had to think which music I like to take with me when it can carry the whole library
@@Harald_Reindl 1TB MicroSD cards have been available on Amazon, Newegg, etc for a while.
@@eatshawn and they would hold my 2.5 TB Library if it would be FLAC how? :-)
@@Harald_Reindl you're right; I should have known you meant 2.5TB when you said "come back when TB micro-sd cards for my spartphone are out..."
@@eatshawn well, I'm 44 years old and started collect music with the age of 10 or so :-) the first HiFi deserving that name was in 1990
I think that if you are playing MP3 and high-quality flac on a computer, tablet, phone, etc, you probably won't hear a difference because they will both be equally bad.
I cam here searching for the best audio format: MP3? FLAC? WAV? OGG?
But you listen to your music on a turntable?!?!
That's all I need to know.
Moving on to the next video....
MP3 and FLAC are both missing important ultrasonic frequencies present in the original music. So, for me, they are both substandard.
the better your equipment, the more time youve curated your _listening skills,_ the more glaring the differences will become.
I've done a lots of tests on this topic. With my old ears the best mp3 at 320kbs is infinitely worse than flac. I use mp3 for the flash drive in the car but not where you can appreciate good quality sound.
Because your hearing is bad and so the psychoacoustic model behind mp3 don't work
FLAC sucks! I did a lot of comparison. Blind, not blind, whatever. FLAC sounds maybe a little cleaner, but it is losing the original recording intendancy, such as some noises etc.
FLAC losing original recording charm and even in some cases STEREO effects. Oh, people...
so what alternative are you suggesting?
The real problem is, you have lossless Flac files but they are converted from Mp3 and you don't know that they are converted from Mp3.
How do you find out what you really have?