Post by ordoequitumsolis on Dec 1, 2013 15:20:29 GMT 1
I found it on a blog (warmleftovers.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/) and I agree fully:
Yet another sound-related post – lately, I have heard more and more individuals preaching the sonic virtues of FLAC with literally no idea what they are talking about. They spout annoying, misleading, elitist crap that has no basis in reality whatsoever. Let’s learn about FLAC, why it’s good, and why it isn’t, shall we?
What in the fork is “FLAC”?
FLAC is an audio encoding format. It’s also a very good one for a number of reasons. FLAC is a “lossless” format, meaning none of the data from the source recording is compressed or removed (assuming you use the same bit depth [not the same thing as bit rate] and frequency range). This is inarguably a good thing. Lossless is the word of the year (or last 3) among audiophiles (and those who like to consider themselves audiophiles), but the implications of lossless have been twisted and manipulated in ways that are just not factually supported.
Why is FLAC awesome (and is it awesome)?
Yes, FLAC is awesome. Really, it is – as much as I hate FLAC listening purists, FLAC has a real place in the digital audio world that should not be overlooked.
You probably know of one other lossless audio format (even if you don’t know it’s lossless) called .WAV. Yep, that same, good ‘ol format that your Windows system sounds are encoded in (though that’s 8-bit and usually mono). WAV preserves 100% of audio information in 16-bit 44.1KHz stereo format when ripping audio from a CD.
FLAC is better than WAV for two reasons. First, it does everything WAV does (lossless audio), but in a much smaller package (WAV is extremely inefficient in its use of space). Second, it allows the use of more tags (including “illegal” tags in Windows) for marking files. That’s it. Otherwise, same juice, different label. WAV does have the advantage of being more editing / DJ-friendly (also less work for the CPU since it’s hardware decoded), but that’s not really relevant to what we’re talking about here.
This gets us to why FLAC is awesome. It’s all about preservation and archiving! FLAC uses less space than WAV, and allows more precise tagging, making it ideal as a long-term digital storage medium for audio. No matter how many times you copy it (well, in the relative sense), generation after generation, the source audio remains virtually unaltered.
Real audiophiles love FLAC because it helps preserve recordings in their original state, even after multiple rips, digital copying, etc. And because it does so in a comparatively space-efficient format.
This is why MP3′s are bad for archiving. MP3′s have something of a poor generational half-life. You start with an MP3 rip of a CD – even at 256Kbps, you’ve already lost audio information. That MP3 then gets sent to a friend of yours, who burns it on a CD. More data lost (probably a fair bit, too). Your friend loses the digital original, and re-rips the MP3 from the CD to give it to a friend – by now, there is a very noticeable loss in audio quality in the file. Errors and irregularities have started popping up, and in the strictly archival sense, the song is now basically worthless as a record of the original.
Why FLAC isn’t awesome (read: it’s not because it “sounds better”).
If I have one more person tell me that they “refuse” to listen to their music collection in anything but FLAC, I’m just going to start linking to this with only the word “bullShirt” in response, because FLAC stupidity is reaching epidemic proportions.
The reason most audiophiles like FLAC has very little to do with the actual quality of the audio. Talking about FLAC as the “superior listening format” just makes you sound like an uninformed prick. Saying you use FLAC because it “sounds better” is like saying you only drink your wine at 53.7 degrees Fahrenheit because that is the “best temperature.” To both people making such statements, I would have this to say: get the fork over yourself. It’s nothing more than self-perpetuating elitist spew.
You store your audio in the most optimal format available because that means that whenever you do finally decide to make copies, burn CDs, or transcode it, you’re using the best source possible. You don’t buy a $100,000 wine cellar so your wine is at a 53.7 degree drinking temperature, you buy it so your wine lasts as long as physically possible - again, it’s all about preservation.
Yes, FLAC has the complete audio source, and from a strictly technical perspective, is qualitatively superior to even a 320Kbps MP3. However, anyone claiming to be able to consistently tell the difference between the two correctly in a true blind test is just absolutely full of Shirt. A properly encoded* 256Kbps MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from its FLAC counterpart in a “better vs. worse” sense even with very good audio equipment.
*Yes, there are bad MP3 encoders out there. Eg, old versions of LAME – and they do sound worse and are more error / artifact-prone.
Unless you’re using an audio setup that reaches into the thousands upon thousands of dollars, sorry, I just refuse to believe you can hear the difference unless you’ve got pitch-perfect ears or have spent years and years doing professional audio work. Even many of those people will tell you that, if the difference is there, it doesn’t matter –
your ears aren’t an audio-measuring supercomputer, much like your tastebuds aren’t a mass spectrometer.
The bottleneck is always your equipment.
Audio equipment is one of those things you can spend small fortunes on to get the “very best” products out there. And that’s because the very best products require expensive components and materials, extremely precise and specialized construction techniques, and levels of perfectionism in engineering that border on the absurd. And at that point, even if the end product is better, you reach a level of diminishing returns that make such investments unwise for most people (unless you have the money to burn).
Equipment is bar-none the best way to improve the quality of your sound. Equipment is like the engine and ignition components of your car – audio format is like the brand of gasoline you use. Sure, it can make a difference, but only if you go out of your way to actually use something that is bad. Otherwise, it’s insignificant in the larger scheme of things. Would you pay $0.20 more a gallon if Shell guaranteed its gas improved the power output of your car by 0.08%? No – not unless you’re the lead engineer of an F1 team. That’s what FLAC audio quality is – it’s the last little bit you can squeeze out of a near-perfect setup.
You know how Pandora at 128Kbps sounds coming out of my big 300W reference bookshelf speakers through a dedicated stereo amplifier? forking fantastic – and don’t tell me otherwise.
No, FLAC Does Not “Sound Better,” And You Are Not An Audiophile Because You Use It – Here’s What It Actually Is And Why It’s Important
Yet another sound-related post – lately, I have heard more and more individuals preaching the sonic virtues of FLAC with literally no idea what they are talking about. They spout annoying, misleading, elitist crap that has no basis in reality whatsoever. Let’s learn about FLAC, why it’s good, and why it isn’t, shall we?
What in the fork is “FLAC”?
FLAC is an audio encoding format. It’s also a very good one for a number of reasons. FLAC is a “lossless” format, meaning none of the data from the source recording is compressed or removed (assuming you use the same bit depth [not the same thing as bit rate] and frequency range). This is inarguably a good thing. Lossless is the word of the year (or last 3) among audiophiles (and those who like to consider themselves audiophiles), but the implications of lossless have been twisted and manipulated in ways that are just not factually supported.
Why is FLAC awesome (and is it awesome)?
Yes, FLAC is awesome. Really, it is – as much as I hate FLAC listening purists, FLAC has a real place in the digital audio world that should not be overlooked.
You probably know of one other lossless audio format (even if you don’t know it’s lossless) called .WAV. Yep, that same, good ‘ol format that your Windows system sounds are encoded in (though that’s 8-bit and usually mono). WAV preserves 100% of audio information in 16-bit 44.1KHz stereo format when ripping audio from a CD.
FLAC is better than WAV for two reasons. First, it does everything WAV does (lossless audio), but in a much smaller package (WAV is extremely inefficient in its use of space). Second, it allows the use of more tags (including “illegal” tags in Windows) for marking files. That’s it. Otherwise, same juice, different label. WAV does have the advantage of being more editing / DJ-friendly (also less work for the CPU since it’s hardware decoded), but that’s not really relevant to what we’re talking about here.
This gets us to why FLAC is awesome. It’s all about preservation and archiving! FLAC uses less space than WAV, and allows more precise tagging, making it ideal as a long-term digital storage medium for audio. No matter how many times you copy it (well, in the relative sense), generation after generation, the source audio remains virtually unaltered.
Real audiophiles love FLAC because it helps preserve recordings in their original state, even after multiple rips, digital copying, etc. And because it does so in a comparatively space-efficient format.
This is why MP3′s are bad for archiving. MP3′s have something of a poor generational half-life. You start with an MP3 rip of a CD – even at 256Kbps, you’ve already lost audio information. That MP3 then gets sent to a friend of yours, who burns it on a CD. More data lost (probably a fair bit, too). Your friend loses the digital original, and re-rips the MP3 from the CD to give it to a friend – by now, there is a very noticeable loss in audio quality in the file. Errors and irregularities have started popping up, and in the strictly archival sense, the song is now basically worthless as a record of the original.
Why FLAC isn’t awesome (read: it’s not because it “sounds better”).
If I have one more person tell me that they “refuse” to listen to their music collection in anything but FLAC, I’m just going to start linking to this with only the word “bullShirt” in response, because FLAC stupidity is reaching epidemic proportions.
The reason most audiophiles like FLAC has very little to do with the actual quality of the audio. Talking about FLAC as the “superior listening format” just makes you sound like an uninformed prick. Saying you use FLAC because it “sounds better” is like saying you only drink your wine at 53.7 degrees Fahrenheit because that is the “best temperature.” To both people making such statements, I would have this to say: get the fork over yourself. It’s nothing more than self-perpetuating elitist spew.
You store your audio in the most optimal format available because that means that whenever you do finally decide to make copies, burn CDs, or transcode it, you’re using the best source possible. You don’t buy a $100,000 wine cellar so your wine is at a 53.7 degree drinking temperature, you buy it so your wine lasts as long as physically possible - again, it’s all about preservation.
Yes, FLAC has the complete audio source, and from a strictly technical perspective, is qualitatively superior to even a 320Kbps MP3. However, anyone claiming to be able to consistently tell the difference between the two correctly in a true blind test is just absolutely full of Shirt. A properly encoded* 256Kbps MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from its FLAC counterpart in a “better vs. worse” sense even with very good audio equipment.
*Yes, there are bad MP3 encoders out there. Eg, old versions of LAME – and they do sound worse and are more error / artifact-prone.
Unless you’re using an audio setup that reaches into the thousands upon thousands of dollars, sorry, I just refuse to believe you can hear the difference unless you’ve got pitch-perfect ears or have spent years and years doing professional audio work. Even many of those people will tell you that, if the difference is there, it doesn’t matter –
your ears aren’t an audio-measuring supercomputer, much like your tastebuds aren’t a mass spectrometer.
The bottleneck is always your equipment.
Audio equipment is one of those things you can spend small fortunes on to get the “very best” products out there. And that’s because the very best products require expensive components and materials, extremely precise and specialized construction techniques, and levels of perfectionism in engineering that border on the absurd. And at that point, even if the end product is better, you reach a level of diminishing returns that make such investments unwise for most people (unless you have the money to burn).
Equipment is bar-none the best way to improve the quality of your sound. Equipment is like the engine and ignition components of your car – audio format is like the brand of gasoline you use. Sure, it can make a difference, but only if you go out of your way to actually use something that is bad. Otherwise, it’s insignificant in the larger scheme of things. Would you pay $0.20 more a gallon if Shell guaranteed its gas improved the power output of your car by 0.08%? No – not unless you’re the lead engineer of an F1 team. That’s what FLAC audio quality is – it’s the last little bit you can squeeze out of a near-perfect setup.
You know how Pandora at 128Kbps sounds coming out of my big 300W reference bookshelf speakers through a dedicated stereo amplifier? forking fantastic – and don’t tell me otherwise.
But I'll give PA a try again.