Thread: FLAC: Is it really the Audiophil's ultimate poison.

Id take FLAC over anything else any day of the week, i think its noticable after you have been around it for long enough and you can tell the differnce between v2,v0,320 and FLAC. the problem is its to big and its not compatible with alot of things so for the time being im downloading mostly v0..the day that apple or microsoft (whoever is first) come out with a affordable TB ipod/zune i will only download FLAC until that far away day im going to have to wait..

my opinion (size:bitrate)
flac > 320k (mp3) > v0 (mp3)

I've rarely noticed any difference. I usually tend to go for V0 all the time since my headphones don't actually show noticeable quality change.

Originally Posted by marcus79

I think it all depends on what kind of sound system you are playing the music on. The music will only sound as good as its weakest link.

The thing about the source, is you will never be able to improve the quality of an mp3. FLAC you don't have the problem of the source being the weakest link, so as you improve the sound system you will get much better results.

I have a great one in my car and you can totally tell the difference, hands down CD quality!

Good post. Its pointless having FLAC files if you're sound system isn't up to scratch

I'm happy with anything above 192kbps

I bought my first CD 20 years ago and i listened to it with headphones alternating CD and vinyl source: vinyl was (and is) better. So Mp3 that is maximum the fifth part of Wav can't be better than Flac, it's mathematic....

from what i hear...flac is on top but im not a pro hehe

i love flac the sound sounds so good , but since i cant find everything i want in flac i mostly download mp3

FLAC is for theaters or large speakers, or collectors
for me V0, 320 is enough

I dont even have the best sound system in my car but you could really tell the difference between flac and mp3

its amazing the quality of flac