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

So,

I have been really into collecting music in these past few years.
And what I did was, that I just delete all my music that I had gotten from friends and public tracks. It was all mp3s, ranging in quality between 128k and 190k, with the occasional V0 thrown in there. That just did not cut it for me anymore.

I wanted high quality, CD-clean music. So, I started getting really excited about FLAC and downloaded tons of albums in FLAC, eating up tons of GB. However, now that I have gotten older and wiser I am not so sure about FLAC anymore, as the quality to size ration just does not seem reasonable anymore.

Should I just go for the V0 version for my next downloads or do you think that FLAC justifies its size through far superior quality over any type of mp3 encoding?

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!

I agree - it is all about the components in the link to music reproduction and your ears.

If your sound system isn't the greatest mp3s might be fine for you - it is really all subjective anyway. What sounds good to one person might not sound that great to another.

Have you downloaded an mp3 version and a FLAC version and played them side by side? If you don't notice any difference - then you have your answer!

Personally I prefer FLAC - I downgrade them to mp3 for the car, but play the FLACs on the home system.

I tend to lean towards any sort of lossless audio codec. Even with my PC speakers, I could tell the difference between mp3 320kbps and lossless. imo, your future proofing your library...

I havent got the heart to dump my 15,000 album collection, even tho most of it is 128 bit rate

yes it is!! its my mission in life to get all full discographys of my fav artists in flac, and I WILL SUCEED lol, an im slowly getting there, and if size matters, lol, i can understand storing at mid rate mp3, but if youve hdd space spare i recomend flac, sound is perfect, ps .. anyone know of a full discography of the libertines in flac please p.m me, ill invite to you all my childrens parties... now theres an invite lol

I prefer listening to 256 or 320 kbps MP3 (Creative 2.1 speakers @ home), but the difference betwen mp3 and FLAC is obvious on really good and expensive sound system.

I listen to a lot of live shows, and I've found it to be quite varied in what sounds acceptable as an mp3 (whether 128, 192, or 320). However, if like previous posters have stated, and I'm only listening on low-end equipment, most mp3 recordings are satisfactory.

It is nice to have the flac, in my opinion, so that I'll always have the option to play something on a nice system without hearing flaws.

I personally have everything in flac(alot of my music is self ripped) and yea like previously stated you on get the benefits if you have the gear to back it up, for example if your using a cheap ass media player with the standard ear buds that came with your not gonna notice anything but spend say £100 on a decent sent of headphones you'll notice. also on a side note storage isn't really an issue these days as you can pick up TB drives for around £70 and that is a lot of music