yammyfan
Senior Member
Absolutely, but this a matter of definition, not generalization. The term 'audiophile' isn't a slur.
Compressing CDs - FLAC compression level 0 or MP3 320kbps
- Thread starter Auspicious
- Start date
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
The generalisation was the implication they were more obsessed with the gear than they were listening to the music (of course)
Just to give some numbers to this ^^:
My Test Wave-File in 96/24 was 109.07 MB. Encoding it to Flac was 69.33 MB with 127x Speed in Level 0 - 65.7 MB with 72x Speed in Level 5 - 65.43 MB with 23x speed in Level 8. All of these files are lossless and will playback to the bit exact the same as the original wavefile. I've proven this by importing the original wav in a DAW (Samplitude) together with the three different level of compression flacs which were converted to wav during import to the DAW. Then playback one of the "flac-waves" together with the original wave and flip phase on one track. The result is an absolute zero output which means the files are bit identical, thus sounding the same!
For me there is no use for compression levels above 5 because the effect on the file size is minimal, but the encoding time more than doubles. I could even live with the sizes of Level 0 files...
If I were to rip CDs I'd always go FLAC. Using a good software like db poweramp converter you can always go to any other format needed later without loosing the original wave quality. Put the FLACS on a HDD and convert them to MP3 (with 192 kbps upwards) for car use.
Auspicious
Silver Member
I don't understand what I am reading here, encoding in Mp3 takes about 5x more CPU time then FLAC for me. I tested it 5 minutes ago, using a 44.9mb WAV file.
With Asunder:
It takes 13 second to rip the file, extract it from the CD, for MP3 or FLAC.
It takes 5 seconds to encode it in Mp3 225VBR
it takes 1 second to encode in FLAC 0
It takes 1.5 seconds to encode in FLAC 8
It's MUCH faster to encode FLAC
With Asunder:
It takes 13 second to rip the file, extract it from the CD, for MP3 or FLAC.
It takes 5 seconds to encode it in Mp3 225VBR
it takes 1 second to encode in FLAC 0
It takes 1.5 seconds to encode in FLAC 8
It's MUCH faster to encode FLAC
Supergrobi
Honorary Member
Left the hospital on Saturday after various complications (another inflammation in the guts and a severe intestinal paralysis over 5 days) and am able to sit again \o/
Unfortunately there's no clear answer to this. It depends on the library you're encoding with (e.g. MP3 proprietary Fraunhofer, liblame, libxing, ...), on the architecture of your CPU and (in case of MP3) on the material you're trying to encode. Also some libs/programs are able to use multiple CPUs, some don't.
Unfortunately there's no clear answer to this. It depends on the library you're encoding with (e.g. MP3 proprietary Fraunhofer, liblame, libxing, ...), on the architecture of your CPU and (in case of MP3) on the material you're trying to encode. Also some libs/programs are able to use multiple CPUs, some don't.
GretschedHive
Gold Member
Ladies and gentlemen, the triumphant return of @Supergrobi!
DylanBrooks
New Member
FLAC format, btw, has the same quality as WAV has, but has a smaller size. So, in that case, FLAC is better than WAV if choosing between both. However, if you want to distribute information over the internet, then I recommend using AAC or MP3 formats. Preferably AAC since it has much higher quality than MP3 with smaller size. Also, if your aim is data storage, then AAC or MP3 is your choice ‘ cause they occupy less space than FLAC or WAV. Btw, if you want to find a rather good converter, I can recommend you this one https://convertr.org/mp4-to-mp3. That source is one of the best converters nowadays as there is a huge choice of formats you can convert to and easy perceptible design.
Last edited:
Lefty Phillips
Well-known Member
I listen to CDs in my car, which has a very nice Harman/Kardon sound system.
I render everything from multi-tracking to mix in 24/96. Mix goes to analog 1/2" at 15 ips, then goes to WAV for the mastering house.
Someone mentioned that there's no point to it because we can't hear above 20khz, but that's not my understanding. More bits results in a smoother sound, especially for high frequencies, if the sound system is up to par.
I've never A/B'd MP files vs. WAV or CD on my home computer, but the speakers are so bad, I doubt I could tell the difference. On my studio monitors, the difference between those formats is audible, and 24/96 sounds best.
I render everything from multi-tracking to mix in 24/96. Mix goes to analog 1/2" at 15 ips, then goes to WAV for the mastering house.
Someone mentioned that there's no point to it because we can't hear above 20khz, but that's not my understanding. More bits results in a smoother sound, especially for high frequencies, if the sound system is up to par.
I've never A/B'd MP files vs. WAV or CD on my home computer, but the speakers are so bad, I doubt I could tell the difference. On my studio monitors, the difference between those formats is audible, and 24/96 sounds best.