Take Some FLAC

I recently purchased an 8GB video Walkman to replace a 256mb player and it is wonderful that I don’t have to refresh songs so often (I used to fit an average 60 songs/about 5 albums). I’ve got 20 albums and a few vids on it and I think I haven’t even used 1 full GB yet. Marvellous.

MP3 bit rate is a contentious issue for some, but I’ll throw my hands up and say that I’m satisfied with 128k, which is often arguably touted as CD quality. I notice artifacts or at least differences at lower bit rates but at 128 or higher, my heavy metal worn ears don’t notice a difference, so to conserve space and power I choose not to use WMA and stick with that bit rate to conserve space.
I understand however that some, in fact many ears, can discern a difference so the bit rate you choose is just a personal thing. But on an mp3 player, or even a compact Hi Fi system, which are reduced experiences to a Hi Fi system, I don’t see the point in bothering with 256-320kps. I’m first and foremost a music fan and not an audiophile so I would rather hear a good song crackling through AM radio, than a turd in HD audio or whatever. Of course I prefer the best quality but I’m not so touchy.

The first time I heard an mp3 was in 1997. I remember it well. A well known band’s song had leaked and a person on the net. directed me to WinAmp and the mp3. I thought the quality of the file was astounding. Prior to this, grainy RealAudio was the only real way to hear music, and through dial-up. I can’t remember if the mp3 quality was perfect, or what bit rate it was but it was better than audio cassettes that were still available.

But now, the new we’re getting lossless formats. There are a number of them, so I’ll talk about FLAC which is the most talked about:
FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is a lossless format, that means that average 40-60% compression does not remove any data at all unlike lossy formats like mp3. This is great because although we have broadband now, smaller lossless files help us save bandwidth and space and yet we can get true CD quality (or higher if 24 bit mastered) which is appropriate for backup and burning.
What makes FLAC stand out is that it’s free and has been used by a few major artists for a little while now. There is a lot of software support, but not much in terms of hardware yet.

However, broadband speeds are getting faster and hard disk space is getting bigger. This inevitably will mean the slow phase out mp3s as FLAC files get downloaded in minutes for CD burning or direct transfer to multi-terabyte drives. Lossless will kill lossy.

One final hurdle remains though, in that digital signals are still not as warm or round sounding (or so I’ve heard people say) as vinyls. I’ve grown up with tape, CD, MD and mp3, but I’ll take the vinyl lovers stance so the last thing we need is lossless compression with the full spectrum audio capturing of analogue and then we’ve pretty much satisfied everyone and set things in stone. After that, I don’t know where we’ll go. 5.1 is just not a concern with music as when you go to a concert it’s generally a doubled wall of sound coming at you, so stereo is acceptable.

For the time being though 128k music on my player suits me fine, but when downloading music I will choose FLAC first if I can to burn to CD and then create mp3s from that.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Take Some FLAC

  1. Off course, FLAC (Lossless Codec) will provide better sound than mp3, AAC, WMA and their friends.. (Lossy Codec). But when you’re talkin about Portable Audio Player, ther is no use (or maybe the diference won’t be significant) when you match your Lossless Audio just like FLAC with your default earphone. Try to match it with high-profile earphone just like Grado, Sennhaiser, and another great brand. Off course, they cost a lot, but it’s worth a lot.

    So when you paired with your own default earphone (I assumed it’s from Sony) of course you can hear the diference, but not maximum, because of your earphone’s specs limit.

  2. Oh yeah, one thing for sure. If you got mp3 file with 128Kbps or maybe 192 Kbps. And you decide to burn it into CD Audio. Actually the sound quality won’t be the same as a standard CD Audio. The quality remains the same with your previous bitrate.. Just like that.

  3. Thanks for your comments Harry.
    And yep, I’m using just my default Sony earphones. I’m happy with 128k, because I remember my cassette Walkman and not really being picky about tape hiss – nothing could really be done then, and that’s stayed with me.

    That said I did pass a test where I had to tell whether a 320k or 128k piece of music sounded better – and that was on my pricey Altec Lansing computer speakers, so anything for hi-fi use lossless codecs are what I’m eager to use.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s