3 ms·

Nobody but audiophiles care about FLAC. Most people out there don't have the ears nor the hardware to tell the difference between 192K MP3 and anything higher,

Nobody but audiophiles care about FLAC. Most people out there don't have the ears nor the hardware to tell the difference between 192K MP3 and anything higher, and anybody that claims they can tell the difference between 320K and FLAC is probably trying to sell you something at best. So it's a format that takes tons of disk space for no perceptible benefit. Why would it be popular? It's a niche format for niche uses.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> Nobody but audiophiles care about FLAC Perhaps. However my contention is that if am paying the same price for supposedly an 'identical' product, then make sure it's actually identical. At least ebooks generally are a tad cheaper than paperbacks, even if not by much, but not MP3s? Why? Simply because they can get away with it, I suppose.
H1Supreme 8y ago
I have a pretty nice stereo/production setup at home. I even did the work to get my desk positioned as best I could to avoid weird reflections (luckily the room isn't close to square). My collection of music is all wav/aiff or 320kbps mp3. I'd love to say I can tell the difference, but I can't.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  A significant benefit of owning a FLAC for me is so that I can convert it to any format I may want to for end consumption.
scrollaway 8y ago
This is kinda like trying to tell someone that png is a waste of space, just use jpg, you can't tell the difference. It's not just about being able to tell the difference. Remixing is another example of things that require losslessness. Archiving as well.
TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
I use FLAC and I wouldn't call myself an audiophile. However, I am a bit of an archivist or collector. Storage is so cheap that I figure I might as well store the highest quality version of my media. I'd agree that in general you can't tell the difference between a well encoded MP3 and FLAC, but there are songs in which it makes a difference! To test myself I've run a few simple ABX tests; I'd encourage to try it out! It's worth noting that this is only at home with a DAC/amplifier and some decent headphones, but if I'm out and about then I have no qualms about streaming.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

> Nobody but audiophiles care about FLAC Perhaps. However my contention is that if am paying the same price for supposedly an 'identical' product, then make sure it's actually identical. At least ebooks generally are a tad cheaper than paperbacks, even if not by much, but not MP3s? Why? Simply because they can get away with it, I suppose.

H1Supreme 8y ago

I have a pretty nice stereo/production setup at home. I even did the work to get my desk positioned as best I could to avoid weird reflections (luckily the room isn't close to square). My collection of music is all wav/aiff or 320kbps mp3. I'd love to say I can tell the difference, but I can't.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
A significant benefit of owning a FLAC for me is so that I can convert it to any format I may want to for end consumption.

scrollaway 8y ago

This is kinda like trying to tell someone that png is a waste of space, just use jpg, you can't tell the difference. It's not just about being able to tell the difference. Remixing is another example of things that require losslessness. Archiving as well.

TheAceOfHearts 8y ago

I use FLAC and I wouldn't call myself an audiophile. However, I am a bit of an archivist or collector. Storage is so cheap that I figure I might as well store the highest quality version of my media. I'd agree that in general you can't tell the difference between a well encoded MP3 and FLAC, but there are songs in which it makes a difference! To test myself I've run a few simple ABX tests; I'd encourage to try it out! It's worth noting that this is only at home with a DAC/amplifier and some decent headphones, but if I'm out and about then I have no qualms about streaming.