MP3s or Flac ?

hostile17

Novice Member
I realise this is a very basic question but here goes anyway.Up to now I have been listening to my music on the go on an iPhone 7+.
I am looking to buy a dedicated player that also plays lossless,flac etc.Would playing the same files give me a better listening experience or should I populate my new player with Flac music.Because I am on a limited budget the device I am thinking of buying is a Fiio M7.With my limited knowledge this looks good for me.
Any advice would be great.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
MP3 is lossy and a limited performance. FLAC is much better, with more detail.
 

gibbsy

Moderator
 

overkill

Distinguished Member
The Fiio's are great little players, cheap as chips for the quality of the audio. Being Chinese, they are priced lower than the competition despite offering good DAC's and a solid build. My Fiio X3 is (touch wood) still going strong after many years of use. As for Flac v MP3, as Gibbsy has said, MP3 is a lossy format, which means information is removed as the original source is compressed. Despite nonsense to the contrary, you can easily hear the difference between even higher bit MP3 and lossless formats like Flac. Flac is easy to convert to and from, sounds great, is compatible with just about everything, and supports hires. The only reason to use MP3 is if storage is an issue, as you can store massive amounts of MP3 compared to Flac. However, additional storage is so cheap, and so large these days, that really is no longer an issue.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
Simply put, MP3 is lossy i.e. not all detail is preserved, LFAC is lossless so you get out what went in.
OGG is another lossless format but not popular so I use FLAC when ripping CDs.
 

JayCee

Distinguished Member
Despite nonsense to the contrary, you can easily hear the difference between even higher bit MP3 and lossless formats like Flac.
It's not nonsense.
It all depends on your age and hearing ability.
320K MP3’s can sound no different from FLAC if you’re a certain age.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
And if you aren't? Lossless compression is the default and you can still play back MP3 tracks.
There is no penalty using FLAC so why not?
The difference is easier to notice on a good sound system of course and some people aren't fussed about sound quality.
 
Last edited:

rccarguy2

Distinguished Member
Is this converstation from 2002?
 

overkill

Distinguished Member
It's not nonsense.
It all depends on your age and hearing ability.
320K MP3’s can sound no different from FLAC if you’re a certain age.
People using pseudo science to claim no-one can hear a difference between MP3 and Flac is nonsense. Period.

Yes, some people of a certain age and with hearing limitations cannot hear the difference between sources, file type etc, that does not mean 'none' of us can.
 

overkill

Distinguished Member

JayCee

Distinguished Member
And if you aren't? Lossless compression is the default and you can still play back MP3 tracks.
There is no penalty using FLAC so why not?

The only penalty is file size and storage space.
Of course I'd recommend FLAC over mp3's everytime...if you can hear a difference...I can't.
I have an iPhone 6+ which I use exclusively for listening to music. It's filled with FLAC files and is running out of space.
I can't add extra storage to it so after doing some listening tests with FLAC and 320K mp3 versions of the same music files I've been replacing the FLACS with the mp3's.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
If that's what works for you then fine.
 

rccarguy2

Distinguished Member
The only penalty is file size and storage space.
Of course I'd recommend FLAC over mp3's everytime...if you can hear a difference...I can't.
I have an iPhone 6+ which I use exclusively for listening to music. It's filled with FLAC files and is running out of space.
I can't add extra storage to it so after doing some listening tests with FLAC and 320K mp3 versions of the same music files I've been replacing the FLACS with the mp3's.

That's becauee portable media has less storage so fine using compressed audio for that.

Vorbis ogg is superior to MP3 also
 

hostile17

Novice Member
Thanks for all your opinions and have decided to go for the Fiio M7 unless there is a better alternative of a similar price.One other question though.On my iMac i have many albums in Flac format which I will transfer to a micro sd card.Each album is in its own folder and as well as the tracks andcover art there are other files which I would to delete if they are not requiredon the player to make them play correctly.The files are .txt,audiochecker.log,lossless audiochecker.log and .info and .m3u.I realise I am being picky but I had rather clean up the files before putting on the sd card.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
The .flac files include the artist, album and title information so you will be able to select tracks by the usual artist, title and album.
I don't think covers are included in the .flac file.
.m3u us a playlist file. I don't use those so you might need to ask someone else.
 

Jamie

Distinguished Member
I would say you only need the FLAC files and the coverart, you can safely delete the other files.

You can actually use the tags to embed cover images in FLAC just like you can with MP3 files and other compressed formats, MP3tag can do this but in my experience having a separate image is more common.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
Tags are pieces of information like artist, track title etc. that are in the music file and embedding is the process of putting them into a file.
 

dannnielll

Well-known Member
The only penalty is file size and storage space.
Of course I'd recommend FLAC over mp3's everytime...if you can hear a difference...I can't.
I have an iPhone 6+ which I use exclusively for listening to music. It's filled with FLAC files and is running out of space.
I can't add extra storage to it so after doing some listening tests with FLAC and 320K mp3 versions of the same music files I've been replacing the FLACS with the mp3's.
I am not an Apple user so this might be out of order ., But unless you make special arrangements ..(whatever they are, ) the iPhone 6 does not do flac..I assume it is recoding them downwards .
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
Since FLAC is lossless the tracks could be decoded to WAV files then converted to Apple audio format.
 

JayCee

Distinguished Member
I am not an Apple user so this might be out of order ., But unless you make special arrangements ..(whatever they are, ) the iPhone 6 does not do flac..I assume it is recoding them downwards .

The iPhone does do FLAC.
You just need the right player.
 

overkill

Distinguished Member
That's my point, and the only one I'm trying to make.
Evidently you didn't get it.
You led with its not nonsense. It is. There is no reason even someone with impaired hearing cannot hear the difference. It has been claimed that no-one can hear the difference, 'that' is the point I was making. Yes, 'some' people cannot hear the difference, but then they cannot tell the difference between a £20,000 piece of kit and a £500. That does not mean there is no difference and no-once could tell!


The only penalty is file size and storage space.
Of course I'd recommend FLAC over mp3's everytime...if you can hear a difference...I can't.
I have an iPhone 6+ which I use exclusively for listening to music. It's filled with FLAC files and is running out of space.
I can't add extra storage to it so after doing some listening tests with FLAC and 320K mp3 versions of the same music files I've been replacing the FLACS with the mp3's.
..and here's the real point. You cannot hear a difference so 'there isn't one'. Why not just be honest about it? As for not being to add storage to an Iphone, even I could afford those prices.
 

overkill

Distinguished Member
The iPhone does do FLAC.
You just need the right player.
It is listed in the specs, but there is no native support for Flac with IPhones, so no surprise that they don't sound as they should.
 

JayCee

Distinguished Member
You led with its not nonsense. It is. There is no reason even someone with impaired hearing cannot hear the difference. It has been claimed that no-one can hear the difference, 'that' is the point I was making. Yes, 'some' people cannot hear the difference, but then they cannot tell the difference between a £20,000 piece of kit and a £500. That does not mean there is no difference and no-once could tell!


..and here's the real point. You cannot hear a difference so 'there isn't one'. Why not just be honest about it? As for not being to add storage to an Iphone, even I could afford those prices.
Jeez, It took you a week to come up with that nonsense.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Google set to launch the Pixel 7 and Pixel 7 Pro smartphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Focal launches Bathys noise-cancelling wireless headphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Formovie Theater UST projector hits the UK
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sonus faber unveils new flagship Arena speaker series
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sharp showcases its upcoming 4K TV and audio line-up
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom