For me the real difference was the type of the file and the quality of the file rather than just lossless....
An excellent recording of a CD ripped in WAV sounds better than when ripped in FLAC.... however, when the recording is excellent and hi res and ripped in both, the differences are less pronounced for me.
As far as MP3, I could always hear the difference... I don't have any apple gear to use those formats...
I hope this helps,
The reason that you can hear the difference in the quality of the MP3 files is not due to the nature of the compression scheme but because there are 2 basic types of software based algorithms. The worst is the floating point algorithm while the MADD integer based algorithm used by WinAmp sounds completely different and so much better. The reason is that using floating point for an integer based scheme results in significant errors in calculations.
I highly recommend WinAmp for MP3 files. Any of your other favorite software for other lossy files like ACC+ or others.
I‘ve found in my opinion some software likes some file types more than others. Possibly it’s the codec bein used for what ever file type, or as said, the ‘algorythym’.
The one soft player I’ve found that does not seem to discriminate as much is Fubar 2000, latest ver. Now it plays DSD formats.
IMHO JRiver likes FLAC over WAV and AIFF.
IMHO Itunes doesn’t like much of anything beyond its proprietary files and their replay appear dull, WAV, Mp3, wma files get converted but won’t play.
Freakin’ Apple is never gonna learn how to play well with others and live in their hole forever. It is why many are leaving them for more mainstream solutions in HT and Home Audio. Not me of course, I’m gonna get a new Mac pretty soon.
It’s a real shame.
Hopefully SPODOFY will be paying attention to exactly how they conduct the examination.
I can’t always tell which files are lossless and which are not when I’ve made a playlist with all sorts in it and its running as back ground music. Certainly I can detect at anytime if a file was ripped from a great recording or not, regardless the file format. Memory then tells me which files are lossless most often as I ripped or bought them all..
The files I’ve ripped to FLAC with DB Power amp wherein I can manage the size of the resultant file, come out exceptionally well done.
Here’s an issue no one mentions…. If the playback outfit isn’t transparent enough or sufficiently revealing AND one is not too familiar with the recording itself, it could just wind up a toss up as to the outcome.
Apart from a good number of folks here, most streaming services are getting playback on people’s phone and pads. What with file sizes and connectivity its concerning the survey is not going to get the appropriate leveled playing field it deserves.
I can still hear pretty good. But on my iphone? Not so good. Same for the ipad and desktop speakers.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how many taking that test do it from their phone or from their main system… and just what is in that system might be still more interesting?
Spodofy appears to be trying at least. Partially. Lets hope too they are not purposefully skewing the results to avoid .making the investment to keep on pace with or surpass Tidal.
Competition makes everything better for everyone.
I tried ripping a cd using foobar2000 to FLAC and to Vorbis (medium compression). I could hear the difference easily in the HF detail. In fact, Vorbis medium and Vorbis low compression (high quality) were differentiable also. Vorbis high quality was hard to tell from FLAC, but the file size was getting pretty big too.
Not to say it's critical. My favorite stream comes through on MP3 192, and it sounds very good, though the fact that it's always a modern quality recording (within a year or so I think) probably helps too.
The lower the bitrate the easier it is to tell the difference, that is no surprise. The question is if there is any point on the spectrum where lossy files cannot be distinguished from losslessly compressed files like FLAC. The BBC have done some research, and their conclusion is that at 320kbs few people if any can tell the difference. Of course, to test this, the method has to be double blind, and involve a sufficient number of repeats and participants to be statistically significant. However, all the serious reserach (rather than anecdotal) seems to confirm this. On the other hand, this will become increasingly irrelevant when bandwidth is getting cheaper and cheaper. The BBC itself is currently streaming experimental broadcasts of losslessly compressed 16/44 FLAC files.
What makes WAV sound better than FLAC? Is it the fact that decoding FLAC impedes the flow of audio electrons from the computer?
Both WAV and FLAC are lossless formats. The better one is FLAC because it not only has lossless quality but also small size. Regarding to the Spotify music, it you want to download the best quality, I'd highly recommend you convert spotify music to flac
format. DRmare Spotify to Flac Converter should help you. You will still keep the ID 3 tag info, MetaData, year, album cover, artist and so on.
As far as I known, one of the most lossless audio format is FLAC.
FLAC is short for Free Lossless Audio Codec, one of the most popular lossless audio formats for lossless compression of digital audio.
As for Spotify songs, you can listen to high-quality 320kbps audios offline. But for free users, you can only play lower audios online.
In order to avoid this hassle, you can use AudFree Spotify Playlist Downloader for Windows
to convert Spotify to FLAC with one click no matter you are using a free or paying account.
My first post here, but I found it interesting that none of the responders so far actually took the test! I took the test and missed the first one. . . twice! I finally got it right when there were no other choices. However, after looking at the accompanying moving graphic for each of the samples, I got the next two correct without listening to the samples. I just looked for the "fuller" display. I don't really think the test is all that valid. I certainly would never listen to that type of music, and it was torture to listen to the first example all the way through, at least twice for all three trial samples. I did finally try to listen to the other two examples, but stopped before getting half way on the first trial sample of each. I can certainly hear the difference between lower bit rate mp3 and lossless, the lower the rate, the easier it becomes.
I think most people can't really hear the difference between 320 mp3 and
lossless, but that doesn't mean I don't want my classical and jazz
streamed in lossless.
FLAC is much closer to lossless quality, but it is not totally lossless. To be honest, I'm used to convert Spotify music with lossless quality from using the tool-Spotify Music Converter for Mac
. It is designed for all Spotify free users to convert music to MP3, AAC,etc with lossless quality. After that, you can download Spotify playlist to MP3, play Spotify music on any devices without limitation. It is the best Spotify downloader mac
. Hope this tip is useful to you.
FLAC is much closer to lossless quality, but it is not totally lossless. FLAC is bit-perfect, no? That would make it lossless.
I'm used to convert Spotify music with lossless quality from using the tool-Spotify Music Converter for Mac. It is designed for all Spotify free users to convert music to MP3, AAC,etc with lossless quality.
MP3 is lossy compression, by definition.
FLAC is lossless
[F]ree [L]ossless [A]udio [C]odec