FLAC format...overkill?

Quadman2

Lunatic Member
With a DAP I've approx 140GB to work with and wondering if the music files are converted into FLAC, how many can I fit with this storage?


Have read that going the FLAC route might be overkill and that AAC 256 will be adequate and 320 might be again overkill with the difference not be appreciated. The latter approaches FLAC in space requirement?

What are your thoughts on these higher conversion rates in the attempt to obtain a higher res end result?

What have you found is the "sweet spot" in the bpm transfers?

Q
 
Last edited:
I'm considering getting into FLAC, now that I can hear the limits of MP3. I store digital music in a Kindle Fire and am just starting to figure out if it can even handle FLAC at all.
 
I wouldn't go below 320, but 320 sounds pretty good. Depending on how hi-rez your files are FLAC can take space up pretty fast.
 
I only give compressed-format files to other people because they usually like to listen to stuff on the road. I can't bring myself to go below 320kbps .mp3. The files I use for my own purposes are never below 24/48 .wav. I don't know whether I'd ever use FLAC for my own purposes or not.
 
Last edited:
I hope you mean MB, not KB.

I'm sold on FLAC.


From the comments I've come across, many say that the threshold of the 256 conversion is adequate and they can't appreciate the difference when they go to the higher transfers.

I DO know that hearing abilities vary quite a bit, and trying to take this into consideration. And, I am on board with you on the startling difference that FLAC brings about in that higher res format.
However, also surprised at the amount of memory FLAC uses to DL these files!

On line some one shared that it would take approx 500GB to DL 128 CD's...that's a lot of storage!

Q
 
I only give compressed-format files to other people because they usually like to listen to stuff on the road. I can't bring myself to go below 320kbps .mp3. The files I use for my own purposes are never below 24/48 .wav, but I'd be OK with FLAC in a pinch.

So, are you saying that 320 is superior in end result? What is the TR for FLAC compared to 320?

Q
 
He is saying 320 is the lowest acceptable rate for him. His preferred rate 24/48 means 24 bits per sample, 48,000 samples per second, or 1152 kbps for one channel, or 2304 kbps for stereo. He prefers wav format over flac. I admit I have not listened enough to the two formats to have much of a preference, and have simply used flac myself (and am only just getting into them).

There are lots of debates about digital. For example, I rip from CD which is 16/44.1 and so when I rip, I do not bother going for a higher bit rate, but some people state they it sounds better if you do.

Here is a handy reference about bit rates and how much memory they take based on time: http://www.audiomountain.com/tech/audio-file-size.html
 
By way of example, my FLAC file of The Rolling Stones 12 x 5 mono album is 113.7 megs. The 320 MP3 folder of the exact same CD rip is 79.4 megs.

So FLAC is larger than a 320 rip, but it ain't even double the size. Storage is cheap. FLAC is lossless. Your time is valuable. Go with FLAC.
 
By way of example, my FLAC file of The Rolling Stones 12 x 5 mono album is 113.7 megs. The 320 MP3 folder of the exact same CD rip is 79.4 megs.

So FLAC is larger than a 320 rip, but it ain't even double the size. Storage is cheap. FLAC is lossless. Your time is valuable. Go with FLAC.


Have noticed that storage is getting cheaper all the time, however devices (DAP's) are often limited to the GB that they can take on with external capacity...ie. my Moto cell with just 32GM and the Sony A45 with 128GB.

Thanks all for the urls/experience/background knowledge being shared. Like many out there, just getting into the High-Res thingy...and liking what I am hearing!

Q
 
... however devices (DAP's) are often limited to the GB that they can take on with external capacity...ie. my Moto cell with just 32GM and the Sony A45 with 128GB.

Good point. For mobile/portable, I convert FLAC down to 320 for my iPhone 8 (64 Gigs). Totally fine with this for Bluetooth streaming to the old Marantz at home and various JBL Flip units while traveling. I use xACT for this task on my Macbook.
 
By way of example, my FLAC file of The Rolling Stones 12 x 5 mono album is 113.7 megs. The 320 MP3 folder of the exact same CD rip is 79.4 megs.

So FLAC is larger than a 320 rip, but it ain't even double the size. Storage is cheap. FLAC is lossless. Your time is valuable. Go with FLAC.

This in a nutshell, although at 320 i'd go AAC. 320 AAC vs FLAC you'd have to have the right system to get the extra detail out of lossless, but as stated, with storage so cheap why would you compress?
 
This in a nutshell, although at 320 i'd go AAC. 320 AAC vs FLAC you'd have to have the right system to get the extra detail out of lossless, but as stated, with storage so cheap why would you compress?

Storage is cheap, but OP has stated at least once he has storage limitations due to the DAPs being used .
 
couple of points to consider. MP3/4 were wonderful back in the day when portables had
8/16GB or 80/160GB hard disks.

digital audio players (DAPs) now can support PCM (CD format) up to 32/384 (CD being 16/44.1)
and SACD's DSD at std and 2x. some DAPS provide optical outputs, pretty good DACs inside
and ability to use 2 microSDs

these portables can be hooked to you main system and no need to down convert -

don't know if all smartphones can handle flac @ 24/96 (nowadays the minimum if
you're going to RIP LPs) .

512GB microSDs are just about here. the DAP and DSLR boys are standing in line.

I have older players that only play MPs. but like Windows 95 users some day you're
going to need to upgrade. these DAPS are CHEAP.

but to get back to the OP. PCM rips of LPs (overall average is about 40minutes)
of higher than CD resolution is about 50% more. so about 140 albums (maybe
equivalent to about 1400 songs) on a 140GB disk. FLAC and different
resolutions will get you more or less. you need to test this on your system.
use Windows media player (lastest ver on win10), rip CD to flac, look
at size.
 
Last edited:
AAC files tend to be a bit (20 percent) larger than equivalent MP3 files. I know AAC is supposed to sound a little better than MP3, but I cannot say I hear a difference (unlike, say, 128 kbps vs. 320 kbps). If storage is a concern - and possibly universal compatibility - I'd give the nod to MP3.

I'd like to think I can tell the difference between 320 and 256, but I would not place any bets on that. I keep lots of rips in both FLAC and 320 MP3 which keeps the hard drives full and is, unfortunately, a bit of an administrative hassle. But it feeds the geek side of my soul. Why just listen to music when you can throw in categorization and math?
 
From the comments I've come across, many say that the threshold of the 256 conversion is adequate and they can't appreciate the difference when they go to the higher transfers.

I DO know that hearing abilities vary quite a bit, and trying to take this into consideration. And, I am on board with you on the startling difference that FLAC brings about in that higher res format.
However, also surprised at the amount of memory FLAC uses to DL these files!

On line some one shared that it would take approx 500GB to DL 128 CD's...that's a lot of storage!

Q

I don't know that that's true... I don't have my magic HDD handy but I'm pretty sure I have well more than 128 CDs on it all in FLAC format.
 
With a DAP I've approx 140GB to work with and wondering if the music files are converted into FLAC, how many can I fit with this storage?


Have read that going the FLAC route might be overkill and that AAC 256 will be adequate and 320 might be again overkill with the difference not be appreciated. The latter approaches FLAC in space requirement?

What are your thoughts on these higher conversion rates in the attempt to obtain a higher res end result?

What have you found is the "sweet spot" in the bpm transfers?

Q
Which DAP did you end up with?
 
Going with NW-A45, but on back order. Maybe should have waited until 46 and 47 will hit the scene, but that may not be until later in the year...or next.

Q
 
Back
Top Bottom