Can we hear a difference between MP3 and FLAC?

[HCkev]

I made blind tests a few years ago comparing several CD tracks to a 320kbps MP3 version of it(that I did encode myself to ensure it's high quality), and while I was able to tell which one is which, I had to listen very carefully and switch back and forth several times between MP3 and uncompressed. The difference was extremely subtle, so much that I really wouldn't be able to tell if I couldn't directly compare back and forth both. I was also using closed back headphones for that test, which eliminated ambiant noise and helped me concentrate solely on what's playing.

Bottom line, for me at least, it's not worth bothering for pretty much any real world listening scenarios. There is no way I can listen to random music playing and say "this isn't a CD, it's 320kbps MP3".

However, I can absolutely spot a 128kbps MP3. I think MP3 get a bad rap because of that, ~20 years ago, when Internet speeds and bandwidth were limited, most MP3 files you'd find on the internet were 128kbps and sometimes even lower, and I think people associate MP3 as a whole with those.

[DogBoots]

I think I've only heard the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 and lossless under very specific circumstances, which is a raw drum recording, where an extremely sharp snaredrum transient is preceded by total silence. In that case there will typically be a slight pre-ring, other than that I feel that people need to prove they can hear the difference in a blind test or shut up. I have still to see anyone do it reliably.

What I CAN hear, though, is an extremely annoying 1094 Hz tone all the way through the video, which a simple notch filter or noise reduction plugin should've had no problem dealing with.

[daryldraws]

MP3 tends to sounds a little noisier, lighter/thinner sound while FLAC has a more quiet background, fuller sounding as well.

[Unicorn-ST]

It's obvious that FLAC is lossless and MP3 is lossy but...

I disagree with Paul when he says that perhaps a bad recording it doesn't matter...

Just I am verified that if the original recording is a good one, and you get an MP3 file from it... it's really very dificult to distinguish between the MP3 file and the FLAC one.

MP3 256 kbps or above can sound really very good if the original source is a good one.

[x]

As we age we start experiencing the hearing loss of the high frequencies as early as our twenties.
Lower range loss comes later. So it is like we are the MP3’s after a while,
cut off in high's and lows.
And it gets narrower as time goes by.
Good old Neil Percival Young may as well record his next album in a Barn!

[dominikrausch]

I just did a blind test: the same track in mp3 and FLAC, stereo to mono and reduced db levels, switching left to right and back after x seconds. It was a hardstyle track. It’s most noticeable when the bass drops, the uncompressed side being clearer and with more boom, sharper punches (idk how audiophiles call this) but while it is noticeable, it’s minor, but something you’ll definitely hear once you’re used to FLAC.

[charliecharliewhiskey]

I seem to be able to tell about 2/3 of the time. Usually it's because the MP3 version sounds slightly "scuffed" in some places or an existing error sounds even worse. Even today though, the difference is so minor to me that I may as well just use MP3s. Rule of thumb for me is if I have to be actively looking out for differences then I'll go with the space saving one, and while space is no longer a major issue given multi TB drives, across my whole music library that's still enough to "pay" for a 4K movie over a 1080p one, and I see the difference between those whether I want to or not.

With all that being said, I didn't grow up an audiophile, we used the internal TV speakers until relatively recently for TV and ordinary PC speakers for music, so I guess my ear just isn't trained for the difference. Getting decent sound systems was, to me, a far greater jump than any perceivable difference between MP3 and FLAC

[editorjuno]

I can hear the rather small difference between MP3/320 and FLAC @ 44100 Hz on many -- probably most -- of the stuff in my collection of CD rips, and I'm 74. When I first started ripping my CDs to files, I used MP3/160 and MP3/192 -- that was a mistake, because as I got accustomed to MP3/320 and (especially) FLAC I had to dig out the original CDs from my stash (in a storage unit) and rip them all over again.

[jasonkim]

Listen flac and mp3 of same song, after that I can pick which one is flac or mp3. But, randomly playing song, then pick up which is flac or mp3. Absolutely impossible to me. So, just enjoying music now.

[jozno]

In my case, there are plenty of MP3s I’ve accumulated and play via my car stereo or through Airplay on my HomePod, that are simply unlistenable on my actual stereo. Paul is right in that higher resolution MP3s can sound better than the more compressed, but depending on how revealing you’re system is, you’re likely to hear a difference between formats/files.

[Q-kp]

Just tried a couple of samples, none made noticeable difference in my ears. However I'll still keep flac for the masterpieces just out of respect.

[richardiredale]

I seem to recall seeing carefully-executed tests of musical material under double-blind conditions and at different compression settings using high-quality codecs. The results were that mp3 at 128K was surprisingly good, with about 60% success (50% success would mean they couldn't tell the difference). Anything at 192 or above and the human ear couldn't reliably discern the difference.

I did some of my own casual tests on my PC years ago using Vegas video, a program with audio origins and which quite precisely handled audio sampling and mixing. I could easily take a wav source, make an mp3 copy, and then subtract the two on separate tracks. Wav from Wav gave precisely zero. mp3 from wav (or the inverse) gave a highly-muted "chuffing" effect when high frequencies were present. The question then became: If I take the original wav and added the chuffing, could I hear the chuffing? If you are honest and do it double-blind, I'd bet a Double-Double you couldn't. The chuffing was substantially quieter than the source. And if the test was run at higher mp3 bitrates, the chuffing was even softer.

So it's entertaining to hear folks talk about the "wretched" mp3 sound quality. Show me the double-blind tests that prove your point.

[JimmyKlef]

Here are some of the absolute best sounding albums in MP3 form I have come across and the reasons I think they translated to mp3 so well. Rhinoplasty (remastered) by Primus in 320 mp3 sound literally outrageously good. Salival by Tool in mp3 sounds absolutely phenomenal and no different than lossless. Remastered Thriller... 25th and 40th sound no different lossless.. KID A MNESIA by Radiohead... that whole era... sounds utterly brilliant and no loss. In Rainbows as well.

It depends on the music of course, and heres why. Converting to lossy reduces certain information more than others... at least audibly. Transients, for whatever reason, get slightly murkier the more loss. So a snare drum that sounds huge and in your face lossless, the more you compress it becomes less present. So the absolute peak volumes lose their information. Probably anything that hits 0db or even above gets eliminated as you go.

You hear the lossy attack the cymbals hardest usually. The higher up the frequencies you go is the more complexity and nuance, exponentially, and more information required to keep them clean. The higher frequencies also tend to have more dynamics.

Quieter stuff is lost sooner than louder. You can notice a cymbal fade away perfectly losslessly. Go to lossy and more and more you hear the cymbal fade into either digital artifact sounds or blankness, an absence of audio information as opposed to maybe the room sound etc.

Most of the best recordings out there for lossy were actually loud to begin with. When you convert to lossy, the kinds of audio info you lose makes it beneficial for you to make your mix as loud as humanly possible. On In Rainbows... they don't have a lot going on with cymbals... and when they do its pretty tight cymbals... tappy instead of splashy and washy. Very dry and percussive cymbals. So that frequency area can be more dedicated to other things, such as the vocals. Things convert better when there is less going on. That's why lossy recordings of JUST vocals and guitar sound exactly the same as lossless in most cases. (I am talking about 256 kbps or higher... below 256 I will never touch unless its the only thing that exists of the recording).

So leave a bunch of room for every instrument. And then utterly fucking crank em as hot as they go before bad stuff happens. Tends to convert to lossy quite well. It's a huge part of why LOUD won the loudness wars.

[slavkorodic]

Thanks for the 'plastic' comparison! I am sure that even those who have not involved deeper into lossless formats will understand you. I have an audio library of about 12, 000 tracks (of all genres) that I have created over the years in MP3 format (320kbit/s). For the last 2 years, I have been slowly 'translating' that library into FLAC format. Of course you can't do it directly! Literally, I re-record each track individually, from quality sources, but now in FLAC. This can be very hard work, but if you really love music it's not hard, it can even be relaxing because you're listening to music you like...
I still listen to my MP3/320 too, the difference is really small but noticeable.
The motivation for lossless is to pair permanent storage of good sound that is available to you independent of the stream.
In the meantime my file has grown to 14 thousand tracks! Fortunately, memory capacity is no longer an issue.

[koltinn]

if youre ripping cd's for your own 128kbps
320kbps mp3, wav, flac if you're sharing.

[joeythedime]

It all depends on the system. I keep both FLAC and MP3/320 libraries of my ripped music (about 10k CD's) on my NAS drives. On my high-end home system I can hear the difference but on my car's audio system (I have an upgraded system that I installed), I can not hear the difference. In fact I choose to use MP3/320 music in my car because the system can index and search the music much faster than if I use FLAC files.

[SimonBrownja]

Paul, I’ve been watching your video for over a year now and I wish you or someone else would do PS Audio product reviews or even instructional videos on your products.
You really have great products and more ppl should know.

[garythompson]

Well said. You can't fix a bad recording in the mix.

[AllboroLCD]

Studios who do it properly, will actually make a mix specifically for MP3. And i absolutely <3 Brazil

[Michael-xznk]

Hi Paul...just curious...does the Sprout have enough power to drive your LS50's at enjoyable levels at home?