FLAC vs. OGG

Free Download Mp4Gain

FLAC vs. OGG: Comparing Open Source Audio Formats

Introduction

FLAC and OGG are two popular open source audio formats. They are both lossless, which means that they can perfectly reproduce the original audio signal. However, there are some key differences between the two formats.

FLAC

FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. It is a lossless audio format that was developed by the Xiph.Org Foundation. FLAC files are typically smaller than WAV files, but they retain the same audio quality. FLAC is a popular format for audiophiles and music lovers who want to store their music in the highest possible quality.

OGG

OGG is a container format that can store a variety of audio and video codecs, including Vorbis, Theora, and Speex. Vorbis is a lossy audio codec that was developed by the Xiph.Org Foundation. Ogg Vorbis files are typically smaller than FLAC files, but they do not offer the same level of audio quality. Ogg Vorbis is a popular format for streaming audio and for distributing music online.

Comparison

The following table compares the key features of FLAC and OGG:

Feature	FLAC	OGG
Audio quality	Lossless	Lossy
File size	Larger	Smaller
Compatibility	Widely compatible	Not as widely compatible
Licensing	Free and open source	Free and open source

Which Format is Right for You?

The best format for you depends on your needs and preferences. If you want the highest possible audio quality, then FLAC is the best option. If you are looking for a smaller file size and compatibility with a wider range of devices, then OGG is a better choice.

Conclusion

FLAC and OGG are both great options for storing and playing audio files. FLAC offers the highest possible audio quality, while OGG offers a smaller file size and compatibility with a wider range of devices. The best format for you depends on your needs and preferences.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between FLAC and OGG?

FLAC and OGG are both audio formats, but they are different in a few ways. FLAC is lossless, which means that it can perfectly reproduce the original audio signal. OGG is lossy, which means that some of the original audio data is discarded in order to reduce the file size.

Which format is better, FLAC or OGG?

FLAC and OGG are both great formats, but they have different strengths and weaknesses. FLAC offers the highest possible audio quality, while OGG offers a smaller file size and compatibility with a wider range of devices. The best format for you depends on your needs and preferences.

What are some of the benefits of using FLAC or OGG?

There are a number of benefits to using FLAC or OGG, including:

Smaller file sizes: FLAC and OGG files are typically much smaller than WAV files, which makes them easier to store and transfer.
Higher quality: FLAC and OGG files offer higher quality audio than MP3 files.
Compatibility: FLAC and OGG files are compatible with a wide range of devices, including computers, smartphones, and portable music players.

What are some of the drawbacks of using FLAC or OGG?

There are a few drawbacks to using FLAC or OGG, including:

Larger file sizes: FLAC and OGG files are typically larger than MP3 files, which can take up more storage space on your device.
Not as widely supported: FLAC and OGG files are not as widely supported as MP3 files, which means that you may not be able to play them on all devices.

Conclusion

FLAC and OGG are both great options for storing and playing audio files. They offer a number of benefits, including smaller file sizes, higher quality audio, and compatibility with a wide range of devices. However, they also have a few drawbacks, including larger file sizes and not being as widely supported as MP3 files. The best format for you depends on your needs and preferences.

Free Download Mp4Gain

Mp4Gain Main Window

Mp4Gain Features

Free Download Mp4Gain

What Are the Key Differences Between MP3 and OGG Audio Formats?

Introduction

Digital audio formats play a vital role in the storage and transmission of audio files. They determine the quality, file size, and compatibility of audio files with different devices and software. In this article, we will explore the technical specifications, advantages, and disadvantages of two popular audio formats: MP3 and OGG. We will also compare and contrast the features of these formats to help you choose the best one for your needs.

Technical Specifications of MP3

MP3 is a widely used audio format that utilizes a lossy compression algorithm to reduce the file size without significantly affecting the quality of audio output. The compression algorithm removes some of the audio data that is less perceptible to the human ear, resulting in a smaller file size. The bit rate of an MP3 file typically ranges from 32 to 320 kbps, while the sampling rate ranges from 8 to 48 kHz.

MP3 uses a psychoacoustic model that takes advantage of the human ear’s limitations to mask certain sounds that are less perceptible to the human ear. The model discards or reduces the bits in the audio that are masked, resulting in a smaller file size without compromising the overall quality. However, the compression algorithm used in MP3 can result in a loss of audio quality, especially at lower bit rates.

The main advantage of MP3 is its widespread compatibility with different devices and software. It is supported by most media players, mobile devices, and operating systems. However, the file size of MP3 files can also be relatively large compared to other audio formats.

Technical Specifications of OGG

OGG is a free, open-source audio format that uses a lossy compression algorithm similar to that used in MP3. However, the compression algorithm used in OGG is generally considered to be more efficient than that used in MP3. OGG files can have a variable bit rate that ranges from 16 to 500 kbps, while the sampling rate can range from 8 to 48 kHz.

OGG uses a Vorbis psychoacoustic model that takes advantage of the human ear’s limitations to remove the bits that are less audible. The model analyzes the audio signal and selects the bits to be discarded based on the masking properties of the audio. This results in a higher compression ratio without compromising the audio quality. OGG is particularly good at compressing audio that has complex and variable structures, such as classical music and speech.

One of the main advantages of OGG is its higher audio quality at lower bit rates compared to MP3. OGG files also have a smaller file size compared to MP3 files, making them more suitable for streaming and online distribution. However, OGG is not as widely supported as MP3 and may not be compatible with some devices and software.

Comparison of MP3 and OGG

The main difference between MP3 and OGG is the compression algorithm used. MP3 uses a simpler compression algorithm that can result in a loss of audio quality, especially at lower bit rates. OGG uses a more efficient compression algorithm that can achieve higher audio quality at lower bit rates. As a result, OGG files are generally smaller in size than MP3 files of similar audio quality.

In terms of compatibility, MP3 is more widely supported by different devices and software. It is the standard format for most digital audio players and online music stores. OGG, on the other hand, may not be supported by some devices and software.

In terms of file size, OGG files are generally smaller than MP3 files. This makes them more suitable for streaming and online distribution, as they take up less bandwidth and storage space. However, the smaller file size of OGG files can also result in a lower overall audio quality compared to MP3 files of the same bit rate. Additionally, the smaller market share of OGG may make it harder to find audio content in this format.

One advantage of OGG over MP3 is its support for advanced audio features, such as multi-channel audio and variable bit rates. OGG can also support metadata tags, which allow you to add information such as album, artist, and track title to your audio files.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both MP3 and OGG have their own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to audio quality, file size, and compatibility. MP3 is a widely supported audio format that is compatible with most devices and software. However, its compression algorithm can result in a loss of audio quality, especially at lower bit rates. OGG, on the other hand, uses a more efficient compression algorithm that can achieve higher audio quality at lower bit rates. It is suitable for streaming and online distribution, but may not be compatible with some devices and software.

Ultimately, the choice between MP3 and OGG depends on your specific needs and preferences. If you prioritize compatibility and widespread support, MP3 may be the better choice. However, if you value audio quality and smaller file sizes, OGG may be the way to go. Whatever format you choose, make sure to use high-quality encoding software to ensure the best possible audio output.

MP3 and FLAC: who wins?

MP3 and FLAC: who wins?

Mp3 & FLAC

Music lovers from all countries have been arguing for many years: is it possible to distinguish a high-quality MP3 from a lossless one in a blind test (FLAC, APE, etc.)? How much does compression loss affect the perception of music? Should you give up MP3? Let’s try to answer these questions.

FLAC vs MP3

A little history
In the early 1990s, experts understood that the future of music was digital. However, hard drives were expensive then and fans preferred to store their music collections on cassettes and CDs. The researchers faced a problem: they needed a suitable format to store records on computers. At the same time, every hundred kilobytes were counted – you can slightly sacrifice quality compared to CDs, but save precious hard drive space.

In the late 1980s, the first functional prototypes of a new lossy compressed audio storage format, MP3, were created. The first publicly available MP3 encoder appeared in 1994, and the first playback software soon followed. The first encoding algorithms made it possible to obtain files with slightly “chopped” high frequencies. The sound quality was not comparable to that of a CD, but the output file sizes were quite acceptable.

In the early 2000s, volumes on hard drives were growing rapidly and other audio formats that provide lossless compression began to appear. Relatively speaking, an audio track of this format can be restored to the original WAV from a lossless CD. Perhaps the most popular lossless compression format was FLAC, introduced in 2001. It is suitable for both storing home audio collections and playing music on professional computers. However, a FLAC file can be 6-10 times heavier than a good quality MP3 (256 or 320 kbps). But does file size and losslessness mean consistently high sound quality?

find 10 differences
Compare, for example, two spectrograms of the same song (DAT ADAM – Hydra 3D): it is easy to see that MP3 “cuts” high frequencies compared to lossless compression (left – MP3 320 kbps, right – FLAC spectrogram, obtained by digitizing CD). But the question is different: will you hear the difference?

A bit of anatomy: The human ear is theoretically capable of hearing sounds from 16 Hz to 20 kHz. However, much depends on the age and individual characteristics of the listener. The author of this article can hear sound with a frequency of 16 kHz, but not 17 kHz and above, but there are adults (25 years and older) who can still perceive 18 kHz. All of these frequencies are quite successfully supported by the MP3 format. If you are exceptionally clear, you will be able to hear some difference in the high frequencies, but the difference is almost subtle for most people.

Flac vs mp3

Flac vs mp3

FLAC vs MP3

Recently, FLAC-compatible players, which are highly appreciated by most audiophiles, have developed rapidly. What is the secret of the format? Why is the popular mp3 format not suitable for music lovers?

Mp3 vs Flac

The birth of mp3

In the early days of digital audio, the first music format was Wave, which was widely used on CD-Audio discs. There were no large hard drives at the time and the 700MB album seemed very large. With the advent of high-performance microcircuits, the mp3 format was invented, allowing music to take up 10 times less disk space (~ 70MB vs. 700MB). This made it possible to significantly increase the number of musical compositions stored by listeners at home on a computer and early Flash players. Due to its high weight, the original format was replaced by the mp3 boom.

Many people remember the incredibly popular iriver players that support mp3 and ogg, but the time for those players has passed and iriver has released Astel & Kern players that support FLAC in high resolution.

Compression of information in mp3 and quality How does mp3 take up less space? It is based on two technologies: archiving and psychoacoustic compression. The conventional file is not very efficient and is only used in lossless formats like flac, ape, and wavepack. Psychoacoustic compression is added to mp3 and this format belongs to the Lossy group (lossy compression).

Psychoacoustic compression dilutes data according to a simple principle: anything that the listener potentially does not hear (for example, quiet sounds against the background of loud sounds) is mercilessly discarded. There are many parallels with the video and the photos. For example, in the jpg format, pixels with similar colors are grouped into large squares of the same color and when forming an image, we usually do not notice that various hues have disappeared. But if we want to take a closer look, we will definitely see it!

The quality of the same mp3 bit rate is different

There are a large number of mp3 encoders, and each has its own priority level in the algorithm, what is least important in music and what to remove first with low compression and last with high. The higher the compression, the more meaningful information is removed and the easier it is to listen to on simple audio equipment.

Unfortunately, the sound quality of mp3 depends not only on the degree of compression expressed in bitrate, but also on the codec with which it was compressed and with what settings. Very often, a high bit rate on the order of 320 kB / s is used, but with the fast and less resource consuming encoding mode. The file encodes very quickly, but as a result, it subjectively sounds worse than encoded at 128 kB / s in long, resource-intensive mode.

Almost all “mp3 producers” in the form of websites and CD compilations use fast algorithms. They believe that most will not hear the difference on their phones anyway, and will be guided by the purchase only by the bitrate. Why spend the extra effort if they buy well?

The differences between the 320 kB / s mp3 encoded in high quality and resource intensive mode and the original Wave are actually very small and sometimes difficult to distinguish even with good audio equipment, but these mp3s are usually very few and far between. they just make them enthusiastic. Most of the mp3 leaves a depressing impression.

Much also depends on the decoder, which determines the quality of the final sound. There are still battles on the forums, which software or hardware player sounds better with which decoder.

At the height of mp3 development, the quality of players and sound cards left much to be desired, especially considering that the main mp3 users were those who could not afford to listen to music on a good hi-fi system. . Quality issues were hardly noticed, similar to JPG compression issues when viewed through a cell phone screen. But on a good audio route, it was obvious. Recently, technology has advanced and the quality of most fonts has increased and consequently the disadvantages of mp3 have become more obvious. What are the main disadvantages of mp3 sound?

The absence or unnaturalness of the high frequencies (due to the strong decimation of the high frequencies, which most supposedly cannot hear)
Wheezing and distortion in vocals, unnatural timbres of instruments
Violation of the location of sources in space.
But most importantly, you never know how high quality an mp3 will sound, how much information is actually lost on it.

Can you notice the difference between MP3 and FLAC?

Can you notice the difference between MP3 and FLAC?

FLAC vs MP3

“Here, of course, the question is not about the difference between MP3 and FLAC, it is broader: that lossy compression formats (MP3, AAC, WMA, Ogg Vorbis and others; that is, lossy) differ from the “lossless” (FLAC, ALAC, APE, WavPack and others; that is, lossless).

FLAC vs. MP3

Actually, with such wording, it becomes clear that in the first group of formats, the original data is not completely saved, and the second can be restored to its original format (for example, Wav or Aiff extracted from CD) without loss. What exactly is lost and in what proportions depends on the specific type of lossy files and their bit rate, that is, the degree of compression. But to say that all MP3s sound bad and the “flacks” are perfect is the height of arrogance and incompetence. Lossy audio formats have been developing for more than twenty years, and serious research laboratories (Fraunhofer Institute, for example, in addition to working on MP3, is also famous for the invention of the most efficient solar battery) and a group of enthusiasts. The math of encoding is constantly improving, and nowadays it is not so easy to distinguish files produced by different codecs by ear.

I would immediately make a reservation that not only the files themselves are important, but also the equipment they are to be tested on, the listening environment, and the examiner’s listening experience. In MP3 of any low bitrate Ariel Pink will sing with the voice of Ariel Pink, of that there is no doubt. It is quite possible that a person listening to music as a melody through white headphones in a subway car is sufficient for the eyes, and the difference in codecs will come down to a comparison of file sizes. A disc jockey who is embarrassed to buy or search lossless will also think that everything is in order with his MP3, while preparing a set in the “Tractor” on the built-in speakers of the laptop. True, during a party on a big, loud, clean-sounding audio system from the club (sometimes they meet, believe me), it suddenly turns out that the guy who speaks right after for some reason, the music got big, clear and cool. Lossy formats are developed for the convenience of transferring files over the Internet, for storing them on portable audio players, and finally for personal playback. Okay, it’s silly to watch a gigabyte AVI movie on a big screen. Even in a home theater, this is not entirely decent. The same goes for MP3. On your iPod: listen to your health (although AAC from iTunes definitely sounds better), but if you go to the disco, please don’t miss out, even if you start Skrillex. And when you listen to Christmas jazz with your girlfriend’s parents on their big lacquered speakers, buy FLAC or ALAC too. With MP3, you run the risk of getting into an awkward situation. In theory, after 256 kbps bit rate, it will be quite difficult for your future audiophile father-in-law to know if you are leaking or not.

Usually when you view an MP3 file, you don’t care about anything other than the bit rate. If you already consider yourself a person with a taste for music and sound, you should look in the file properties for the codec data that was used during the conversion. Suppose you see “Lame 3.99” there, this means the latest MP3 codec was used and you’re in luck. But next to it is “Joint Stereo”, which is not great anymore. This means that to save a couple of percent of the file size, the codec was allowed to add something to mono, although the recording is stereophonic and the sound image has slightly lost depth and clarity. There are also fully botanical CBR or VBR, ABR and UBR, but if you’re ready to dig that seriously, do it yourself. Well, you found out the properties of the file, everything is simple there. The difficulty is this: You hardly ever know what your 320 CBR Stereo is made of. Scammed out of Internet radio? Made from an unremastered original Japanese CD? Recoded from 192? There is a lot of music on torrents or Soulseek, but there are few guarantees. Another complication is that lossy formats slightly increase the peak values of the audio signal. The so-called overshoot: thousands of micro-overloads throughout the entire file. Again, you won’t notice this on a train with an iPod. And the future father-in-law can hear. “The so-called overshoot: thousands of micro-surges throughout the entire file. Again, you won’t notice this on a train with an iPod. And the future father-in-law can hear.” The so-called overshoot: thousands of micro-overloads throughout the entire file. Again, you won’t notice this on a train with an iPod. And the future father-in-law can hear. “

MP3 and FLAC: who wins?

MP3 and FLAC: who wins?

FLAC vs MP3

Music lovers from all countries have been arguing for many years: is it possible to distinguish a high-quality MP3 from a lossless one in a blind test (FLAC, APE, etc.)? How much does compression loss affect the music experience? Should you give up MP3? Let’s try to answer these questions.

FLAC vs MP3 320 kbps
A little history

In the early 1990s, experts understood that the future of music was digital. However, hard drives were expensive then and fans preferred to store their music collections on cassettes and CDs. The researchers faced a problem: they needed a suitable format to store records on computers. At the same time, they were counted every hundred kilobytes – you can slightly sacrifice quality compared to CD discs, but save precious hard drive space.

In the early 2000s, the sizes of hard drives were growing rapidly and other audio formats that provide lossless compression began to appear. Relatively speaking, an audio track in this format can be restored to its original WAV from a lossless CD. Perhaps the most popular lossless compression format was FLAC, introduced in 2001. It is suitable both for storing home audio collections and for playing music on professional computers. However, a FLAC file can be 6-10 times heavier than a good quality MP3 (256 or 320 kbps). But does file size and losslessness mean consistently high sound quality?

Even if your favorite song in the spectrogram is clipped to 20 kHz, you won’t hear any distortion (unless of course you’re 8 years old).

The vast majority of people cannot, for natural anatomical reasons, distinguish between high-quality 320 kbps MP3 and FLAC (as long as both digital recordings are obtained from the same source). Of course, if you compress more MP3, for example, up to 96 kbps, the difference will be clearly audible even with cheap headphones. But in the age of terabyte drives, no one listens to music with such compression.

Of course, the equipment used for listening has a significant impact on the perception of music. It is impossible to listen to all the high frequencies in the recording of a symphony orchestra on headphones for 300 rubles, even if you have wonderful hearing and a high-quality recording. However, many specialists are dedicated to mixing music, taking into account the capabilities of the most popular audio equipment among consumers. Bill Ward (Black Sabbath drummer) said that while working on his solo album Accountable Beasts (2015), he first tried to achieve a clear and distinct sound from each note, but then realized that almost all listeners would use inexpensive equipment. and they wouldn’t hear all tones and halftones. As a result, Bill bought several relatively inexpensive headphones from a nearby store and mixed the album in them.

In the case of a file obtained from the Internet (even bought honestly), it is extremely difficult to understand which input was the original source. The sound quality of a file obtained by digitizing vinyl or CD (with or without remastering) will differ from a quality recording of Internet radio broadcasts, although all files can have the same bit rate.

Thus, we come to an obvious conclusion: the difference between high-quality MP3 and high-quality FLAC will only be heard by a trained music lover (most likely young, since after 40 years the range of audibility is reduced ). In addition, you will need quite expensive equipment to appreciate all the characteristics of the sound.

Placebo effect? Can you distinguish an mp3 320 kbs vs a FLAC?

Studies have shown that most people can NOT distinguish an mp3 at 323 kbs (That is, with the best quality) from a FLAC file.

MP3 vs FLAC

We all know that in theory an mp3 is a format that discards information to achieve a small size; or, indeed, due to this ability to take up little space on the disk, but sounding very similar to the original wav was what propelled fame to mp3.

The Mp3 is dead.

Dozens of times it has been written about the undeniable advantages of the formats that do not lose information (looseless), it could be thought that people would turn their backs on the mp3.

MP3 vs FLAC

Some have warned that it is not so likely that this will happen, since most of the audio players (for example, those that come from the factory with the cars) play mp3s but not Flac.

Placebo effect?

But others have pointed out that untrained human hatred CANNOT distinguish an mp3 recorded at its highest quality from the FLAC.
For which to show yourself as a lover of FLAC and a fanatic defender of that format, it is more a snobbery full of blah, blah blah and technicalities that ignore that the human ear is not a robot and that in reality most people they cannot distinguish between one and the other.

And we combine the convenience of using mp3s because the devices are designed for mp3 and not for FLAC, together with the fact that in reality most people cannot distinguish one from the other … this should explain that that the mp3 is dead, is more a product of fanaticism than realism.

Also, they forget another problem.

When digital music is recorded it requires using a compressor … which did not happen with music recorded on tape, that is, vinyl.

That is why there is another faction that does not proclaim and sing songs in favor of FLAC but rather the return to vinyl (forgetting all the advantages and comforts of digitization).

In other words, all these discussions seem more like a mixture of snobbery and puritanism than something realistic.

What studies have shown

What we cannot ignore is that undoubtedly 99% of people (including many experts, musicians, etc. who talk hours about bitdepth, bitrate, etc.) can NOT distinguish a WAV, from a FLAC, from an mp3 recorded at qualities superior to 160 kbs.

Personally, we celebrate that all these formats exist and that we are coming to the time where every person can use and love the format of their choice and even defenestrate and even hate other formats and discuss long hours about their technical knowledge.

But yes, it seems that it is basically a placebo effect.

Flac vs Mp3, differences

In today’s world, it is important to understand the difference between the different audio files available.

The most common and current files are practically the files in the formats MP3, Flac and WAV.

Is there really a difference between MP3, Flac and WAV files? The answer is absolutely yes.

The difference is in the audio quality that these files can play.

What is the difference between MP3, Flac and Wav files? MP3 files are of lower quality because they are more compact and smaller. Flac files are a kind of compromise. With files in Flac format, it can be of very good quality and remain true to the original, which in any case is compressed by a certain percentage. Finally, there are the WAV files that do not use compression.

Therefore, the quality is better, but the size of these files is quite large, it is not compatible with any device these days.

It may not be easy to understand which audio file to use for your work, especially if you are a beginner in this area.

However, you don’t have to be afraid of it.

Once you’ve learned all the differences between the three audio files, you can really fix the problems by always using the appropriate file.

What are the differences between the categories in detail and when should you use a specific audio file?

Here’s a complete analysis for each audio file format that really helps you understand everything you need to know about MP3, Flac, and WAV files.

What is an MP3 file?
It starts with one of the most common files in the world of information technology, namely the one called MP3.

MP3 files have been around for years, so their development is common.

But what an MP3 file really represents.

Well, a general audio file is a series of numbers obtained by sampling the analog signal.

This scan responds to some parameters, which are the frequency measured in Khz and the resolution expressed in bits.

The MP3 file represents the most compressed form of an audio file, so to speak.

Finally, you need to understand that the MP3 file can remove all unnecessary parts of the digital file from the sequence and the final sampling, taking advantage of some imperfections of the human body to give it a clear and clean melody.

On the other hand, the MP3 file significantly reduces the quality of the sounds played.

In fact, all the different nuances of a certain melody come to the bone.

An MP3 is small if you speak it from the perspective of the memory. You should think of it as a kind of concentrate that gives you a remarkable but not 100% complete end result.

In the most extreme cases, an MP3 file can reduce the original tones and nuances of music or melodies to a percentage of 90%.

However, these formats are widely appreciated and used because they are not only practical and direct, but are now compatible with all technological devices, e.g. B. MP3 players, for which we recommend that you read our guide.

This means you can take them with you at any time and any product you have can read an MP3 file.

What is a flac file?
So at this point you need to understand what a Flac file is.

Well, it should be said that the Flac file has some major differences from its MP3 counterpart.

In fact, a Flac file is much more complex than a regular file and can be reduced by 90%.

First, you need to understand that Flac is actually an acronym that stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec.

It is always a format that is somewhat compressed, but files with this name have a certain property.

In fact, the file is lossless with no loss and maintains higher fidelity than the original sound.

With a Flac file, you have a clearer quality of the audio file, so you can clearly hear some details that can be lost if you use a different audio format.

The limited storage space when using the Flac format is very small and can reach a maximum of 50%.

However, when using such files, you should be aware that their use on the storage hard drive is important.

Not surprisingly, Flac files take up a lot more space than regular MP3s. In some cases, a special reader must be downloaded to read them. Many home theaters and receivers support this compression format.

Audio quality in different formats (flac vs. mp3)

In this post I am going to talk about what differentiates music from mp3 and flac. First, and before you begin, go ahead with the following:

The quality of a musical hearing depends (and a lot) on the audio card and the musical equipment (amplifier, headphones / speakers) used, and on the other hand it also depends on the sensitivity of one’s ear. A newborn with perfect hearing can hear from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The normal thing for a young person is to hear nothing above 18 kHz, although some people with exceptional hearing can hear 20 kHz or even more. , and a person 25 years of age or older begins to lose hearing from 15,000 – 16,000 Hz. In addition to the frequency response (quantitative aspect), the qualitative aspect is equally or more important: that the waves at each frequency are produced in the most similar way to the original source.

Having said that, we fully enter the subject at hand.

Many people think that an mp3 sounds like the quality of a CD. This is not exact. Apart from the fact that a CD sounds with the quality that those who have recorded it have given it, mp3s are formats with loss, and that means that a good part of the original information is discarded to save space. The trick is that the information that is discarded is, as a rule, information that is “hidden” among the rest of the information. To give a simple example so that the idea is understood, if a person is speaking to me at a normal volume and suddenly a helicopter passes in front of us, the sound of the helicopter will eclipse in my ears the voice of that person; the wave of his voice will continue to reach my ears but I will not perceive the sound. Another example, so that I am also understood: if we could play two very similar pianos at exactly the same time in such a way that their vibrations coincided, the mp3 would “say” that “one of the pianos is left over”. This type of operation (but, of course, at a much more subtle level, of microscopic changes) is what is done so that the initial 40 or 50 MB that a song occupies on the CD are reduced, at most, to 9 MB or less, depending on the bitrate (128, 160, 192, 256, 320 kbps) of the mp3.

But all that information that the mp3 removes at a stroke is information that, from the original source, would reach us, and it is information that would affect us emotionally (an mp3 violin can hardly give us goosebumps), although consciously most of the time we do not know how to express the difference in words. The same happens, for example, when a person is recreated in virtual reality: sooner or later we will know that this person is not real, because virtual reality technology has not yet managed to recreate the microscopic details that we are capable of capturing and that make us identify a person as real and not virtual.

Other differences between an mp3 and a wav (Microsoft’s uncompressed wave file) or a flac (Free Lossless Audio Codec, free lossless audio codec) are noticeable after spending a long time listening to music. The mp3 ends up giving you a headache, while the original sound doesn’t. And to this we must add that there are certain songs that have the musical information arranged in such a way that the mp3 algorithm is not able to “guess” what it is that you are not going to be able to listen to, and the result is that there is a notable loss quality, especially in the treble. In fact, a 128 kbps mp3 cuts all frequencies starting at around 15 kHz, and this is something that most people with normal hearing can easily perceive.

So that you can hear the REAL differences that exist between the different audio formats, I have prepared several tracks in which I have done the following:

1) I have loaded the song from the original disc.

2) I have recorded it in different formats: flac, mp3 to 128, mp3 to 160, mp3 to 192, mp3 to 256 and mp3 to 320 kbps.

3) I have then loaded all the waves into the Sound Forge Pro 10.0 program.

4) I have synchronized all the waves bit by bit. This is necessary because the mp3 introduces a certain lag of milliseconds with respect to the original.

5) I have copied each mp3 wave (lossy quality) and mixed it on the flac wave (original quality, without loss) with the reverse polarity. If both waves were identical, the result would be silence. But instead, as the mp3 has less information (the wave has fewer resolution points, so that it is understood) there is a residual noise that corresponds, neither more nor less, to what the mp3 has less than the flac added to what the mp3 has more than the flac (the mp3 not only loses information; it also introduces noise that was not in the original recording).

6) I have recorded everything on flac. Contrary to what most people think, the fact of converting an mp3 to a higher quality format does not add quality, since the additional information “cannot be invented” by the mp3, and it is still absent. An mp3 transferred to CD continues to sound like an mp3.

Important note: In order to listen to the files, your player must be able to play flac. First of all, associate the files with the .flac extension to your player so that it opens them when you click on them. If they still don’t sound, then install the necessary codec or plugin.

As a player I recommend the AIMP2 or the Foobar2000; both are free and give exceptional audio quality (they reproduce the sound as it is recorded, without any attachments of any kind). For my taste, the best of the two is the Foobar2000, because it is also more stable and lightweight. The Winamp and the Windows Media Player color the sound (or in other words, they equalize it), which can be interesting if you have low-quality audio equipment and play mp3s at low bitrate (128 kbps), but, If the equipment is hi-fi and the music is encoded in a lossless format or played directly from the original CD, then the difference between Winamp or WMP and AIMP2 or Foobar2000 is quite noticeable.