FLAC (which stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec) is a way to code audio files. It makes those audio files smaller, without affecting the sound quality.
In term of data retention, FLAC is like compressing a RAW image file by using a zip/rar, the data integrity is the same when you open the zip/rar and check the image. MP3 is like reducing the size of a RAW image by converting it to JPEG, data integrity is affected and the image won’t look as good anymore. The most common uncompressed audio format that people know is WAV files (but you can also find compressed WAV files).
MP3s are quite compressed, meaning a lot of data is thrown away in an effort to have smaller files. The quality of audio is sacrificed quite a bit though.
Lossless formats retain as much data as possible as to not impact the sound quality, but at the expense of larger files. The OP says “smaller” because that’s in comparison to the raw uncompressed sound data stream. But they are larger than MP3s because MP3 is a loasy format.
File size used to master a lot in the past when digital music players first came out. My first player had 128 MB storage, for example. At 3-5 MB per song that would fill up quickly. Nowadays larger storage of portable devices is more ubiquitous, with even the cheapest phones sportiing 32-64 GB, and more. So people prefer audio quality and don’t care as much if each song takes up more space.
FLAC files are typically larger than MP3, because with MP3 roughly 90% of the original file is discarded on encoding, hence lossy compression. At decoding the codec tries to restore this 90% out of the original remaining 10%. This sounds worse than it actually is, but you understand why MP3 is considered inferior by audio purists.
On the other hand FLAC uses a different compression technique that reduces the original file by 30-50% but without any data deletion, hence lossless. So, original file let’s say 100MB as .wav, compresses to 30-50 MB IN FLAC and 6-10 MB in MP3.
I gladly sacrifice the additional storage to get noticeably better quality audio.
I get all my music in FLAC, spend extra when I need to buy them.
But ‘noticeably better audio quality’ needs its own explanation.
If you have under $200 headphones, 320b MP3 will most likely suffice. There are many aspects like type of music, volume, sound chip, amplifiers, and of course actual quality of the MP3 (some recode 256 or 128 into 320 to make it look better).
But unless you have quality headphones and enjoy your music without distractions, MP3s will serve just as well.
Of course, once you get to listen to music in uncompressed quality alone with good hardware - you can’t go back. And it’s an expensive hobby.
Jazz music only sounds good with FLAC, IMO. With MP3, even high bitrate 320kbps, the hihats and other dynamics have a washed out sound. You don’t even need good speakers to notice it
I don’t entirely agree with you. Comparing the same song in MP3 or FLAC on the factory-fitted audio system in my car (2023 Skoda Octavia Combi) already makes a huge difference. Of course the difference is smaller when using 256 or 320 kbps MP3, but even then FLAC just adds that extra bit of depth and “openness” to the music
FLAC files use lossless compression, which means all the original data is preserved (which is why people like FLAC), which makes FLAC files smaller than an uncompressed .WAV audio file, but still larger than an MP3 file, which uses lossy compression. Lossy compression does involve the loss of some data. This is what allows MP3 files to be smaller than FLAC. With the existence of other more modern lossy audio file formats/codecs like .AAC, and .opus, MP3s should no longer be used unless it is required for compatibility reasons. The modern lossy formats offer higher quality audio files at lower file sizes than MP3.
I didn’t downvote you, but I think know why you’re getting downvoted. Your comment tipifies laziness and your reaction to the downvotes smacks of entitlement. I’m sorry if that feels rude or offends you. I’m really trying to not be mean about it.
You’re not actually trying to gain knowledge; you’re just begging for a knowledge handout for something that would be obvious even from just a cursory web search and a quick review of the relevant Wikipedia article (which is probably the top non-sponsored result). That shit gets old real fast. Sometimes you really do just have to RTFM.
Has it occurred to you that maybe I am perfectly capable of googling something, but the level of technobabble that I got back in the results went way over my head? And that Wikipedia wasn’t especially helpful (see link elsewhere in the thread), so the best way I could think of to understand something was to just ask the people who’re talking about it, and, presumably, know about it?
So, thank you for the information, but please do work on your soft skills a little. For example, apologising for something that “feels rude or offends”, and then going ahead and doubling down (with added assumptions, no less), makes that apology feel highly questionable in the first place.
Just curious, what’s a flac?
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC
Wait, I’m confused. The site you linked says that FLAC files are typically larger than mp3s?
In term of data retention, FLAC is like compressing a RAW image file by using a zip/rar, the data integrity is the same when you open the zip/rar and check the image. MP3 is like reducing the size of a RAW image by converting it to JPEG, data integrity is affected and the image won’t look as good anymore. The most common uncompressed audio format that people know is WAV files (but you can also find compressed WAV files).
MP3s are quite compressed, meaning a lot of data is thrown away in an effort to have smaller files. The quality of audio is sacrificed quite a bit though.
Lossless formats retain as much data as possible as to not impact the sound quality, but at the expense of larger files. The OP says “smaller” because that’s in comparison to the raw uncompressed sound data stream. But they are larger than MP3s because MP3 is a loasy format.
File size used to master a lot in the past when digital music players first came out. My first player had 128 MB storage, for example. At 3-5 MB per song that would fill up quickly. Nowadays larger storage of portable devices is more ubiquitous, with even the cheapest phones sportiing 32-64 GB, and more. So people prefer audio quality and don’t care as much if each song takes up more space.
FLAC files are typically larger than MP3, because with MP3 roughly 90% of the original file is discarded on encoding, hence lossy compression. At decoding the codec tries to restore this 90% out of the original remaining 10%. This sounds worse than it actually is, but you understand why MP3 is considered inferior by audio purists.
On the other hand FLAC uses a different compression technique that reduces the original file by 30-50% but without any data deletion, hence lossless. So, original file let’s say 100MB as .wav, compresses to 30-50 MB IN FLAC and 6-10 MB in MP3.
I gladly sacrifice the additional storage to get noticeably better quality audio.
I get all my music in FLAC, spend extra when I need to buy them.
But ‘noticeably better audio quality’ needs its own explanation.
If you have under $200 headphones, 320b MP3 will most likely suffice. There are many aspects like type of music, volume, sound chip, amplifiers, and of course actual quality of the MP3 (some recode 256 or 128 into 320 to make it look better).
But unless you have quality headphones and enjoy your music without distractions, MP3s will serve just as well.
Of course, once you get to listen to music in uncompressed quality alone with good hardware - you can’t go back. And it’s an expensive hobby.
Jazz music only sounds good with FLAC, IMO. With MP3, even high bitrate 320kbps, the hihats and other dynamics have a washed out sound. You don’t even need good speakers to notice it
I don’t entirely agree with you. Comparing the same song in MP3 or FLAC on the factory-fitted audio system in my car (2023 Skoda Octavia Combi) already makes a huge difference. Of course the difference is smaller when using 256 or 320 kbps MP3, but even then FLAC just adds that extra bit of depth and “openness” to the music
Yes. Mp3 is not lossless, so it can be even smaller
it’s not physically possible to downvote someone on hexbear
It’s not possible for Hexbear users, it is for users of other instances.
FLAC files use lossless compression, which means all the original data is preserved (which is why people like FLAC), which makes FLAC files smaller than an uncompressed .WAV audio file, but still larger than an MP3 file, which uses lossy compression. Lossy compression does involve the loss of some data. This is what allows MP3 files to be smaller than FLAC. With the existence of other more modern lossy audio file formats/codecs like .AAC, and .opus, MP3s should no longer be used unless it is required for compatibility reasons. The modern lossy formats offer higher quality audio files at lower file sizes than MP3.
I didn’t downvote you, but I think know why you’re getting downvoted. Your comment tipifies laziness and your reaction to the downvotes smacks of entitlement. I’m sorry if that feels rude or offends you. I’m really trying to not be mean about it.
You’re not actually trying to gain knowledge; you’re just begging for a knowledge handout for something that would be obvious even from just a cursory web search and a quick review of the relevant Wikipedia article (which is probably the top non-sponsored result). That shit gets old real fast. Sometimes you really do just have to RTFM.
Has it occurred to you that maybe I am perfectly capable of googling something, but the level of technobabble that I got back in the results went way over my head? And that Wikipedia wasn’t especially helpful (see link elsewhere in the thread), so the best way I could think of to understand something was to just ask the people who’re talking about it, and, presumably, know about it?
So, thank you for the information, but please do work on your soft skills a little. For example, apologising for something that “feels rude or offends”, and then going ahead and doubling down (with added assumptions, no less), makes that apology feel highly questionable in the first place.
I should have just downvoted your bullshit and moved on.