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.
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.
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
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
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 lossy format.
File size used to matter 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.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC
deleted by creator
Best way I’ve seen it explained.
FLAC = PNG
MP3 = JPEG
Well I learned something today - I always thought PNG was lossey.
Png is compressed, but lossless. Jpg is both compressed and lossy.
No, and when used for simple images like text, it can often take up less storage space than JPEG despite being lossless.
deleted by creator
Continuing the analogy WAV = BMP
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.
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
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
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 lossy format.
File size used to matter 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.