What the FLAC

Sorry for the punny title.  I couldn't resist!   If anyone is offended please speak up and I'll change it.

For years now I have ripped my CDs to MP3 at 320 kbps, as that is the least lossy compression rate.  I store these on my 1 TB external hard drive, then make copies of them at 128 kbps to take to work, thus giving me my entire music library at both work and home.  I also keep the 128 kbps copies on a 64 GB flash drive, along with a portal MP3 application, so I can take my music library on the road with me.

I was reading a post either here or at "the other place" (  ) in which someone mentioned ripping CDs to FLAC files. I understand that FLAC files are lossless, and therefore a higher quality sound than MP3 (assuming my mostly deaf ears can tell a difference), but are they really any better than 320 kbps MP3s? I tried ripping a CD at both formats to compare the two side by side, using -8 for the FLAC compression setting, and the FLAC files are four times the size of the MP3 files! I was considering starting the long haul of reripping my CDs to FLAC to replace what is stored on my ext. HD, but now I think not.

Thought? Opinions?

I hope you don't get too much FLAC about the title of the thread. (BAM!)

I know Ahlitah vouches for FLAC losslessness, so he's pretty knowledgeable about the format.

I rip to AAC (Apple's compression) at 256 kbps. The sound is generally good, I'd say. I don't really notice anything wrong about it.

I apparently do not have "an ear" for this kind of thing as I do not hear a difference between a CD, a FLAC file or 320kbps mp3. I personally rip all my music at 192 as that sounds great to me. That's just a personal preference.
I like good sound, but if I can't tell the difference between a song that takes up 7mb and one that takes up 35mb, then I'm gonna be conservative and save space.
I've known audiophiles who swear by the sound of FLAC.
Two songs I have always used to test sound on a stereo system like my truck's or my media room system are
1. Eruption by EVH
2. Lamu by Michael W Smith

These 2 songs have amazing sounds that my ear is very familiar with and if "anything" is "off", I can tell.

^^ I don't have much of an ear for the differences, either, especially after cranking the tunes in the close quarters of my truck cab for so many years, particularly between the ages of 20 and 30.   That is why I use 128 kbps for work; that, and the fact that it's just background music used to drown out the general chit-chat sounds around the office.

However, my purpose for the 320 kpbs rips is essentially to have backups. If a CD get's lost or scratched, I can burn another.  Also, when my computer at work gets swapped out I don't have to completely re-rip the CDs; at least that was the plan before I got the 64 GB thumb drive. Now it kind-of seems like a moot point.

I don't hear the difference either.  Maybe I would on a Bose system or some really good headphones.

I agree. Anything listened to with headphones is different than played out loud. When I was a teenager, my brother had these expensive headphones (the old giant cup style) and the amazing detail in songs was apparent as was the awesome stereo effects when listening to Pink Floyd and stuff (Dark Side of the Moon was/is amazing with headphones)

I can tell a huge difference between 192 and 320 kpbs.  The lows are starting to get cut off on the lower bitrate and the symbols begin sounding like they are under water.  The mids still sound okay.  Below 192 and it becomes unlistenable to me.

I archive everything to FLAC.

BearDad, for you it likely isn't an issue since you say you abused your ears for so long and the environment you listen in is likely not quiet.

The superiority of FLAC is apparent with headphones or quiet on a good system (assuming your hearing is still decent). The other advantage is you can convert to any format you choose without trans-coding. I can recreate the original WAV file that was ripped even.

Doing what you are now (making 128 MP3 from 320 MP3) is bad because you are trans-coding so your resultant MP3s are worse than if you had gone straight to 128 from the source. If you can't even hear the diff between your 320 and 128, you'd be wasting your time and space using FLAC.

BTW, you'd save a little more space using variable bit rate instead of constant, and the LAME encoder for MP3s is normally recognized as the best by audiophiles.

Space isn't really an issue; my 1 TB ext HD is not even half full (not even half partitioned), and I have a 200 GB ext. HD that's empty.  My entire music library takes up about 103 GB at 320 kbps, so if I redo them as FLAC I imagine it would take about between 400 and 500 GB. And if I run out of space I would just have to buy a bigger ext HD, or another 1 TB, which would absolutely break my heart!  So I still might do it. I might not be able to discern a difference, but I still prefer my archives to be as close to original as possible.

So, speaking of FLAC, what compression rate do you use? Does -8 really go any smaller than -5? Since it's a lossless format anyway, does it really matter? Also, I read somewhere that CDs are always 16bit and 14400, so there isn't much point in ripping to anything "better." Do you agree?

edit: BTW, I love your sig phrase! I know a few folks that need to take that to heart, probably myself included!  

I don't think there's much difference in the settings as far as space is concerned. I use the default which I think was 5. Going more takes longer with little gain.

CDs are sampled at 44.1 KHz and 16-bit "depth", which equates to 1.4 Mbits/s while your MP3s are 128 or 320 Kbits/s (and hence smaller). You're not going to rip anything "better" - I don't even think that is possible. All rippers I know of start with WAV (44.1 KHz, 16-bit) format and then compress either on the fly or after the fact to whatever format you have specified.