MP3 VERSUS FLAC - ABOUT LIKE JPG VERSUS TIFF

[♔Chello]

MP3 VERSUS FLAC - ABOUT LIKE JPG VERSUS TIFF

I will never understand (or accept) why producers of arrangers often only offer storage of performances in Mp3 format.

This format is completely unsuitable for further processing, and reduces the quality dramatically.
Anyone who has worked with Photoshop and processing images knows that an image in JPG format is useless for processing, because the quality is greatly reduced - it lacks pixels.

Something of the same happens with MP3 - frequencies above about 16kHz are reduced or removed completely, depending on which resolution is chosen.
There is also an audible compression in the sub-bass area, although this is not stated.

There is a format that is just as good as Wave - called FLAC - but for unknown and incomprehensible reasons this has never been offered at any arrangers.

Here is an example of how the size is affected by the type of format:
Wave: 40 MB
FLAC: 28 MB (Level 8, best)
Mp3: 9.07 MB (320 kbps)

As you can see, FLAC takes a lot less space than wave (typically 40-50% less), and about 3 times as much as Mp3.

Mp3 entails, as I said, a significant reduction in quality, while FLAC is lossless.

It is therefore very strange that many manufacturers offer wave, when they could have saved considerable disk space by choosing FLAC.

[⚖musicalmemoriesuk]

I just record using the lineouts through my audio interface then i can save in flac format or whatevers needed.

[♔Chello]

I just record using the lineouts through my audio interface then i can save in flac format or whatevers needed.

Everyone should do this, even though I (out of laziness) have made all my latest demos in Mp3.
After upgrading my equipment, I have been bothered by digital noise, which makes recording via lineouts impossible, as the sound goes via an audio interface connected with USB.

In any case, there are many USB devices connected to the PC, so there is a significant amount of digital noise.
I therefore have to use Mp3 for the time being.

However, I have invested in a special device that removes digital noise effectively, but haven't found the time to rewire all the equipment, which is quite extensive.

In any case, I have to use Mp3 (also), because the forum's platform MyBB can only play Mp3 with the built-in player.

[✪BogdanH]

Let me share my thoughts about wav vs flac vs mp3 etc.
Which one to use depends entirely on what purpose audio content serves.

We need to know that wav file is audio PCM format container -the only format that PC can play. Flac on the other side is not audio format: it's a container for compressed PCM format. It's similar to zip, except it's optimized for PCM data compression. In short, we can't listen to flac -it must be decompressed (to PCM) first. For flac compression/decompression certain computational power is needed and more important, it takes certain time. And at the end, even if keyboard would send flac to PC, it would need to be decompressed to PCM anyway (for audio could be recorded on PC). That is, flac is meant for archiving purposes.

Mp3 is similar to flac, except in this case, lossy compression is used. And again, as is the case with flac, to hear or edit it, it must be decompressed to PCM first (which is done automatically in background when we load mp3 into audio editor or audio player).

Now.. being lossy compressed audio format, how bad/good mp3 actually is? Here opinions differ and can many times lead to heavy arguments. And because I try to avoid that, here's my opinion:
But let me ask you something first.. what do you think what frequency range are you able to hear? We know that with age frequency range of our hearing narrows and so, depending on our age, instead of (ideally) 20Hz-20kHz it only goes up to... 18kHz? 17kHz?
There's empiric formula based on statistical data of healthy hearing at various ages: Fmax = 20925 - (166 x Age).
And so for example, at (my) age of 64, I can supposedly hear only up to about 10kHz. Yeah, I was quite shocked by that number and so I made a test.. and what to say, numbers don't lie.
At constant bitrate of 128kbps Mp3 can reproduce frequencies up to 16kHz and at 320kbps it's practically up to 20kHz. And so, anyone who says he can hear difference between 320kbps mp3 and wav has (to put it mildly) vivid imagination.
In my opinion, mp3 (and aac) can be a good choice for music distribution (small files=fast distribution). However is not suitable in case that we plan to post-process audio. Because being a lossy compression, we lose a little of quality at every compression. In that case wav (flac) should be used.

Thank you for reading,
Bogdan

[♔Chello]

Bogdan
Thanks for your insightful comment - you know more than most about this topic.

You focus on the problem of FLAC having to be decompressed, and as this is much larger, it requires much larger resources, which arrangers do not have.
Certain synths have resources for this, as they are Linux-based.
Maybe one day manufacturers will start using Linux on arrangers, but this doesn't seem to be happening; although I don't quite see the problem, as this can be done cheaply.

Your question mark about whether we can hear the difference between Mp3 and Wav is certainly justified, as very few people over the age of 37 can perceive 20Hz to 20kHz.
If one also takes into account that most users of high-quality arrangers are over 60 years old, the picture becomes even worse, because most of them do not perceive anything above 8kHz.
You are therefore lucky to hear up to approximately 10kHz.

And as you say, a constant bitrate of 320kbps can reproduce frequencies up to 20kHz.
They are there, but they are greatly reduced, because Mp3 technology primarily compresses in the range of 16 to 20kHz, and 320kbps corresponds to a significant number of dB in reduction, which means that these frequencies are swallowed by the rest - a boost of these will result in enormous distortion.

Most people in their 60s will have a lot of trouble hearing the difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and a wav, but those under 37 should be able to hear it.

Even though I am 61, I have no problem hearing this, because to this day I can still perceive sine frequencies of 20kHz.
I also have no problem hearing mixed frequencies up to about 25kHz.

I regularly record with the Pa5X in both Mp3 and 32-bit 384kHz, and there is an insane difference between them.

So according to my belief (and ears) Mp3 and aac formats are useless, but for most people this is more than good enough, just like your belief.
But what about those who hear as well as I do ?
Do they have to be run over by people who don't hear what's actually there ?

[♔Chello]

That is, flac is meant for archiving purposes.

Initially, yes - but flac is becoming the most widespread format for playback as well.

More and more musicians realize that Mp3 reduces the quality of their music, and switch to flac.
Neil Young has completely stopped offering his music as Mp3, and has also developed a separate mobile player for his flac files.

The same tendency is playing out among streaming services that specialize in distributing music, and Tidal is among those that take an increasingly large market share from those that offer Mp3, and is known for its high quality.

This means that more and more ordinary people stop using Mp3 in favor of flac.

[♔Chello]

I mentioned that several synths are Linux-based and can therefore handle FLAC without any problems.

I also mentioned the possibility that someone could launch an arranger that is Linux-based, and this has already happened with the launch of the Korg Pa5X, which is the world's first Linux-based arranger.

This opens the doors for Korg to enable recording in FLAC format.

Yamaha has been using WAV for years, which requires almost as much as FLAC; even on the simplest models.


So an interesting question to ask is:
What requires the most hardware resources for recording mp3, flac and wav ?

Recording WAV requires the most hardware resources for storage, while the other aspects—processing, RAM, and disk speed—depend more on the complexity of your project and the software used, rather than the WAV vs. FLAC vs. MP3 file type itself. WAV's uncompressed nature creates the largest files, demanding significantly more storage space and potentially more disk speed for handling large, high-resolution audio data compared to FLAC or MP3.

Resource Requirements by File Type
* WAV (Uncompressed):
* Storage: Highest demand due to large file sizes.
* CPU: Moderate demand, depending on the software and number of tracks/effects.
* RAM: Moderate to high demand, depending on project complexity.
* Disk Speed: High demand, especially for high-resolution audio, to handle constant data streams.

FLAC (Lossless Compressed):
* Storage: Lower than WAV, but higher than MP3, due to its lossless compression.
* CPU: Moderate to high demand for the compression/decompression process, which is more intensive than with WAV.
* RAM: Moderate to high demand, similar to WAV, depending on project complexity.
* Disk Speed: Moderate to high demand, still requiring efficient handling of large data, although less so than WAV.

MP3 (Loss Compressed):
* Storage: Lowest demand due to its efficient lossy compression, resulting in the smallest file sizes.
* CPU: Moderate demand for encoding, although generally less intensive than FLAC or WAV encoding, depending on bit rate and software.
* RAM: Moderate demand, similar to the other formats, depending on project complexity.
* Disk Speed: Lowest demand among the three for handling data, as the files are significantly smaller.

Key Factors Influencing Resource Needs
* Project Complexity: More tracks, virtual instruments, and effects will increase the need for CPU and RAM, regardless of the final file type.
* Software: The Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) and plugins used for recording and processing have a significant impact on resource usage.
* Audio Quality: Recording at higher sample rates and bit depths (e.g., 24-bit/96kHz) increases data volume, demanding more processing and storage.
* Hardware: A faster CPU and more RAM generally provide a better experience for music production.


So based on the above information, there is nothing to suggest that FLAC is not possible with the Pa5X, which is Linux-based - there should be more than enough resources for this task.