I'd like to know as to why FLAC is prioritized over mp3?
Ah, but what about all those shows with the irritating track splits. Stuff where they allow a song to get some way-in, before deciding to split it OR the 'completists' that separate (say instrumental passages in a song) and end up with....something 'reprise'. Whilst it doesn't alter the listening experience, it is very annoying - there are sometimes cases where that is the genuine option, I should add.
This is a very important thing for me! Listening to a live show and having the silent gab between songs is distracting. It's especially strange when a band runs from one song into another.
Listening to MP3s instead of FLACs is the equivalent of watching a DVD (or, worse, a VHS tape) instead of the movie that is available in 4K (the UHD disc, not the streaming version because that is also compressed due to bandwidth). Meaning, a terrible idea. I can tell when I'm listening to MP3s. It's not so obvious in a car or talking to friends with the music playing in the background, but with headphones on (real ones, not those crappy earbuds) or a good stereo my ears fatigue in less than an hour.Personally when I'm listening very closely, 192kbps MP3 is where I can't tell the difference. Normally I can listen to 128kbps just fine though. 96kbps or under becomes awful to listen to.
I like a FLAC archive so that I can re-encode the audio into any lossy format I want (to not convert lossy to lossy, but lossless to lossy), and put it on my phone that has less available storage. I can use FLAC to edit audio into videos with the least amount of quality loss possible.
I agree 100%, and by keeping it FLAC, we can preserve the quality of the original recording. I download in FLAC, and if I only want a song or two for a flash drive or CD (yes I still have a car with a player) I can do MP3.Over the years, I have come to prefer FLAC (as well as WAV) because that is the track which holds the complete audio spectrum. After having that in the archive, I can do what I will for my own listening convenience. If I want to convert to Mp3 for ease of listening and importing between platforms, I am free to do that. But for sharing with others, the full FLAC (or WAV) is the gold standard.
I can often tell the difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and a FLAC when I'm listening at high volume in the car. The Mp3 sounds harsher and compressed. The FLAC, especially at 24/96, allows for the file not to sound harsh. At lower volumes, it's more difficult to discern the difference between FLAC and Mp3.
But check this, if an audio file has been smashed down below 128Kbps Mp3, it is most definitely noticeable through the presence of audio artifacts. Some people can even detect this when an Mp3 is less than 320Kbps. Once those artifacts are there, its a done deal. I've heard many times, to my frustration, where people have re-inflated/converted a smashed Mp3 back to FLAC. It just doesn't work that way. Once the file is compressed like this, the inaudible factors are imprinted forevermore. Changing it back to FLAC brings those artifacts, too. So it becomes fruitless. And it's beyond annoying.
This is why FLAC is the gold standard for audio trading. Once you have it in your collection, do what you will with it. But please only offer the original FLAC for trade.
Well, sure. MP3 is still better than nothing and I'm also grateful they exist at all. But if someone is converting that say from the master cassette into a digital format, FLAC is better than MP3.When I'm listening to a bootleg recorded on a cassette recorder 40 years ago in a tiny club, I'm grateful to be hearing it at all. FLAC, mp3, whatever...
This isn't true. The MP3 algorithm compresses the data, not the dynamic range. They are two completely different things.but starting with MP3 means you'll never have the whole dynamic range of the original.