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.

[–] msage@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] e_mc2@feddit.nl 0 points 11 months ago

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

[–] catbaba@lemmus.org -1 points 11 months ago

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