What's so cool about Flac over Mp3? is there really that much difference ?? Serious question .... thanks! ![8]](https://librarymusicthemes.com/Smileys/default/cool.gif "Cool")
MP3 is a format that uses tricks to shrink the filesize. The audio on a compact disc or even vinyl records have audio information stored that our brains often can't comprehend. These tricks lossy encoding (such as MP3, AAC, OGG,...) are abusing several factors of the imperfections of our ears, our brain and also our equipment.
For example, medium-bitrate MP3 (192 kBit/s) cut off at 16 kHz whilst a CD contains up to 22.050 kHz. The vast majority of humans can't hear higher than 16 kHz - only children can hear up to like 18kHz, but that goes down the more our ears are used as we age or by damage like a loud bang, so that is a way to save data when you remove 16kHz+ at the cost of a bit of soundstage.
Then there is audio masking in place, removing quiet parts that are inaudible. Imagine you play music and then turn on your vacuum cleaner. You will hear the vacuum cleaner. MP3 then kind of removes the radio that the louder vacuum cleaner "hides". Our brains simply won't hear that despite it's stored on the media. Scrapped to save data. Of course that is a very simple way to describe it.
And last but not least, if you have a great hearing and concentrate much, your audio equipment might not convey the kind-of unnecessary signals anyways. You must buy expensive speakers (monitors are these professionals speakers called) to really hear a difference of a modern-encoded MP3.
Since these ways of removing practically ultrasonic sound, you won't hear much of a difference at all. Countless ABX tests (people play lossless and lossy and then have to guess which is the worse-sounding file) showed that an incredible amount of people are not hearing a difference. Even audiophiles are surprised that a VBR0 / 256kBit/s+ MP3 sounds "similar". Just enter that into Google and you will find threads over threads asking for the real need of FLAC. "Placebo effect" is a big term where people pick the allegedly bad MP3 over the FLAC.
However, MP3 has flaws as it's a very old format. These flaws are incredibly rarely happening and if they are happening only audible if you have the lossless material to switch back and forth as comparison. But these exist. In my collection, there is ONE file where the MP3 format gets a hiccup. A reverse cymbal that sounds a bit more "fizzy" than it should. Also, throwing loud, fast, incredibly hot mastered music at it also results in not-so-great results. Still audible and good, but not amazing. These are called "killer samples". AAC, the successor of MP3, removes some of these problems (but introduce a few different new ones). A MP3 at 256 kBit/s+ or VBR2 is the perfect mix of everything. AAC and the other lossy formats are basically just more space-efficient at the cost of compatibility.
FLAC though keeps
ALL the data there where it is and how it was. That is also good for remixing, as programs have more "juice" to work with. Lossy formats "comb" through a file, use their "tricks" (psymodel) and then write a new file, so they are basically a perfect end-user format - when you know you never want to change it again. However, FLAC contains basically ultra sonic audio information that I, for my part, do not want. That is almost like asking for an infrared track on your BluRay. You can't see it, but man, you want it so badly for some reason. Also, the weird idea of "high kBit/s = Better quality", but you can also FLAC a worn-out compact cassette and it sounds like garbage
I prefer lossy because even an older MP3 sound fantastic on a medium-priced living room stereo.
EDIT: Also just to note it's a bit strange that people like us that listen to worn-out LPs and badly-recorded cassette tapes suddenly get very picky about MP3 which surpasses both a LP and a CC in almost any way. FLACing an old LP is kind of a contradiction, albeit I understand that on an already old medium you might not want any forther alteration.
