I use Windows Media Player to rip my cd's to file. I have always used the MP3 file format at the best quality level. I thought I would try a different format in the hope that the already very good sound quality from MP3s would improve. To test this theory I selected a cd at random which is Let it be by the Beatles. I used FLAC, WAV, WMA and a fresh MP3, ripping the whole album and  putting them on an empty Scandisk micro usbA then connecting that via a usbC to usbA female cable. I've got a right angle adaptor on order which should make using my supply of usb sticks a bit tidier.

File sizes for the album were as follows;

MP3     80.4mb

FLAC   195mb

WMA   205mb

WAV    355mb

Seeing the differences I thought I would get the best sound from WAV but I couldn't tell any difference between the four. Any opinions on this anyone?

My car has the Amundsen Infotainment system.          

I've alternated between MP3, WMA, WAV, and AAC (Apple iTunes) typically. I find that unless the file is on a low bit rate, I can't tell the difference. MP3 remained dominant because our car stereos (with the exception of my OEM Symphony unit) could play them fine without taking the huff. Make of that what you will, I guess.

FLAC in theory offers the best audio quality. MP3 is more widely supported though and at a decent bitrate (160 Kb/s or above) should be fine for in-car use.

 

Another contender (not on your list) is AAC which offers decent audio at smaller file sizes. How much of an advantage that is is somewhat debatable given how cheap storage media  is these days.

I've read up on the different file formats and would have to agree that FLAC would be the best, in theory, but surely the most important thing is how each format sounds when played through whatever device you are using at the time. In this case, I was looking for the best format for the Infotainment system fitted as standard in my Kamiq SEL. All the formats I tried sound the same. Is it my ears and all the other bits which my head uses to listen to sounds or is it the infotainment system? I've put it down to the car's sound system. I've got Sonos Radio HD on a month's free trial and the difference between that and the non-HD Sonos Radio is clear. Given that it costs £7.99 a month for the privilege of continuing to use it after the free trial, I have decided not, but that's another topic.

As stated above. The better your sound system and source is the better quality files you will need. I have just ripped out the system in my Fabia and upgraded everything. Before as standard you could hear a difference between 320mp3 and 160 MP3 only just.  You could hear, or should I say feel the difference from 320 to wav or flac. But now through the new system if you turn any 160 MP3 up to a med to high vol level it sounds terrible! I use a high Res player plugged in through AUX playing mostly FLAC/WAV.

IF you are playing music loud in a normal standard system I would suggest at least 320mp3 or FLAC if your source supports it. If your car is a quiet car you won't have to play the music loud to drown out tyre noise or creaks.

I have FLAC for home audio & then a MP3 file in fixed bit rate at 320kbps lossy for the car..& I have the dynaudio system in the car...

 

The car is not the best place to try to hear the differences in a top end MP3 -vs- FLAC debate....stick to MP3 at 320kbps fixed rate.

 

P.S. I use dbpoweramp for all my ripping & conversion needs...

WMA, AAC, and MP3 at highest possible quality I can get my hands on for home use. Usually pre-recorded CDs and highest quality set streaming in Spotify for in the car these days.

 

56 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

P.S. I use dbpoweramp for all my ripping & conversion needs...

 

Haven't used it, but noted.

22 minutes ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

WMA, AAC, and MP3 at highest possible quality I can get my hands on for home use. Usually pre-recorded CDs and highest quality set streaming in Spotify for in the car these days.

 

 

Haven't used it, but noted.

 

 

FLAC is better due to song details tagging i.e. its read by more programmes etc ..well that's the conclusions I've read from highly detailed arguments in certain hi-fi forums....but than I only have one Apple device....the rest is Windows...

 

Anyway I can play 24bit 192kHz studio master downloads (which I have) on my network player....& those files are LARGE... well comparing one song in 24bit 192kHz is 233MB -vs-59MB as 16bit 44.1kHz CD..!!

4 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

FLAC is better due to song details tagging i.e. its read by more programmes etc ..well that's the conclusions I've read from highly detailed arguments in certain hi-fi forums....but than I only have one Apple device....the rest is Windows...

 

I typically avoid Hi-Fi forums - I had (and probably still have) a Tapeheads membership which made itself useful occasionally. I'd have went FLAC fully but my iPod says otherwise, and as does the money I've spent on music on iTunes.

Edited 23 November, 20214 yr by AnnoyingPentium

1 minute ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

 

I typically avoid Hi-Fi forums - I had (and probably still have) a Tapeheads membership which made itself useful occasionally. I'd have went FLAC fully but my iPod says otherwise, and as does the money I've spent on music on iTunes.

 

Yeah I know what you mean..

 

..I'm on one mainly as I've yet to place a mods list/thread that I did to a set of speakers...many of the build methods & components are not what people usually use, but are of better quality etc...& the way I built the cross-over network..just wanted to get the info out so people can improve their knowledge...