Our readers mostly have a Mid-Fi system. They commonly use their flagship smartphone (such as Samsung S22 Ultra, S23 Ultra or iPhone 15), a flagship portable DAC (such as FiiO FiiO KA5 or equivalent DAC from Astell & Kern), uses PowerAmp, own few IEM and headphones which includes:
- HiFiman RE 400
- Tin HiFi P1 Max
- Moondrop Aria
- HiFiMan Sundara
- Sennheiser HD 600
Generally, they do not own IEM and headphones of a higher range (for portable music). Whether you call them an audiophile or just another casual listener, that is your matter. But they do understand the difference between good and bad-sounding things.
The case of desktop listening inside a proper room with studio monitors is different.
---
The present question is that – 16 Bit FLAC and 320 Kbps MP3, which is better for our mentioned setup. Reading this article requires a basic idea of the technologies we have already discussed on our website:
- What is Data Compression
- Lossy Compression vs Lossless Compression
- What is FLAC
- Basic Details of MP3 Audio Format
I am quite sad to say that there is no definite answer to the question if you are asking about “the feel of listening at 50% volume”. Compact cassette was the only form of distribution which was almost always bad. It is not always the fact that 16-bit FLAC sounds same or better than 320 Kbps MP3. The difference in file size between 16-bit FLAC and 320 Kbps MP3 (with a modern encoder) is still not ignorable which means there is “compression” (that is automated deletion of data assuming that we will be unable to hear them). Most of the time FLAC is superior (and equivalent to CD) and 320 Kbps MP3 is worse.
Essentially in MP3, the frequencies get “smeared” to reduce the space. At 320 Kbps, a FLAC (or CD) should sound sharper and you can easily manipulate the output with preamp, equalizer etc. Many of the compositions/music never need an equalizer.
Sounding better, worse or similar has nothing to do with the digital file. In the case of FLAC, no data is deleted or distorted. MP3s encoded with LAME apply an automatic low pass filter depending on the encoded bitrate unless the “-k” flag is used. If you play MP3 at a higher volume inside your car, it will reveal its true colour.
Today, a smartphone can also deliver images in RAW format. Even in automatic mode, with a novice user, the costlier technology will win. Now you are making PNG, JPEG from those files and asking to compare them.
In the case of music, there are more factors such as composer, composition, sound engineer, vocalist, mixing, our IEM/headphones etc.
16/24 bit FLAC/CD version of Mariah Carey’s My All sharper than 320 Kbps MP3. The 320 Kbps version feels like some equalizer or preamp added to it. The 16-bit FLAC files of Lightnin’ Hopkins do not sound great when compared to 320 Kbps MP3. But you can manipulate the output of FLAC without much quality loss to match your ears.
If you create 24-bit FLAC from vinyl, that will bear some audible distortion. On the other hand, 320 Kbps MP3 from the publisher (if they are not ripping off from vinyl and applying cost cutting measures) will sound better.
You can download this software “how to listen” – harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com.
In conclusion, we can say that 16-bit FLAC or any lossless (or CD audio) from the publisher is the standard and will remain so for the next 50 years. If I rip a vinyl to 16-bit FLAC or 320 Kbps MP3 and give you, that becomes a low quality rip. We need the official version.
We know nothing about the details when you are saying 16-bit FLAC or 320 Kbps MP3. In case of CD, the thing’s source was the official publisher.
Distribution of 24-bit FLAC, MQA, and DSD is still limited. 320 Kbps MP3 is not closer to bad. MP3 is the last option for collection. Our this conslusion is in favour of FLAC because the technology of MP3 is around chopping off data to reduce space. We do not know in future what technologies will come which will reveal “more sound” within the audible range of frequencies. MP3 is space saver and bandwidth saver. With advance in technologies, 16-bit FLAC is no longer “big files”.
