Sound quality - 192KBPS and less

[jbloudg20]

Originally Posted by richardu

No one has mentioned that it also depends on your player. With WAV it is a simple digital feed to a DAC. With lossy encoding the player must produce the sound based on the digital stream (shaped noise etc.).

Both wav and compressed formats are a digital feed to a DAC. The difference is in the decompression algorithm, which will not affect sound quality.

[DrBenway]

Originally Posted by Eric M

Hard drive space is so cheap, I don't see any reason to not to use FLAC/AAL. Who cares if you can't hear the difference, it's comforting to know all the bits are there.

I agree completely. There's also the fact that FLAC is largely future proof, since it's a free, public standard (ask ATRAC users if that sounds good to them now). And files can always be decompressed to the exact original WAV file.

Whether or not lossy compression at high bit rates audibly degrades sound quality, the simple fact is that no one ever used lossy compression to improve the sound of a file. Why? Because it can't do that.

The only advantages to lossy compression are reduced storage requirements and download times. With multiple megabit 'Net connections and multi-terabyte drives, these considerations are becoming far less important.

To be fair, MP3 is ubiquitous, and so it's hard not to deal with it. I would much prefer FLACs to the VBRs that I get at eMusic, but at the price (< $0.25/track) it's pretty hard to argue. Not to mention the broad selection of stuff that they offer, and the sheer instant gratification of shopping this way. Like I said, I would prefer FLACs, but I'll bite my tongue and buy MP3s until lossless becomes more widely availalble.

[future_jack]

Originally Posted by Logistics

Well, everyone hears differently so you should definitely go by your own hearing. If you can't hear a difference above 192kb then you surely won't want to waste your time and HD space encoding at anything higher. But I can tell you that it is possible to hear a difference above that.

First of all, if you're using Windows XP, I would suggest using a Kernel Streaming plugin for Winamp or Foobar. This can help improve the sound.

Second, modifying your sound card can also improve the sound, but if you're not already handy with a soldering iron than you would do well to look into a better sound card or an external DAC or both.

I can hear differences between 320kb VBR MP3's and WAV's. I don't know about FLAC/ALAC to WAV's because I've never been interested in encoding to lossless.

I'll look into that plugin for winamp.

I have HD650's and am using them without an amp at the moment. Amp should be on it's way in the future.

I had been using it on my standard dell soundcard and the sound is grand. It's better than cheapo phones at least.

I also have a new m-audio firewire 1814 soundcard and when I use the headphone output the phones go loader but no difference in sound. Do you think that it strange?

[Logistics]

Originally Posted by future_jack

I'll look into that plugin for winamp.

I have HD650's and am using them without an amp at the moment. Amp should be on it's way in the future.

I had been using it on my standard dell soundcard and the sound is grand. It's better than cheapo phones at least.

I also have a new m-audio firewire 1814 soundcard and when I use the headphone output the phones go loader but no difference in sound. Do you think that it strange?

Assorted Steve Monks Related Stuff

No, that's not strange. It just has a different OpAmp running the amplification.

[Logistics]

Originally Posted by Febs

Why on earth would you use some of those switches?

I would be much more interested in seeing ABX test results that show that you can hear a difference in the first place.

I know that many of the switches may be redundant, but I don't mind using them, anyway.

Calm down, friend. Please, don't base what you do to your rig on my ability to hear differences in sound. Modify your rig so that it sounds good to you... I'm definitely going to do the same. ;D

[Febs]

Originally Posted by Logistics

I know that many of the switches may be redundant, but I don't mind using them, anyway.

Not redundant. Conflicting.

Calm down, friend. Please, don't base what you do to your rig on my ability to hear differences in sound.

I certainly would never do that. And I can assure that I am quite calm.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by DrBenway

There's also the fact that FLAC is largely future proof, since it's a free, public standard

Nothing is "future proof" in computer audio. There are only formats that are more likely to become obsolete than others. 8 Track tapes were an open standard too.

See ya
Steve

[DrBenway]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Nothing is "future proof" in computer audio. There are only formats that are more likely to become obsolete than others. 8 Track tapes were an open standard too.

See ya
Steve

That's why I said "largely," but your point is certainly well taken. Perhaps I should have said "relatively." Like I said, ATRAC turned out to be nasty dead end. I just think that FLAC is at least somewhat less likely to end up on the trash heap so quickly.

Maybe we need a "Guttenberg Project" for audio...?

[HighLife]

well, im pretty sure you will notice a difference from 192k CBR and 320k CBR...however, i think you might/might not notice the difference from 256k VBR to 320k CBR.

There are tons of discussions on what format is better and which people prefer...however just a short answer...

Yes, you will be able to tell the difference if you are using decent gear. If your using Ibuds, then i seriously doubt you will be able to hear a huge difference in formats or bitrates.

[Hi-Fi Low-Life]

I found this Stereophile article regarding different codecs interesting.

Stereophile: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD