Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Pictures Of Your High End System (Please see the first pages for examples of what should be posted here)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pictures Of Your High End System (Please see the first pages for examples of what should be... - Page 192  

post #2866 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

I downloaded a music file tuther day, and after thoroughly enjoying it went to change the file. As I did this I just happened to gaze at the information displayed at the bottom of my media player... and then my world collapsed.

I'd only been listening to a 256 kps mp3 file!! The entire album was only 75.5 MB's!!

I felt physically sick..

Furious and disorientated I threw my half drank glass of Apocalypse Now (Tequila and Irish cream) across the room and immediately set forth to the kitchen to make another...

Won't be doing that again I can tell ye! (Tequila's not cheap) 


Bahahaha....
post #2867 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

Whats the difference between 320mp3 and WAV? Seems like a lot of trouble to got to, to convert everything.

 

I've read that there isn't much (if any) of a difference with Flac vs Mp3 too. Or am I wrong?

 

Hi LugBug1

 

No. I think you are on the correct way. There are not sonic differences between  320kbpsMP3 ,FLAC or WAV...The technical difference between them is the total amount of inaudible information is suppressed.  If the information is inaudible doesnt matter the total suppressed.

 

 

 

 

 

I think differences between most common audio formats belong to the audiophile mithologie.


Edited by Sahara - 9/22/12 at 6:37pm
post #2868 of 3420
I think that to do a test -rigorous and honest- about differences between audio formats should take the same original for all conversions (for example a simple CD). Not valid downloading already encoded files from Internet becausee we do not know neither the quality or the origin of them.
 
I prefer to keep the objective side of this hobby. With cables as well. I can not understand to pay for expensive cables when reaching our homes we can see things like the following.


What could fix 3 feet power cord to connect our audio to the socket if this happens before?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Sahara - 9/22/12 at 6:59pm
post #2869 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipilot227 View Post

 

 

"But this one goes up to eleven!"

Thank you Nigel.....biggrin.gif

post #2870 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

Whats the difference between 320mp3 and WAV? Seems like a lot of trouble to got to, to convert everything.

 

I've read that there isn't much (if any) of a difference with Flac vs Mp3 too. Or am I wrong?

 

To my ears, FLAC got slightly bigger soundstage, better separation, more clear in detailing.. or this is the placebo effect??

 

If you rip CD to FLAC and rip CD to 320kbps MP3... then you compare that FLAC and MP3, i would say not many different. (even not able to tell)

 

BUT, if you rip CD into FLAC and then compress the FLAC to 320kbps MP3 and you compare them again then i would say there is a different. smile.gif


Edited by YoengJyh - 9/22/12 at 7:50pm
post #2871 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoengJyh View Post

 

To my ears, FLAC got slightly bigger soundstage, better separation, more clear in detailing.. or this is the placebo effect??

 

If you rip CD to FLAC and rip CD to 320kbps MP3... then you compare that FLAC and MP3, i would say not many different.

 

BUT, if you rip CD into FLAC and then compress the FLAC to 320kbps MP3 and you compare them again then i would say there is a different. smile.gif

 

I would agree with this...Start big and stay big if you can. Moving down reduces quality. Sometimes it is necessary and sometimes it is not important. (Quality while working out is not a big deal!)

post #2872 of 3420

I prefer AAC format than MP3.. To my ears AAC format is better than MP3, at least not that congested.

post #2873 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by longbowbbs View Post

 

I would agree with this...Start big and stay big if you can. Moving down reduces quality. Sometimes it is necessary and sometimes it is not important. (Quality while working out is not a big deal!)

 

Actually i realized one thing. If you could rip CD in MP3 format or AAC would be better. It was because of running FLAC format songs in your portable device is burning your battery life.

 

For example: You could run MP3 format in your portable device up to 15hours.. but you only could run 10 to 12 hours in FLAC format.

post #2874 of 3420

That's because AAC is better than MP3. :D Compare both at 256 and it's pretty obvious.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoengJyh View Post

I prefer AAC format than MP3.. To my ears AAC format is better than MP3, at least not that congested.

post #2875 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sahara View Post

 

Hi LugBug1

 

No. I think you are on the correct way. There are not sonic differences between  320kbpsMP3 ,FLAC or WAV...The technical difference between them is the total amount of inaudible information is suppressed.  If the information is inaudible doesnt matter the total suppressed.

 

 

Listen to a piece of orchestral music and tell me otherwise. MP3 throws away A LOT of information when there is too much.

 

"Inaudible" is based off an average. That means to half the populace it could be audible, and to the other half it is not. Your argument is more applicable to 44.1k vs 96k/192k/384k sample rates rather than lossy vs lossless.

post #2876 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamerzhell View Post

 

Listen to a piece of orchestral music and tell me otherwise. MP3 throws away A LOT of information when there is too much.

 

"Inaudible" is based off an average. That means to half the populace it could be audible, and to the other half it is not. Your argument is more applicable to 44.1k vs 96k/192k/384k sample rates rather than lossy vs lossless.

 

Hi Gamerzhell.

 

I,ve dedicated time to do my tests with all kinds of music and to be honest I have not never found differences. The difference between formats is to remove non-audible information. Each format eliminates a percentage, but only not audible information.


"Audible" or "inaudible" can't be an average. If something is audible to be within the range of frequencies from 20 Hz to 20 khz simply so, if it's not within that range then it's not audible. There can't be a part of the population that heard more than the other part in absolute terms. The frequency range is the same for everybody...

Edited by Sahara - 9/22/12 at 9:39pm
post #2877 of 3420
The best way to do this kind of tests is done blindly and matching levels since the difference in decibels gives advantage to appreciate the music details.
 
It is very important to use only the sense of hearing and isolate the other senses to eliminate other appreciation factors to distort the evidence. If we look  what we are going to hear not only involved the ear

We need only the ear to listen music.
post #2878 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamerzhell View Post

 

Listen to a piece of orchestral music and tell me otherwise. MP3 throws away A LOT of information when there is too much.

 

"Inaudible" is based off an average. That means to half the populace it could be audible, and to the other half it is not. Your argument is more applicable to 44.1k vs 96k/192k/384k sample rates rather than lossy vs lossless.

 

Ya, correct. i agreed what you said here. I believe there is a different while comparing of 44.1k vs 96//192k/384k. What my system could offer me now is 16bit and 24bit in 44.1k (there is a small and tiny different but consider inaudible if you are just enjoying music and not analyzing. I have no chance to audio format in 96k and above. frown.gif

post #2879 of 3420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sahara View Post

 

Hi Gamerzhell.

 

I,ve dedicated time to do my tests with all kinds of music and to be honest I have not never found differences. The difference between formats is to remove non-audible information. Each format eliminates a percentage, but only not audible information.


"Audible" or "inaudible" can't be an average. If something is audible to be within the range of frequencies from 20 Hz to 20 khz simply so, if it's not within that range then it's not audible. There can't be a part of the population that heard more than the other part in absolute terms. The frequency range is the same for everybody...

 

You might not be able to hear the frequencies that are being removed, but there are people who can, seems to be rare from what I gather though. If you had perfect hearing (20 - 20k) then it is possible to hear frequencies being dropped off in an MP3 file.

post #2880 of 3420

WTB pictures.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Pictures Of Your High End System (Please see the first pages for examples of what should be posted here)