Latest Thread Images

teclast-t51-chinitech2.jpg
See full thread gallery...
will lossless make that much of a difference?
Sep 7, 2010 at 3:16 AM Post #16 of 126


Quote:
rogueassasin312 said:
My entire library is in Apple Lossless and will never turn back...I used to have all mp3 but head-fi changed that. Even though I have a very basic rig and may not be able to tell the difference at the moment, I know I will get 'upgarditis' and wont have to re convert my music!!
Click to expand...


I like the way you think. lol
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 3:29 AM Post #17 of 126
I've got both lossless and lossy files since HDDs are cheap these days. I use FLAC for my home system and v3 on the go. While it may be possible to tell the difference between lossless and lossy on a portable the difference will be so small that you won't notice it. When I'm in a train there are so many background noises that I think it would be very hard to tell the difference between 128 kbps files and lossless. (I'm using a HD25 with a creative Zen as portable)
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 5:48 AM Post #18 of 126
I keep the FLAC on my computer, and I have LAME V2 conversions that I use on my portables. I do it all ahead of time, because as the previous poster mentioned, HDD space is cheap. The FLACs are my foobar library, and everything else is the Mediamonkey Gold library.
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 7:21 AM Post #19 of 126
Lossless obviously has the potential to sound better than mp3, and there's people who can hear the difference even with portable players. However, I prefer VBR mp3 for portable anyway, because it takes much less disk space, sounds good (if properly ripped and encoded, of course) and drains less battery. I gladly trade a little sound quality for extreme portability and a greater quantity of good-enough-sounding music.
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 7:45 AM Post #20 of 126
I have decided to stick with my current method...I rip to FLAC for digital backups and home listening but convert to high quality MP3 (320 usually) for portables.  I plan on taking an album I know pretty well and mixing lossless with mp3 tracks and see if I can tell which is which in blind listening.  Gives me something to do that doesnt coast money :)
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 8:47 AM Post #21 of 126


Quote:
idvsego said:
I have decided to stick with my current method...I rip to FLAC for digital backups and home listening but convert to high quality MP3 (320 usually) for portables.  I plan on taking an album I know pretty well and mixing lossless with mp3 tracks and see if I can tell which is which in blind listening.  Gives me something to do that doesnt coast money :)
Click to expand...


If you're planning on doing some ABX testing I suggest you look at this page. It helps you identify some of the artifacts in mp3s. It also gives you an idea of how small or how large the difference between lossy and lossless files really is.
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 8:52 AM Post #22 of 126
I only notice the difference with acoustic music. The difference I notice most about lossless is superior treble extension. Anyway, its worth it in my opinion for acoustic music, even though it kills battery life in my experience.
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 9:00 AM Post #23 of 126
Yes, but it depends on your gear and what file are you comparing the lossless to. For example you might hear a slight difference between a 128 kbps mp3 and a lossless FLAC file but its impossible to distinguish between a 320 kbps MP3 file with a FLAC file no matter how good your gear is. 
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 9:36 AM Post #24 of 126


Quote:
idvsego said:
I am trying to imporve my portable experience so I was takign a look at my audio rips.  My newer ones are all 320 MP3 rips but my older ones are all over the place.  So I am goign to rerip some stuff.  My question is would most people be able to tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a WMA lossless file if I am using a Zune with no amp and a set of budget IEMs like the Visang R02?  And if there is a difference would it justify the space?  Either way I still plan on building a FLAC library on my PC for backup purposes, but just might not put them on the portable.
Click to expand...



This is how I did/do it. I ripped everything to WAV fornat and have it stored on a hard drive. I then can play with different encodings as I chose without having to rerip everything each time. As for the best encoding that is really up to your ears.
 
Library size about 500gb/10600 or so files.
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM Post #27 of 126


Quote:
beamthegreat said:
For example you might hear a slight difference between a 128 kbps mp3 and a lossless FLAC file but its impossible to distinguish between a 320 kbps MP3 file with a FLAC file no matter how good your gear is. 
Click to expand...


For 128 vs. FLAC/Lossless. It's definitely more than a slight difference.
 
As for FLAC/Lossless vs. 320, that one is probably based on your ears and gear. But without the right gear you won't hear a difference, even if the difference is tiny.
 
Edit: I guess what I'm saying applies more to gear that isn't portable.
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM Post #29 of 126
Garbage in Garbage out, why bother asking when you can just listen to the lossless version? If space is that much of a concern than go to the highest bit rate lossy version you can handle but honestly just stick with lossless, sit back listen to the music instead of wondering if you can hear a difference or not.
 
Sep 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM Post #30 of 126
I agree with what everyones been saying here; you won't be able to hear a substantial difference between a 320 vs. flac with a portable w/out an amp. But I can definitely hear a difference with 320 vs. flac on a good setup. As for me... I try to encode in flac anyways, maybe because i find it better, psychologically. But if memory is an issue, you cant lose with 320. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top