will lossless make that much of a difference? - Page 3

I can hear a difference between 128 and lossless, but not 320 and lossless. Given, I only have a pair of Sennheiser HD228's, but still...

Although I start to go a little stir-crazy when I switch between CD, Lossless, 320, and 128, trying to discern small differences. Sometimes I wish I was still ignorant to sound quality tech specs. Listening to whatever random file I got off Kazaa on my apple earbuds haha

Quote:

For your setup, no. You will not hear a difference. Lossless will shine on a much higher end system.

I have an old TiBook and 20GB iPod with 192 kbps AAC's. Internal HD is fairly full because of iTunes files. Moving to an external. I would like to know what the best format / rate for new rips would be. I was under the impression that Apple Lossless was the best available for me. I want to change from 192 because I now have AKG 601's and plan to get a desk-top headphone amp and 192 through a PA2V2 was not good. If there would still be little to no audible difference between Lossless and a format that would not require as much disc space with my available source and gear I would like to be able to fit more music on iPod. I do know that a bigger player is going to be needed at some point. 

What do you think is the best choice for this scenario?

Have there been studies or analysis done on the subject? I'd be willing to consider the possibility that I'm hearing placebo, but there's no warrant to this statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beamthegreat 

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. 

On that rig, lossless is complete waste of space and battery life.  On my Zune, which is loaded with lossless, I get maybe 8 hours of playback.  If I listen to only my 320 stuff I can go the whole week easy without charging.

Generally how much space is saved using iTunes 320 KBPS AAC over Apple lossless? For iPod use would 224, 256 or 288 kbps be a viable choice? Seems the focus is basically 320 or lossless.

This is all my personal and relatively newly formed opinion:  Using my Mac and ATH-M50s I can't tell a difference between FLAC or 320kbps.  Initially, when I first joined this forum I thought that FLAC sounded far better than ACC, but then I realized most of my ACC library was ripped in 128kbps or worse. I can tell a very large difference, even using my limited gear, when comparing 128kbps to either FLAC or 320ACC.  For myself, I am ripping everything in FLAC and storing it on an external hdd should my gear situation improve and I one day find that I can tell the difference.  I have copied my FLAC files to 320ACC for now.

Best advice, since everyone's ears are different, would be to rip a cd and format a song in 128, the same song in 320, and, again, the same song in FLAC.  Listen to each rip back to back and see if you can tell a difference and if you can decide if it is substantial enough to tailor new purchases around said format.  If you really want to be honest with yourself, shuffle the songs and don't look to see which format you are listening to...one of them probably won't sound like the others.

The other thing to remember is just because the file is lossless doesn't mean there will be a difference. Some higher frequencies of music simply don't get recorded or are removed in engineering process.

So yeah. There are countless variables in noticing the differences is lossless and lossy music.

The question isn't whether FLAC makes a difference, the question is

1. Why do you want to lower the audio quality?

2. Lossy will eventually be phased out by lossless, why do you want to hold back advancement? It's like VHS vs DVD and you'll have VHS, what's the point?

When mp3 first became popular people were using dial-up (5 Kb/s) and had very limited storage space,

now we are using fibre optics and have insane storage space, so mp3 should be discontinued just like our old harddrives and dial-up connections.

Comparing 128 vs 320 vs FLAC on a single device is only a small part of the picture, there are also comparisons like this:

1. CD -> CD player -> Amp -> headphones

2. MP3 -> soundcard -> Amp -> headphones

In the above comparison, on my setup, anyone can tell the difference within 5 seconds of listening.

If you rip your CD's to mp3 and then put them in the garage and then they disappear or break, you have just lost a lot of audio quality.

FLAC is lossless which means you can burn your CD's again and they should be exactly the same as the original CD, you cannot do this with mp3.

If your hard-drive crashes, your have a back-up of your music on your CD's.

If your CD's become scratched, break, or go missing, you don't have any back-up if you are using mp3.

Please also consider the Vinyl and SACD communities which love their music and think it's better than CD's.  

In the pursuit of Hi-Fi, lossy formats should be phased out, so if you have the choice, whether it's burning media or upgrading your mp3 player or mobile phone, choose lossless, preferrably one of the free lossless audio codac's available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

The question isn't whether FLAC makes a difference, the question is

 

1. Why do you want to lower the audio quality?

If there is no difference (to a majority of users) what's the point?

Keep in mind most people can't hear above 16kHz, hence mp3 is rightfully popular.

Lossless has a long way to go before it replaces lossy formats such as mp3s, and I can't see it happening anytime soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hero Kid 

 Keep in mind most people can't hear above 16kHz, hence mp3 is rightfully popular.

 we have to be nice to the fish and bats too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hero Kid 

 

 

Lossless has a long way to go before it replaces lossy formats such as mp3s, and I can't see it happening anytime soon.

The chinese market are selling mp5, 6, 7 and even mp9 players, they are way ahead of the US with their expensive fruit marketing.

P.S.  a 16 gig memory card can store at least 22 lossless albums.  If I buy a $50 DAP and three 16 gig memory cards then I have portable access to 60+ cd quality albums all for under $150. =)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

 

 

 we have to be nice to the fish and bats too.

 

 

 

The chinese market are selling mp5, 6, 7 and even mp9 players, they are way ahead of the US with their expensive fruit marketing.

 

 

P.S.  a 16 gig memory card can store at least 22 lossless albums.  If I buy a $50 DAP and three 16 gig memory cards then I have portable access to 60+ cd quality albums all for under $150. =)

 

 

Do you have any mp5, mp6 mp7, or mp9 files? I sure don't.....how do they sound?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycbone 

I can't, so I just did a batch conversion to VBR0.  MANY more files now fit on my Clip+ and battery life seems a bit better.

 

 

Thumbs up, I just did the same thing and am much happier with how much I can fit on my clip and how much more space I have on my external hard drive.

This thread makes me lol from all the drama.

I've made direct comparisons between commercial CDs and CD-R's burned from 256K AAC rips of those same CD's, played on decently revealing equipment (Marantz CD5001 feeding Grado SR80s.) Maybe somebody who knows exactly how to listen for compression artifacts could- occasionally-  tell the difference, but there is no discernible difference that would impact the enjoyment of music one iota (and I listen to classical music, not overproduced, poorly mastered popular music.) Lossless files make sense for archival purposes, but no sense on a PMP where they just waste space and battery life to no advantage.