Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › FLAC vs. 320 Mp3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FLAC vs. 320 Mp3 - Page 5  

post #61 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eee Pee View Post

Cool, thanks guys.  I've been using a Sony DVP-S9000 SACD/CD player for years, eleven actually, and was just wondering.  The DVP-9000 is so sensitive to any scratches on discs, or whatever, and doesn't read some of my seemingly perfect CDs, so I'm looking for a replacement.

 

cool.gif

 

I'm no expert, but it might be a problem with the reading mechanism. You can probably clean it and it'll sound perfectly fine again.

post #62 of 504
They all get temperamental after a while. Get a cheap one so it won't be a problem to replace it when it acts up. They all sound the same.
post #63 of 504

OJNeg, it's only a few discs.  They look pristine, really.  Even hand washed with soap and water.  It is what it is.

 

My various Playstations over the years have become temperamental as well.

 

For $79 is seems worth a shot, eh?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-BDP-S185-Blu-Ray-Disc-Player/dp/B005NEZDUA/ref=lh_ni_t

 

Seems I'm getting kinda off topic from the original question, but hey...

post #64 of 504
Not stackable, if that makes a difference.

This looks like the one I have, but mine isn't 3D (older model)
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-BDP-S470-Blu-ray-Disc-Player/dp/B0036WS4CK/

I prefer straightforward remotes like that.
Edited by bigshot - 7/8/12 at 12:09pm
post #65 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Not stackable, if that makes a difference.

Nah, but thanks.  Just need something that sounds good and plays my discs.  

 

IMG_1132.JPG

post #66 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eee Pee View Post

Nah, but thanks.  Just need something that sounds good and plays my discs.  

 

IMG_1132.JPG

 

The older Sony players look great actually. It's the new "sleek and slim" ones I can't stand.

post #67 of 504
I have a Sony 480 and I bought my son a 580. Wait until the model has been out a while and watch for sales. The 580 has a Netflix button on the remote and it is on an onscreen menu in the case of the 480. Like Bigshot said, just features. Most Sony units will play SACD. It is their technology. So is CD, DVD, Blu-ray and DSD. Sony has always used new technology to solve problems. Sony is not glamorous and has zero traction with audiophiles. All it does is invent technology and sell it in solid units at a fair price. What a radical business model.
post #68 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkmc2 View Post

I have a Sony 480 and I bought my son a 580. Wait until the model has been out a while and watch for sales. The 580 has a Netflix button on the remote and it is on an onscreen menu in the case of the 480. Like Bigshot said, just features. Most Sony units will play SACD. It is their technology. So is CD, DVD, Blu-ray and DSD. Sony has always used new technology to solve problems. Sony is not glamorous and has zero traction with audiophiles. All it does is invent technology and sell it in solid units at a fair price. What a radical business model.

 

Of course. But to be fair, their cheap amps and speakers are very much "consumer" grade. Anything that sticks 5.1 in a $200 box is going to be lacking.

 

Also, Sony still owns the SACD format, correct? Why has production of the discs fallen off so drastically?

post #69 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by OJNeg View Post

Of course. But to be fair, their cheap amps and speakers are very much "consumer" grade. Anything that sticks 5.1 in a $200 box is going to be lacking.

Also, Sony still owns the SACD format, correct? Why has production of the discs fallen off so drastically?
To be fair, Sony is good at the technologies they invented; they didn't invent the audio amplifier. They did invent the stuff I mentioned, either alone or in partnerdhip with Phillips. SACD is a failed format, market penetration wise. It did not take over from CD and had the bad luck of coming along shortly before the download revolution. Super DVD died too, but it was abandoned right after release because Sony's Blu-ray showed its dominance immediately. And of course DVD-A failed as well. It lost out to SACD. It's a battlefield out there.

Also, despite getting really beat up lately in the marketplace, Sony is a major player and not a niche manufacture. They have to field a full line of products from entry level on up. They sell, for instance, more headphones than any other company in the World.

Most 5.1 boxes are integrated circuit output pieces. Think of the big companies' offerings as being much more competitivly priced than the boutique stuff. Almost all amps have a jfet front end. At this point I think op amps do it as well or better than discrete. Again more compact, lighter and lower cost.
Edited by Clarkmc2 - 7/9/12 at 11:21pm
post #70 of 504
I used to have a Sony receiver. It was as good as any other amp I've owned.
post #71 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I used to have a Sony receiver. It was as good as any other amp I've owned.


Win.

 

For some reason I love this post.

post #72 of 504
The lasers in CD players wear out over time. As they wear out, the laser light output decreases. If the player has had a large amount of use, the light output becomes low enough so that player become much more vulnerable to dirt and scratches on a disk blocking enough light from being reflected from the disc. I have never worn out a CD player, however I have a feeling that typically the laser output will become too low before the motor or gears wear out.
post #73 of 504

There is no audible difference between 320kbit MP3s and FLAC. Those who say the opposite are wrong, period. 

post #74 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lan647 View Post

There is no audible difference between 320kbit MP3s and FLAC. Those who say the opposite are wrong, period. 

 

That's not true.  IIRC some forum posters (deadlylover(?)) on this forum had showed that they could ABX 320kbps and FLAC of some tracks with 100% accuracy with a certain setup of his, with some being easier than others and that he has to be in analytical mode to pick up the difference, so some people can certainly tell the difference under certain conditions.    

 

However when someone boosting that they can tell 320kbps and FLAC using leaky earbuds on their smartphone when on the go such that they won't use mp3s I'm going to be very skeptical.  


Edited by nanaholic - 7/10/12 at 9:23am
post #75 of 504
The people that can tell a difference haven't level matched. When you compress a track, it normalizes it down a hair. MP3s and AACs are slightly quieter than lossless. But if you match the level, they sound the same.

Also with MP3, the encoder you use makes a difference. An old encoder won't produce files that sound as good as an up to date one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › FLAC vs. 320 Mp3