Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Does anyone prefer lossy over lossless for reasons other than filesize?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does anyone prefer lossy over lossless for reasons other than filesize? - Page 3

post #31 of 54

Considering that a perceived dynamic range of 120 dB (~16 bit audio) is already extremely annoying I wonder what you'd need even 24 bits for playback. Also, most rigs you see on this forum, even "high-end" ones, usually do not surpass a performance of 20 to maybe 21 bits.


Edited by xnor - 9/23/13 at 1:09pm
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

Considering that a perceived dynamic range of 120 dB (~16 bit audio) is already extremely annoying I wonder what you'd need even 24 bits for playback. Also, most rigs you see on this forum, even "high-end" ones, usually do not surpass a performance of 20 to maybe 21 bits.

 

I'm aware, just curious about how  exetreme some of us can get! I'm getting and HM 801 soon here and uhh... don't think I'll be running any 24bit my self... I don't mind like  500 songs my self, as I usually build play lists of about 500 songs, so to get over the Hifiman lack of that feature I just carry around multiple SD cards, yea it's not entirely effective but meh I don't mind. 

 
An I've only got one 32gb atm so that's 800 song. But I can live with that
 
point being I too don't see the need to even have 24bit on a portable. I have a FEW at home, but as some one mentioned early. It's for the MENTAL JOY of knowing it's 24bit, sonically it makes no differance imo 
post #33 of 54

I don't prefer it.  I want lossless 16/44 when I can get it.  I don't care much about 24-bit tracks unless the mastering is a ton better.


Edited by hogger129 - 9/23/13 at 4:11pm
post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

Actually I do have one Band I like in lossy and out of cheap headphones

 

RHCP, I grew up with like v4 mp3's and cheap sony cans. I find them rather boring in lossless and out of my high end gear... but out of some Sony MDR Zx300s they are pretty bangin! xD still I don't listen to them much as I have found FAR better bands... BUT when I get that urge I have the lossy's around some where 

 

and I've abx'd v0 and lossless a dozen times easy to tell apart. It's all in the highs, don't need a killer sample just need a drum kit a foot from you lol, give that snare a whack... remember the sense of air and energy it has, and u'll notice lossess is a little more real... 

 

Their albums from Californication on are so horribly mastered I decided to do a little remaster job with Audacity and encoded it to 256k AAC.  BSSM I went FLAC because that album wasn't trashed in the mastering.

post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
 

 

Their albums from Californication on are so horribly mastered I decided to do a little remaster job with Audacity and encoded it to 256k AAC.  BSSM I went FLAC because that album wasn't trashed in the mastering.

 

Indeed, I love old there older Albums, a better sound all together and a better mastering as well 

post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
 

 

Their albums from Californication on are so horribly mastered I decided to do a little remaster job with Audacity and encoded it to 256k AAC.  BSSM I went FLAC because that album wasn't trashed in the mastering.

 

Agreed. Stadium Arcadium is an assult on the auditory nerve. 

 

NK

post #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick 214 View Post
 

 

Agreed. Stadium Arcadium is an assult on the auditory nerve. 

 

NK

 

there are a few decent songs. I didn't hate the album. I really do like Hard to Concentrate, but RHCP in Lossless is just... "really is this it" is my reaction to it q.q 

post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

 

there are a few decent songs. I didn't hate the album. I really do like Hard to Concentrate, but RHCP in Lossless is just... "really is this it" is my reaction to it q.q 

 

In addendum: Sonically, not musically. 

 

NK

post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick 214 View Post
 

 

In addendum: Sonically, not musically. 

 

NK

 

Meh either way, I really don't listen to RHCP any more, IF AND ONLY IF, they bring back the Funk Jazz elements and IF the have Flea on his Trumpet [he's a damn good trumpet AND bassist] THEN I might revist them 

post #40 of 54

I didn't think SA was that bad.  Californication and I'm With You were disasters in terms of sound quality.  I don't get why they do it either.  They have good music but they allow their work to be destroyed with loudness and compression.  Do they really think this is what listener's want?


Edited by hogger129 - 10/5/13 at 9:22am
post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
 

I didn't think SA was that bad.  Californication and I'm With You were disasters in terms of sound quality.  I don't get why they do it either.  They have good music but they allow their work to be destroyed with loudness and compression.  Do they really think this is what listener's want?

 

well I think it is what the modern listener wants :/ 

post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

 

well I think it is what the modern listener wants :/ 

 

It would be cool to see more artists release an audiophile quality version in addition to the standard release.  I believe Nine Inch Nails did this with Hesitation Marks.  I guess whether or not I'd buy it would depend on how much more it costs.  For a few dollars, yeah, it would be worth it.

post #43 of 54

The "audiophile version" should be the one on the CD and the real audiophile version should be a lot more dynamic.

 

post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

The "audiophile version" should be the one on the CD and the real audiophile version should be a lot more dynamic.

 

 

Nice video, just a shame the music is still pretty terrible . But I appreciate them  making an effort to make it a little more dynamic.

 

Although it's honstly hard to have a real valid opinion  based on the Crappy youTube  quality of the video :/ 

post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

The "audiophile version" should be the one on the CD and the real audiophile version should be a lot more dynamic.

 

 

 

Agreed.  I guess some people would think it's too quiet then, but they should learn that their iPod has a Sound Check feature that will make everything the same volume.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Does anyone prefer lossy over lossless for reasons other than filesize?