or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › CD player vs iPod sound quality?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CD player vs iPod sound quality? - Page 3

post #31 of 53
Thread Starter 
Maybe I'm deaf but my headphones clearly sound better plugged strait into my tv playing 320kbps files compared to my iPod+amp..Maybe my Tv just has a really good DAC? Seems unlikely though

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 53

A CD player will always sound better, it's dealing with higher resolution files.

 

 

Here's a tip, a little secret just between us, right now used CDs cost a lot less

than a whole album from Itunes.

 

To me, it's what us Brits call a "no brainer"

post #33 of 53
Thread Starter 
My thoughts exactly..you can get used CD's on Amazon for just a couple dollars.
post #34 of 53
Thread Starter 
I've even seen CD's for a penny..
post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

Have you ever performed an ABX (blind) lossless vs aac256 - volume matched?  Again - the software is free to do this - and full instructions are here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding

Just make sure you are comparing the exact same master file - IE rip a CD to lossless, then transcode that file to the lossy codec you wnat to compare.  I really suggest that you try flac or wav against aac256.

I'd be extremely surpriced if you actually find any noticeable difference "So 256kbps iTunes music is also lossy format and it noticeble if compare to WAV(1144kbps) or lossless formats like Apple lossless format"

Until you have done it - I'd actually suggest not quoting this sort of thing as fact.  Whilst theoretically lossless must be better than lossy.  In practical terms (under controlled conditions to eliminate placebo) - most people can't tell the difference.

You can't tell the difference between WAV & 256aac not means they are same quality. CD's quality better than 256aac that's for sure. No matter which gear you use. You can't recognize not means they are same. Just means you are not golden ear or your gear is not good enough. That's all.
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by damifly View Post


You can't tell the difference between WAV & 256aac not means they are same quality. CD's quality better than 256aac that's for sure. No matter which gear you use. You can't recognize not means they are same. Just means you are not golden ear or your gear is not good enough. That's all.

:rolleyes:

 

Yeah right ...... 

 

It must be my ears, or my gear.  The fact that 99%+ of the population (ie us normal people) can't tell the difference no matter what our gear is - just means we all have tin ears and sub standard systems - right? Including my friend who can differentiate some mp3 320 from lossless, has an SR007 system, yet so far has not been able to with aac256 ......

 

My gear is in my profile.

 

I notice you list none of your gear, and am waiting for you to post your foobar abx logs to show that you can differentiate.  Could be an extremely long wait ......

post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

rolleyes.gif

Yeah right ...... 

It must be my ears, or my gear.  The fact that 99%+ of the population (ie us normal people) can't tell the difference no matter what our gear is - just means we all have tin ears and sub standard systems - right? Including my friend who can differentiate some mp3 320 from lossless, has an SR007 system, yet so far has not been able to with aac256 ......

My gear is in my profile.

I notice you list none of your gear, and am waiting for you to post your foobar abx logs to show that you can differentiate.  Could be an extremely long wait ......

You know I'm right that's enough, no matter what my gear is or what ur gear is, no matter who do the test or who not, even no matter 99.99999999% people can't tell the difference. The fact is CD's quality is better than 256aac. That's all. This was what OP want know. Can't understand what are u talking about. You not answer OP's question. And tried to miguide him.
post #38 of 53

If there is no audible difference - how can you say the CD SQ is better?

 

And here's what I actually wrote - "Whilst theoretically lossless must be better than lossy.  In practical terms (under controlled conditions to eliminate placebo) - most people can't tell the difference." and "If there is no audible difference - it doesn't matter how good your gear is, you won't hear it."

 

I did answer the OP's question.  And I haven't tried to misguide him.

 

I also notice that as soon as I asked you (after you casting aspersion on both my hearing and gear) - to both list your gear and show evidence of your testing, you immediately changed the subject .......

post #39 of 53

CD is better than any other digital format. SACD is better than both (sadly obsolete now). Wish they came out with an SACD portable player. Choosing the right CD player is important.

post #40 of 53

Brooko is arguing it wrong, but he's not actually wrong in practical terms. You take the convenience of 256K files and say "Well exactly what am I giving up, and in what circumstances?"

 


If you're listening at home, using either highly isolating phones or an open phone in a deathly quiet room, then it may well be possible to tell the difference between CD and 256K quite easily. In other situations, especially portable for example, I have a hard time believing anyone who claims to be able to do so, which in turn makes a lot of these super-high-end audiophile DAPs a bit of a crock expect in very specific situations (e.g. being able to carry a viable source between optimal listening zones).

 

 

And then there's placebo. I did talk with one guy who was telling me how great his CD player sounded and how uncompressed PCM was the way to go. I didn't have the heart to tell him that his treasured PCDP compressed/decompressed lossy audio on the fly (using a codec that's likely way crappier than even SBC) full-time to fill the antiskip buffer.

 

 

So the practical choice is a matter of where you'll be doing the bulk of your listening, versus the convenience (or lack of) resulting out of the desired degree of relevant quality.


Edited by bangraman - 1/25/14 at 3:22pm
post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

If there is no audible difference - how can you say the CD SQ is better?

 

And here's what I actually wrote - "Whilst theoretically lossless must be better than lossy.  In practical terms (under controlled conditions to eliminate placebo) - most people can't tell the difference." and "If there is no audible difference - it doesn't matter how good your gear is, you won't hear it."

 

I did answer the OP's question.  And I haven't tried to misguide him.

 

I also notice that as soon as I asked you (after you casting aspersion on both my hearing and gear) - to both list your gear and show evidence of your testing, you immediately changed the subject .......

There is an audible difference, however slight it is. I can hear it on my rig, listed in the notes below, definitely more so since I got the CLAS. Telling a 320 kbps file and a ALAC/FLAC/AIFF/WAV apart is very difficult, telling a 256 kbps and lossless format is easier. I've listened to a lossless copy of Radiohead's OK Computer and a compressed, 256kbps version and the depth to the lossless file is superior as is the instrument separation. It is not night and day however critically listening to it will show a difference. 

post #42 of 53
Thread Starter 
Alright so say I do get a CD player,not saying I am but if I did get one,What would be a good model?
post #43 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by willitblend View Post

Alright so say I do get a CD player,not saying I am but if I did get one,What would be a good model?

Suprised noone's said it yet, but look into a portable dac/amp that accepts ipod inputs. Will be more convenient than a cd player, and you can use it for a pc or other devices.

post #44 of 53
Thread Starter 
You guys are a little confused,this is Definitley not for portable use! I'm aware someone wouldn't be able to tell with closed back headphones while on the go. Mid-range open back headphones for at home use only..
post #45 of 53

I'll exit this thread - simply because I know I'm banging my head against an immovable wall - but ......

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattAnthony1990 View Post
 

There is an audible difference, however slight it is. I can hear it on my rig, listed in the notes below, definitely more so since I got the CLAS. Telling a 320 kbps file and a ALAC/FLAC/AIFF/WAV apart is very difficult, telling a 256 kbps and lossless format is easier. I've listened to a lossless copy of Radiohead's OK Computer and a compressed, 256kbps version and the depth to the lossless file is superior as is the instrument separation. It is not night and day however critically listening to it will show a difference. 

 

Matt - have you ever actually tried an abx (blind) yourself?  I'm not talking an iTunes purchase vs the CD.  I'm suggesting ripping the CD to lossless.  Then converting a copy of the lossless file to aac256.  So you have two different copies of the same file (one lossy aac256, one lossless FLAC or WAV) - ie the same mastering.  Now - using Foobar's abx comparator, after level matching the output using the built in replay gain - blind test it.  It's amazingly easy to set-up, and I guarantee it'll be an eye opener.  It doesn't matter how good your gear is either.  And note I'm talking about aac256 - not mp3 256.

 

Link to the software plus instructions is in a link I left earlier in the thread.  All it will cost you is time.  And you need to run at least 10-15 tests (should take about 10 minutes) for it to be statistically relevant.  Mind you - seeing that it will be 'relatively easy' - it may take even less time .... ;)

 

Take away the visual cues and do it blind - I think you may just change your mind .....

 

OK - I'm outa here.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › CD player vs iPod sound quality?