[pp312]

I'm saying that if it's so hard to hear the difference between 320 and lossless, and clearly from this debate it is, would high bitrate lossless really impinge on anyone's musical pleasure in practise, assuming they didn't spend their whole listening for a problem? I mean, vagaries in recording quality would instantly swamp any supposed differences anyway. If you can hear a difference, fine, but at least admit that it's--wow--marginal, and that those who can't hear it aren't actually missing all that much.
 
You know, this debate reminds me of the Minidisc Atrac debate. Because it was a lossy format, some people decided they wouldn't have it on principle. Even when certain respected reviewers admitted they couldn't hear a difference even on the best equipment...no, we're not having it. If it's lossy it must be bad, even when it could be shown scientifically that what was missing was only what the ear couldn't detect. Eventually Sony brought out a lossless Minidisc, which sounded exactly the same, but by then it was too late: the gringes had stolen Christmas. Grrrr...  
 
Quote:

 
Quote:

I don't necessarily doubt (well, I do actually) that some people can hear a difference between 320 and lossless, but I just wonder what effect the supposed difference would have on listening pleasure. If you have to listen that hard, are you really listening to the music or the sound? I have many classical MP3 tracks in lower bitrates than 320 and am often amazed at how good they sound on my 650 phones---if the original recording was good. That's where the real differences lie, in the original recordings. Some are so good their virtues are hardly smudged by reduction to MP3; others so bad MP3 can hardly hurt them further.

Sorry you've lost me, you can't understand how a better quality recording would improve ones listening pleasure ?
 
 

 

[eervig]

Quote:

I'm saying that if it's so hard to hear the difference between 320 and lossless, and clearly from this debate it is, would high bitrate lossless really impinge on anyone's musical pleasure in practise, assuming they didn't spend their whole listening for a problem? I mean, vagaries in recording quality would instantly swamp any supposed differences anyway. If you can hear a difference, fine, but at least admit that it's--wow--marginal, and that those who can't hear it aren't actually missing all that much.

 

This is a really good point. I'm a FLAC defender here, but some of my greatest memories of listening to recorded music have involved listening to some pretty poorly recorded old stuff, encoded at low bitrates, on budget gear.  I've had some revelations listening to low-quality streaming.  If you let your guard down, you can enjoy music under the most sub-audiophilic conditions.
 
For me, though, there is a measure of wanting the best I can get - recording music inevitably compromises it some; then - especially today - mastering often sacrifices authenticity for pop (even in jazz music, lately); the CD brings more sampling - which, if done well, is just great, but it's another process that inevitably degrades things a little bit with all by virtue of having to sample and dither to squeeze things in.  So when I finally get the piece of music, the last thing I want to do is subject it to another process where a computer determines what's needed and throws everything else into a black hole.
 
But my experience is skewed by the fact that I throw CDs into the black hole of cold storage and rely on hard drives exclusively.

 

[Skarecrow77]

Quote:

Quote:

 
Quote:

The chances of you losing more than one drive at a time are 1 in a number I can't even fathom.  It's not a back up really, but it is a very safe method of storage.  

The data is safe if you are only concerned about losing data due to a drive failure.  The data is not safe if you consider the many other ways data can be lost.  How do you recover if you run a buggy media player that corrupts the tags in every audio file it loads?  How do you recover from user error that manages to damage or corrupt a file?  How do you recover if an electrical surge wipes out the entire RAID array or the cat knocks the RAID box over and crashes several drives?  Not to mention fire or theft.
 
RAID is a very poor backup.

Anything can happen.  I could drop dead right now and I wouldn't be worried about my music being backed up.  Nothing is certain in life.  RAID just buys you time to save your data which is what it is designed for.  
 
As for people saying that buying HD's at the same time will result in their failure within a short amount of time I'll believe it when I see it.  I've been building PC's for the last 10 years and I haven't had a single HD fail yet.  I will eventually be moving on to better and faster storage media like flash drives soon, and then my track record with HD's will have been perfect for the time I used them.  With any electronic there is a chance for random failure.  The chances of 2 HD's failing at the same time, or before you can replace the damaged disk are extraordinarily low.  You could say that some catastrophic event could destroy the data, but some catastrophe could just as easily destroy any other back up you have too. 

I ran (for a time) a RAID 1 array because I lost my original FLAC storage drive, a single 200gb drive, to HD death. If you've never seen a HD die, you either have been extraordinarily lucky, or your computer was crashing "for no reason at all!" and you didn't realize what the real cause was. I'm not saying I see a lot of dead HDs, but I've seen my share.
 
I could send you the two velociraptors that are throwing errors in my server's arrays, but I don't really care that much.
 
Really, a backup now and then is good enough. USB hard drives are dirt cheap.

 

[afinch1992]

Quote:

The chances of you losing more than one drive at a time are 1 in a number I can't even fathom.  It's not a back up really, but it is a very safe method of storage.  

unless theres a surge or something. can also happen with bad or corroded wiring 

 

[EddieE]

[size=x-small]EDIT - I'm changing this post wholesale as I thought of a better way of demonstrating the same point:[/size]
 
[size=x-small]When I was at school there was a kid who was really good at guessing what car was coming up behind us by from the sound of its engine. It was pretty impressive how often he got it right. Now to me, walking down the road every day, all engines sound the same. That doesn't mean I actually think they sound the same of course - it's just an expression. When I actually focus on them it's obvious they all sound different - I'm just not paying attention to it and certainly never put any effort into mentally noting the different sounds of different cars to the point that I could actually identify them. [/size]
 
[size=x-small]This demonstrates the distinction I am trying to make between the very real fact that was can train our selves to listen better and the completely evidence-free idea many "audiophiles" seem embrace that we can actually, by sheer will, improve our ears physical ability to detect vibrations other mere mortals ears cannot. Despite using the term training our ears we are actually training our minds to pay close attention to the same sense data our ears always provided. You might like the idea that you have superior senses to the average person but you really do not. Sorry.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Not many people could do what that kid could do, but there would be absolutely no one who would be put through an ABXY test who would not be able to say which was which if you played them the engine sound of a land rover and a mini. No one with remotely healthy hearing would be stumped as to whether A was X or Y it would be obvious in direct comparrison. The fact that very few people on the planet have trained themselves to listen intently to the sound of engines as they pass them on the street has no bearing at all on whether of not they can physically hear those differences.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]In exactly the same way, whether or not the average ibudz wearing top-40 listening casual music listener might say "128kbps sounds the same as a CD" - there is no way any of them would not pass an ABXY comparrison of the two unless they had serious hearing loss. Whether they listen intently on a daily basis, they will listen intently for the test because that is the whole context for doing it. If there are differences they will hear them - but between ALL LAME320 or LAMEVBR I listened to - I actually failed to correctly tell the difference between it and FLAC no matter how hard I tried to listen.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Now this is not me saying there are definitely no differences. All I can say is that with my equipment and the selection of well recorded tracks I have tried it with so far - I cannot pass an ABXY test despite my certainty beforehand that I could hear differences. It doesn't ask which is better or which is lossy, it just asks you to prove you can tell which is which and I couldn't. And I know my hearing is fine.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Maybe there is a difference. Maybe my gear wasn't good enough, that's entirely possible. But I am not going to take anything on anecdotal evidence or someone elses insistence they really can hear a difference becase that is no difference to my pre-test genuine belief that I was hearing a difference. And it was bollocks.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]So the only thing that is going to count for me is someone passing the test to the point that there is pretty much no chance you were guessing, then I will be interested, in fact then I will probably make a note of what gear you have and start saving my money for it. But until then, it's all just egotism, placebo, confirmation bias, superiority complex and hot air. [/size]

 

[eggontoast]

 
Quote:

 

[size=x-small] But until then, it's all just egotism, placebo, confirmation bias, superiority complex and hot air. [/size]

 
I don't think it has anything to do with superiority complex and I would think that there are not going to be to many people eager to post results of ABX tests. Not because they can't pass but purely because they can't be bothered as it would still not make the MP3 listeners be able to hear the differences or change there minds.

At the end of the day this is a pointless thread because neither the defenders of MP3 or the champions of FLAC are going to change each others minds and they don't need to.
 
I just can't see the point in spending oodles of money on equipment to listen to music in the best 'quality', buying Cd's which are the most accessible best quality medium readily available, compressing them and throwing away half of the information = pointless.
 
MP3 has its place and that's with portable media players with limited storage.

 

[EddieE]

[size=x-small]Your answer completely assumes you would pass the test, and that wouldn't change my mind.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]I'm suggesting that if you didn't pass the test that would absolutely change your mind, as you would know for a fact you couldn't tell a difference.[/size]
 
I've already told you I used to genuinely beleive I could hear a difference, I was challenged to take an ABX test, I failed it, and I owned up to that.
 
I did change my mind but it wasn't changing an opinion it was simply the truth being proved to me.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

 
Quote:

 

[size=x-small] But until then, it's all just egotism, placebo, confirmation bias, superiority complex and hot air. [/size]

 
 
I just can't see the point in spending oodles of money on equipment to listen to music in the best 'quality', buying Cd's which are the most accessible best quality medium readily available, compressing them and throwing away half of the information = pointless.
 

 
With that statement you're suggesting that what is being discarded is something you can hear with little effort, something obvious. But what's being suggested is that the loss is not something you can hear even with considerable effort, let alone when involved with the music. It's back to the Minidisc Atrac thing again: it was the idea of information being discarded that bothered the Golden Ears, even when it was proved pretty conclusively  that that information was not something the brain could detect.   

 

[eggontoast]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EddieE /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
[size=x-small]I'm suggesting that if you didn't pass the test that would absolutely change your mind, as you would know for a fact you couldn't tell a difference.[/size]
 

 
If you had read previous post I have stated that I did the test and could hear a difference with some types of music and couldn't with others.
 
Also general 'opinion' from the MP3 camp is I couldn't hear a difference so nobody else can.
 

 

[Vader815]

First post in this thread, but I think that we can all agree on a few things... 
 
Listening to music is a highly subjective, and psychologically driven experience. If we think something's better, it probably will be heard that way.
 
With that said, I certainly think there are those of us that can detect the slightest drop in quality. I remember when I first got In Rainbows lossless, coming out of my MacBook into my HD448's it sounded amazing, but when I listened through my iPhone, I noticed it was slightly flatter (at the time I had no knowledge of what 'drives' what best and so on). 
 
To me, people overcomplicate this argument. It's the 1080i vs. 1080p debate. Yes, there's a difference, but how many people can actually tell? 
 
-Vader182

 

[Kibble Fat]

A+ post, EddieE 
 

 
Quote:

[size=x-small]EDIT - I'm changing this post wholesale as I thought of a better way of demonstrating the same point:[/size]
 
[size=x-small]When I was at school there was a kid who was really good at guessing what car was coming up behind us by from the sound of its engine. It was pretty impressive how often he got it right. Now to me, walking down the road every day, all engines sound the same. That doesn't mean I actually think they sound the same of course - it's just an expression. When I actually focus on them it's obvious they all sound different - I'm just not paying attention to it and certainly never put any effort into mentally noting the different sounds of different cars to the point that I could actually identify them. [/size]
 
[size=x-small]This demonstrates the distinction I am trying to make between the very real fact that was can train our selves to listen better and the completely evidence-free idea many "audiophiles" seem embrace that we can actually, by sheer will, improve our ears physical ability to detect vibrations other mere mortals ears cannot. Despite using the term training our ears we are actually training our minds to pay close attention to the same sense data our ears always provided. You might like the idea that you have superior senses to the average person but you really do not. Sorry.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Not many people could do what that kid could do, but there would be absolutely no one who would be put through an ABXY test who would not be able to say which was which if you played them the engine sound of a land rover and a mini. No one with remotely healthy hearing would be stumped as to whether A was X or Y it would be obvious in direct comparrison. The fact that very few people on the planet have trained themselves to listen intently to the sound of engines as they pass them on the street has no bearing at all on whether of not they can physically hear those differences.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]In exactly the same way, whether or not the average ibudz wearing top-40 listening casual music listener might say "128kbps sounds the same as a CD" - there is no way any of them would not pass an ABXY comparrison of the two unless they had serious hearing loss. Whether they listen intently on a daily basis, they will listen intently for the test because that is the whole context for doing it. If there are differences they will hear them - but between ALL LAME320 or LAMEVBR I listened to - I actually failed to correctly tell the difference between it and FLAC no matter how hard I tried to listen.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Now this is not me saying there are definitely no differences. All I can say is that with my equipment and the selection of well recorded tracks I have tried it with so far - I cannot pass an ABXY test despite my certainty beforehand that I could hear differences. It doesn't ask which is better or which is lossy, it just asks you to prove you can tell which is which and I couldn't. And I know my hearing is fine.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Maybe there is a difference. Maybe my gear wasn't good enough, that's entirely possible. But I am not going to take anything on anecdotal evidence or someone elses insistence they really can hear a difference becase that is no difference to my pre-test genuine belief that I was hearing a difference. And it was bollocks.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]So the only thing that is going to count for me is someone passing the test to the point that there is pretty much no chance you were guessing, then I will be interested, in fact then I will probably make a note of what gear you have and start saving my money for it. But until then, it's all just egotism, placebo, confirmation bias, superiority complex and hot air. [/size]

 

[EddieE]

[size=x-small]Eggontoast - when you say you did the test what do you mean? You repeated it until you reached a 100% chance you were not guessing?[/size]

 

[pp312]

Quote:

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EddieE /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
[size=x-small]I'm suggesting that if you didn't pass the test that would absolutely change your mind, as you would know for a fact you couldn't tell a difference.[/size]
 

 
If you had read previous post I have stated that I did the test and could hear a difference with some types of music and couldn't with others.
 
Also general 'opinion' from the MP3 camp is I couldn't hear a difference so nobody else can.
 

 I think the message from the MP3 camp is that if so many people--even supposed Golden Ears--can't pick a difference in blind tests, then what difference there is isn't worth a hill of beans, and certainly isn't worth all that hard drive space. There's a lot of careless posting all over the net about MP3 being a "horrible" medium, but I wonder how many of those posters could really pick a difference? MP3 is quick to download, takes up little drive space and is transferable to all media, portable and otherwise. If on top of that it sounds to us in the MP3 camp not a whit different to lossless, why shouldn't we be singing its praises?

 

[EddieE]

[size=x-small]The thing is I'm not even really in the mp3 camp - I have plenty of MP3 but these days personally do rip to flac and will eventually re-rip all my stuff into FLAC. I like the idea of perfection even if I rationally know I couldn't hear the difference and practically speaking there is the peace of mind I can rip lossy versions in any present or future codec whenever I like. I've got a 2tb hard drive which is nowhere near full and I'll happily buy another when it is.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]I don't have any dog in the fight of what other people chose to listen to as it doesn't affect me and is none of my business.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]My objection is to bull, and to rudeness.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]I object to people telling others they must be "deaf" and there is "no excuse" for using anything by FLAC or the differences are "easy" to spot or there is no point in them buying good headphones if they can't tell the difference.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Yeah, if people are going to start being insulting towards others on a foundation which I consider to be extremely shaky, I am going to nudge it a little to see if it topples because that sort of attitude deserves nothing else.[/size]

 

[eggontoast]

 
Quote:

[size=x-small]My objection is to bull, and to rudeness.[/size]
 

Bull - is that one of the mp3 camps technical abbreviations ?