[deadlylover]

Quote:

very evident?  That's an exaggeration even if you own the SR009. 

Heh, I use the sr007 and it was also very evident until I tried to do it blind =P.
 
OP, don't sweat it dude, just use the best you can get your hands on and enjoy it, many claim to be able to easily distinguish between 320 and lossless but cannot reliably do so in an ABX test.
Claims over here are usually exaggerated for clarity, the audible differences(if any) would be so small, it wouldn't be worth your time to try and hunt down lossless files.
 

 

[h1a8]

As far as I'm concerned It's impossible to tell a difference between 256kbps vs. lossless. I challenge ANYONE to pass a double blind test with 256kbps vs. any lossless codec with any source of their choice and pass with significant accuracy. From all the years I've been researching the subject I've heard of no one who successfully did it. All I hear is people claiming to hear a difference without ABX and thus succumbing to the placebo effect. The only way to be sure is to double blind test (ABX).

 

[rhythmdevils]

It's still better to have lossless because it's archival.  If you burn a CD and re-rip it will not be affected.  It's also nice just knowing that it's not compressed.  Hard drives are cheap, you might as well have lossless if you're ripping from CD.  But if you're talking about spending significant portions of your life re-ripping CD's or significant portions of your savings re-purchasing albums you already have in 256 or 320, I think it's a waste of both.  However if you're rich and you can hire someone else to do it for you than it's a great idea. 

 

[Alghazanth]

Quote:

very evident?  That's an exaggeration even if you own the SR009. 

No, it is indeed very evident to me with high end cans.

 

[Eric_C]

 
Quote:

how do I get hold of FLAC songs other than going out and buying CD's myself then converting them to FLAC (or maybe ALAC so I'm able to play it on my iTunes/iPhone). 

Y'all left this part of his question unanswered. Tsk tsk, getting caught up in the audible difference debate.
 
Ak-Boss: you will have to get the CDs, unfortunately. FLAC and ALAC are lossless relative to the CD-quality; if you start from MP3 (or other compressed format), then you can't get higher quality than what already exists. I.e.: no upconverting. 

 

[JesperZ]

Actually some download stores sell lossless as well. For example junodownload.com.
 
Quote:

 


Y'all left this part of his question unanswered. Tsk tsk, getting caught up in the audible difference debate.
 
Ak-Boss: you will have to get the CDs, unfortunately. FLAC and ALAC are lossless relative to the CD-quality; if you start from MP3 (or other compressed format), then you can't get higher quality than what already exists. I.e.: no upconverting. 

 

 

[blanket]

The only lossless files I bought were from Square Enix.
Distant Worlds 2 - More Music from Final Fantasy, in 24/88.2
 
So if you search hard enough, yeah, you can probably find them
 
On the subject of 320k vs flac, no I can't tell them apart. Waste of time imo. Just use 320kbps CBR

 

[mikeaj]

As far as I'm concerned It's impossible to tell a difference between 256kbps vs. lossless. I challenge ANYONE to pass a double blind test with 256kbps vs. any lossless codec with any source of their choice and pass with significant accuracy. From all the years I've been researching the subject I've heard of no one who successfully did it. All I hear is people claiming to hear a difference without ABX and thus succumbing to the placebo effect. The only way to be sure is to double blind test (ABX).

I saw a post somewhere with somebody claiming to 10/10 identify 320 kbps CBR LAME 3.98 from lossless. (But there was no reported difference for most tracks, just one particular sample used.) This is definitely the exception to the rule, but I would be cautious about suggesting that it can't be done. Occasionally you'll run into some music just doesn't compress well and foils the encoder.

The vast majority of the time or perhaps 100% of the time for many listeners and setups, your standard 320 kbps mp3 or LAME -V0 will be transparent though. Some tracks, I can 9/10 ABX LAME -V1 or so from lossless, and my hearing is not that great. I'd call the difference very subtle most of the time though. Typically that's the experience of most honest people testing themselves blind. However, I think the difference is indeed a little more obvious to people that can actually hear 20 kHz and a little bit higher, since the standard lowpass filtering done in the encoding process (though that's a parameter that can be changed) makes more of a difference to them.

I'd agree that unless you're a perfectionist or want the original for some kind of archival purposes, I would think the energy of hunting down lossless is likely not worth the small (most likely indistinguishable, but see for yourself) difference, if you already have some kind of 256+ kbps lossy format.

 

[Jian]

Even if you can't tell the differences in abx test doesn't mean you haven't heard the difference. That's how brain works, acquiring information without notice. The impact may appear with long term listening experience, and several failed abx tests on digital broadcast format showed there were noticeable differences on sq of low resolution formats when they were actually on air.
 
Most of  my good flac/apple lossless files are come from my CDs, but several majour classic record labels also have their own online stores selling lossless/hd tracks. And if you are flowing the headfi tv, you would know about this website https://www.hdtracks.com/

 

[natashaful]

Sometimes you can tell the difference between 320k and Flac, But most of the time I can't, I'm sure someone will be able to, If they know what they are looking for.
 
Nat.

 

[HynchSidrick]

Of course, the difference between flac and mp3 320 is noticeable. Flac sounds better,has more dynamic range extension,volume is louder and smoother, etc. Anyone who thinks there is no difference is either partially deaf or not a serious audiophile

 

[wdahm519]

320kbps is pretty good but sorry, I can tell a difference between 320kpbs MP3 and 24bit/192kHz FLAC.  If you're skeptical, that's your opinion.  I have no reason to lie to you.  Just start finding FLAC files in 16bit and what not.  If you have a DAC that can decode 24bit/192kHz or 96kHz (can't tell a difference between those!) then get those.  Why not get start with the best quality files available to you if you're going to spend thousands on audio?

 

[TMRaven]

Quote:

Of course, the difference between flac and mp3 320 is noticeable. Flac sounds better,has more dynamic range extension,volume is louder and smoother, etc. Anyone who thinks there is no difference is either partially deaf or not a serious audiophile

If being a serious audiophile requires massive amount of placebo in one's life then yes I would agree.
 
I'm not saying the two are identical, but the differences are certainly not very evident as some would say.

 

[wdahm519]

Quote:

If being a serious audiophile requires massive amount of placebo in one's life then yes I would agree.
 
I'm not saying the two are identical, but the differences are certainly not very evident as some would say.

 
Actually you can prove through the physical characteristics of the recordings that there are audible differences.  I urge you to compare the bits (2^X), the sampling rate with association to the Nyquist theorem, and the Fourier transform for 16bit and 24bit recordings, especially MP3 and FLAC.
 

 

[Eric_C]

Whoops, in clearly missed those HD online stores. Thanks guys, I learnt sth new from this thread too now!