[alpha10]

I just made a test with some high quality recordings in lossless and 320kb/s, and I honestly can't hear the difference, what about you?

 

[Hybrys]

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/493173/320-aac-vs-flac/30#post_6660946
 
If you find my post in there, you can see my 18/20 320kb vs FLAC ABX log.

 

[krmathis]

Yes, I have done so numerous times.
There are quite some variables though, like: which codec (AAC, MP3, Vorbis, MPC, ...), which encoder and not least the music file.

 

[_Spanky_]

Why even bother with a lossy encoding? Hard drive space? To me, that's not an excuse. Portable players are getting bigger and hard drives are cheap. It takes little effort to encode in FLAC instead of MP3 when you rip a CD. Why risk making the audio file the weak link in the chain?
 
Someone on here posted a 128kbps vs lossless test and I easily heard the difference and my setup isn't super expensive. I'm sure 320kbps would be harder but to me it doesn't matter if I hear a difference or not, I know MP3 is smaller in file size because it cuts data out, FLAC (or any other lossless codec) doesn't. Pretty simple.

 

[JxK]

Quote:

Why even bother with a lossy encoding? Hard drive space? To me, that's not an excuse. Portable players are getting bigger and hard drives are cheap. It takes little effort to encode in FLAC instead of MP3 when you rip a CD. Why risk making the audio file the weak link in the chain?
 
Someone on here posted a 128kbps vs lossless test and I easily heard the difference and my setup isn't super expensive. I'm sure 320kbps would be harder but to me it doesn't matter if I hear a difference or not, I know MP3 is smaller in file size because it cuts data out, FLAC (or any other lossless codec) doesn't. Pretty simple.

For a home setup using lossless makes sense. Hard drive space is fairly cheap, and using lossless lets you encode your files in multiple formats and bitrates.
 
But for portable use, it's more iffy. Hard drive space is an issue with most flash based players, plus lossless uses considerably more battery life. Add to that the fact that the listener is typically doing something else at the same time, and that some outside noises get through. So for a portable set up, 192kb/s or V2 is more than enough. You simply won't be able to hear any difference between that and lossless.
 
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for portable use, anything over V2 is just silly and makes little practical sense. But yeah, for home use lossless is certainly the best way to archive.
 

 

[_Spanky_]

Quote:

For a home setup using lossless makes sense. Hard drive space is fairly cheap, and using lossless lets you encode your files in multiple formats and bitrates.
 
But for portable use, it's more iffy. Hard drive space is an issue with most flash based players, plus lossless uses considerably more battery life. Add to that the fact that the listener is typically doing something else at the same time, and that some outside noises get through. So for a portable set up, 192kb/s or V2 is more than enough. You simply won't be able to hear any difference between that and lossless.
 
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for portable use, anything over V2 is just silly and makes little practical sense. But yeah, for home use lossless is certainly the best way to archive.
 

I do see your point and overlooked battery life. You also raise a good point: you just won't get the quality out of a portable setup without spending crazy amounts compared to a home desktop setup. Like with everything portable, portability comes before quality. Flash-based players are kind of a joke and perpetuate low-quality files IMO. A few more years and we'll see some decent sized ones that will either allow people to expand their library of low-bitrate files or use lossless files. Anyway, this is all a bit off-topic, I just felt I had to touch on it a bit

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I just sigh when I see these threads. Anybody with normal hearing can train themselves to hear the artifacts of very lossy codec compression. Can they hear them at 320? Doubtful, but possible. But why, why, why, would you train yourself to sit around listening for artifacts when there is music playing? That's like banging your head against a wall to see if it still hurts. Or training yourself to see the slight variations in symmetry in the faces of beautiful women so their flaws will stand out in front of their beauty. 
 
Regarding the quality of portable systems, have you seen the specs on an iPod Touch? If you have the good sense not to attempt to drive 350 ohm cans with one of the things it might just deliver greater resolution than your desktop system. Plug in some appropriate ear canal phones of very high quality and you won't be missing much. Not even artifacts, if that's what you're into. Enjoy the music.
 
P

 

[Dynobot]

First someone needs to view some charts, grafts, measurements showing differences [no matter how small] then their brain can make them hear the differences.  The brain has an incredible ability to fill in the gaps and construct reality when their isn't any....this has been proven with numerous visual and hearing tests.

 

[TheWuss]

Quote:

Hard drive space? To me, that's not an excuse.

if hard drive space is such a non-issue, then why flac?  why not just leave 'em wave files? 
just kidding, of course. 

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

if hard drive space is such a non-issue, then why flac?  why not just leave 'em wave files? 
just kidding, of course. 

Perhaps he fancy some of the features coming with the later container formats? More specific - metadata and artwork support

 

[JxK]

Quote:

Perhaps he fancy some of the features coming with the later container formats? More specific - metadata and artwork support

Artwork support is nice, but sometimes when there are multiple covers and you don't want the one selected it's just a pain. I still think that a simple folder.jpg or cover.jpg is easier to use and replace.

 

[onef]

 
Quote:

I just sigh when I see these threads. Anybody with normal hearing can train themselves to hear the artifacts of very lossy codec compression. Can they hear them at 320? Doubtful, but possible. But why, why, why, would you train yourself to sit around listening for artifacts when there is music playing? That's like banging your head against a wall to see if it still hurts. Or training yourself to see the slight variations in symmetry in the faces of beautiful women so their flaws will stand out in front of their beauty. 
 
Regarding the quality of portable systems, have you seen the specs on an iPod Touch? If you have the good sense not to attempt to drive 350 ohm cans with one of the things it might just deliver greater resolution than your desktop system. Plug in some appropriate ear canal phones of very high quality and you won't be missing much. Not even artifacts, if that's what you're into. Enjoy the music.
 
P

 
As a person with extremely sensitive hearing, most of the time I can't help but hear those "artifacts" of lossy sound. It's tiresome, and eventually exhausting to my ears. There's no training about it. As to the difference between 320 and lossless, I really can't detect much, especially after trying this experiment in my home system with the King Crimson and John Coltrane anthologies. But there is a noticeable level of flatness reduced by using FLAC that I attribute to my particular setup.
 
Back to the quote, SQ doesn't have anything to do with those two examples. My Hafler owner's manual puts it into good words: "Sound reproduction accuracy is largely a measure of your success in satisfying an illusion of the original." Now, if all it takes is a bit more hard drive space or a few extra dollars to come closer to satisfying that illusion, then why not do it? Or in this case, a few less dollars, because I paid 65$US for my 20GB portable FLAC / Movie player, whereas a used 8GB iTouch would have run me 150$US.
 

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Artwork support is nice, but sometimes when there are multiple covers and you don't want the one selected it's just a pain. I still think that a simple folder.jpg or cover.jpg is easier to use and replace.

Ok, but then:
* Nothing is stopping you from using folder.jpg or cover.jpg with FLAC files.
* Perhaps _Spanky_ prefer to use the cover picture only.

 

[Achmedisdead]

 
Quote:

For a home setup using lossless makes sense. Hard drive space is fairly cheap, and using lossless lets you encode your files in multiple formats and bitrates.
 
But for portable use, it's more iffy. Hard drive space is an issue with most flash based players, plus lossless uses considerably more battery life. Add to that the fact that the listener is typically doing something else at the same time, and that some outside noises get through. So for a portable set up, 192kb/s or V2 is more than enough. You simply won't be able to hear any difference between that and lossless.
 
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for portable use, anything over V2 is just silly and makes little practical sense. But yeah, for home use lossless is certainly the best way to archive.
 

Agreed...my FLACs are converted to V2 as well for portable use.

 

[Hero Kid]

I can occasionally pick it but I'm lucky with 17 year old ears which can hear up and beyond 22 kHz.
Which certainly helps in identifying lossless v. lossy codecs. I still use V0 for portable and FLAC for everything else.