[wanderman]

I have been on these forums for quite awhile reading, flaming, and displaying my poor grasp of the english language. I would like to know some of the reason many members use lossless codecs as opposed to lossy on a portable source. Do you have plentiful space and have the ability to fit everything in lossless? Too lazy to transcode files to multiple bitrates/codecs? Precieved quality that can only be attained through lossless?

For those who answer with quality have you done any personal tests to tell the apparent difference in the quality of files? I guess I really just want to know how you use your portable source and what drove some of your decisions?

My portable setup is an iriver H320>shure e3. I boost the treble a tiny bit to get what a precieve is a flat sound out of my shures. My music is primarily in 3.97 b2 v2 but I also have some vorbis files and cbr mp3 ranging from 112 kbps - 320. I rip all my cd's to wav with eac and transode to .wv 4.31 and transcode all those for my portable. I use my dap everywhere and it lies within arm reach 24/7. I have abx'd alot of my stuff and with the newest version of lame it is pretty hard for me to abx v4 stuff, but I had the room for v2 so why not. I use my setup because it it space efficient and hella cheap.

 

[blessingx]

I go back and forth, but currently using lossless 'cause I'm lazy about keeping two libraries.

As for quality, my Lavry shows off the differences, the few tests I've done on an iPod didn't. The DAC just isn't all that there. And lossless kills the batteries, so if I was less lazy I'd be running 192 VBR AAC.

 

[Skylab]

Well, for me, it works like this. I believe I can hear the difference between lossy and lossless codecs. And when I tried having a mix of lossy and lossless songs on my iPod, but I just didn't enjoy listening to the lossy ones. So eventually I went all lossless. I have a 60GB, and it holds 2200+ lossless songs, which is enough for me to have at any given time. And it makes me feel better knowing I'm not missing anything

 

[Dihnekis]

In most situations I doubt I would be able to tell the difference, but all my music is lossless already and I don't want to spend the time converting it all.

 

[bangraman]

First reason is some people believe they can tell the difference, despite the fact that the phones they use, and the environment that the combo is used in, clearly does not allow the difference to come through.


Second is like blessingx said, you've got your stuff in Lossless mainly for home use and especially with the iPod, it's just so much more elegant to work off one library and get the full benefits of that.


Third is perhaps they listen / use equipment that does allow them to tell the difference between Lossless and lossy. This is highly unlikely unless you're a 'mobile base' kind of guy (i.e. you flit from one place to another, each of which is set up with appropriate gear).


I fall into the latter two categories, but still find 256K MP3 a better balance of compatibility, SQ and portability. As such I have sunk thousands into trying to manage this process simply. Still not quite there as seamless as I want it, but thanks to tweaks in j.River Media Center over the last few months (amazing that they do even listen to the ravings of a few of the lunatic fringe) it's got a whole lot easier to manage. However with my planned move to the Mac, this is once again derailed... I might have to stick with PC for music, which kind of throws off the entire plan.


My ultimate wish is for a cross-platform (Mac/Win) OS-level masquerading of lossy files from lossless. i.e. all FLAC or ALAC files appear as MP3 or Ogg files to any program and the substitution layer handles the task of converting either in real-time or fetching from the transcoded cache it already knows about (you would be able to set a cache size where all previously transcoded material is stored). FLAC rippers would be allowed to rip into the existing library. I think this will fully solve my problem of keeping Lossless files at home and lossy files for portable, since it is not dependent on an application to handle the transcoding process. However I doubt it will exist and that I would have to wait until processing power becomes such that true real-time transcodes are a reality.

 

[bangraman]

An UNEDITED post by bangraman ladies and gentlemen! WOW!


But in the interests of keeping the above post untouched, I'll just make clear that the "this process" refers to managing two libraries, one lossless and one lossy.

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman An UNEDITED post by bangraman ladies and gentlemen! WOW!

lol

I use the highest quality LAME VBR with my ZV:M because I honestly can't discern any difference to lossless with my E4.

 

[PeeeMeS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman An UNEDITED post by bangraman ladies and gentlemen! WOW!

I'll say wow when you finish that amp vs unamped article

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeeeMeS I'll say wow when you finish that amp vs unamped article

Ah, yes...

(shuffles uncomfortably, looks at floor)

 

[Orestes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman An UNEDITED post by bangraman ladies and gentlemen! WOW!

LMAO! I'll save a screenshot of that, print it, frame it, then hang it on the wall.