[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKHAVEN /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even at 320kbps? I find it hard to believe that the effect on imaging and soundstage would be so inferior. Man, I guess my ears just aren't that good...

That, or another possibility is that the difference isn't really there...

 

[uraflit]

if people are taking 5+ minutes of repeating a small portion of a song to even BARELY distinguish a MINUSCULE difference between -v0 and lossless (phew run-on sentence!), practicality rears its ugly (or beautiful?) head

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif That, or another possibility is that the difference isn't really there...

It's not there to me, but I'm not golden-eared. Others may very well hear something.

 

[Radar]

There are a lot of variables, it depends. If the poll question had been: Can you truthfully hear the difference between high bitrate and lossless compression of this track?, I could answer it better.

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are a lot of variables, it depends. If the poll question had been: Can you truthfully hear the difference between high bitrate and lossless compression of this track?, I could answer it better.

Fair enough. I was just curious and wanted to throw a fun question out there, but boy, some people get ruffled over little things, don't they?

 

[ilikebananafudge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazzer1975 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I use wav as my lossless and the best way I can describe the difference between that and mp3 at high bitrates i.e. 256 and 320 is like others have said, it just sounds to be a much fuller experience. How can I precisely pin it down I cant, but there is more depth and a feeling of roundness to the wav files that is not there to the same degree in the compressed files.

I agree entirely.

 

[svoboda123]

I used to own an audio business and I can say with absolute certainty that I can hear the difference, and I have been blind tested in it, and showed my friends how to tell also. With 320k the difference is small and applies only in a quiet environment. Source was straight from the iPod with various phones (HD580, V60, etc.). Also, as an aside, I can tell on my computer speakers too. They are planar magnetic. 320k is good enough for most content under most conditions, but give me Tori Amos or Peter Gabriel in a quiet room and lossless is pretty clearly better.

 

[Radar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKHAVEN /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fair enough. I was just curious and wanted to throw a fun question out there, but boy, some people get ruffled over little things, don't they?

You mean like over a neutral observation like mine? I voted too and it is a fun question!

 

[dallan]

Some people will argue you can't hear the difference between cheap radioshack cable and ALO silver or gold cables. Imagine the cost difference yet for bitrate it is just some cheap space. With all the money spent for piece by piece building of a system that is a cumulative product, I can't see feeding anything less than lossless into it. Add to that the fact that it is more noticeable with a detailed set up as well.

 

[olblueyez]

Only on Monday's, Wednesday's and Friday's.

 

[pata2001]

I wish I had the same amount of response on my listening test poll a while back.

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar /img/forum/go_quote.gif You mean like over a neutral observation like mine? I voted too and it is a fun question!

Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to a few others who were a bit militant about their opinions. Some people's absolute certainty about what can and can't be heard was surprising to me. I wasn't pointing that at you.

 

[DARKHAVEN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pata2001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish I had the same amount of response on my listening test poll a while back.

Yes, I'm surprised and pleased by the interest everyone has taken in this poll. The results are quite interesting. As I write this, the "maybes" are almost exactly double the "yes's" and "no's," which are dead even with each other. It's la very nice Gaussian distribution, which I guess you'd expect in a large population sampling of any opinion, but I never thought it'd come out this perfect with such a small number of respondents. Very cool.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pata2001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish I had the same amount of response on my listening test poll a while back.

People are not all that interested in performing listening tests.
Maybe because they are afraid of failing miserably?

 

[majkel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif People are not all that interested in performing listening tests. Maybe because they are afraid of failing miserably?

I think people completely don't care for picky non-believers' rage, and don't find it necessary to proof anything to anybody. I do ABX ocassionally but I do it for myself, and I can tell what I distinguish, and what I don't distinguish. I never tried highest bitrate ogg Vorbis or AAC on my desktop devices but on portables - I assumed they are identical to lossless for me. Regarding mp3 - I posted many times, anything below 320kb/s CBR/ABR has got incomplete midrange tonality - if someone doesn't hear it - I am sorry for your equipment and/or ears. ABX proves I'm right. BTW, LAME is good for moderate to high bitrates, where you can use VBR but both in 128kb/s and 320kb/s which I only care for, FhG is closer to original and simply better. Try it, compare it, see the encoding times, and say something about hearing and programming abilities of LAME guys. I support the intentions but I'm not impressed with the results all the time.