[kiteki]

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote:

 
 
 

 
x2

(... in the pursuit of Hi-Fi ...) (... if it would not be for the question of data space and cost and battery life (... and did I forget something?) (...also don't know what these questions got to do with Hi-Fi)  there would be no discussion ... mp3 wasn't developed to have better sound quality than CD or LP ...) (... and apart from all that what about the influence of frequencies on the unconscious ...)

exactly.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[satkinsn]

My .02.
 
For most of my adult life, (I'm 54) I listened on a cheap Sony boombox, which made me perfectly happy. I'm a music lover but paid absolutely no attention to how it was reproduced.
 
Along the way, I started getting mp3s that were in the 256 to 320 range, with the emphasis on the 320 end of things. And I could not tell the difference, at first. In fact, I still can't if you play me a short sample of music in both its 'original' form and as a well-recorded mp3.
 
But here's what happened to me: I found myself yanking the mp3 album after 15 or 20 minutes. It took me months to even notice I was doing it, and when it happened I had no idea why. (I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to such things.)
 
Anyway, that led me to read - and inevitably buy - and experiment. Whether it's my boombox or the tube amped full rangers in my family room, I can tell the difference between a cd and an mp3 copy with a high degree of accuracy if you give me half an hour with each. (Yes, with volume matching.) I will almost always yank the copy.
 
Now I had my hearing checked during all this, and I am in better shape than most guys my age, but I'd be willing to bet the younger people on the board could 'hear' rings around me, so I don't think this is a case of golden ears. I do think it may point out the real issue with lossy compression - not what it does in one instance or song, but in how you react to it over the longer haul.
 
Most importantly, this doesn't make me happy. I don't take any pride in being able to make the distinction, nor do I particularly enjoy it. It's a distraction, almost like an allergy - I listen for a bit and it just sounds...irritating.
 
Of interest, and what at first made me think it was all in my head - I can listen to radio, including online radio, for decent stretches of time without getting the same buzz, even though it's often the worst quality you can hear. I think a couple things are going on in that case: you downshift your expectations in the same way you would listening to a bootleg or a very old recording and more important, the fact that the music changes (you're not listening to the same artist/album all the way through) tends to mask the compression.
 
It's odd, but that's my experience.
 
Scott A.
Watertown NY 

 

[NewDuke]

Interesting satkinsn, I also find that I'm more tolerant of internet radio's Lo-Fi sound.
 
I also choose high bitrate compression over lossless for practicality, but I wanted to muddy the waters a bit and throw in there that not all the compression codecs used in different programs are equal and it's worth test compressing a sample track on a few different programs and formats (e.g. MP3 sounds different to M4A) to find the sound you like the most.
 
Age of codec also makes a difference as codecs (even those of the same format) are getting better all the time. For example, my 320kb/s MP3s and M4As that I ripped in iTunes 10 years ago sound ugly compared to a lower bitrate MP3 burned on a recent release of LAME. So it's worth getting those dusty CDs out and re-ripping your collection every few years, you'll likely hear a big improvement.
 
I still have some friends who swear there's no difference between HD and SD video signals, maybe being sensitive to lossless is all about how much exposure you get to 'the good stuff'. It took me a while to be able to tell the difference.

 

[Achmedisdead]

 
Quote:

Interesting satkinsn, I also find that I'm more tolerant of internet radio's Lo-Fi sound.
 
I also choose high bitrate compression over lossless for practicality, but I wanted to muddy the waters a bit and throw in there that not all the compression codecs used in different programs are equal and it's worth test compressing a sample track on a few different programs and formats (e.g. MP3 sounds different to M4A) to find the sound you like the most.
 
Age of codec also makes a difference as codecs (even those of the same format) are getting better all the time. For example, my 320kb/s MP3s and M4As that I ripped in iTunes 10 years ago sound ugly compared to a lower bitrate MP3 burned on a recent release of LAME. So it's worth getting those dusty CDs out and re-ripping your collection every few years, you'll likely hear a big improvement.
 
I still have some friends who swear there's no difference between HD and SD video signals, maybe being sensitive to lossless is all about how much exposure you get to 'the good stuff'. It took me a while to be able to tell the difference.

This is why ripping to lossless is superior....you can convert it to whatever you want, whenever you want.

 

[xabu]

Quote:

This is why ripping to lossless is superior....you can convert it to whatever you want, whenever you want.

 
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[supersleuth]

Absolutely, if you want to archive your CDs, it makes complete sense to rip to lossless and then re-encode the files with your favorite lossy codec for portable use.

 

[NewDuke]

Alright yeah good point guys. Then I'll re-phrase my advice to say that it's worth re-encoding your lossless music library (be it on CD or HDD) to a portable lossy format with a newer encoder. My point was mainly to encourage the periodical use of the latest lossy encoders as I think (much) older software can be one of the reasons that lossy gets such a rough ride, and totally I agree that it's ideal to have a lossless primary library if you have the HDD space.

 

[d_headshot]

Quote:

For your setup, no. You will not hear a difference. Lossless will shine on a much higher end system.

 How much of a "high-end" system though? Can you really measure how good one can sound with FLAC vs. MP3 aside from technical specifications? I would think it would take a bit of comparing and getting used to the system which can really boil down to a personal preferrence. I haven't had the opportunity to listen to an extremely expensive(and good) set up but I know some people who couldn't tell the difference between V0 and lossless on one.

 

[cooperpwc]

Quote:

 How much of a "high-end" system though? Can you really measure how good one can sound with FLAC vs. MP3 aside from technical specifications? I would think it would take a bit of comparing and getting used to the system which can really boil down to a personal preferrence. I haven't had the opportunity to listen to an extremely expensive(and good) set up but I know some people who couldn't tell the difference between V0 and lossless on one.

It really depends on a combination of the person, the album and the setup. I find it difficult to distinguish lossless and V0 with quite a high end home setup (see my signature). But on the right day, with the right album, I can get in a groove and identify the lossless 90% of the time or better. For me, it's the point of attack with some percussion.
 
In today's age of terabyte and growing hard drives, it makes sense to rip lossless. It also makes sense to re-encode to V0 for portable use.
 

 

[thornygravy]

I had a friend who said 128kbps MP3 sounded best on his higher end setups. He was probably just a nut.

 

[xabu]

Quote:

I had a friend who said 128kbps MP3 sounded best on his higher end setups. He was probably just a nut.

Yeah and VHS looks better than Bluray on a 40" Full HD display 

 

[stevenswall]

^What if you look at it as a comparison between BluRay, and QuadHD (4k I believe) video, both being displayed on a standard HD TV... Will you notice the difference? Or if you take it a step further, what if music was the resoloution of a picture being displayed on an Apple Retina display? Would increasing it's resoloution help? Would increasing the screen pixel density reveal anything more? Maybe, maybe not, but in the end, I think it comes down to our limited sensory perception.

 

[xabu]

Quote:

^What if you look at it as a comparison between BluRay, and QuadHD (4k I believe) video, both being displayed on a standard HD TV... Will you notice the difference? Or if you take it a step further, what if music was the resoloution of a picture being displayed on an Apple Retina display? Would increasing it's resoloution help? Would increasing the screen pixel density reveal anything more? Maybe, maybe not, but in the end, I think it comes down to our limited sensory perception.

Well, but wouldn't the comparison in our case here be more of Bluray against QuadHD on a QuadHD Display? I think you will not recognize the higher quality of a format on a lower quality medium, but you will recognize the lower quality of a format on the higher quality medium (As e.g. with DVD compared to Bluray on a Full HD 40" or more).

 

[janstett]

 
Quote:

 

The chinese market are selling mp5, 6, 7 and even mp9 players, they are way ahead of the US with their expensive fruit marketing.
 

 
That's ham-fisted Engrish marketing speak, hollow one-upsmanship that has nothing to do with any actual technology.
 
The various MPEG standards are best thought of as containers and inside they contain various profiles which consist of various codecs at various bitrates.
 
For example, MPEG4 is not a codec but a file format that can contain any of several types of video and audio codecs.  The most popular audio codec to come out of MPEG4 is AAC but there are others such as TwinVQ that can be in an MP4 file.
 
MP3 = MPEG 1 Layer 3 Audio
 
There is no MPEG 3, no MPEG 5, no MPEG 9.  The MPEG homepage (http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/) describes the evolution of the MPEG standard.
 
MPEG1 = VCD
MPEG2 = DVD/HDTV
MPEG4 = Web
MPEG7 = Search
MPEG21 = Multimedia framework
 
and in reality I don't think MPEG7 or MPEG21 have much to do with anything actually on the market or in use at the moment.

 

[kiteki]

Chill, I was being ironic.
 
I do like chinese marketing though