[DJGeorgeT]

I carry either FLAC or WAV. I have very few CDs in my dap. I like quality rather than quantity. The problem I have with 320 mp3's is that the file sizes are huge. You might as well upgrade to FLAC.

 

[Danneq]

 
Quote:

that may, at least in part, be system related. perhaps a good stereo, rather than a headphone rig, makes it easier to spot the differences, especially spatial ones. please see my previous post. he also reported that aac at 320 kpbs sounded better than 320 mp3. :

 
I agree that there might be a difference on a stereo with speakers where a room's acoustics play a part. With headphones and especially with a DAP, the difference becomes noticeably smaller, if not indistinguishable. Then psychology starts playing a bigger part.
 
ABX testing would probably show this. For me MP3 is transparent when it reaches around 224kbps and I usually do VBR0 on my portable setups. When I have tested MP3 vs WAV on my DAP:s, I cannot tell the converted MP3 file from the original wav-file. This despite having a good ear for music and having played guitar for over 15 years. But perhaps those two things are unrelated...
 
By the way, the test in the link you posted is from 2005. The LAME encoder has improved since then. However, it does not say which encoder is being used to encode the MP3 tracks. Fraunhofer and Xing are not as good as LAME. Try encoding with the latest (official) version v3.98.4 and then compare it to AAC/lossless on your DAP.

 

[Danneq]

 
Quote:

Your system isn't good enough, or you're using headphones (which I find far less harder to pick out MP3 as inferior sounding) Just listen to a bassy track on full range speakers, and you'll go back to the cd/lossless everytime.
 

I was talking about MP3 for portable use. There might be a difference when you use it with speakers since a room's acoustic properties come into play. You say yourself that it is more difficult to pick out MP3 with headphones. On a stereo setup, I'd go with CD. On a portable setup, lossless vs MP3 is more of a psychological issue than a sound related one. This is because of the nature of headphones as opposed to speakers.

 

[daveDerek]

Quote:

Quote:

that may, at least in part, be system related. perhaps a good stereo, rather than a headphone rig, makes it easier to spot the differences, especially spatial ones. please see my previous post. he also reported that aac at 320 kpbs sounded better than 320 mp3. :

 
I agree that there might be a difference on a stereo with speakers where a room's acoustics play a part. With headphones and especially with a DAP, the difference becomes noticeably smaller, if not indistinguishable. Then psychology starts playing a bigger part.

 
it'd be nice, in this day and age of increased headphone use, if there where more binaural recordings. i wonder if codecs would be more distinguishable there. i also wonder if the Smyth system (which makes headphones sound like speakers) would show the differences in encoding schemes.
 

 

[labrat]

Delete

 

[cooperpwc]

Quote:

Quote:

I carry either FLAC or WAV. I have very few CDs in my dap. I like quality rather than quantity. The problem I have with 320 mp3's is that the file sizes are huge. You might as well upgrade to FLAC.

What do you mean with " I have very few CDs in my DAP" ?
CD's are not digital, to store them in a DAP they need to be converted to a digital format.
And MP3 files in 320 KB/s BIG?
If you carry .wav files, they are large compared to the MP3 files!
So your post gives no meaning actually!

CDs definitely are digital and the file format is WAV.
 
I think that DJGeorgeT was referencing how little music he can carry on has DAP because he listens to lossless.
 

 

[xabu]

I wonder, shouldn't better quality (lossless) sound better under bad circumstances than less quality (lossy) ... provided we have a capable system ? ... just a thought ...

 

[labrat]

Delete

 

[labrat]

Delete

 

[cooperpwc]

Let me clarify and self-correct. The audio is PCM which is common to both Redbook and WAV.
 
But CDs aren't digital? You're pretty darn cocky there. And wrong. Quite a combination.

 

[labrat]

Delete

 

[Hero Kid]

Yep my understanding of cds is ones and zeroes.

 

[xabu]

Quote:

 
CD's are not digital.
.wav is a digital , lossless format originally made for Windows.
Please do a little search before you make a post and show your ignorance so totally openly!
 

Ah, I also thought CDs would store data digitally ... is data on CDs stored analogous ?

 

[labrat]

Delete

 

[cooperpwc]

Quote:

Quote:

Let me clarify and self-correct. The audio is PCM which is common to both Redbook and WAV.
 
But CDs aren't digital? You're pretty darn cocky there. And wrong. Quite a combination.

Do you know what PulsCodeModulated is?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation
 
It is a "digital representation" of an analog signal, not a digital format possibly to be managed in a digital, computer run program.
Get your knowledge up a bit before accusing others of cockiness and lack of understanding!

There must be a problem with your English. CDs store digital data. Your references all confirm that.
 
We can keep it simple. From Wikipedia:
Quote:

 A Compact Disc (also known as a CD) is an optical disc used to store digital data.

 
I am not going to engage you in this nonsensical discussion anymore. Good luck to you!