[Soundsgoodtome]

Ok, that makes sense. Well I'm certainly looking forward to my results. Maybe if the outcome isn't what i think it is I'll be able to free some space on my portable for lossy.

 

[bigshot]

I did the test and determined that my whole library could be lossy.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I think that anyone that honestly believes they can easily hear a difference between well-encoded lossy formats and lossless should be able to tell in a few seconds with a proper ABX 100% of the time, especially when using a type of music that the tester claims is obvious to them.  Why would the tester ever get it wrong?  It's supposed to be obvious, and the listener can easily tell a difference.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

^I disagree. You make it sound like it should be a glaring difference in sq, I doubt that. You may even need to have several loops of playing the different samples to differentiate the two files being compared.

For the majority of my listening its about enjoyment, critical listens are for testing and usually only when I get new gear or hear something amiss. Not to say high fidelity isn't appreciated (why would head-fi exist). But I haven't ditched Spotify for Tidal nor do i plan to but i can definitely hear the difference there. Could be a matter of Spotify player being a factor. It'll be interesting to test cd ripped ogg vorbis and different since both files are going to be Foobar. I'll entertain having lossy but since I've got massive terabytes for storage, why not keep source files in the purest of forms?

 

[sonitus mirus]

^I disagree. You make it sound like it should be a glaring difference in sq, I doubt that. You may even need to have several loops of playing the different samples to differentiate the two files being compared.

For the majority of my listening its about enjoyment, critical listens are for testing and usually only when I get new gear or hear something amiss. Not to say high fidelity isn't appreciated (why would head-fi exist). But I haven't ditched Spotify for Tidal nor do i plan to but i can definitely hear the difference there. Could be a matter of Spotify player being a factor. It'll be interesting to test cd ripped ogg vorbis and different since both files are going to be Foobar. I'll entertain having lossy but since I've got massive terabytes for storage, why not keep source files in the purest of forms?

 
You claim that you can definitely hear a difference between what I assume is Spotify's 320kbps Vorbis and Tidal's FLAC.  The word "definitely", to me, seems like it should be every time and nothing less.  This is an easy test to ABX in Foobar.  Go for it.  Let's see some definitive results.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

You claim that you can definitely hear a difference between what I assume is Spotify's 320kbps Vorbis and Tidal's FLAC.  The word "definitely", to me, seems like it should be every time and nothing less.  This is an easy test to ABX in Foobar.  Go for it.  Let's see some definitive results.

Ok, it's certainly my intentions.

I can hear a definite difference when doing a manual a/b between Spotify and FLAC lossless from a cd rip of the same song and album. I did this by pausing/switching/pausing of tracks with both players open and Foobar on Directsound. Never tried Tidal's service except for their rigged abx test on their site.

So the other gent here that got 9/10 and 8/10 in his abx test, what do you think of that? Think he's lying? Maybe there was some other factor perhaps, say unknown original source FLACs not from his own cd collection.

 

[bigshot]

Take a CD, rip. Use that rip to make a LAME 320 MP3. Do a blind level matched test. Get back to us. (Don't assume two different sources for the same song are the same mastering. They probably aren't.)

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

Take a CD, rip. Use that rip to make a LAME 320 MP3. Do a blind level matched test. Get back to us. (Don't assume two different sources for the same song are the same mastering. They probably aren't.)

http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding#post_9268096

This is my plan, although I want to use ogg Vorbis for my lossy. Haven't read it yet but I plan on using the guide above that was PMed to me.

I plan on converting a few tracks from:
Hilary Hahn Plays Bach
Discoveries by Gustavo Dudamel
Too Bright by Perfume Genius
There's A Time by Doug Macleod
Rumours
maybe some other cds

 

[RRod]

So the other gent here that got 9/10 and 8/10 in his abx test, what do you think of that? Think he's lying? Maybe there was some other factor perhaps, say unknown original source FLACs not from his own cd collection.

 
Could be legit, could have been different sources, could have heard clipping from the mp3/aac compression… There's more to these tests than the final sample ratio, but getting that all worked out on a forum is a messy business that usually pisses someone off ^_^

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

There's more to these tests than the final sample ratio, but getting that all worked out on a forum is a messy business that usually pisses someone off ^_^

Never understood why there seems to be a high rate of people on head-fi that are so up tight. Like we're all suppose to know it all off the bat.

 

[U2Bono269]

   
You claim that you can definitely hear a difference between what I assume is Spotify's 320kbps Vorbis and Tidal's FLAC.  The word "definitely", to me, seems like it should be every time and nothing less.  This is an easy test to ABX in Foobar.  Go for it.  Let's see some definitive results.

I don't agree with the 100%. No one's perfect, and even experts can make a mistake. 9/10 (or equivalent) is a reasonable compromise with a margin for error. Doing anything 100% perfectly all the time is impossible for us as humans.
 
The thing is, the differences aren't night-and-day obvious. You have to listen carefully and look for certain things. For me, I can hear the differences in cymbal crashes and delay effects the most. It helps for the recording to have nice dynamic range too...I can't tell the differences between lossy/lossless with "loud" recordings. There's just not enough space to hear the tiny details.

 

[bigshot]

  The thing is, the differences aren't night-and-day obvious. You have to listen carefully and look for certain things.

 
Try AAC 320 VBR.

 

[U2Bono269]

Ok, I will, as soon as I have the free time this week to do it.
 
Regardless of the outcome, I'm not about to change my collection to aac files. Even if I fail miserably, I'm sticking with lossless. I have the storage space, so there's really no reason for me to switch. I'm quite comfortable with my archival process.
 
And it will not stop me from picking up 24bit, high resolution copies of my favorite albums as time goes by.

 

[castleofargh]

Ok, I will, as soon as I have the free time this week to do it.

Regardless of the outcome, I'm not about to change my collection to aac files. Even if I fail miserably, I'm sticking with lossless. I have the storage space, so there's really no reason for me to switch. I'm quite comfortable with my archival process.

And it will not stop me from picking up 24bit, high resolution copies of my favorite albums as time goes by.

nobody told you to change anything in your way to listen and store music. tests are for your own information. after, you obviously do whatever you want with that information.
some want storage, some want battery life, some want something that works on any sources... we all have different priorities.

 

[sonitus mirus]

 
I don't agree with the 100%. No one's perfect, and even experts can make a mistake. 9/10 (or equivalent) is a reasonable compromise with a margin for error. Doing anything 100% perfectly all the time is impossible for us as humans.
 
The thing is, the differences aren't night-and-day obvious. You have to listen carefully and look for certain things. For me, I can hear the differences in cymbal crashes and delay effects the most. It helps for the recording to have nice dynamic range too...I can't tell the differences between lossy/lossless with "loud" recordings. There's just not enough space to hear the tiny details.

 
Yes, but I'm talking about folks that claim it is easy and that there is really no debate on the matter.  In these cases, why would anyone need the right music, the right part in that music, and careful analysis that results in them still missing on occasions?  If the tester is unable to hear a difference while quickly changing from one version to another, the chance of identifying a difference while playing either file in a normal situation is even more unlikely.  I suppose I don't think very subtle differences that few can identify would qualify as easy or obvious.  
 
When I read these claims, I have a difficult time believing that they have ever done a proper ABX or that their test was somehow flawed.