[U2Bono269]

   
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.

Fair point. I don't think it's easy or obvious. The importance of it depends on the application. For me, if I'm listening to music while working, or cleaning, or whatever, then I don't need FLAC files. I'm not listening closely. But sometimes I like to sit in a comfortable chair and do nothing but listen to an album in great detail, then I want to hear the subtle differences. Often, the albums I listen to critically are my favorite ones, and I've heard them hundreds of times. So I'm familiar with the details and can appreciate the differences. In those cases it becomes easier to discern a sharper cymbal crash, or really lush reverb on the vocals. That's a big deal for me.

 

[bigshot]

It doesn't matter what I'm doing, compression artifacts irritate me and stick out like a sore thumb. I want a codec to be audibly transparent, so I don't have to have two copies of every track. AAC 256 VBR is exactly the same as lossless and it is a much smaller file. It works for my home stereo, it works for portable. No compromises at all, except for ones that exist only in theory, not in the real world.

 

[bigshot]

  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.

 
So it really isn't a matter of sound quality, it's just that larger file sizes make you feel better about it.

 

[U2Bono269]

   
So it really isn't a matter of sound quality, it's just that larger file sizes make you feel better about it.

 
 
It's what I'm used to, so it's easier for me to continue doing what I've been doing...don't fix what's not broken. I think it's important to preserve the recording in its most complete released form, which is lossless. AAC may sound the same, but it's not lossless.
 
And I want to future-proof if at all possible. Who is to say that audio tech won't evolve to the point that it can actually do something worthwhile with the extra data a lossless file has, or the extra data in a high-res file?

 

[bigshot]

In order for you to need something better than audibly transparent, you would need to upgrade the technology of your ears, not your equipment.
 
The way to improve sound quality is to focus on improving sound quality, not just increasing file sizes and listening to music with frequencies human ears can't hear.

 

[U2Bono269]

  In order for you to need something better than audibly transparent, you would need to upgrade the technology of your ears, not your equipment.
 
The way to improve sound quality is to focus on improving sound quality, not just increasing file sizes and listening to music with frequencies human ears can't hear.

Thanks for your input. I appreciate your concern for my personal music storage needs.

 

[OrbitingCow]

I'll honestly never even touch lossy material. I don't care what ABX you want to drive through my wrists. No, you cannot always tell the difference but on A LOT of stuff you sure as hell can. ABX tests are often a flawed methodology. You really need to sit down with an album and go all the way through with each. And then back to back with critical pieces.
 
Anyway, my question is what is the deal with Phase problems in 24/96 vs 16/44.1? I hear there are more studies also being done on higher frequencies and if they affect your body rather than just ears. With the phase thing I have heard that people think there are more errors in this way with instruments placing and such with 44.1?
 
Lastly, my reasoning for always taking the 24/96 or higher stuff is because storage for me is cheap, though I will take the CD quality for burns, and also that I have no idea what person did the downscaling and if they did it properly. With how music is treated today it's hard to trust many people fiddling with all the filters. I'd rather just take 24/96 for piece of mind.
 
And up there: you honestly trying to tell me to go lossy lol? Hell no dude. Just because your collection is lossy don't mean I'm going to throw my 2TB collection of FLAC in a variety of resolutions and bit depths out the door. That is just insane. 256 VBR IS NOT LOSSLESS. Period.

 

[U2Bono269]

  I'll honestly never even touch lossy material. I don't care what ABX you want to drive through my wrists. No, you cannot always tell the difference but on A LOT of stuff you sure as hell can. ABX tests are often a flawed methodology. You really need to sit down with an album and go all the way through with each. And then back to back with critical pieces.
 
Anyway, my question is what is the deal with Phase problems in 24/96 vs 16/44.1? I hear there are more studies also being done on higher frequencies and if they affect your body rather than just ears. With the phase thing I have heard that people think there are more errors in this way with instruments placing and such with 44.1?
 
Lastly, my reasoning for always taking the 24/96 or higher stuff is because storage for me is cheap, though I will take the CD quality for burns, and also that I have no idea what person did the downscaling and if they did it properly. With how music is treated today it's hard to trust many people fiddling with all the filters. I'd rather just take 24/96 for piece of mind.

Do you have links to these studies? I've been wondering about that for a while.

 

[bigshot]

Transparent is transparent. Modern lossy codecs achieve audible transparency. You can use a file format that is bigger, but it won't sound better to human ears. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's true.
 
Studies have shown that your brain might be receiving some sort of stimulus from ultra sonic frequencies (most likely discomfort), but they add absolutely nothing to perceived sound quality of music. Worthless as teats on a bull hog.

 

[OrbitingCow]

Well I have been following up on this debate again. Let me get what I have been reading. I have no idea about some of it and don't make any claims  as to the accuracy. As I said I get 24/96 to rest easy, and even 24/192 sometimes because really I don't care about space. I got the Grateful Dead is pure 24/192. Why some may ask? Because it is there and I have to worry about zero problems with mixing and mastering. It's definitive. Meaning never will be topped as far as I am concerned. One sec.....

 

[OrbitingCow]

  Transparent is transparent. Modern lossy codecs achieve audible transparency. You can use a file format that is bigger, but it won't sound better to human ears. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's true.
 
Studies have shown that your brain might be receiving some sort of stimulus from ultra sonic frequencies (most likely discomfort), but they add absolutely nothing to perceived sound quality of music. Worthless as teats on a bull hog.

I don't believe you. Why? Because now you are trying to tell me that there is science behind this audible transparency that 100% confirms it. I don't believe this.
 
I do believe that a perfectly assigned downscaling from 24/96 to 16/44.1 is inaudible to my system and ears. But now you are trying to say that an algorithm has perfected itself to transparency on a lossy source. This is not a theorem. It is a theory bud. And these types of theories rarely take into account what we know about phase shifts and frequencies affecting the body and mind.
 
ABX tests are a seriously flawed methodology. There is no getting around this. I would rather trust science in this case. And science says lossy is different and it is audible in many cases to many people. Period.
 
When I collect I collect definitively, not on the suggestion that you probably won't hear a difference.

 

[Greenears]

  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.

 
I sense another ABX log posting coming!  I rub my hands with glee!
 
Please post your 24 v 16.  Lossy v lossless is ok as well but I think that should be taken to another thread.  It's a fun argument point but it's not the same question as 24v16 and does not have the same impact for most people (unless most of your collection was never on CD to begin with then you may have a lot of lower bitrate lossy).  Besides, the thread title and OP is not about lossy.

 

[OrbitingCow]

Here was this debate I was reading which was pretty entertaining: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/digital-music-16-bit-44-khz-explained
 
One thing that should always be taken into account is that a high-res version of anything is almost ALWAYS going to better than its late 80s/early 90s counterpart at 44.1 if they even half-tried to make it decent. We didn't have technology back then to do the downscaling like we do now imo. I'm not saying it is 100% but I have heard some pretty resounding samples. STP's Core album to me sounds a lot better overall in high-res than it does with the old CD for whatever reasons. I'm sure the downscaling there had some issues.

 

[Don Hills]

   
So it really isn't a matter of sound quality, it's just that larger file sizes make you feel better about it.

 
That's a valid reason for doing it.
I enjoy driving my car more when I've just washed and waxed it, even though it still performs the same and I can't see the difference from inside.

 

[OrbitingCow]

Campbell and the Admin in the mac article up there get into an intense debate about some things. It is worth reading. They also link to some experimental studies on perception of sounds past the normal range and other useful tidbits.
 
http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548
 
"In conclusion, our findings that showed an increase in alpha-EEG potentials, activation of deep-seated brain structures, a correlation between alpha-EEG and rCBF in the thalamus, and a subjective preference toward FRS, give strong evidence supporting the existence of a previously unrecognized response to high-frequency sound beyond the audible range that might be distinct from more usual auditory phenomena. Additional support for this hypothesis could come from future noninvasive measurements of the biochemical markers in the brain such as monoamines or opioid peptides."
 
http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
 
But usually most think that a perfect conversation from 24/96 to 16/44.1 is fine. That doesn't mean you should trust those doing the converting! And that is why I prefer solid 24/96 or higher. Less human error.
 
There is also a piece with Bob Ludwig saying it's in the entire piece of the High-res stuff. You need to listen to it as a whole to hear the differences. Botnick of the Doors also said something about feeling better. Make of that what you will.