[barksdale]

My music collection is ALL 256 VBR and ABOVE.  MAINLY 320kbps encoded with LAME.
 
I have nothing under 256!  320 vs 128 is a huge difference.

What about 320 VS FLAC?

Flac is loseless but not supported on many players.
 
Is it worth going FLAC?

THX

 

[Dr Chocolate]

i just found out the other day that i've been encoding my 320k mp3s at 48,000 instead of 44,100
but it turns out in the end, it still spits out the exact same sized file, which i actually thought it wouldn't
had to change the setting back to 44,100. just to keep it cd-r ready.
 
as for 320k vs FLAC, i'm sure there has got to be at least some difference.
there has to be, but is it even so noticeable that it stands out?
i've always found that the cymbals are a dead give away
but i can't really tell the difference
 
the only difference that i see, is that if you go to burn the cd
mp3's still give you gap's on your burnt cd
FLAC (wave) never put gaps on burnt cd's (unless you burn in TAO)
 
but ya, i can't tell the difference.
maybe i'm used to 320k now?

 

[AnakChan]

I hope you all are taking into account of the original CD itself, it's mastering and how well it was copied/pressed. Some CD's the difference is obvious whilst others are not.
 
In addition, if you're using iTunes at least in my experience I've found some differences that 160kbps back 8 years ago is quite different from 160kbps of today's iTunes version. My old (esp iTunes 4.0.1) 160kbps had been indistinguishable to current re-recorded ALACs to my ears and my wife's whereas somewhere around iTunes 6.0.3, the 160kbps rips started to change. My post on this topic here :-
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/623705/itunes-encoding-changed-over-the-years-versions

 

[blackmarket]

i suppose it depends on the music. i've had instances where the 320kbps sounded identical to the original FLAC and some instances where the FLAC had much much better separation than the 320kbps.
 

 

[liqwidlord]

Lossless does sound better. By rights it should as well. There is a lot more information contained in a FLAC file than in an mp3. My DnB library was entirely 320kbps until i bought a pair of Dennon AH-D7000 two weeks ago. This changed everything. Before, listening to my HD555's, i could hear little to no difference. Nothing that screamed out rubbish anyway. Now however, is completely different. Listening through my D7's, everything sounds like its hitting a padded brick wall. Luckily enough, Beatport, where i've bought all this music from, sent me an email yesterday saying i could upgrade everything to lossless for 39 cents a track. I jumped at the chance, and I'm extremely glad i did. The sound has completely opened up and im listening to all this new music that i have been missing out on for all this time. The only one downfall I am hearing now is how well the tracks were produced in the beginning. Things like quality of samples used are actually having a massive effect on how the track is performing. Something which i thought, could never have an impact. I think it is definately worth it!!
 
Your equipment obviously has a lot to do with wether or not a difference is heard. Are you running windows or a Mac?
 
Have a read of this http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/

 

[soozieq]

Try reading this thread, since it's basically exactly the same as this one.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3
 
The majority of people (even those with excellent hearing) cannot tell the difference between lossless and high-bitrate lossy files.

 

[Noctus]

Depends on your hearing, the speakers/headphones/IEM's you use and the music you're listening to. There's obviously technically a difference, whether you can hear it is another matter. I can only hear it on some recordings.

 

[bigshot]

I use AAC 256 VBR and the sound is exactly the same as the original CD, even on my main stereo.

 

[uselessbass]

Ya its all about if your ears can pick up the difference I can't stand mp3's with good headphones like another poster said u can usually tell right away from the symbols if it's a encoded song or not lol on a crummy stereo it doesn't matter anyway I'm a musician myself but for me when I compare a flac vs. Mp3 its night and day with rock music anyway I have no experience with other genres

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TJ Elite]

There's a (relatively) simple way to hear what's the exact difference between the original lossless file and a lossy one. If I'm not mistaken it's called the null test. You need an audio editing software that allows you to invert the phase of an audio track. When you play both the original file and the phase inverted version at the same time you should hear absolutely nothing because the waveforms cancel each other out and you end up with silence. However, if the inverted waveform differs in any way from the non-inverted one, you can hear what's different about them.

 

So basically what you need to do is place the original lossless file in the editor, place the lossy file on another track and invert its phase, and then listen to the output with both channels enabled (not muted or soloed).

 

[bigshot]

There's no point making comparisons between MP3 and lossless without talking about the codec and bitrate. An MP3 at 128 is going to sound different than lossless. A 320 LAME MP3 is going to sound exactly the same.

 

[MrScratch]

I don't mean to offend you or doubt about your ears, but some of us can hear the difference. It became apparent to me by comparing some tracks and some whole CDs I previously ripped in 320kbps MP3 after I re-ripped them in ALAC. There was no placebo, those songs didn't sound any "better"... Actually I noticed some notes, some accents I've never heard before (for example, some of Apocaliptyca songs sounded completely different to me).
You can't argue with that: I notice a difference between lossless an lossy codecs, especially if the album was recorded with fairly good equipment.

I've always used iTunes to rip my CDs (recently I've migrated to XLD).

 

[soozieq]

Quote:

There's no point making comparisons between MP3 and lossless without talking about the codec and bitrate. An MP3 at 128 is going to sound different than lossless. A 320 LAME MP3 is going to sound exactly the same.

I don't have any 128 files at all. Most of my music is in 350 AAC vbr (using dbPoweramp to rip to FLAC and then to convert) and I can't tell a difference between that, and lossless, except for 2 albums that sound slightly louder with a bigger soundstage in lossless (both are live albums). It's not worth the space and drain on battery life to me.
 
MrScratch -  I said the majority of people can't hear the difference between lossless and high-bitrate lossy files. I don't doubt that a few people can hear a difference, but not the majority.

 

[TJ Elite]

Quote:

I don't mean to offend you or doubt about your ears, but some of us can hear the difference. It became apparent to me by comparing some tracks and some whole CDs I previously ripped in 320kbps MP3 after I re-ripped them in ALAC. There was no placebo, those songs didn't sound any "better"... Actually I noticed some notes, some accents I've never heard before (for example, some of Apocaliptyca songs sounded completely different to me).
You can't argue with that: I notice a difference between lossless an lossy codecs, especially if the album was recorded with fairly good equipment.
I've always used iTunes to rip my CDs (recently I've migrated to XLD).

This is completely off topic, but I wanted to congratulate you on choosing the screen name MrScratch. That's great. 

 

[MrScratch]

@soozieq: no worries, my response was adressed to bigshot's previous post. My opinion is similar to yours: you MAY notice a difference on some CDs or even on a single song (obviously your equipment and the studio equipment used to record the CD will make a difference) while the majority of the people isn't able to or just couldn't care less.

@TJ Elite: Teehee, Scratch is such a nice guy!