[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nc8000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif the heavy metal fan a set of DT770/90 Pro and they are slowly beginning to see the folly of thie ways so there might be hope yet. Presented him with the retail version of the new Metallica and then compared it with the Guitar Hero III rip and he could hear the difference which surprised him.

I'm a Metalhead, check out my last.fm for any reqs.

The GHIII version of Death Magnetic is hugely better. The CD version was hugely loudened, Lars[their drummer] says its just how music is made today...including the clipping.

Shame, most bar-stewards think it sounds awesome in 128k..

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear loads of stories of folks who think a 128kb/s song is indeterminable from lossless. Either they have rubbish ears or more likely they're using stock iBuds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nc8000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif scompton in post 5 and the OP is presently using 128 or 256. I will admit that if the songs are used mostly in noisy environments a lot of the difference is lost to background noise. I use them about 50/50 portable and in the home office through powered speakers so went with 320 kb aac as a happy medium. If I listen in an ideal environment I can tell the difference between 320 kb and alac about 50% of the times buta as that also means I get it wrong the other 50% in reallity it means I can't tell the difference.

I've never heard the difference no matter what equipment I've used, including my SR-Gamma driven by an SRD-7 out of a NAD 3155. It's not lousy ears, it's lousy memory. Subtly is wiped from my brain as soon as I start listening to the second track. There's at least one thread here where 2 samples were posted, Guns & Roses and Dave Mathews, and the idea was to use ABX software that encrypted the results. Very few people who took the test could tell the difference, so I'm not alone. I'm sure there are some pieces of music that it would be obvious to me, but I've not heard them. I know there's a list of problem tracks on Hydrogenaudio that I'll try eventually.

I don't advocate for 128kb or lossless. I advocate people doing ABX tests to determine where the threshold is for them. It's easy to do and reduces the possibility of placebo. I say reduce instead of eliminate, because placebo can go both ways. If you don't expect to hear a difference, you probably won't. I'm probably there now, but when I first started doing ABX tests, I was sure I'd hear a difference.

 

[matt8268]

definitely rip to lossless. that way you only ever have to do it once. even if a lossy compression algorithm works fine for you, what if tomorrow a different (better) lossy format becomes popular and all the players switch to it. you'll want to be able to convert your music to that new format, and you won't want to convert from lossy to lossy, as you'll lose a lot of quality doing it that way.

 

[nc8000]

I probably wish I had done that now but when I started out disk space was too expensive so I chose 320kb aac as the best compromise. Today I have over 1000 cd's ripped and since I find the sound good enough for where I use it I simply can not be bothered to rerip.

 

[Chri5peed]

I'm forever grateful. Back when I was pretty ignorant, I spent a week ripping my CDs. I kept all the logs, I did not know of test & copy or gap detection, but they're all ripped 'securely'.

I ripped to WAV cos I'd just bought 25 blank DVDs, so no size issues. Since converted to FLAC.

 

[scompton]

I've reripped a little less than half my library. 997 albums reripped out of 2181 albums

 

[Chri5peed]

Glad at the time my CD collection was 50GB, heh now its 250GBs.

Now I rip new CDs 'properly' via EAC & Yo-ho-ho FLACs.

 

[nc8000]

I'll never get round to that, I'll just go get the cd and put it in the cd player

 

[Chri5peed]

^ I've grown used to having any song[well Album] at the touch of my fingers.

 

[leveller1642]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't, 128 is bad. I am derisive of them because I can quite easily hear the difference with Lossless. Slightly higher bitrate, i.e. >200 I cannot. The myth, 128kb/s = CD-quality...has a lot to answer for.

I agree strongly with this. I believe I can tell the difference between AAC 192 and AAC 128, but I can't tell the difference between Apple Lossless and AAC 192.

It can be annoying because my brother and file sharer who only listens through Sony Ex-71s, claims not to be able to tell the difference. And don't get me started on plain old MP3.

 

[dallan]

Rip in lossless so that when you get decent equipment you won't have to re-rip it. I re-ripped all of mine from 320 aac to lossless a few years back when storage space started getting cheaper and my gear was getting upgraded to the point that it made a difference. Beyond that, imagine the price paid for LODs, rewires and interconnects of silver and gold for the most subtle differences and then skimping on bit rate.

 

[krmathis]

Yeah, go lossless. For the safe of mind, and for the fact that you can transcode to a new/different audio codec without any additional data loss.

 

[Chri5peed]

If a wild GS1000 takes a liking to your head, it won't appreciate being fed even premium dog-food.

 

[suzuki]

i also can't tell the difference between aac 256 and loseless, aac is good stuff.

 

[amnesiac75]

I would just like to add my solution for people who use itunes and want to have an alac copy of their music and also an acc or mp3 version but dont want it to be in the same folder. I simply rip the cd to apple lossless and than convert to 320 aac or whatever you prefer and then change the name of the artist from lets say Tool to Tool aac( for the compressed version only of course) this way it goes in separate folders and stays separate in itunes.