[CookieFactory]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unkoman richard, First I emptied my ipod. Then I ripped songs that I'm really familiar with(probably listened to them over 100 times) to ALAC, AAC 320, and AAC VBR 256. I named the songs with random numbers and letters so that I can't tell which files are which, and loaded them into my pod. Then I shuffled the songs. I wrote down my guesses on a paper and checked back on my computer to see which files were which. After several hours of this testing, the difference between AAC and ALAC became very apparent to my ears. I used well recorded classical musics and my favorite rock songs. Even with hard metal rock songs, the difference in sound staging was pretty apparent. Funny thing, it was easier for me to tell the difference btw the files using my e4 than hd595.

First off the iPod will take longer to load an ALAC file than an AAC 320. The difference in time is not insignificant, so that could have cued you off.
Secondly, and more importantly, you failed to volume match. Take a look:

Using the latest iTunes, I ripped a track 5 times using various AAC bit rates and one ALAC. Running it through MP3Gain you can see there are volume differences inherent to the track depending on what bitrate you rip at. The higher the bitrate, the higher the volume, or so it seems from this small sample. I'm unable to MP3Gain an ALAC track, but following the general trend, it would probably be 96.7+ dB.
Obviously in the general sense, more volume == more detail, soundstage, etc.

 

[richard]

Yep, it's very easy to distinguish small differences in volume.

I'd recommend that anyone who says they can distinguish 320k (or 192k vbr or lower) from lossless to get a copy of foobar2000 from http://www.foobar2000.org/beta.html, load two encodings of a song, apply replaygain to match the volume of each, and run the ABX component. I don't think foobar will handle ALAC, but it will handle flac or ape.

 

[vranswer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard Yep, it's very easy to distinguish small differences in volume. I'd recommend that anyone who says they can distinguish 320k (or 192k vbr or lower) from lossless to get a copy of foobar2000 from http://www.foobar2000.org/beta.html, load two encodings of a song, apply replaygain to match the volume of each, and run the ABX component. I don't think foobar will handle ALAC, but it will handle flac or ape.

Is replaygain not a lossy process?

 

[unkoman]

Even if there were slight volume differences, the diference in sound staging was pretty easy to hear, or "feel". If you try to hear or "listen" to the differences it will be much harder to hear the difference, because you're foucsing so much on the sound, not the music. For example, I used Sar wars episode 3 sound track, and AAC files of it had collapsed sound staging compared to ALAC. Yet, the "sound" was pretty comparable. In addition, I don't think more volume = wider/better sound staging. Some recordings sound more spacious at lower volume.

 

[dvdonly]

I ran a double blind test on ALAC, AAC320, AAC 256, AAC224. I ripped the same 5 songs into each format, left the names the same so that I couldn't tell what was playing, created a separate playlist for each song (so that each playlist had the same song encoded 4 different ways), and played each playlist "random" from my 5G iPod to my Grado SR-60s, and I also did it from iTunes to my Grados on my laptop.

Each of these songs I was very familiar with.

In each instance I was unable to even begin guessing which songs were which codec. [edit: and yes my hearing is normal, actually medically considered very good as I recently had an extensive hearing test at my medical center, but that's another story

]

That was enough for me to take all of the ALACs off of my iPod and replace them with AAC224. If I couldn't tell the difference in a quiet, controlled, attentive setting, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell the difference on the go, where street sounds and ambient noise degrade the sound anyway.

Just my own anecdotal experience.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Even if there were slight volume differences, the diference in sound staging was pretty easy to hear, or "feel". If you try to hear or "listen" to the differences it will be much harder to hear the difference, because you're foucsing so much on the sound, not the music.

Hit the nail on the head. Most people who compare, double blind or otherwise, focus on frequency response apperations, and find that when they compare AAC/320 or VBR MP3/320, they don't generally find any. But either of those lossy compression schemes still negatively impacts soundstaging, and with a good amp and speakers, or a good amp and good heaphones, this is readily apparent. Anyone who can hear a stereo soundstage can hear it. I have A-B demo'd (single blind) for several people on mt B&W Nautilus 800 speakers, and the difference has been immediately obvious to them.

But these are "audiophiles" listening. There are many people who have never really hears a stereo soundstage, and don't know what to listen for. Supposedly, some people are actually unable to hear a stereo image no matter how hard they try. Further, some people really don't care about soundstaging or "imaging", and for them, it also does not matter. But for me, it matters a lot. It's an individual thing.

 

[richard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer Is replaygain not a lossy process?

No, it is not a lossy process. This is especially the case when it's implemented by creating tags. You can also change volume by altering the music parts of the file, but the process is fully reversible. In any event, the process doen't change anything other than the volume.

 

[richard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unkoman Even if there were slight volume differences, the diference in sound staging was pretty easy to hear, or "feel". If you try to hear or "listen" to the differences it will be much harder to hear the difference, because you're foucsing so much on the sound, not the music. For example, I used Sar wars episode 3 sound track, and AAC files of it had collapsed sound staging compared to ALAC. Yet, the "sound" was pretty comparable. In addition, I don't think more volume = wider/better sound staging. Some recordings sound more spacious at lower volume.

The question is whether you can hear the difference in imaging between two different encodings in a double blind test, for example an ABX test or using the java ABC-HR software.

There are many things associated with listening to music (encodings, equipment) that seem to make major differences but are not detectable in a well designed double blind test. There are many things that are detectable. Unless you actually participate in a well designed test, you won't know which are which.

Differences in encodings are very easy to test, compared to differences in things like cables.

 

[halcyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab Hit the nail on the head. Most people who compare, double blind or otherwise, focus on frequency response apperations, and find that when they compare AAC/320 or VBR MP3/320, they don't generally find any. But either of those lossy compression schemes still negatively impacts soundstaging, and with a good amp and speakers, or a good amp and good heaphones, this is readily apparent. Anyone who can hear a stereo soundstage can hear it. I have A-B demo'd (single blind) for several people on mt B&W Nautilus 800 speakers, and the difference has been immediately obvious to them.

It's a curse and a gift if you can truely detect that.

I have loudspeakers that imagine better than 800 series, and I still don't hear the differences.

In fact, most apparent encoding artifacts from the best encoders today are not soundstaging related, but transient, background noise and tonal purity related.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon I have loudspeakers that imagine better than 800 series, and I still don't hear the differences.

Really? May I ask what kind? I have always been pretty impressed by the N800's imaging (I have the actual N800 Signatures, not the smaller ones).

Just curious.

Quote:

In fact, most apparent encoding artifacts from the best encoders today are not soundstaging related, but transient, background noise and tonal purity related.

Is this based on personaly experience or something you read? Again, just curious.

 

[dvdonly]

Quote:

Most people who compare, double blind or otherwise, focus on frequency response apperations, and find that when they compare AAC/320 or VBR MP3/320, they don't generally find any. But either of those lossy compression schemes still negatively impacts soundstaging, and with a good amp and speakers, or a good amp and good heaphones, this is readily apparent.

It all depends on what you want to do. The original poster seems to want to:
1) conserve space on his DAP
2) listen on the go

Even though in my personal test I heard no difference between ALAC, 320-224AAC, I admit that there are limiting factors: the DACs of my 5G iPod, the DACs on my laptop, etc.

Should I hook up my iPod to my NADT763 receiver -> MBQuart QLS-1030 mains, would I hear a difference between 224AAC and the original CD? Sure.

But what practical use would that be? I would never hook up my iPod in a home environment. I would use my CD/SACD player.

The point is: if the user wants music on the go, he probably doesn't want to carry his best headphones, a headphone amp, etc. to go with his iPod. The fact that he's using an iPod (and not a PCDP with a line out + amp) is proof enough that he's not pursuing the finest nuances of sound. (for the record I too use an iPod so this is not a dig on it)

So with the limits of the equipment he wants to use (the iPod + UE) would he hear the difference? My guess is probably not. Or very little, and not enough to justify carrying around huge files and negatively impacting battery life and storage space.

 

[vranswer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvdonly The point is: if the user wants music on the go, he probably doesn't want to carry his best headphones, a headphone amp, etc. to go with his iPod. The fact that he's using an iPod (and not a PCDP with a line out + amp) is proof enough that he's not pursuing the finest nuances of sound. (for the record I too use an iPod so this is not a dig on it)

I routinely move about with iPod, amp and my best headphones (happen to be canalphones) afixed to my person. Not necessarily trying to eek out the 'finest nuances' of my music collection, but just enjoy the 'best possible' SQ I can tote for the most acceptable girth factor.

Not uncommon at all for me to start out with headphone-jack-only type rig, and then turn back to switch to sik din/amp combo. I want minimalism for a convenience standpoint, yet crave the highest SQ possible with my current gear...a constant struggle.

 

[halcyon]

[offtopic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab Really? May I ask what kind? I have always been pretty impressed by the N800's imaging (I have the actual N800 Signatures, not the smaller ones).

Amphion Krypton. N800 does some things ever so much better (like lowest octaves), but imaging was never it's strongest suit, because it has such a radiation pattern. I like the new D-version as well, but same problems with imaging being not so precise, imho. In general I like controlled directive speakers better (including good electrostats).

Effects of lossy compression based on personal experience. Listening myself and having others listen. Various high end gear (loudspeaker systems), including Nautilus 800 series, Dunlavy, Acapella High Violon, Avantgarde Duo, etc with plenty of high clean power.

Of course, YMMV.

[/offtopic]

 

[Nuks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvdonly It all depends on what you want to do. The original poster seems to want to: 1) conserve space on his DAP 2) listen on the go The point is: if the user wants music on the go, he probably doesn't want to carry his best headphones, a headphone amp, etc. to go with his iPod. The fact that he's using an iPod (and not a PCDP with a line out + amp) is proof enough that he's not pursuing the finest nuances of sound. (for the record I too use an iPod so this is not a dig on it) So with the limits of the equipment he wants to use (the iPod + UE) would he hear the difference? My guess is probably not. Or very little, and not enough to justify carrying around huge files and negatively impacting battery life and storage space.

Eventually though, I will have a small portable amp, and until I get some money, that will be my portable AND home rig. So I guess what the question I'm asking is, "Is there a big enough sound difference to justify leaving all the files in ALAC?" I guess this is something I'll have to determine on my own, but with the gear I'm going to be using, will I REALLY notice such differences? I do want the best sound, but if I can get the best sound - a miniscule amount, and have the ability to put way more albums on, I'll probably go to aac.

Thanks.

 

[wanderman]

why rip aac? iirc it dosent have a gapless mode like lame mp3 and it pretty much limits are you routes for upgrade in your player dosent support aac.Lame has a vbr mode that does alot for transparency and aparent quality. It has more device support and the codec is always being improved. Do ipods still distort when playing vbr files?