[swannie007]

I'm with you on that one. I am over 60 so that probably has something to do with it, however, I read somewhere that the differences between these various formats is outside of the normal listening frequencies of most humans and is often just a marketing gimmick. I can't tell the difference but others might be able to. I can sure tell the difference between a well mastered recording and a crappy one!

 

[damobananna]

  i dnno if its just me but i literally cannot tell the difference between 320 kbps mp3 and FLAC or any other lossless format

Lucky you

 

[nephilim32]

i dnno if its just me but i literally cannot tell the difference between 320 kbps mp3 and FLAC or any other lossless format

Sources...a persons level of hearing will always have something to do with that.
All I can say is that for me, the differences are night and day, especially in the low end frequency depth.
I use the sony MDR Z7's and blue Mofi's with my JR and they both are very detailed enough to spot the differences.
It's a huge difference and I really wish all my music could be released in a 24 bit depth format but that is wishful thinking cause it largely depends on how the album was originally recorded.

 

[inthere]

Sources...a persons level of hearing will always have something to do with that.
All I can say is that for me, the differences are night and day, especially in the low end frequency depth.
I use the sony MDR Z7's and blue Mofi's with my JR and they both are very detailed enough to spot the differences.
It's a huge difference and I really wish all my music could be released in a 24 bit depth format but that is wishful thinking cause it largely depends on how the album was originally recorded.

 
 Have you blind tested this?

 

[Tayyab Pirzada]

   
 Have you blind tested this?

I blind-tested and can't spot a lick of difference between 16 or 24 bit FLAC (or DSD) and 320 kbps mp3

 

[inthere]

  I blind-tested and can't spot a lick of difference between 16 or 24 bit FLAC (or DSD) and 320 kbps mp3

 
 I blind tested and i also have this experience. It's fun to see someone blind test something for the 1st time and see their "night and day" differences evaporate.

 

[gr8soundz]

  I blind-tested and can't spot a lick of difference between 16 or 24 bit FLAC (or DSD) and 320 kbps mp3

 
 I blind tested and i also have this experience. It's fun to see someone blind test something for the 1st time and see their "night and day" differences evaporate.

 
This (imo) is mostly true especially when all test files are made from the same source (i.e. down-converting the same hi-res file to a lower bit-rate for testing).
 
For anyone with Pono player, it has a feature that can do this automatically for testing. I was only able to hear a difference with certain songs (usually the ones with many more layers and more complex mastering). Even then the difference was extremely subtle. 
 
EDIT: I must add, with those files the difference was only detectable between hi-res and mp3 (again, very subtle when from the same source file). Flac and 320kbps mp3 had little difference and the same with flac vs hi-res).
 
Unfortunately, when some hi-res music is released, it's based on remastered sources. So what some people hear as a 'night and day' difference is just the improved mastering.

 

[swannie007]

As they say in the computer industry......Crap in, crap out.

 

[damobananna]

I gotta say 24 bit flac vs 16 bit flac doesn't do much for me , but I am in the process of weeding out all of my 320 and under files on my 128 storage.
most of my hi res files are recorded from vinyl and honestly the pops and cracks get on my nerves since they are not authentic also I have to turn up the volume when playing them they take up to much space and I will settle for flac any day of the week

 

[emptymt]

  I gotta say 24 bit flac vs 16 bit flac doesn't do much for me , but I am in the process of weeding out all of my 320 and under files on my 128 storage.
most of my hi res files are recorded from vinyl and honestly the pops and cracks get on my nerves since they are not authentic also I have to turn up the volume when playing them they take up to much space and I will settle for flac any day of the week

It'll make more sense on summit-fi gear. I myself prefer 16 bit on a dap. as always, size matters!
 
lots of 24 bit mastering is mastered on lower volume too, I found that when the song change from 16 bit to 24 bit, the difference in volume might force me to increasethe volume and vice versa from 24 to 16 bit need to lower the volume.

 

[linux4ever]

Are we saying a lossy file format like mp3 has the same audio quality as compared to a lossless file with both being produced from the same master source and 16 bit for sanity sake?

 

[swannie007]

My understanding is that, as a group, we are saying that the difference is not a great as many might think and the differences are dependent on numerous factors such as hearing ability, source components, transducers and not least of all, the master recording.
Many modern masters are absolute crap and many older masters are beautifully done, it just depends on the mastery and dedication of the recording engineer and the studio crew. As I said, crap in, crap out. Or, put another way, you can polish a turd all you want, it's still a turd!
So, there appears to be no simplistic answer to your question so please read the posts and refrain from baiting people with unrealistic questions.

 

[linux4ever]

My understanding is that, as a group, we are saying that the difference is not a great as many might think and the differences are dependent on numerous factors such as hearing ability, source components, transducers and not least of all, the master recording.
Many modern masters are absolute crap and many older masters are beautifully done, it just depends on the mastery and dedication of the recording engineer and the studio crew. As I said, crap in, crap out. Or, put another way, you can polish a turd all you want, it's still a turd!
So, there appears to be no simplistic answer to your question so please read the posts and refrain from baiting people with unrealistic questions.

Thanks for the explanation. And I'm puzzled why it is taken as baiting with unrealistic questions... To each to their own I guess.

I've read on this forum a lot and understand that it's a touchy subject for some and it leads to flame wars too. My intention isn't to start another one.

But my concern as a true lover of good audio is many generalized statements that tend to make it sound hi res is the Holy grail or on the other hand lossy format produces equal sound quality like a lossless one. or trivializing the experience shared by other posters by responding with their opinionated point of view.

There are many balanced contributions and hopefully everyone can keep it that way. And let's not assume the intent of the poster

 

[Tayyab Pirzada]

Upgraded to AK70. The lag on AK Jr was just too much.

 

[JamesAnthony]

  Upgraded to AK70. The lag on AK Jr was just too much.

 
Any noticeable difference or improvement in sound?