[UezeU]

I have a hard time telling 192kbs and above with my genres.

 

[John Willett]

I cannot enjoy compressed music at all - whatever it is played back on.

 

[ph0rk]

Given how difficult it is to tell 256kbps+ recordings from lossless without training, I listen to the mp3 or (recently) aac encoded version and keep the few bits of lossless I have for storage purposes. That way itunes tags the same tracks as "listened to" on my desktop, appletv, and iphone.

 

[drizzt]

Before getting into better audio equipment 128kbs seemed fine and was a space saver as well. The music is still enjoyable to me but reripping my audio cds to 320kbs is much more enjoyable. But either way it's the music I like and I can enjoy it anytime of the day.

 

[nadavnaz]

If the music is good, you'll enjoy it. People used to listen to music through equipment that's 1000x more horrible than today's low-fi headphones and I betcha they enjoyed it all the same.

 

[Luckyleo]

I never listen to anything other than lossless. I buy all my music on CD's and rip them with the highest quality possible. Some recordings it makes a huge difference, others not so much. However, I want to err on the side of having more quality than needed given either the recording or my gear. In the second scenario I will one day upgrade and then be able to discern the differences. As it stands more often than not I'm in audio bliss and thank the stars that I am!

 

[Acix]

Bad quality is bad quality!
Especially with good equipment.

 

[dBs]

Ive only been able to acquire the soundtrack for Sword of the Stranger as 128kbps mp3 but its still an amazing sounding OST with my set up (which, granted, isnt astounding by any means).

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bad quality is bad quality!

Not if it is impossible to hear the bad quality. Who cares if the tree made a sound when it fell in the forest if you can't hear it anyway?

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not if it is impossible to hear the bad quality. Who cares if the tree made a sound when it fell in the forest if you can't hear it anyway?

I care, because I can hear the bad quality. I hope you still have a choice.

 

[milkweg]

You just think you can, it's all psychological because you know you are listening to compressed sound so automatically assume it sounds bad. I bet you would fail my DBT.

 

[UezeU]

.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif You just think you can, it's all psychological because you know you are listening to compressed sound so automatically assume it sounds bad. I bet you would fail my DBT.

lol, now you tell me what I can hear? why you think they call them lossy and compressed?

 

[mulveling]

To my ears? Honestly I can't tell the difference between a good lossy compressed encoding (including a good variable bitrate mp3) and a true CD. No way I'd pass a blind test. Both are unlistenable compared to good vinyl (or open reel tape). I'm not a huge fan of the recent vinyl pressings either - I much prefer records pressed from the late 50s to the late 80s. Sure, some of the early stereo rock recordings were terrible, but other genres of music from that era (and earlier) I'd still consider state of the art today.

Yeah - not a fan of digital anywhere in the chain, here. But if it has to be digital, then compressed is generally fine with me. Next, just figure me out a good way to reliably archive that digital crap with truly low cost & maintenance...

 

[CDBacklash]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Willett /img/forum/go_quote.gif I cannot enjoy compressed music at all - whatever it is played back on.

So, you cant even enjoy flacs then?
Well there goes my remaining respect for sennheiser.
I sincerely hope you arent involved with anything other than customer service.
What a joke.