[swanlee]

As technology increases shouldn't we be going forward with audio and not backward?

Weather YOU personally can tell the difference there is no doubt that there is a difference mathematically and it's a shame we have not moved forward from CD quality audio and are still moving backwards into compressed audio.

Would have been nice to be having 24bit 192 KHZ audio on our portables by now.

 

[guyx1992]

I can't tell the difference between 320kbps to ALAC, probably because I only have an iPod Classic --> Creative EP630s.
The only reason I have it is because I have space on my computer aswell as my iPod.

 

[darkangel9685]

just converted all my music from Apple lossless to AAC 320.

Honestly cant hear a difference

 

[EFN]

With the amped ER-4S, I can hear the difference. But with yuin PK1 and modded KSC-75, there's no difference that I can hear of. So it depends on how resolving is your rig. The difference are visible on treble decays, better controlled transients on complex songs and succinct instrument separation.

 

[wuwhere]

Yes I can but it is slight between a 320 and FLAC that its not even worth the extra memory.

 

[iriverdude]

Have copied flac onto my iriver but even with 40gb can't really store much on there. I may just use high bitrate ogg instead, probably do comparison.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, and the only two conclusions one can draw from that is that either the trained listeners on Hydrogenaudio (who spend a lot of time in blind tests trying to detect encoder artifacts and other problems) are somehow tone-deaf relative to all the golden ears on Head-Fi, or that the Hydrogenaudio results are simply a lot more objective and accurate. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which...

Indeed, those are the only two options. That is it. I mean, don't even think about coming up with any others. Stop! I said don't even think about it. There are absolutely only two possible answers or explanations. Wait, you're thinking again. You're starting to think there may be other explanations? Stop! There are only two explanations. Period. End of story.

And, while we're on the subject, it is clear that there is no way that all the folks on Hydrogenaudio (who have absolutely no biases or prejudices of course -- and BTW, shame to you for even thinking that) are all tone deaf, and it is also clear that all of their ears can't be worse than those on Head-Fi. Therefore, it must be the case that nobody, I repeat NOBODY, can hear the difference between lossless and lossy (or high bitrate lossy). It is not even debatable. There are no complexities to this issue. Again, there are only two choices, and the right answer cannot be contested.

 

[mrdeadfolx]

this has been done to death, but I still voted that I cannot distinguish between high bitrate rips and lossless.

 

[chris_ah1]

I now have ALAC on my DAP - simply because it's a 160GB ipod classic

On the move and with most earbuds I CANNOT tell the difference between mp3 224+ and ABR MP3 at 224 with min 192 and max 320.

I can however tell the difference quite easily on my home setup. and when I'm listening to the ipod+amp+high quality buds or earphones. but i must be focused and in a quiet place.

Either way it all fits on the ipod. And it has enough battery life to still get 40hours when playing ALAC rather than 50hours playing high bitrate mp3 or AAC.

TBH since space is so cheap don't bother with anything less than lossy unless you are sure to keep your CDs safe and nearby.
But sheesh, only the most critical listening with good gear will show you any difference.

I have found that ALAC does give a touch more dynamic range, transparency, detail, and punch to the sound than AAC and MP3. I just feel that there is something inherently different about the lossy codec rather than there being anything wrong with them. A slightly different timbre - as if they've been mastered differently. Also, highly complex orchestral passages ALWAYS soundbetter on close listening with ALAC. it's just less muddy even at 320kbps MP3 and 320kbps AAC which makes me think it's more the way the codec deals with the file rather than because it is lossy.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed, those are the only two options. That is it. I mean, don't even think about coming up with any others. Stop! I said don't even think about it. There are absolutely only two possible answers or explanations. Wait, you're thinking again. You're starting to think there may be other explanations? Stop! There are only two explanations. Period. End of story. And, while we're on the subject, it is clear that there is no way that all the folks on Hydrogenaudio (who have absolutely no biases or prejudices of course -- and BTW, shame to you for even thinking that) are all tone deaf, and it is also clear that all of their ears can't be worse than those on Head-Fi. Therefore, it must be the case that nobody, I repeat NOBODY, can hear the difference between lossless and lossy (or high bitrate lossy). It is not even debatable. There are no complexities to this issue. Again, there are only two choices, and the right answer cannot be contested.

The jumbled rant in the last paragraph are your words, not mine. As to what I did say, if you are suggesting some other serious options beyond the two what are they?

.

 

[iriverdude]

OGG > MP3

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif OGG > MP3

maybe 6 or 7 years ago, but mp3 is pretty damn good now

 

[mape00]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif maybe 6 or 7 years ago, but mp3 is pretty damn good now

mp3 might be good these days, but can you find one listening test where mp3/LAME has beaten ogg/aoTuV? I'd still say ogg (vorbis) > mp3 holds (for all bitrates).

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif The jumbled rant in the last paragraph are your words, not mine. As to what I did say, if you are suggesting some other serious options beyond the two what are they?

We can't really discuss them here, as such issues are confined to the Sound Science Forum, but blind tests are not infallible, either in theory or execution. Thus, another explanation might be that blind tests don't reveal audible differences that exist under conditions that don't mirror the conditions under which the tests were conducted. But again, we would have to continue that discussion in the Sound Science forum, as that is where it belongs.

P.S. And yes, the words in the second paragraph of my previous post were mine. I was exaggerating to make a point. I believe your point is that, if 100 people on this thread post and say they can hear the difference, 99 of them are wrong, and only 1 can actually tell the difference. So when I said "nobody," I exaggerated your position a little -- for effect. No offense intended, just a little sarcasm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif When evaluating responses to these threads always remember the important formula x = y x .01, where x is the number of people who can really resolve between high-bitrate compressed and lossless tracks on a portable player and y is the number of individuals who think they can.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Thus, another explanation might be that blind tests don't reveal audible differences that exist under conditions that don't mirror the conditions under which the tests were conducted.

I have absolutely no idea what this means. But yeah, we shouldn't be hijacking the thread with this digression so let's just leave it here.

And yes, I do think that maybe 1% of the people who claim to be able to tell the difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless can really do so.