Apr 2, 2016 at 1:30 PM
- Jan 31, 2013
- Reaction score
- Jan 31, 2013
Does it really make much of a difference with the mojo playing a file at 320kbp compared to the same song in FLAC?
Science would say 320kbp vs FLAC is extremely neither here or there when it comes to the listening experience. I read somewhere that blind tests have shown that nobody can accurately and consecutively tell the difference.
Im asking because i took the mojo back yesterday, put it down to my headphones not being good enough and the files fenerally low quality.
Im now considering reloading a load of music back on my phone and creating new playlists. FLAC will take up far more memory over a few thousand songs worth of storage. Would FLAC be worth it?
I picked up RHA T20i IEM's as an upgrade to my sony ex650.
So would the RHA T20 and 320kbp or FLAC render a better experience, is FLAC the determining, consistent audio quality seperator?
I really wanted to experience the mojo benefits over my s6 edge with sabre android hifimediy dac and cayin c5.
Upgraded audio files with better quality IEM's the ticket to justify the mojo cost?
Mastering quality is the foremost important thing to sound quality. Then I think the chain goes 128 kbps < 256kbps <= 320kbps < lossless FLAC/WAV/ALAC
I can't tell the difference between 16-bit FLAC to 24-bit FLAC. I only have one Eagles album in 24-bit / 192 khz and I don't have a 16-bit version of that file to compare.. but every time I listen to those tracks they never ever come across as sounding anything like a 256kbps mp3 and have much better SQ.
320kbps and FLAC can be impossible to tell the difference with SOME tracks.. I have heard the difference on a specific album I own a 320kbps and FLAC version of and can prove it blindly. I wouldn't be afraid to back up my claims either if there is another meet coming up or if people near me locally would want me to put my money where my mouth is.