[mrdeadfolx]

After doing a few side-by-side comparisons of songs ripped in 256 kbps and songs ripped in Apple lossless, I came away very dissappointed. I figured each comparison would have the lossless blowing the 256 songs out of the water, with considerably noticable differences in SQ, soundstage, bass, etc. - but that really wasn't the case. I figured since the file size of each lossless song was roughly 10X larger than the size of the same song ripped at 256, the sound quality would also increase ten-fold. In about half the comparisons I could hear virtually no difference at all, and not once did I think that the lossless songs would be worth keeping on my ipod, as opposed to a WAY larger amount of lower kbps songs. The difference in SQ just wasn't that noticable.

I notice many people on these forums swear by the lossless format, but what I'd like to know is, what are they listening to that sounds so incredible in lossless, that doesnt also sound incredible at say, 256 kbps? Can anyone recommend any pieces of music that are truly superior sounding in lossless format, and make it worth the giant file sizes? For example I cant see many metal CDs being worth the lossless rip with distorted instruments and loud engineering, but I'm sure classical and jazz will get a lot of nods. Thoughts?

(In case anyones wondering, I used Alice in Chains' self titled CD, Tool's "10,000 Days", Twiztid's "Mirror rorriM", Pink Floyd's "The Wall", and Buckethead's "Colma" for the musical comparisons, played through an unamped iPod, using Etymotic ER4p's and Shure E5c's)

 

[lmilhan]

Oh boy.


I sense a disturbance in the force...

 

[J-Pak]

If you can't hear much of difference, consider yourself lucky because you can now fit more music on your ipod.

I have never tried discerning a difference between lossless/lossy on my ipod (in fact I've never ever loaded my ipod with lossless files).

But, on my home setup using my K1000 I can tell the difference between lossless and 128 AAC. Pretty much on every single album I tried. I've also compared with MP3 encoded at V2 using the latest LAME encoder and the differences were smaller but still there. Yes it makes the biggest difference on jazz and classical where spatial cues are important.

 

[asmox]

If you can't tell the difference, thank your god of choice and never look back.

 

[Mrvile]

I don't like 128 but 192 sounds perfectly fine for me.

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you can't tell the difference, thank your god of choice and never look back.

I could tell a difference in much of the music, but the difference was not nearly enough to make it worth the humongous file sizes and having so few songs on my iPod. Having 10X bigger songs should make an UNBELIEVEABLE difference. Does noone agree?

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't like 128 but 192 sounds perfectly fine for me.

this is the first time ive noticed your signature... 639.000 spent since headfi? i hope that includes home, bicycle and clothes/food/pet and some headphones... i do so hope...

 

[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif this is the first time ive noticed your signature... 639.000 spent since headfi? i hope that includes home, bicycle and clothes/food/pet and some headphones... i do so hope...

Check this thread at around post #16...

 

[goorackerelite]

I find that headphones don't capture the soundstage smooshing of mp3 compression as much as speakers. So that could be the case, so if you do most of your music on headphones then go ahead and encode at 128kb, I would recommend you encode at 192kbs, so that you can have a good compromise in SQ and storage space, so when you do decide to listen to speakers you'll have that soundstage thing.

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I could tell a difference in much of the music, but the difference was not nearly enough to make it worth the humongous file sizes and having so few songs on my iPod. Having 10X bigger songs should make an UNBELIEVEABLE difference. Does noone agree?

With UE-10's the difference is very noticable from 128 to lossless. NIGHT & DAY really the 128 file have no depth all the notes are there but on one plain. The Lossless gives the music roads to travel on compared to just notes on a page!

Could be your ears could be your phones?

 

[syndrome]

Earlier I thought I couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 192kbps, but the difference feels huge. Even on, say, a ****** PC-soundcard and PC-speakers.

And if you can't notice difference between lossless and 128kbps MP3.. Well, lucky

(Have you tried the same comparison on a non-portable setup? Ever tested FLAC or Wav versus 128kbps MP3.)

 

[mrdelayer]

If I may quote your sig...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx Phones: Shure E5c Shure E3c Sennheiser PX100

Maybe that's why?

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdelayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I may quote your sig... Maybe that's why?

E5'C should be noticable on!

 

[vcoheda]

On my Zen using my cx300s, the difference between lossless and high quality VBR is negligible, if not non-existent. But listening to music on my computer rig is a different story. On that setup, MP3s sound bad compared to lossless. The loss in quality is unmistakable. So I think it depends on what gear you are using.

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif On my Zen using my cx300s, the difference between lossless and high quality VBR is negligible, if not non-existent. But listening to music on my computer rig is a different story. On that setup, MP3s sound bad compared to lossless. The loss in quality is unmistakable. So I think it depends on what gear you are using.

The better the equipment the more noticable it will be!