[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalbath3737 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So in other words you never did an abx test. So you have no idea if you are suffering from placebo or not. Bottom line is that you just don't know. Therefor you shouldn't be going around telling people there is a difference because you could be giving them false information. Why not just do an abx?

I did do an A/B Test however it was 192AAC VS LOSSLESS!

Everytime it was VERY obvious which was 192AAC while using UE-10's
I could not tell any difference while using super.fi 5 pro's!

Dont put words in my mouth! I never told people there was a difference between 320AAC and Lossless. I always informed people that my comparision was with my own library of 192AAC Files.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well this is why I listed what I used for comparison, and if you ask me, none of those recordings are lacking in terms of engineering or mastering..just because they weren't Chesky works or something doesnt mean they void my comparison.

Actually, in my experience, a more compressed recording (particularly one with loads of normalization) will be less effected by poor quality digital playback. In other words, if one were listen to a beautiful solo violin performance mastered with a tube-driven tape system and then compressed it down to 128kbs MP3, and then do the same thing to Gnarls Barkley's "St. Elsewhere", the effects would be significantly greater on the violin performance than the latter.

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did do an A/B Test however it was 192AAC VS LOSSLESS! Everytime it was VERY obvious which was 192AAC while using UE-10's I could not tell any difference while using super.fi 5 pro's! Dont put words in my mouth! I never told people there was a difference between 320AAC and Lossless. I always informed people that my comparision was with my own library of 192AAC Files.

You could have just simply stated that in your first reply to me. You never answered my question or once stated that you took an abx test.

Quote:

For the record I never claimed I could hear a difference between Loseless and 320 or even 228 AAC I was using 192AAC and had to re-rip, (which I didnt want to do) because the UE-10's/Hornet combo could pick up clear differences from the 192 encoded stuff.

That post mentions nothing of an abx test. Just saying you could pick up differences. I never put any words in your mouth and recommend that you do not put any words into my mouth, since I never once mentioned that you told people there was a difference between 320AAC and lossless.

Next time simply answer the question and save the over enthusiastic (and vague) replies for somewhere else.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hysterical? Really! With an E4/Bithead Combo I would not expect you to be able to hear the type of details I am describing.

Which is exactly why I said for virtually all systems. The percentage of people using better than E4s and a Bithead and an ALO dock is pretty low. Additionally, I use DT880s mostly, which are a VERY revealing can. You have 1000 dollar custom IEMs. Yet you still don't say that you can notice a difference between 320 AAC and lossless.

As for the hysterical part, I believe you have proved my point in this thread. It wasnt meant to be a personal attack, just an observation on your enthusiasm.

FLAC makes sense to me for archiving purposes. But we are talking portablility. Yes, its easy for some to continually switch up the music on their ipod. But for me battery life and having ALL of my music with me ALL of the time WAAAAAAAAY outweighs the very VERY minor to non-existent sound difference between good lossy and lossless.

Lossless shmossless indeed.

 

[1badmf]

I've started to notice the difference in mostly jazz or rock. But the tracks I can definitely tell loss is Live CDs the crows makes my ears want to explode.

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well this is why I listed what I used for comparison, and if you ask me, none of those recordings are lacking in terms of engineering or mastering..just because they weren't Chesky works or something doesnt mean they void my comparison.

You really think Tool - 10000 Days was a good recording? That was one of the worst sounding albums I heard last year.

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak /img/forum/go_quote.gif You really think Tool - 10000 Days was a good recording? That was one of the worst sounding albums I heard last year.

Many people would argue otherwise, myself being one of them. But even if that were true, thats why I used multiple examples, from varying genres of music for the comparisons.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Many people would argue otherwise, myself being one of them. But even if that were true, thats why I used multiple examples, from varying genres of music for the comparisons.

No, I don't think many would argue this. You may think that it's good sound, but that means you probably haven't heard anything near good sound. And if you call your musical selections "multiple genres" then you clearly have a very narrow collection of music, which once again tells me that this test was not nearly as valid as it could have been. Don't mean to be harsh, but I don't think you can immediately discredit a file format based off of a bunch of compressed and audio-raped rock/metal CDs.

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, I don't think many would argue this. You may think that it's good sound, but that means you probably haven't heard anything near good sound. And if you call your musical selections "multiple genres" then you clearly have a very narrow collection of music, which once again tells me that this test was not nearly as valid as it could have been. Don't mean to be harsh, but I don't think you can immediately discredit a file format based off of a bunch of compressed and audio-raped rock/metal CDs.

Alice in Chains (self titled) - Alternative rock
Twiztid (Mirror rorriM) - Hip Hop/Rap
Tool (10000 Days) - Rock
Buckethead (Colma) - Classical acoustic guitar album

Perhaps if you'd have actually heard all of the material I've listed, you could start criticizing my selections more credibly, instead of just disliking a Tool album and automatically assuming you'd disapprove of the rest as well. Calling them "a bunch of compressed and audio-raped rock/metal CD's" clearly tells me you haven't even heard the music you're commenting about.

As far as "immediately discrediting a file format" goes, if you'll look at my original post, you'll notice I asked others to recommend examples of music that truly captures the benefits of ripping in lossless compared to 128/224/320. That way if there indeed were any, I could listen to them myself and form my own opinion. I'm not sure how that's immediately discrediting a file format.

Since noone's recommended anything, I am going to take it upon myself to do the same comparison with the acclaimed Mahler and Chesky works, and post my findings on those pieces. If it truly is better, I am not too stubborn to say so, but at this point I do believe many of you suffer from lossless placebo.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Alice in Chains (self titled) - Alternative rock Twiztid (Mirror rorriM) - Hip Hop/Rap Tool (10000 Days) - Rock Buckethead (Colma) - Classical acoustic guitar album Perhaps if you'd have actually heard all of the material I've listed, you could start criticizing my selections more credibly, instead of just disliking a Tool album and automatically assuming you'd disapprove of the rest as well. Calling them "a bunch of compressed and audio-raped rock/metal CD's" clearly tells me you haven't even heard the music you're commenting about. As far as "immediately discrediting a file format" goes, if you'll look at my original post, you'll notice I asked others to recommend examples of music that truly captures the benefits of ripping in lossless compared to 128/224/320. That way if there indeed were any, I could listen to them myself and form my own opinion. I'm not sure how that's immediately discrediting a file format. Since noone's recommended anything, I am going to take it upon myself to do the same comparison with the acclaimed Mahler and Chesky works, and post my findings on those pieces. If it truly is better, I am not too stubborn to say so, but at this point I do believe many of you suffer from lossless placebo.

I've indeed heard every artist on this list. For your information, I happen to love Buckethead and Alice in Chains, and easily tolerate Tool. I didn't notice your mention of Twiztid, else I'd have included "member of the absolute worst band ever recorded in the history of recorded music".

I would absolutely NEVER call "COLMA" classical guitar. Sorry, but that just tells me you haven't heard a whole lot of real classical guitar. When you're attempting to find out if any audio information is lost, it is important to know what the instrument really should sound like. COLMA is ridden with electronics, effects, and other things, which severely limit its usefulness as a benchmark. I mean come on - he uses a freakin' echo chamber on his instrument! Not that I have any problems with it in context, but in this case it's just an inappropriate choice. As are the rest of your choices.

As I suggested before, get a well-recorded recital performance of a solo musician for an instrument you know very well. Listen to it on the CD, and get to know it well. Understand where the sound travels in the sound stage, and how well the various parts of the instrument are imaged. Understand how dead the background is. The only way you can tell for certain - if a file type limits the sound quality of the music - is to actually know how the album and music are supposed to sound, and then see if you notice a less realistic representation in the lower quality medium.

And look, don't take what I'm saying personally. I think that if you had the ability to, you would have chosen better selection sources, and I also believe that your intentions were right here (obviously!) but this experiment is just missing a very funamental necessity in allowing for the true judgment of the relative sound quality of FLAC format.

 

[Thelonious Monk]

you'll hear more of a difference once you get your tomahawk and line out dock.

personally i will stick with LAME -v2. couldn't hear much of a difference with SR225s either... the day i switch to lossless is the day i buy HP1000s/GS1000s/K1000s/Electrostats.

(see: by the time iPods will have enough space to carry 1,000 albums in FLAC anyways.

)

np: Porcupine Tree - The Rest Will Flow

 

[MdRex]

I think that it is an assurance that I am getting the best in my audio. I really don't like the idea of re-ripping 100 CDs if one day my system reveals flaws in the MP3. MP3 are totally fine for portable though.

HDD are getting cheaper.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did do an A/B Test however it was 192AAC VS LOSSLESS!

"A/B Test" does not equal "ABX Test."

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't notice your mention of Twiztid, else I'd have included "member of the absolute worst band ever recorded in the history of recorded music".

Uhh, Twiztid IS the band, comprised of Monoxide and Jamie Madrox. Not a member. You should at least do a little check on google for some info first before just blabbing something out and hoping its accurate. Also, big deal if I called Colma a classical acoustic album. You called it a rock/metal CD for God's sake. So what if it's dressed up a little, its the flavour of the album for the most part. And again, I didn't see you recommending anything better to listen to, so I took it upon myself to dig through threads to find recommendations. I'll post my opinion on them soon so you can tear them a new ***hole without knowing a whole lot about them, too.

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Uhh, Twiztid IS the band, comprised of Monoxide and Jamie Madrox. Not a member. You should at least do a little check on google for some info first before just blabbing something out and hoping its accurate. Also, big deal if I called Colma a classical acoustic album. You called it a rock/metal CD for God's sake. So what if it's dressed up a little, its the flavour of the album for the most part. And again, I didn't see you recommending anything better to listen to, so I took it upon myself to dig through threads to find recommendations. I'll post my opinion on them soon so you can tear them a new ***hole without knowing a whole lot about them, too.

A few recommendations:

Tool - Ænima (if you really must use a Tool album this is their best sounding)
Eric Clapton - Unplugged
Metallica - Master of Puppets (DCC, Steve Hoffman)
Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms (any early CD issue, or the XRCD)
Yes - Fragile (MFSL)

These are just a few rock albums off the top of my head. If you're willing to dive into jazz and classical your selection of good recordings will really open up.