[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MdRex /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

This is a good point. If your time is worth anything at all, it's worth getting an external HD and ripping to lossless, even if you then transcode to lossy on your DAP.

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanY /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is a good point. If your time is worth anything at all, it's worth getting an external HD and ripping to lossless, even if you then transcode to lossy on your DAP.

The problem here is that if I were to rip every CD I have in lossless and just store them so I need not rip them again, I would need the world's largest harddrive, which I'm currently lacking. Near 1,000 lossless CD's is a heavy load to handle, all I've got for now is a 160 gig drive.

 

[terriblepaulz]

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by AlanY This is a good point. If your time is worth anything at all, it's worth getting an external HD and ripping to lossless, even if you then transcode to lossy on your DAP. The problem here is that if I were to rip every CD I have in lossless and just store them so I need not rip them again, I would need the world's largest harddrive, which I'm currently lacking. Near 1,000 lossless CD's is a heavy load to handle, all I've got for now is a 160 gig drive.

You can get an average of about 3.5 CDs per GB using Apple Lossless. So for 1000 CDs, you need about 350GB. The cost per GB of external hard drives is dropping pretty quickly, so the approach mentioned by AlanY is doable for not much $. You can now get a 500GB drive for under $200. Within 2 or 3 years, I bet we will see 10, 20, or 30 TB drives for reasonable prices, so even those with the hugest of CD collections will not be cost prohibited from ripping lossless.

 

[cotdt]

mp3 sounds better than lossless.

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by terriblepaulz /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can get an average of about 3.5 CDs per GB using Apple Lossless. So for 1000 CDs, you need about 350GB. The cost per GB of external hard drives is dropping pretty quickly, so the approach mentioned by AlanY is doable for not much $. You can now get a 500GB drive for under $200. Within 2 or 3 years, I bet we will see 10, 20, or 30 TB drives for reasonable prices, so even those with the hugest of CD collections will not be cost prohibited from ripping lossless.

Yeah, NewEgg was selling a good 500GB drive last week for $120. Think about how long it takes to rip *and* make sure the tags are right on 1000 CDs. It's about 80-100 hours of work. About 15 days of work if you do six hours of ripping and tag verifying a day. Surely anyone's time is worth about $1 an hour. Ripping to anything other than lossless doesn't make sense.

 

[Aman]

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.

Yeah, you're right - it's really worth my time to learn about people who are "comrades" of the Insane Clown Posse. They must be great, right? And I bet Steve Hoffman mastered their recordings, too

The rock/metal CD thing was obviously a generalization, but Buckethead is perhaps the pinnacle of avant-garde metal guitar-shredding musicians. The point was that it's not a reference-quality recording (and it's definitely not anything remotely close to classical - sorry, but this assertion is just dead wrong). Buckethead is great, but he's not a classical guitarist in any sense of the word, nor has he ever performed classical guitar works on an album (to my knowledge).

I gave you a whole PLETHORA of suggestions on reference recordings. You can't choose from the categories I gave you? There must be tens of thousands of releases, if not more, that fit the specifications I provided exactly.

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, you're right - it's really worth my time to learn about people who are "comrades" of the Insane Clown Posse. They must be great, right? And I bet Steve Hoffman mastered their recordings, too The rock/metal CD thing was obviously a generalization, but Buckethead is perhaps the pinnacle of avant-garde metal guitar-shredding musicians. The point was that it's not a reference-quality recording (and it's definitely not anything remotely close to classical - sorry, but this assertion is just dead wrong). Buckethead is great, but he's not a classical guitarist in any sense of the word, nor has he ever performed classical guitar works on an album (to my knowledge). I gave you a whole PLETHORA of suggestions on reference recordings. You can't choose from the categories I gave you? There must be tens of thousands of releases, if not more, that fit the specifications I provided exactly.

A: Comrades of ICP or not, as far as rap/hip-hop is concerned, Twiztid has some of the best production I can think of. Fritz Vankosky production + Tom Baker mastering=great combo. It sounds great on every source I've ever heard, don't comment on it until you've heard it.

B: On top of being "the pinnacle of avant-garde metal guitar shredding musicians", Buckethead is also the most diverse guitar player I have ever heard in my life, and it simply cannot be argued. The guy has 23 albums, ranging from purely acoustic to techno to shred to prog rock to fusion to twang country to flamenco. And his albums (the major releases, not the many bootlegs and b-sides) all sound just dandy to me.

C: You never refered any music to me. I'm quite capable of figuring out categories and genres for myself. I'm talking about concrete examples here, if you're going to make a believer out of me. I'll believe the difference when I hear it, simply put.

Please, no more visits to wikipedia to gather info before posting, just stick to what you know for yourself, it's plenty enough to support your points.

 

[robm321]

So, about 120 songs on a 4gb ipod using lossless? Does that sound right? That's not exactly terrible considering how easy it is to swap playlists.

 

[humanflyz]

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't use lossless, even if you completely disregard its sonic properties. Hard drive prices are falling all the time, and if you have anywhere near a decent computer, ripping a CD in lossless should only take about 10 minutes. You can then convert them to a lossy format if you want for your portable player and get the best of both worlds.

 

[Relayer71]

I would never rip to Lossless for a portable player...I would consider it if an 80 - 100GB player with 20+ hour battery life becomes available.

As for a difference between 128kbps and Lossless? If you can't hear it then consider yourself lucky...or hearing impaired? Seriously, I can still hear a very noticable difference between the 2 even on my Ipod w/PX100 headphones.

The difference being a lack of depth, space, vitality in the 128kbps files.

I currently have the majority of files at either 320 AAC or 256 AAC VBR on my Ipod and some from EMUSIC at 192 - 320 MP3 VBR. This to me is perfectly acceptable. Actually, I can honestly say that I don't hear much of a difference on these but for some reason once it gets down to 128kbps I do.

It also depends on the original recording...for some reason I can still "detect" the difference between the 320 AAC and Lossless on a FEW recordings...but probably only a handful. And even on these it's the same thing: a certain flatness in the higher end or a suffocation of dynamics or decay in cymbal crashes or the high hat - almost like additional compression.

Still this is only on a few recordings, on the majority 256 AAC VBR sounds just as good on my Ipod.

 

[vcoheda]

Lossless for portable seems to kind of defeat the point of going portable.

 

[Aman]

Fine:

A: I have "heard" it. I haven't enjoyed it, though, which is the difference.

B: What's your point? Okay, you enjoy the music - so do I. But don't EVER try to tell me that Buckethead is an example of a reference recording.

C: I'm not trying to make you into anything. I don't personally hear differences between moderately-to-highly encoded MP3/OGG and FLAC. But if you're trying to convince people that there is no difference in sound quality between them, you better have results with some amount of validity, with some amount of the scientific method being followed during the procedure. Your "experiment" is nothing more accurate than testing the sharpness of a knife by driving it into a balloon with excessive force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif A: Comrades of ICP or not, as far as rap/hip-hop is concerned, Twiztid has some of the best production I can think of. Fritz Vankosky production + Tom Baker mastering=great combo. It sounds great on every source I've ever heard, don't comment on it until you've heard it. B: On top of being "the pinnacle of avant-garde metal guitar shredding musicians", Buckethead is also the most diverse guitar player I have ever heard in my life, and it simply cannot be argued. The guy has 23 albums, ranging from purely acoustic to techno to shred to prog rock to fusion to twang country to flamenco. And his albums (the major releases, not the many bootlegs and b-sides) all sound just dandy to me. C: You never refered any music to me. I'm quite capable of figuring out categories and genres for myself. I'm talking about concrete examples here, if you're going to make a believer out of me. I'll believe the difference when I hear it, simply put. Please, no more visits to wikipedia to gather info before posting, just stick to what you know for yourself, it's plenty enough to support your points.

 

[omendelovitz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif After doing a few side-by-side comparisons of songs ripped in 128 kbps and songs ripped in Apple lossless, I came away very dissappointed. I figured each comparison would have the lossless blowing the 128 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 128, 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 128 (or 192 or 320) 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, 224kbps? 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)

I'm going to try and answer your questions directly and succinctly, so please forgive me if I sound kurt and rude at times. That isn't my intention here. Also, please note that in this answer I am speaking IME/IMO. If I even sniff any flames, I'll just ignore the poster. Finally, I listen to all genres of music, so take that fwiw. Just clearing the air b/c this topic is partially why DBX talk is banned in many fora (no, not forums!) on many sites.

Here goes:

1) you have some decent IEM's there and a so-so source. The iPod does have the capacity to produce good sound, but even AMPED, it doesn't have the ability to reproduce music in a way that would make lossless sound even remotely different than VBR alt preset extreme (my most frequently used rip on the iPod). Unamped, forget it altogether. It just doesn't have the power nor the attention to detail in its design - after all, it was meant to be a toss-around source for people on the go, and is dependent on providing relatively long-playing life on a 3.7v, ~900mAh battery.

2) IEM"s don't get anywhere near full sized cans high end cans which don't go anywhere near a great speaker setup - the difference? ~$400-> ~$1000-2000+ -> $40,000; size does matter (among other things)

3) lossless <-> mp3/aac/wma: not night/day, more like late evening to dead-centre noon. Always keep in mind that the final few %ages to reach audio nirvana require much more work, effort and MONEY than to go from bad to damn good - from damn good to perfection, the hurdles to overcome are imaging, resolution and nuance (detail); the perfection is in the details, and most audio reproduction systems under $3000 (retail, of course) won't pick those types of cues up.

4) audio material - ALL recording genres can benefit from lossless - my most poignant examples are Heart, Dave Matthews band and Stevie wonder. I often find that Classical is the worst for lossless gains b/c of the recordings (a hall instead of studio, they often lack solo artists so mics are likely held over groups instead of individual instruments; and, the recordings are older).

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omendelovitz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm going to try and answer your questions directly and succinctly, so please forgive me if I sound kurt and rude at times. That isn't my intention here. Also, please note that in this answer I am speaking IME/IMO. If I even sniff any flames, I'll just ignore the poster. Finally, I listen to all genres of music, so take that fwiw. Just clearing the air b/c this topic is partially why DBX talk is banned in many fora (no, not forums!) on many sites. Here goes: 1) you have some decent IEM's there and a so-so source. The iPod does have the capacity to produce good sound, but even AMPED, it doesn't have the ability to reproduce music in a way that would make lossless sound even remotely different than VBR alt preset extreme (my most frequently used rip on the iPod). Unamped, forget it altogether. It just doesn't have the power nor the attention to detail in its design - after all, it was meant to be a toss-around source for people on the go, and is dependent on providing relatively long-playing life on a 3.7v, ~900mAh battery. 2) IEM"s don't get anywhere near full sized cans high end cans which don't go anywhere near a great speaker setup - the difference? ~$400-> ~$1000-2000+ -> $40,000; size does matter (among other things) 3) lossless <-> mp3/aac/wma: not night/day, more like late evening to dead-centre noon. Always keep in mind that the final few %ages to reach audio nirvana require much more work, effort and MONEY than to go from bad to damn good - from damn good to perfection, the hurdles to overcome are imaging, resolution and nuance (detail); the perfection is in the details, and most audio reproduction systems under $3000 (retail, of course) won't pick those types of cues up. 4) audio material - ALL recording genres can benefit from lossless - my most poignant examples are Heart, Dave Matthews band and Stevie wonder. I often find that Classical is the worst for lossless gains b/c of the recordings (a hall instead of studio, they often lack solo artists so mics are likely held over groups instead of individual instruments; and, the recordings are older).

....And not a hint of kurtness or rudeness detected throughout that entire post.....my god, I think I've got an intelligent response with good points here, from someone who knows what he knows, and does not try to know it all for once! Thanks for the input.

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fine: A: I have "heard" it. I haven't enjoyed it, though, which is the difference. B: What's your point? Okay, you enjoy the music - so do I. But don't EVER try to tell me that Buckethead is an example of a reference recording. C: I'm not trying to make you into anything. I don't personally hear differences between moderately-to-highly encoded MP3/OGG and FLAC. But if you're trying to convince people that there is no difference in sound quality between them, you better have results with some amount of validity, with some amount of the scientific method being followed during the procedure. Your "experiment" is nothing more accurate than testing the sharpness of a knife by driving it into a balloon with excessive force.

When did I try to tell you Buckethead was a reference recording? I simply used it as just another example (not as THE example) to try out that I happened to hear little difference on. Big deal. Theres a ton of other CD's Ive tried this with as well, and I'm sure many of them aren't Bob Katz recordings either..I included it because I know every inch of that CD front to back, and I figured if it sounded different, I would surely catch it. Like our friend above pointed out, lossless should affect ALL genres of music (why wouldn't it?), not just "reference" recordings....that is if bit-rate matters at all, and the level of sound quality coming from my DAP is not 100% determined by how the music was engineered and mastered, right?

The point of this little test was not to convince people that there is no difference in sound quality between lossless and lossy, but rather to get YOU to convince ME that there is in fact a difference.