[adamlr]

 
i hope im not going too far off topic with this post, but the thread title got me intrigued. just for the record ill first state that i did some of my own abx tests, and could not tell the difference between flac and 320 kbps mp3.

 
thats aside, id like to ask a question. lossless music (may) contain frequencies higher than we are able to hear, however, ive heard theories that very high frequencies that are beyond our human ears can still be perceived as something similar to sound pressure.
also, i have found i have rather treble sensitive ears, and i eq my headphones to make sure ther arent any frequency spikes in the treble area, because i get easily fatigued.
 
so what do you say? could lossy compressions actually "protect" ones ears from fatiguing (superfluous) high frequencies? could lossy compressions, assuming your like me and you cant differentiate flac from mp3 and such, actually be preferable for your overall listening experience? or am i just over thinking things? 

 

[xnor]

I doubt that.
 
Only thing I can think of right now is that lossy codecs remove tones and noise that are very likely masked by louder tones, generally inaudible (outside the hearing range) etc. That could be thought of as "cleaning up".
Maybe some people prefer that?

 

[ktm]

I buy cd's. I use EAC to convert into FLAC. Room isn't a problem.
I don't go portable, so why save in lossy formats?
The reality here is that most modern studio mastering is done by
idiots that equate loud and compressed to good.
Add to that Apple wants them to master everything to sound good on an IPOD with
cheap earbuds, and you have a lot of people who find as they improve gear
all their music sounds bad. Hi res music can't fix this. As long as we tolerate it,
they will continue to crank out material that doesn't sound good.
Bitrates aren't very relevant if the source material isn't all that good.

 

[hogger129]

  I buy cd's. I use EAC to convert into FLAC. Room isn't a problem.
I don't go portable, so why save in lossy formats?
The reality here is that most modern studio mastering is done by
idiots that equate loud and compressed to good.
Add to that Apple wants them to master everything to sound good on an IPOD with
cheap earbuds, and you have a lot of people who find as they improve gear
all their music sounds bad. Hi res music can't fix this. As long as we tolerate it,
they will continue to crank out material that doesn't sound good.
Bitrates aren't very relevant if the source material isn't all that good.

 
Trouble is there is more people who don't give a crap as opposed to us - who DO care how the music sounds.  I just wish the audiophile format would be something other than vinyl.  Like CD or DVD-Audio.  

 

[ktm]

Good studio practices would go a long way to making good sound.
Don't get hung up on format. That appears NOT to be the weak link in this chain.
Back in the day when cd's first came out, they did such a bad job remastering
that the CD versions of many artists' work was horrid. I had the opportunnity
to sit in at a high end shop once where a guy had cd and vinyl copies of
a lot of music. in most cases, the vinyl sounded better. But there were some exceptions.
A lot had to do with someone taking a real interest in making sure the cd was done right.
A cd is a pretty good medium for music playback. Better than most give it credit for.
Vinyl of course means you had better be willing to put up with the snap, crackle, and pop.
The big issue for many is a lot of music will never be available in anything but vinyl.
Especially if you are a big jazz or blues fan.

 

[Makiah S]

  Good studio practices would go a long way to making good sound.
Don't get hung up on format. That appears NOT to be the weak link in this chain.
Back in the day when cd's first came out, they did such a bad job remastering
that the CD versions of many artists' work was horrid. I had the opportunnity
to sit in at a high end shop once where a guy had cd and vinyl copies of
a lot of music. in most cases, the vinyl sounded better. But there were some exceptions.
A lot had to do with someone taking a real interest in making sure the cd was done right.
A cd is a pretty good medium for music playback. Better than most give it credit for.
Vinyl of course means you had better be willing to put up with the snap, crackle, and pop.
The big issue for many is a lot of music will never be available in anything but vinyl.
Especially if you are a big jazz or blues fan.

agree'd although id depends on the music your listening to. I find a lot of "indie" music has slighty better mastering and overall sound 

 

[hogger129]

I don't "prefer" lossy, but I'm willing to buy it from places like iTunes out of convenience or if the price is better.  I have felt like 256 AAC helps kill down some of the loudness too.  Most rock music today is so horribly mastered anyway that it doesn't pay to use up extra space with a FLAC CD rip.

 

[Makiah S]

  I don't "prefer" lossy, but I'm willing to buy it from places like iTunes out of convenience or if the price is better.  I have felt like 256 AAC helps kill down some of the loudness too.  Most rock music today is so horribly mastered anyway that it doesn't pay to use up extra space with a FLAC CD rip.

eww ur listening to main stream rock, yea I hear you there on the loudness 

 

[hogger129]

  eww ur listening to main stream rock, yea I hear you there on the loudness 

 
Maybe it's just expectation bias.  Could it be that because it chops off some high frequencies with the lossy encoding that it dulls down the loudness a little?  And yeah I listen to mainstream rock, but almost all the music I own is classic rock and then I have a lot of pop albums from the 90s.