[stang]

Quote:

If I had thousands of dollars' worth of equipment and I one day realized that they really didn't add much to the listening quality, I'd get rid of them, too.

I wouldn't 

 I am in this hobby for the fun, knowledge and the gear, not the music, strangely enough 

 Being able to tell people that you have such expensive equipment is great fun. It really shows who is ignorant and who is not.
 

 

[cravenz]

Quote:

I wouldn't 

 I am in this hobby for the fun, knowledge and the gear, not the music, strangely enough 

 Being able to tell people that you have such expensive equipment is great fun. It really shows who is ignorant and who is not.
 

if you have the cash to blow, I suppose that's fine

.
 
For me, I'm happy to spend as long as it improves my own personal listening experience, but nothing further. I don't subscribe to the need of having expensive stuff and letting people know 'bout it, I'm definitely past that. I'm thinking of selling my pool cue and just getting a plain cue. My current one is a tad too flash. 
 
In terms of bit-rates, I just keep lossless for practicality.

 

[philipt42]

Quote:

 
 
Who cares if you didn't get it right - this test sample poses little challenge to compression algorithms and in effect is a biased test to favourably highlight this particular 128 implementation.  A lot of people (including myself) do not listen to this genre of music and that is a disadvantage also.
 
I refuse to believe anyone can pick the difference unless they did it blind...c'mon, it's only 128 can't be that hard.
 
I guess my hearing is that bad if someone can successfully blind test this using laptop speakers when it took me 4 hours of trying with thousands of dollars of equipment.
 

The point of this thread is to see if one can tell the difference between 128 kbps and lossless, so theoretically everyone who reads the thread and is interested in the topic should care. 
 

 

[SP Wild]

It is a biased test - no more, no less.

 

[stang]

Quote:

if you have the cash to blow, I suppose that's fine

.
 
For me, I'm happy to spend as long as it improves my own personal listening experience, but nothing further. I don't subscribe to the need of having expensive stuff and letting people know 'bout it, I'm definitely past that. I'm thinking of selling my pool cue and just getting a plain cue. My current one is a tad too flash. 
 
In terms of bit-rates, I just keep lossless for practicality.

As a 16 year old, I don't have to pay any bills etc, so whatever money I get, I spend on audio. The look on my friends faces when I tell them I am getting a pair of headphones (which are AKG K1000 Valhalla recabled from Patrick82) that are worth about $3500 is great. Of course this would be the cost if the Valhalla power cord was purchased new...

 

[cravenz]

Quote:

As a 16 year old, I don't have to pay any bills etc, so whatever money I get, I spend on audio. The look on my friends faces when I tell them I am getting a pair of headphones (which are AKG K1000 Valhalla recabled from Patrick82) that are worth about $3500 is great. Of course this would be the cost if the Valhalla power cord was purchased new...

Yup, I know you are 16

.

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

As a 16 year old, I don't have to pay any bills etc, so whatever money I get, I spend on audio. The look on my friends faces when I tell them I am getting a pair of headphones (which are AKG K1000 Valhalla recabled from Patrick82) that are worth about $3500 is great. Of course this would be the cost if the Valhalla power cord was purchased new...

Stang - you need to spend less time on head-fi and more time out chasing girls.... This is your prime age with girls...girls your age can't wait to hook up with a boy.... any boy.... strike now!  when girls hit their 20's the silly games begin - the best times of my life was 14 - 17.

 

[stang]

Haha, 14-16 has been the worst for me 

 Heaps of stressful school work doesn't help. I miss Primary School. Ran around all day having fun. Not a care in the world...
 
Wow this thread has gotten real off topic 

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

Haha, 14-16 has been the worst for me 

 Heaps of stressful school work doesn't help. 

Yes and girls are the perfect stress relief...just take this advice... girls fall for charm over looks, everytime.  Good looking guys never have any charm - they 're always pretty boys and rely on their looks as their primary weapon.  The charming ugly guy will always win...mark my word.  Charm, mysterious, innnocent, good or bad -  or whatever character you choose to play will always win - you just have to play your character hard and never stray from your image.
 
Just look at Patrick - his character sets him apart - there will always be a girl that is drawn to his mysterious game.

 

[kingtz]

Quote:

Yes and girls are the perfect stress relief...just take this advice... girls fall for charm over looks, everytime.  Good looking guys never have any charm - they 're always pretty boys and rely on their looks as their primary weapon.  The charming ugly guy will always win...mark my word.  Charm, mysterious, innnocent, good or bad -  or whatever character you choose to play will always win - you just have to play your character hard and never stray from your image.

That, and invest in a pair of sexy Bose or Skullcandy. I hear chicks your age like that kind of stuff. 

 

[stang]

haha yeah I do know charm wins over looks for guys. Personality is much more important than physical features. Well, depends on what kind of relationship you're looking for 

 
 
Bose? Skullcandy? hahaha. What a joke those companies are 

Lol shall we get back on topic now? 

 

[SP Wild]

I was talking about one night stands.  Relationships are over-rated.
 
Anyway, back on track - I would like to see a test with the best possible 128 encoder - with a sample that will challenge it.  Then we can truly understand how far it has come.  I'm thinking of a track with an extremely busy section with all sorts of instruments thrown in at once, drums, bass, flutes, guitars, orchestra, percussion - all at once.  I doubt 128 will be viewed as highly as this particular test suggests.

 

[stang]

LOL. That is the sentence I was trying to steer clear of here on head-fi 

 Family forum apparently.  

 

[chengbin]

 

[size=medium]

Depending on your views, you may think this is a biased (or not) test. 
 
I didn't want to use a track where people just listen for the high frequency artifact, and rely on that most of the time and claim I heard a difference. I chose this track so people actually have to listen to the whole music for the differences.
 
Although I can't hear a difference, the people who said the MP3 lacked dimensionality and sense of space are exactly the kind of responses I was looking for. They truly heard a difference between MP3 and lossless.
​

[/size]

 
Quote:

I was talking about one night stands.  Relationships are over-rated.
 
Anyway, back on track - I would like to see a test with the best possible 128 encoder - with a sample that will challenge it.  Then we can truly understand how far it has come.  I'm thinking of a track with an extremely busy section with all sorts of instruments thrown in at once, drums, bass, flutes, guitars, orchestra, percussion - all at once.  I doubt 128 will be viewed as highly as this particular test suggests.

That is what we call a "killer track", and it is designed to bring any encoder to its knees. I'm pretty sure you'll hear a difference in 320Kbps as well.

 

[SP Wild]

@ Stang
 
Oh I see, you're a pretty boy with dashing good looks - I get jealous of your kind, getting girls without needing to play mind games.