[Halftrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongringo /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if you can't hear the difference on the go then what's the difference?

Placebo. At the very least, you know that your music isn't lacking (your source, amp, and 'phones, on the other hand...)

 

[RedSky0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by syn_fx /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a really good post, well done for finding those graphs - really great stuff. However, just because there's a theoretical difference doesn't mean that people's ears can pick it up in practice - that's why blind tests on a large range of people (you're going to find people with very sensitive ears if you take a large enough sample) offer the best test of sound quality. If the theoretical difference can't be heard, it's pretty much irrelevant to direct listening.

But even then, what you should be looking for in a transcode is the most accurate representation of the original lossless music file. Any additional colouration that alters the sound to make it more pleasant and preferable in a blind ABX test is not really something you should be looking for.

I mean I thought everyone here was a purist who only wanted to hear the sound intended by the artists to be altered by hardware amplifiers or was I wrong?

 

[syn_fx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedSky0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif But even then, what you should be looking for in a transcode is the most accurate representation of the original lossless music file. Any additional colouration that alters the sound to make it more pleasant and preferable in a blind ABX test is not really something you should be looking for. I mean I thought everyone here was a purist who only wanted to hear the sound intended by the artists to be altered by hardware amplifiers or was I wrong?

Haha, true!

I do wonder how many people prefer analytical sound, and how many prefer coloured sound - there seem to be many supporters of both categories - and one could draw up good arguments for both sides!

However, the idea of a true blind test is that you perform a test of say flac against mp3, and you stop when the two are indistinguishable (that is it doesn't matter whether someone prefers analytical or coloured sound, they simply shouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two).

If you don't get that happening at 320kbps for mp3, then you know that mp3 is flawed as an accurate lossy codec, and same goes for any other format.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongringo /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if you can't hear the difference on the go then what's the difference?

About half the space of the DAP.

 

[dongringo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif About half the space of the DAP.

LOL Yeeaahhh!

 

[keezzzz]

Lossless on my iPod Classic
Flac on the Fuze
32o mp3 on the Clip

 

[roebeet]

OGG Vorbis (aoTuV b5d) at q6. Smaller than a comparable MP3 file, and sounds just as good to my ears.

Since all my current players support Vorbis, it's my lossy codec of choice at the moment.

 

[fatman]

It also depend on the capability of the DAP, the decent DAP with fine auditioned can have very good performence with MP3 320Kpbs files. it can be as perfect as flac, at least I can't tell the difference by blind listening.