FLAC or 320Kbps for your portable rig with amp?
Dec 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM Post #31 of 53
Since hard drive space is cheap, and if you've got a big collection to rip, I'd recommend ripping simultaneously to both FLAC (for archival purposes) and MP3 (bit rate of your choosing). I ripped MP3 to 192kbps, simply to be able to fit more music onto my 160gb iPod Classic, but I wanted the FLAC files stored so I could cull out my CD collection a bit. FYI, I used dbPoweramp software to rip. Works really well, and you can rip simultaneously to different formats, with MUCH less setup hassle than a number of other programs I tried.
 
Dec 2, 2009 at 4:34 PM Post #32 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedSky0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
From what I've read the compression is more complex and it uses more CPU processing power so I would assume that'd be correct.



Exactly, and the main benefit of FLAC happens to be that nothing, even at the 18k Hz mark is chopped off when often in old songs there's simply nothing there.


Just because something is more complex and uses more cpu power does NOT mean it is better in sound quality.

I could write a format more complex than lame encoded mp3 or aac (through being inefficient) which would use more processing power (again through being inefficient), yet at the same time be worse in terms of sound quality.

Like I said, the only evidence that really stands is the result of a large number of blind tests on high-end hardware. Anything else is just speculation.
 
Dec 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM Post #33 of 53
True! I am glad this thread is going quite well. Honestly now with all the lower cost portable amp options from Ibasso, Fiio, and many other old school amps like Cmoy it's helpful to see what everyone thinks.

I truly believe it's best to Blind test both 320 and Flac to see if you can tell the difference. I believe that I can tell in some better recordings, as for some old skool classical or jazz recordings, I would just rip them at 256 and be happy with it.
 
Dec 3, 2009 at 9:19 AM Post #35 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by syn_fx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Just because something is more complex and uses more cpu power does NOT mean it is better in sound quality.

I could write a format more complex than lame encoded mp3 or aac (through being inefficient) which would use more processing power (again through being inefficient), yet at the same time be worse in terms of sound quality.

Like I said, the only evidence that really stands is the result of a large number of blind tests on high-end hardware. Anything else is just speculation.


Nope it's basically fact.

aac192vs320mp3.png


robotrockspectrums.png


192 kbps AAC beats 320 kbps CBR MP3 both in having a higher cut-off and in representing the frequency response of the FLAC file better.

Complexity does not imply efficiency, but come on we're talking about technology and a 5 year difference in release dates.

EDIT - Sourced from http://www.overclock.net/sound-cards...ing-aac-3.html by the way, cbf doing this myself atm.
 
Dec 3, 2009 at 9:19 PM Post #36 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedSky0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Nope it's basically fact.



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.
 
Dec 3, 2009 at 9:39 PM Post #37 of 53
Rip to FLAC!
Last summer I chanced my DAP from an old Sony to a new Son y and re-ripped my CDs to MP3 (coming from ATRAC).
Then this month I went from CDs to computerbased audio and had to re-rip my CD's again. Could have spared me the trouble the second time if I would have ripped to FLAC right away and did a mass conversion to MP3 (DBpoweramp is a really ince program for that).
 
Dec 4, 2009 at 11:35 PM Post #39 of 53
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.


totaly agree with your thought !!!
 
Dec 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM Post #42 of 53
I use lame -V0 for portable. I can't tell the difference with flac on my portable.

Strangely, the high bit VBRs seem to sound better to me than straight 320kbps encodes. Not sure if it's coincidental or real, but I usually seem to pick the VBR over the 320 for some reason.
 
Dec 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM Post #43 of 53
I use only flac for my portable. Yes with 16gb of space I can't fit all my albums on there. But I do feel like I can hear the difference in the low end (I'm a huge bass freak). Flac files just seem more defined in bass.


BTW my setup is cowon s9 > senn ie8 (fiio e5 is in the mail)
 
Dec 5, 2009 at 9:50 PM Post #44 of 53
I use FLAC on a portable for the one reason of really, when you go to the effort of carrying and amp, a line out, all the extra cables etc as well as your good headphones/earphones - why use something that isn't the best quality bitrate - even if you can't actually always hear a real difference.

Most people on here buy the things they do to get as much quality sound as possible so it seems weird to settle for less than the best file quality, even if it means being able to carry less songs on the go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top