[ManchildProdigy]

But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a difference.  I more than likely wouldn't be able to detect a difference either, as my hearing isn't all that great.  My hearing and my crappy source are guaranteed to render any differences that might exist inaudible.  I also use AAC VBR @ 256, and I can't tell the difference between it and Apple Lossless.  Are there differences?  Maybe, maybe not.  But I sure as hell can't hear a difference.
 
Quote:

I did a line level matched A/B comparison between AIFF and AAC 256 VBR and couldn't detect any difference at all.

 

 

[mcmurray]

Quote:

 
Durability?

I've had mine for 4 years, still going strong. It gets thrashed regularly as an external hard drive too.
 
 


Quote:

Not for me it isn't.  Not even close.  Unless Apple plans on releasing a 300 GB version, I'm stuck with AAC for portable use.

Then get two, or replace the hard drive with something bigger.
 
 

 

[logwed]

^^Head-fi's only iPod Classic fanboy 
 
I kid, I kid.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a difference.  I more than likely wouldn't be able to detect a difference either, as my hearing isn't all that great.  My hearing and my crappy source are guaranteed to render any differences that might exist inaudible.  I also use AAC VBR @ 256, and I can't tell the difference between it and Apple Lossless.  Are there differences?  Maybe, maybe not.  But I sure as hell can't hear a difference.

Well, of course there's a difference. One's lossless, the other is lossy. The only way they'd be the same is if the lossy file was put in a lossless container. It's just that lossy files do a better job than people think, and they use their space much more efficiently by taking into account what we can and can't hear.
 
Point is, you shouldn't use lossless for sound quality. The difference is minimal enough compared to high bitrate lossy files that differences rarely show up in blind tests even in good conditions, let alone in noisy portable use and when you aren't making a direct comparison. You should use lossless to archive data. You can re-encode lossless files without any extra loss, and you're guaranteed a perfect copy of the original. So lossy for portable use, lossless for storage (and desktop playback).

 

[logwed]

Quote:

Point is, you shouldn't use lossless for sound quality. The difference is minimal enough compared to high bitrate lossy files that differences rarely show up in blind tests even in good conditions, let alone in noisy portable use and when you aren't making a direct comparison. You should use lossless to archive data. You can re-encode lossless files without any extra loss, and you're guaranteed a perfect copy of the original. So lossy for portable use, lossless for storage (and desktop playback).

 
AND YOU CAN AVOID ROTATIONAL VELOCIDENSITY!

 

[ManchildProdigy]

Quote:

Then get two, or replace the hard drive with something bigger.
 
 

That's not exactly cost effective.  Two of them would cost about $500.  Not sure how much it would cost to replace the hard drive with something bigger, but that's an awful lot of time and effort to spend when there's nothing to be gained in terms of sound quality.  An iPod is still and iPod and the ALAC files won't sound any better.  The ambient noise just compounds the issue.  I think I'll stick with AAC.  I do archive with ALAC, though, so I have the freedom to transcode the files however I need.
 
I'm not knocking using lossless files as a listening source.  But unless you've got a megabucks sound system and ideal listening conditions, I think it's a waste to use lossless for anything beyond archiving.

 

[mcmurray]

Quote:

That's not exactly cost effective.  Two of them would cost about $500.  Not sure how much it would cost to replace the hard drive with something bigger, but that's an awful lot of time and effort to spend when there's nothing to be gained in terms of sound quality.  An iPod is still and iPod and the ALAC files won't sound any better.  The ambient noise just compounds the issue.  I think I'll stick with AAC.  I do archive with ALAC, though, so I have the freedom to transcode the files however I need.
 
I'm not knocking using lossless files as a listening source.  But unless you've got a megabucks sound system and ideal listening conditions, I think it's a waste to use lossless for anything beyond archiving.

Re-read post #24. I'm talking about docking the ipod with high quality audio gear. There are plenty of examples of high quality manufacturers that now offer all digital docking solutions specifically for the ipod. In these cases there are most definitely gains to be had in terms of sound quality.
 
Say you spent a bit of money on a kick ass home listening headphone system that contains an ipod dock, high quality DAC/amp and some nice cans. Not big bucks by any stretch. Would you be happy to feed it with a lossy source? I don't think anyone in their right mind would, seeing as the source is the most important part of any system.
 
If you're just going to use your apple earbuds, listen on the go exclusively, and your music library is absurdly large, then I agree - ALAC is a complete waste. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Re-read post #24. I'm talking about docking the ipod with high quality audio gear. There are plenty of examples of high quality manufacturers that now offer all digital docking solutions specifically for the ipod. In these cases there are most definitely gains to be had in terms of sound quality.
 
Say you spent a bit of money on a kick ass home listening headphone system that contains an ipod dock, high quality DAC/amp and some nice cans. Not big bucks by any stretch. Would you be happy to feed it with a lossy source? I don't think anyone in their right mind would, seeing as the source is the most important part of any system.
 
If you're just going to use your apple earbuds, listen on the go exclusively, and your music library is absurdly large, then I agree - ALAC is a complete waste. 

I feed my headphones with mostly MP3s. Since, y'know, I can't hear the difference in blind tests. Any CDs I own myself I rip in FLAC though. Not because of sound quality.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

I feed my headphones with mostly MP3s. Since, y'know, I can't hear the difference in blind tests. Any CDs I own myself I rip in FLAC though. Not because of sound quality.

QFT

 

[ManchildProdigy]

Quote:

Re-read post #24. I'm talking about docking the ipod with high quality audio gear. There are plenty of examples of high quality manufacturers that now offer all digital docking solutions specifically for the ipod. In these cases there are most definitely gains to be had in terms of sound quality.
 
Say you spent a bit of money on a kick ass home listening headphone system that contains an ipod dock, high quality DAC/amp and some nice cans. Not big bucks by any stretch. Would you be happy to feed it with a lossy source? I don't think anyone in their right mind would, seeing as the source is the most important part of any system.
 
If you're just going to use your apple earbuds, listen on the go exclusively, and your music library is absurdly large, then I agree - ALAC is a complete waste. 

I was referring to mobile listening (car, gym, etc.) so none of what you said really applies.  But for a home system I agree 100%.  Not sure I'd base my home system around an iPod, though.  I'd be more inclined to use my computer given the size of my lossless collection, but I can see the merits of the iPod as a source.
 

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Re-read post #24. I'm talking about docking the ipod with high quality audio gear. There are plenty of examples of high quality manufacturers that now offer all digital docking solutions specifically for the ipod. In these cases there are most definitely gains to be had in terms of sound quality.

 
No there isn't, really. I have a good set of Sennheiser HD-590 headphones and an excellent listening room with speakers. I did a controlled, like level matched comparison of an original CD with an AAC 256 VBR rip and couldn't detect any difference at all. When I found out the results of that test, I ripped all the CDs in my collection and put the originals in the closet. AAC at the proper bitrate sounds identical to lossless.

 

[ManchildProdigy]

 
Quote:

 
No there isn't, really. I have a good set of Sennheiser HD-590 headphones and an excellent listening room with speakers. I did a controlled, like level matched comparison of an original CD with an AAC 256 VBR rip and couldn't detect any difference at all. When I found out the results of that test, I ripped all the CDs in my collection and put the originals in the closet. AAC at the proper bitrate sounds identical to lossless.

Have you ever considered that your ears just aren't good enough to hear the difference?  In the end, it really doesn't matter because you've found what works for you.  There may be a difference.  If there is, it's probably minuscule and not even worth mentioning.  I certainly don't hear it either.  But the "there's no difference because I can't hear it" argument doesn't work for me.  For you, yes, there is no difference, but that doesn't necessarily apply in general.
 

 

[bigshot]

I'll believe it's just my ears when people who insist they can hear a difference do a controlled, line level matched blind A/B comparison and verify that it isn't just their mind!
 
Whenever I consider new technology or new equipment, I take the time to test it- not with scopes, but in real world listening situations. I have a tremendous amount of money invested into music with nearly 10,000 CD and at least as many records. Before I was going to start digitizing and building a library on a media server, I wanted to make sure I knew exactly what the optimal settings were, not just for sound quality, but for drive space.
 
The thing that most people don't understand is that compression artifacting isn't like analogue distortion. It doesn't fade in subtly. A bitrate either artifacts, or it has sufficient bandwidth to accurately reproduce the music. Artifacting has a specific sound. It's a "digital gurgle" that is unmistakable. It isn't a "veil over the sound" or subtle muffling. Anyone who describes compression artifacting that way is making it up.
 
I tested a range of codecs and settings, and discovered that there was a point where artifacting fell away. It was a different point for different types of music. Electronic music was very forgiving, one particular orchestral string texture was difficult to encode without artifacting. I took the setting where the artifacting disappeared on the most difficult sample and upped it one notch, just to be safe. That came out to AAC 256 VBR.
 
Since then, I have ripped a year's worth of music of all types- from Edison cylinders to the most modern digital recordings- at these settings and fed the files into my media server. I have yet to find a single file that doesn't sound exactly like the original CD. No one wants to encode music and then find out they need to start over. I made sure that wouldn't happen.
 
I've done the legwork and taken the time to make sure I'm right. I know by the expressions of amazement of my friends when they listen to my media server that my ears are just fine.

 

[sgrossklass]

With ~256 kbit VBR AAC we should be way in diminishing returns territory. You'd probably need some funky kind of hearing damage to make out any differences at this point. I mean, even half that bitrate tends to be transparent to a large majority of people.
 
These days, encountering audible compression artifacts pretty much requires transcoding between lossy formats at no more than moderate bitrates.
 
Last time I checked, my hearing went to no more than 16.5 kHz or so. I definitely don't care much about anything beyond 15..16 kHz. I guess that's why -V 6 level MP3 does the job just fine for me. Besides, if any artifacts did in fact appear, I probably wouldn't care unless they were distracting.
 
BTW, problematic samples are always appreciated. I sure would like to hear a difference for once.

 

[bigshot]

The most difficult sample I found was a Sammy Davis Jr Decca song from the late fifties. There was something about the massed strings that artifacted clearly all the way up over 192. It cleared up by 256.