[Blackwoof]

Really love taphephobia's - Ghostwood. I'm listening to it now, it really weird how Lame mp3 V5 does better job than AAC at 128kbps?.

 

[omegaorgun]

I have a very large music library... something like a year and a half of music at last count. The difference in file size makes a difference for me. Lossless would mean spreading my library over multiple drives instead of it all being on one drive. Before I started building my library, I wanted to find the threshold where lossy was identical in all cases. I spent a couple of weeks on the project, encoding in different ways, trying all kinds of music, and researching the most difficult kinds of sounds to encode. I determined that 99% of my files sounded perfect at AAC 192 VBR. But I wanted perfect sound in just one file format. So I encoded everything at AAC 256 VBR.

I have given a bunch of people my test, and no one has been able to discern any better than I did. If you would like to take the test and find out where your threshold is, I would be happy to share it with you. There's a certain relief in not having to guess any more because you know. FireLion appears to have retreated. He probably suspects he might be wrong, but he's afraid to take the test because he's so invested in being right. There's no convincing people like that, and they will never prove their point conclusively. They'll slip around and avoid being pinned down to an objective proof forever.

Retreated no, laughing yes! I have to ask why are we arguing about high quality files vs lower quality ones? It's obvious if part of the track is chopped up there will be some degradation. I also am not talking baout CD's just something like Spotify MP3 vs Deezer FLAC.

What gear are you using as a matter of interest, can you give specifics and show me that test you have cooked up.

 

[bigshot]

Audibly transparent files aren’t high quality or low quality. To human ears, they’re equal. What equipment are you interested in? I have lots of stuff and listing models would be kind of boring. I’ll do it if you want, but I’ll need to be at my computer.

 

[omegaorgun]

Audibly transparent files aren’t high quality or low quality. To human ears, they’re equal. What equipment are you interested in? I have lots of stuff and listing models would be kind of boring. I’ll do it if you want, but I’ll need to be at my computer.

Do you have a inexperienced person wear pink m50x like this guy?

 

[omegaorgun]

Much of the stuff is not going to be noticeable, it really depends on the track and if the recording was actually good to begin with.

 

[bigshot]

Do you have a inexperienced person wear pink m50x like this guy?

I don't think you are reading anything I say. Your responses don't relate to what I am saying. Are we having a conversation or not? Take a couple of steps back and read my previous comments. These are the things you haven't replied to.

1) Would you like to take a listening test of high data rate lossy vs lossless? You can listen to the files any way you want. It is ten samples in a single FLAC file. You just listen to them on your own equipment, in your own way, at your own pace and rank them from 1 to 10.

2) Do you want me to talk about my equipment? I don't understand why that's relevant, but I'll do it if there is a reason.

I'd really prefer to talk to you, not watch random youtube videos, if that's OK.

 

[omegaorgun]

I don't think you are reading anything I say. Your responses don't relate to what I am saying. Are we having a conversation or not? Take a couple of steps back and read my previous comments. These are the things you haven't replied to.

1) Would you like to take a listening test of high data rate lossy vs lossless? You can listen to the files any way you want. It is ten samples in a single FLAC file. You just listen to them on your own equipment, in your own way, at your own pace and rank them from 1 to 10.

2) Do you want me to talk about my equipment? I don't understand why that's relevant, but I'll do it if there is a reason.

I'd really prefer to talk to you, not watch random youtube videos, if that's OK.

Yes I'll gladly do a test your pick.

I mention equipment as higher end or good gear will have more detail or allow you to actually reap the benefits of using a lossless track.

 

[omegaorgun]

I also mentioned the difference might not be apparent on badly recorded music.

The actual details might also be the same but there might be a sort of cut off on the MP3 that makes it sound more boxed in.

You might also hear sounds more clearly due to less compression.

What I am saying is it might not be always the sounds themselves but how they are presented.

All I can tell you is I prefer listening to my FLAC's.

The real debate is FLAC vs MQA.

 

[Chris Kaoss]

I don't think you are reading anything I say. Your responses don't relate to what I am saying. Are we having a conversation or not? Take a couple of steps back and read my previous comments. These are the things you haven't replied to.

1) Would you like to take a listening test of high data rate lossy vs lossless? You can listen to the files any way you want. It is ten samples in a single FLAC file. You just listen to them on your own equipment, in your own way, at your own pace and rank them from 1 to 10.

2) Do you want me to talk about my equipment? I don't understand why that's relevant, but I'll do it if there is a reason.

I'd really prefer to talk to you, not watch random youtube videos, if that's OK.

I'm very interested in.
May you share your test samples with me?

My chain will be
Surface Pro 7 with PotPlayer (wasapi)
AGD R28 or BTR5 over Usb
Quad Era-1 or Monitor 5 se and balanced out.

I'm open to all and new knowledge.

Thanks in advance.

Have a great day and keep listening to good music.

Chris

 

[Blackwoof]

I also mentioned the difference might not be apparent on badly recorded music.

The actual details might also be the same but there might be a sort of cut off on the MP3 that makes it sound more boxed in.

You might also hear sounds more clearly due to less compression.

What I am saying is it might not be always the sounds themselves but how they are presented.

All I can tell you is I prefer listening to my FLAC's.

The real debate is FLAC vs MQA.

I used ER3SE, SRH1540, etc. Some music sounds better on 128k MP3 vs 96k AAC/Ogg, On the The human voice's - is this a palace or prison?. Ogg at 96k has stereo issues so it's a 3.5 to me, QAAC at 96k is 4.5 but synth's sound odd, Lame V5 is a 5 no issues at 120kbps and not much gains at 170kbps to 320kbps.

So that what i use since my AW45 only has 12.5GB space.

 

[bigshot]

I mention equipment as higher end or good gear will have more detail or allow you to actually reap the benefits of using a lossless track.

OK. Equipment first because that is all I have time for right now. I'll come back later to fill you in on the rules of the test, and you can tell me if you agree to them.

My main system is in my theater/listening room. It is a 5.1 surround setup with custom built late 1960s 6 way studio monitors with JBL drivers and custom crossover (2235H 15 inch woofers with cloth surrounds / 2404 bullet super tweeters) and a set of JBL towers. The center speaker is a high end Klipsch (Reference Series). The subwoofer is a 12 inch Sunfire True Sub. The rears are high end radial design KEFs. The amp is a fairly beefy Yamaha AVR with 5 band parametric EQ on each channel. My source is an Oppo BD-103D. It feeds both the sound system and my Epson HD projection system with a ten foot screen. My other source is a Mac Mini which acts as a media server, with 100 TB of attached storage on Drobo drives. My home is covered by Airports that stream from the server all over the house. I have several smaller stereos in the living room, bedrooms and work area. I have three sets of Oppo PM-1s: One for the main system, one for my work computer, and one for my Oculus Quest VR headset. In my bedroom, I have an Oppo HA-1, but I don't use it much because I haven't found that it makes any difference with the PM-1s. I have nine iPods that I use occasionally, all loaded with different genres of music. I use Amazon Prime Unlimited to play background music around the house on various Echo Pluses, and I have a beater battery operated rig for BBQs with Oontz Angle 3 Ultra speakers and my iPhone 6s. I've got several Apple computers that I use to stream both the server and Amazon music.

Whew! I don't often do that because I don't believe that specific brands and models are as important as how you put them together to suit the purpose. But there you go.

I'm very interested in. May you share your test samples with me?

I'll get back to you in a bit, Chris. Happy to set up a test for you. I just finished a test with someone here, and it's a friend's birthday today, so I have to run right now. Chat you on PM soon.

 

[Chris Kaoss]

I'll get back to you in a bit, Chris. Happy to set up a test for you. I just finished a test with someone here, and it's a friend's birthday today, so I have to run right now. Chat you on PM soon.

Enjoy the party.
I'm not in a hurry.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I have to ask why are we arguing about high quality files vs lower quality ones? It's obvious if part of the track is chopped up there will be some degradation. I also am not talking baout CD's just something like Spotify MP3 vs Deezer FLAC.
[2] What gear are you using as a matter of interest, can you give specifics and show me that test you have cooked up.
[3] Do you have a inexperienced person wear pink m50x like this guy?
[4] Much of the stuff is not going to be noticeable, it really depends on the track and if the recording was actually good to begin with.

1. Yes, there will be "some degradation", in fact there will be quite a lot but that's not the issue. The issue is whether that degradation is audible.

2. The gear doesn't make any difference. (see #1 below).

3. Sure, and hugely experienced professions and pretty much anyone else.

4. All of the stuff is going to be very noticeable. For example, one has a filename ending in ".mp3" and the other ".flac", the MP3 will have a noticeably smaller file size. The MP3 will also have a noticeable difference in frequency content but ONLY visually noticable (in say a spectral analysis), NOT aurally noticeable! And, it does NOT depend on if the recording was good to begin with. The very best recordings or the very worst ones, a 320 MP3 is indistinguishable.

[1] I mention equipment as higher end or good gear will have more detail or allow you to actually reap the benefits of using a lossless track.
[2] All I can tell you is I prefer listening to my FLAC's.
[3] The real debate is FLAC vs MQA.

1. Good gear does obviously reproduce more detail but it makes no difference because the "detail" missing in a 320 MP3 is inaudible. Neither a cheap set of ear-pods or a multi-million dollar studio will "reap the benefits of using a lossless track" because the "benefits" are inaudible!

2. No problem, you're of course entitled to your own preferences. Just be careful about stating or implying those preferences are due to any audible differences, because that would contradict a considerable amount of rigorous scientific evidence and would require exceptional evidence on your part.

3. No, that's not a "real debate" either!

G

 

[PointyFox]

Good gear does obviously reproduce more detail

 

[bigshot]

If the gear that doesn't is below the threshold of audible transparency. It's more likely that a different set of headphones will reveal more detail than an amp or DAC or player.