[iFi audio]

I'm glad I don't hear the difference, as I can fit a lot more music on my computer and DAP's. And I have a LOT of music.

Let me just say that you're lucky in that regard, I have to have FLACs because I got used to them a bit too much

 

[bigshot]

I'm format agnostic. As long as it's audibly transparent it's fine with me. Convenience is more of an issue to me than file size. I like AAC because one file can work for every purpose- serious listening in the home, and portable on the go.

 

[Blackwoof]

High frequencies with AAC can be an issue below 192, but above that it's only a case of momentary artifacting. I only found one recording that required more than 192. It's pretty rare, but audiences applauding and massed strings with lots of upper frequency sheen are the hardest to encode.

I've had few ambient tracks with loud percussion or synth artifact like that under 192 with AAC. Yet with MPC at 170kbps no such issues and In other times will upp the bit rate past 256kbps since It VBR with no upper frame limit, So some tracks can be 512 ~ 1300kbps even at 170k target.

 

[bigshot]

AAC will go beyond 320 with VBR too. There is no reason not to use VBR. It can't hurt, it can only help.

 

[Sterling2]

Better than cassette tapes in general, not nearly as good as high data rate lossy. It doesn't sound bad, but it's pretty much obsolete.



If that is convenient enough, that works. But one of the advantages of AAC is that it is able to dynamically adjust data rate beyond 320 with VBR. So if you encoded your rain sounds at AAC 320 VBR, it would probably increase the data rate to the point where it could accurately reproduce the sound. I encode early 20th century 78s with tons of tiny clicks and those do very well with AAC, not so good with Frauenhofer.

I suppose you don't have a huge library of different rain sounds, so it probably doesn't matter though. You can just do those as FLAC and encode music as high data rate lossy.

 

[Sterling2]

Better than cassette tapes in general, not nearly as good as high data rate lossy. It doesn't sound bad, but it's pretty much obsolete.



If that is convenient enough, that works. But one of the advantages of AAC is that it is able to dynamically adjust data rate beyond 320 with VBR. So if you encoded your rain sounds at AAC 320 VBR, it would probably increase the data rate to the point where it could accurately reproduce the sound. I encode early 20th century 78s with tons of tiny clicks and those do very well with AAC, not so good with Frauenhofer.

I suppose you don't have a huge library of different rain sounds, so it probably doesn't matter though. You can just do those as FLAC and encode music as high data rate lossy.

I've retained my DAT editing system (Sony PCM-7010F's and RM-D7200 Edit Controller( because it yields the best results editing field production, which is still recorded to DAT for SFX, like rain and seaside. There's no point to field recording that's lossless, none.

 

[Blackwoof]

AAC will go beyond 320 with VBR too. There is no reason not to use VBR. It can't hurt, it can only help.

Not at the same level, most encoders peak at 480Kb/s. Vorbis/MPC = 1mbit+ & Even MP3 by abusing the bit reservoir can reach 640kb/s. Also I've been testing LAME bit more, With --allshort switch the common killer samples are transparent at 224 ~ 320kbps(or higher). So I have no idea where the "MP3 short blocks are not short enough" claim Is from or Why the AAC/Ogg dev's hide there own "all short" switch.

 

[bigshot]

Different codecs at different data rates react to different "killer samples" differently. I find that AAC 256 VBR covers absolutely everything I throw at it. It's transparent as you ever might need. You could save some space and encode smaller using different codecs or rates on a case by case basis, but who's going to spend hours finding the optimal way to encode a particular track just to save 100k in overall file size? The overall is what matters- the codec and data rate that can handle everything you throw at it with a small file size.

 

[Blackwoof]

Different codecs at different data rates react to different "killer samples" differently. I find that AAC 256 VBR covers absolutely everything I throw at it. It's transparent as you ever might need. You could save some space and encode smaller using different codecs or rates on a case by case basis, but who's going to spend hours finding the optimal way to encode a particular track just to save 100k in overall file size? The overall is what matters- the codec and data rate that can handle everything you throw at it with a small file size.

People have different target levels, MPC 160kbps VBR covers everything for me. The most demanding stuff ranges from 225 ~ 640kbps while with AAC/Ogg I need to set It at 320kbps VBR for that.

 

[PhonoPhi]

Flacs work well for me.
Heavy parametric equalizing can be problematic with compressed files.
I can perfectly afford the storage space to have every bit of music preserved, so I do not need any excuses to keep compressed/truncated files

 

[gerelmx1986]

Flacs work well for me.
Heavy parametric equalizing can be problematic with compressed files.
I can perfectly afford the storage space to have every bit of music preserved, so I do not need any excuses to keep compressed/truncated files

My music is flac, hi-res flac & DSD only occupying 1.40TB for 61000 tracks (3487 albums). All stored and mirrored to 3x 4TB external disks coating about 100€ To 70€ each Hardsisk

 

[gerelmx1986]

My music is flac, hi-res flac & DSD only occupying 1.40TB for 61000 tracks (3487 albums). All stored and mirrored to 3x 4TB external disks coating about 100€ To 70€ each Hardsisk

For portable use i use either a NW-WM1A (128GB internal plus 1.0TB microSD)
Or
NW-A25 (16GB inte nal plus a 400GB microSD) this one doesnt support DSD. I have no issues converting DSD to 24/88.2 FLAC on this walkman.

forgot to tell that my music has a 4th mirror... 2x 1.0TB micro SD cards

 

[bigshot]

I’ve never had any problems EQing AAC files, but I wouldn’t consider my correction to be heavy filtering I guess. How far are you EQing?

 

[PhonoPhi]

I’ve never had any problems EQing AAC files, but I wouldn’t consider my correction to be heavy filtering I guess. How far are you EQing?

I realized the difference is noticeable at the extreme of parametric equalizing (MSEB of Hiby). 256 were noticeable. I usually rarely use normal equalizing, but parametric is more fun, and I explored extremes.
It made sense to me (as with .tiff .jpeg processing analigy), and I was happy to count it as a pro-flac example.

Trying to be objective, as this forum implies, my mp3 were occasional old files (some web downloads from eons ago). I do not know codecs. Doing it with a systematic conversion may be a worthy test.

 

[castleofargh]

With strong EQ, auditory masking at or around the altered frequency won't give the same result. I guess it's possible for the outcome to be audibly different, if the codec dismissed something at a quieter level that turns out audible only once the EQ reduces the overal masking at that particular freq.
Perhaps something like that?