[Edoardo]

FLAC is one of the few formats that can guarantee PCM-like quality and therefore offers a reliable back-up of our CDs...

 

[sterling1]

Quote:

dont know if this thread is still alive but I recently purchased some songs off of iTunes, 256 kbps AAC, and while they are of excellent quality, I always had the impression that FLAC would always sound noticeably better and more detailed than any lossy format especially when played through the appropriate audio equipment like a high-end DAC, amp and good quality headphones. So, after some time and out of curiosity, I acquired FLAC versions of the songs I had and played them in Foobar. They sounded pretty normal to me, nothing special. I then used the ABX Comparator plugin to compare the AAC version of the songs to the FLAC songs directly and to see if I could distinguish the two, but I couldnt tell a difference. They sounded virtually similar. so its either:
a) my ears arent that good
b) AAC is a much better format than we give it credit for
c) FLAC is overrated
or maybe a bit of all of the above.
 
Needless to say, I dont think I'll be going out of my way to obtain FLAC files anymore. FLAC  files are good for archiving purposes, but for music listening, when an FLAC file is 3-4 times larger in file size than the corresponding AAC or MP3 and yet sounds virtually the same, I dont think it justifies its large file size.

 

I recently succumbed to the 24/96 store at HDtracks. After downloading foobar to play these files, I used dbPoweramp to convert them to ALAC to be able to enjoy with convenience from my iTunes library which does not support flac. Experimenting with the same tunes from different sources: the iTunes store (AAC), CD, wav files of CD, and SACD, I cannot say that I can hearl any difference. Listening to The Rolling Stones, Love In Vain on I think every format it has been made available, from 256k to 24/96, I cannot distinguish one from another, although a friend of mine can. At any rate, today, even though I cannot distinguish a difference, I'm still downloading the 24/96 HDtracks tunes since they're only  about $1.30 more per tune than an iTunes 256k download; and, it makes me feel better-perceiving that it's better.
,

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

I recently succumbed to the 24/96 store at HDtracks. After downloading foobar to play these files, I used dbPoweramp to convert them to ALAC for convenience from my iTunes library. Experimenting with the same tunes from different sources: the iTunes store (AAC), CD, wav files of CD, and SACD, I cannot say that I can tell any difference. Listening to The Rolling Stones, Love In Vain on I think every format it has been made available, from 256k to 24/96, I cannot distinguish one from anothe,r although a friend of mine can. At any rate, today, even though I cannot distinguish a difference, I'm still downloading the 24/96 HDtracks tunes since they're only  about $1.30 more per tune than an iTunes 256k download; and, it makes me feel better-perceiving that it's better.
,

Man, there must be something in your rig then... really... Maybe on the software side...
 

 

[sterling1]

Everything sounds great through my HT: computer audio, CD, SACD, DAT,  vinyl, FM, Cable, and even Compact Cassette. I want for nothing. My system is  awesome. I even enjoy Pandora on the HT. The only thing which is suspect is iTunes Radio. Those  streams at 128k, or less, are pretty much good only for BG. Still, iTunes Radio gives me the opportunity to hear new music, which I would likely not hear on local FM. At any rate, I attribute the great computer audio to my computer's USB to S/PDIF connection to a truly incredible pre/pro (Sony TA-E9000ES).
 
But, getting back to the topic, I see why the folks at HDtracks deliver flac files,. alternative files would be huge, or would not be 24/96, either of which would  undermine the  content providers appeal. I appreciate flac too; but, so far, the media players I've used to play these files have disappointed me. Media Monkey and foobar are just not as intuitive enough for me; therefore, converting these files to ALAC has helped me hear the 24/96 material with the convenience I've come to appreciate from iTunes.

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

 
But, getting back to the topic, I see why the folks at HDtracks deliver flac files,. alternative files would be huge, or would not be 24/96, either of which would  undermine the  content providers appeal.

Well, I would not put it like that. I've personally known a record producer (label owner and sound/mixing/mastering engineer)  who sells part of their catalogue on HDtracks... He assured me that the FLAC format is a no-compromise solution, as it is a PCM equivalent. That's just what you're listening to, after a light algorithm any nowadays computer can compute easily.
 

 

[sterling1]

I have no problem with flac. The problem is with the media players needed to play flac. So far, none have been as intuitive, versatile, or accommodating to my listening preferences as iTunes.  So, until I find a flac player as convenient as iTunes,  I'll just continue to convert the flac files to ALAC in order to play them from iTunes.

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

I have no problem with flac. The problem is with the media players needed to play flac. So far, none have been as intuitive, versatile, or accommodating to my listening preferences as iTunes.  And, since there is no substitute for iTunes,  I've needed to  convert the flac files to ALAC in order to play them from iTunes.

 
Then you prefer comfort to sound quality. It's fine. But please, don't complain you can't hear any difference from 320kbps to 24/96 if you don't set the software stage properly.
 
It's awful so many people have been misleaded from this kind of statements.
 
I will always remember once I went to an audio event... There was a demo of these four-zero priced speakers, and a recording engineer endorsing them, though admitting that its Genelec multi-amplified reference speakers used in his monitoring system costed "N" times less. By the way, he put two master CDs into the CD player. They were two normal CDs, I mean, both redbook 16/44, and they were two digital remasters of the same analog tape.  
 
The only difference was that one was remastered with a 16/44 ADC, the other with a 24/88 ADC.
 
I did not expect I would have heard any difference. (Actually, I think no-one in the audience did... We were just listening to two CDs!). I wasn't waiting for anything new to come to my ears. But it did. Hell, I did hear the undeniable difference, and I was very far from the "sweet spot" indeed.
 
The engineer grinned looking at our disoriented faces... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[sterling1]

I want it all, quality and convenience. I would not settle for anything less. Thing is, I'm getting quality and convenience from my current hardware, software, and content providers right now. What I'm telling you is that for me, and most others it seems, distinguishing 256k from CD, SACD, or 24/96 flac files is not easy; and, therefore,  iTunes downloads satisfy me. For surel, I would prefer to download all my new music from HDtracks at 24/96, since first class does not cost much more; and, why not get the highest quality, if it makes ya feel you're hearing the best. Of course, everything that peaks my interest is not available in hi-rez so I still get music from iTunes too.  It's all good.
 
Interestingly, I downloaded Rihanna's new single "We Found Love In A Hopeless Place" from the iTunes Store the other day, it's a 256k file which just sounds incredible. The bass, while not exaggerated, seems really tight. Of course, I've got a passive 15 inch JBL B380 powered by Sony TA-N80ES operating at 560 watts in mono.
 
I'm so satisfied with my computer audio experience.. As I've tied it into my HT, I don't perceive I have any need to upgrade to any new audio/video equipment out there which is tempting me with a promise of a better, more immersive experience. The media, software, and hardware I've got right now gives me sound that seems "live"; plus, it provides convenience galore. I cannot imagine anything any better than what I've got right now--and that means, for what little income I have for luxuries, I can devote a bigger portion of it to buying more of the music I'd like to add to my library.
 
BTW, you alluded to me complaining. I'm not complaining, I'm rejoicing. Also, you said it's awful people have been mislead by statements like mine. There's nothing misleading in anything I've said, it's just an informed opinion based on my personal experience with the concept. If you can hear a difference between hi-rez flac files and 256k files, O.K. thanks for sharing.

 

[Hifianddrumming]

 I'm definitely not an audiophile in the sense that I can listen to FLAC vs MP3, and pinpoint exact differences, at certain frequencies, etc. But going from 200kbps Mp3s from legalsounds, to CD ripped to 16/44 FLAC, the difference was substantial. Everything sounded so much clearer, it was like someone had taken a stereo image and used the "sharpen" tool. I was amazed at the actual detail I could hear in the song. Can't wait til I get that Yulong and Sr-35is, (oh, christmas is coming, believe me ) I think I'm gonna be in heaven with some 24/96

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

 
 
BTW, you alluded to me complaining. I'm not complaining, I'm rejoicing. Also, you said it's awful people have been mislead by statements like mine. There's nothing misleading in anything I've said, it's just an informed opinion based on my personal experience with the concept. If you can hear a difference between hi-rez flac files and 256k files, O.K. thanks for sharing.

 
Well, in audiophilia, everything seems to be very very subjective, on what makes a difference - it's always about diminishing returns, isn't it? (1)
 
But recording quality has reached very high peaks, recently: the playback quality that only few people in the word with a reel tape recorder could afford, now has come more widespread thanks to digital high resolution mastering and remastering. (2)
 
Because of point (1), though, there are many urban legends around about HD files being a hoax, and your post seems to endorse them.
 
I was not boasting anything, I don't think my hearing to be better that anyone else's hearing here, nor that one would need a luxurious rig to catch the difference.
 
It's just that the difference is completely objective and catchable, it's not something one can claim to hear while another one does not, such as cables' burn-in.
 
The importance of room acoustics and OS+SW configuration are the most important and underestimated points here, even if they are completely free.
In the end, maybe they're underestimated just because of that.
 
 
 

 

[sterling1]

If I thought there was no value in 24/96 flac formatted recordings I would not be buying them; however, I am buying them. And, while I cannot perceive any difference in sound between these files and 256k mp4 files, to be able to emphatically declare  24/96 flac to be better, there seems to be no downside to the 24/96 files. After all, I have the hard drive space to accomodate them; plus, these files are not too expensive for me, that's to say, expensive is about making mistakes, and I don't see 24/96 as a mistake. At any rate,. when I've had the opportunity to experiment, I've purchased both iTunes and HDtracks offerings of the same recordings, Diana Krall's Quite Nights for example; and, critical. listening of this and other selections has not yet revealed a winner. Could it be that I have bad ears, sure; but, I think not.

 

[Edoardo]

Again, I do NOT think you have bad ears. Never thought that, never written that. I do not have any reasons to think that. I don't know iTunes that well, but I believe there is a flaw in your settings.

 

[sterling1]

No flaw in iTunes settings. I can listen from it or any number of other media players installed on my laptop, i.e. foobar, Media Monkey, etc. They all sound the same, only the files they support and the friendliness of the players is different. There's nothing wrong with my laptop either. Windows 7 is accommodating iTunes just fine. My X-FI HD, which I use as a USB to Toslink is working just fine too.  Once again, I attribute the lo-rez files sounding as good as the hi-rez stuff to my control/processing amp, a Sony TA-E9000ES which has a really good digital receiver. The TA-E9000ES even makes 128k sound very good. Also note that everything from my laptop to TA-E9000ES is up-sampled in Windows 7 to 24/96, that's the limit of the TA-E9000ES, as well as the X-FI HD. Perhaps, if I were to re-set Window for something like16/44 I might be able to hear the 256k files as being inferior, but why would I want to do that?

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

 Perhaps, if I were to re-set Window for something like16/44 I might be able to hear the 256k files as being inferior, but why would I want to do that?

Because it seems you are listening to everything at 256k... 

 Anyway "perhaps"! I surely can't tell where the flaw is from here... OS, MP, soundcard, DAC... but from my experience I'm sure there must be a fault somewhere.
 
I'm not arguing, I'm just sharing my experience and trying to give a suggestion! 

 

[sterling1]

Sony TA-E9000ES display indicates 24/96, so I know the preamp is receiving 24/96 and USB is sending 24/96. Now, if anything I was listening to sounded bad, I might suspect a problem but everything sounds great. Also, since I have the capability to eliminate the computer from the chain, which BTW is out of the chain when I'm playing anything that's not in my computer library, such as DAT, CD, SACD, and vinyl, I have heard everything without computer intervention/process. It all sounds great and about the only annoyance is the occasional snap, crackle, and pop from LP's which does indeed reveal that I'm listening to vinyl and not something else. The surprise to me is computer audio sounds as good as physical media. No flaws, no runs,  no drips, no errors.