How good is Apple lossless vs 256 VBR?

[AltecXP]

Me again!
 
Is there a huge quality difference in 256VBR MP3 and Apple lossless? Most my music is 256VBR, but since I have most the CD's I can re-rip them at Apple Lossless.
 
It's going to be a LONG hunt trying to find my iTunes music online or in CD form so I can rip it at better quality. I wish I had started caring about music quality sooner.  *cries*

 

[khaos974]

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/513246/how-can-i-be-a-real-audiophile-if-i-ve-been-building-a-library-of-mp3-for-the-last-10-years-because-i-didn-t-know-any-better

 

[krmathis]

That depends on several factors:
* The MP3 encoder used. Some encoders output higher quality than others.
* The music used. Complex music are harder to encode lossy and transparent than more simple one.
* The gear used for playback of the files.
* Your ears and your ability to hear artifacts, etc.
 
So in the end only you can tell how much there are, if any. The bitrate only show a part of the story.

 

[silverxxx]

Why don't you get a lossless file and encode it to 256 vbr, same settings, and compare the two? In my opinion the differences are pretty small, the advantage of lossless is that you could re-encode them to serve specific requirements, while 256 vbr you are basically stuck with.

 

[immtbiker]

As a person who only uses .flac and .alac, I can honestly say there is an obvious difference. Granted the difference is smaller when comparing 320kbps to flac, if you want the music to be as close a the CD then the only way to go, is lossy. Look at it this way, the only downside is space considerations. And since we are fortunate enough to live in an age that a terabyte hard drive can be purchased for under $100 (remember when 8M of ram used to cost $50)?
Go for it. Soundstage and sustenance are affected by lower bit rates. When sampling a sine wave, the more samples and the faster the frequency, are going to give you better sound. Listening in a car on the highway? Who cars. Sitting in a quiet room with music as the only stimulator, higher bit rates make a difference. But you have to have the equipment to back it up. With a Sansa Clip, no line out and no amplification, then using up all of your space is a moot point.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

As a person who only uses .flac and .alac, I can honestly say there is an obvious difference.
-snip-
But you have to have the equipment to back it up.

Agreed. You might as well build the highest quality library possible, in case your equipment chain ever gets revealing enough for you be able to discern a difference when listening to it.

 

[Satellite_6]

Quote:

Why don't you get a lossless file and encode it to 256 vbr, same settings, and compare the two? In my opinion the differences are pretty small, the advantage of lossless is that you could re-encode them to serve specific requirements, while 256 vbr you are basically stuck with.

 
The difference is pretty big IMO, but subtle and hard to ABX if your not concentrating.
 
"Soundstage and sustenance are affected by lower bit rates."
 
I've never noticed soundstage being affected by bit rate.

 

[immtbiker]

Yes. The sound stage is compressed and the depth is nearly non-existent on a low bit rate file. Sort of like the difference between FM Radio and Cd's.
Think about it. You have a sine wave that is being sampled so many times. The lower the rate, the less the information obtained from the original recording. Less info equates to less detail and information. A low bit rate mp3 collapses the near field and extreme ends of the sound stage.
 
Why did you have to end your "sound stage" comment with a 

. That seems a bit condescending to me.

 

[Satellite_6]

Quote:

Yes. The sound stage is compressed and the depth is nearly non-existent on a low bit rate file. Sort of like the difference between FM Radio and Cd's.
Think about it. You have a sine wave that is being sampled so many times. The lower the rate, the less the information obtained from the original recording. Less info equates to less detail and information. A low bit rate mp3 collapses the near field and extreme ends of the sound stage.
 
Why did you have to end your "sound stage" comment with a 

. That seems a bit condescending to me.

is fun to use, when you think your right. Idk, I don't use low bit rates much, I've just never noticed bit rate affect soundstage, but rather only the source and 'phones.

 

[immtbiker]

Ah...another internet miscue. Sorry.

 

[AltecXP]

Ok. Thanks guys. ^.^

 

[ozz]

My take on this is we spend all of our time listening to different equipment chasing the best sound our budget can afford why not start out with the best encode lossless for me.

 

[krmathis]

My take on this is we spend all of our time listening to different equipment chasing the best sound our budget can afford why not start out with the best encode lossless for me.

 
Well said!
For the sake of mind go lossless. Then no need to worry if you miss out of something or not - as there are no loss.

 

[Satellite_6]

Ideally Use EAC and replaygain as well.

 

[immtbiker]

You guys gotta check this out! It is perfect for most Head-Fier's and especially this thread:
 
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7217017/