[5ergo]

I was comparing apples to apples,

I have this component which has DAC and some inputs and outputs and is unbeatable for the price:
http://www.presonus.com/centralstation.html
Similar to external DAC.

Than i have Revo7.1 connected to Presonus DAC via spdif and CDP via toslink (optical) , so same DAC used.
After all my CDP has very similar DAC in terms or quality so i lately i use its DAC (AUX connection).

I use CDs though i still have many mp3s (stolen), so PC is used for mp3 and movies and CDP for some serious music.

 

[SeptemberWasp]

I EAC FLAC everything I own or want in FLAC. I will agree that to a certain extent I can hear the difference between FLAC and 192 LAME but what it comes down to is... does it always matter?

I'm a music lover first and a audiophile second. I'm sitting at well over 50k in tracks (yes, mostly stolen

) and theres no way in hell i'm affording to purchase (heh) the CD's or the hardware to store all that in FLAC. I've deleted albums because I downloaded a poorly encoded 192 copy and I've purchased albums because I needed CD quality.

If my ears were so pretentious as to demand such levels of quality for all my listening, I'd plot against them.... take 'em down a few notches ya know? Like force them to listen to a 1989 Pontiac Fireflys stock stereo for months!!! muuuahahahahah!!! we'll see how they like 192 VBR through ATH-W1000's after that!

 

[krmathis]

I do!
I rip all my CD's with cdparanoia and encode to Apple Lossless. Then I play the tracks over AirTunes, or on one of my iPod's.

 

[Zorander]

I do, and I save them to lossless formats to save myself from the trouble of thinking, "what if...?"

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

If you have a decent setup, lossy sounds like *****. Plain and simple. It takes longer to encode, and cannot be used to make burned copies of your CD's. If you lose your CD's, you've also lost the other 80% of the sound. Hard drive storage is so cheap these days (especially relative to high-end audio gear) that anyone even pretending to know what fidelity is about would be foolish not to use lossless compression for their computer audio systems. I know this seems harsh, but lossy compression is completely antithetic with the idea of using better sound reproduction gear. If you are willing to throw out 80-90% of your digital audio stream before it ever even hits your gear, what is the point?

I can understand the usefulness of lossy compression when it comes to applications like a portable system where space and fidelity can be much more limited, but not in one's primary home listening system.

 

[Kwisatz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skudmunky I rip the original CD twice, once to FLAC and once to VBR Mp3 using LAME, Quality 0 (highest), 192kb/s min 320 kb/s max. Mp3 is for portable, FLAC is for home PC use. Now I just need a new hard drive to store lossless albums when I start buying more.

Why do you rip it twice? It should be faster just to transcode from flac into MP3...

 

[rincewind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn I do, and my ears can't tell the difference between a CD and 256 VBR AAC. When I rip a CD into my computer, I tell iTunes to rip it into that lossy format and it's all good.

What! All that top end gear and you listen to (any) lossy format (any) of the time? If I had the money for that stuff, I think I'd at least buy the originals, or score them from a mate (CD > CD or CD > lossless) and just buy a (few) massive hard drives! At the very least, if you have to use lossy (like I do, only 250gb space and way too much music), use 320VBR like the thread starter!

After reading your whole "curse you headfi" and then seeing what your feeding it, it reminds me of the thread I saw about the guy saying the cure for hsi upgraditis was to realise he should just buy more music. I mean looking at my rig/soon to be rig and I *know*the weak point is the source and the format the majority of my music is in. But at least I'm not gonna be using expensive interconnects and heaps of mods. I'd be interested to see what you hear if you only listen to real CDs for a while. I'm not an mp3 basher by any means, most of my music is in that format (slowly moving to ape as time permits), but then again I haven't spent what you have on gear! No offence and obviously it's just my opinion, but wow...

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer I know this seems harsh, but lossy compression is completely antithetic with the idea of using better sound reproduction gear. If you are willing to throw out 80-90% of your digital audio stream before it ever even hits your gear, what is the point? I can understand the usefulness of lossy compression when it comes to applications like a portable system where space and fidelity can be much more limited, but not in one's primary home listening system.

While I would agree philosophically and theoretically, in my practical experience, this decent gear is still limiting. The difference between encoded files is still small compared to things like interconnects and power cords in my scale of differences. If I were to use what I deem a great system then everything usually sounds good to me so it becomes near irrelevant if it was lossy.

 

[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer If you have a decent setup, lossy sounds like *****. Plain and simple. It takes longer to encode, and cannot be used to make burned copies of your CD's. If you lose your CD's, you've also lost the other 80% of the sound. Hard drive storage is so cheap these days (especially relative to high-end audio gear) that anyone even pretending to know what fidelity is about would be foolish not to use lossless compression for their computer audio systems. I know this seems harsh, but lossy compression is completely antithetic with the idea of using better sound reproduction gear. If you are willing to throw out 80-90% of your digital audio stream before it ever even hits your gear, what is the point? I can understand the usefulness of lossy compression when it comes to applications like a portable system where space and fidelity can be much more limited, but not in one's primary home listening system.

word.

and everyone forgets the biggest problem with lossy archiving: every time you go to a new codec you lose even more. mp3 won't last forever (i hope

)

 

[Grahame]

Lossy compression is for losers.

Literally.

 

[Oliver :)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer I know this seems harsh, but lossy compression is completely antithetic with the idea of using better sound reproduction gear. If you are willing to throw out 80-90% of your digital audio stream before it ever even hits your gear, what is the point?

*applauds*

Of course tolerance grants everyone to throw away their money as they like, even if it is pointless. Going lossless is about the cheapest and most effective tweak you can apply to a PC based system, and if you're smart it is not even a tweak, since you should start right at it.

 

[miTunes75]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver Be sure to check out iVolume once you have it. The latest version integrates even better with iTunes than before. Really, really worth the little money it costs. If you have a WLAN or Bluetooth equipped mobile device (phone, Palm, PPC) you will also want to have a look at Salling Clicker for your remote controlling pleasure. I will get it once the Sony Ericsson P990 is out & in my hands. I rip to ALAC exclusively, all music is stored on an external 400GB drive, and I plan to stack up a second one later this year, just as a backup for the first one since it takes *forever* to rip all those CDs. I have an ok DAC hooked up to the Mac and a nice DAC hooked up to the big rig fed via AirPort Express. I would not want to be without it anymore. Once you discover the versatility and convenience of PC-audio there is no way back.

the bad thing is that itunes doesn't support flac. at least for the windows version it doesn't. can you rip and encode into flac with iTunes in os x?
Thanks for the input.

 

[fewtch]

I agree that lossless is essential to a high fidelity rig, but on the occasions when I listen to lossy stuff (mostly portably these days) I still enjoy the music. However, I don't use high end gear to listen to it, and really don't see the point of even "risking" compression artifacts when one has spent for expensive gear. With the whole point being the best reproduction you can get, it seems completely contradictory to use lossy formats in a high end setup.

 

[MdRex]

lossy on the go, because I don't plan on upgrading my 5 gigger.

FLAC on my computer, I can just pop in a new HDD pretty cheaply. They don't take up that much space afterall. Besides it frees me off worries that I am not getting digital music in it's original form. Vanity... I KNOW...

 

[XxATOLxX]

I run FLAC all the way for my cds. I encode it into another format if necessary without any data loss.