[U-3C]

  A bit of an update: I just found an album which I never re-ripped to FLAC, Trading Snakeoil for Wolftickets by Gary Jules. I would have ripped that to 128 kbps MP3 using iTunes around 2006. I was noticing some REALLY bad intermodulation distortion, so I re-ripped the CD to FLAC and here are my results from an ABX:

08:16:29 : Test started.
08:16:47 : 00/01
08:16:58 : 01/02
08:17:10 : 02/03
08:17:19 : 03/04
08:17:29 : 04/05
08:17:48 : 05/06
08:18:08 : 06/07
08:18:16 : 07/08
08:18:26 : 08/09
08:18:38 : 09/10
08:18:45 : 10/11
08:18:53 : 11/12
08:19:00 : 12/13
08:19:08 : 13/14
08:19:16 : 14/15
08:19:26 : 15/16
08:19:26 : Test finished.
 ----------
Total: 15/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%
 
I'm pretty sure that first mistake was just me hitting the wrong button. I did this to gain back a little face and demonstrate that I really did hear a difference between 128 kbps MP3s and FLAC, but that this was a result of iTunes using a lousy encoder and not a limitation of MP3 itself.

Yeah, I also have some songs that were ripped terribly from many years ago. I didn't care back then, but now, I can hear a clear difference.
 
To be honest, I still don't care. 128 kbps isn't "unbearable" like some people love to claim. I do tend to notice the lower quality more when using higher end headphones. Whether or not that is placebo is unknown, but it does degrade the experience a slight bit. I personally find that they lack that extra "oomph," but not enough to make me take a few minutes to re-rip them.
 
How much do you personally think it matters, the loss of quality from flac lossless to 128 kpbs mp3? Is it enough to affect your enjoyment or judgement on equipment? After all, one of the first questions asked when someone voices a different, negative opinion on a pair of headphones is "are you listening to flac lossless files? Make sure you listen to high quality audio or else everyone will disregard everything you say. High quality audio makes a large difference and can trick you into thinking gold is garbage."

 

[nintendoeats]

 
Yeah, I also have some songs that were ripped terribly from many years ago. I didn't care back then, but now, I can hear a clear difference.
 
To be honest, I still don't care. 128 kbps isn't "unbearable" like some people love to claim. I do tend to notice the lower quality more when using higher end headphones. Whether or not that is placebo is unknown, but it does degrade the experience a slight bit. I personally find that they lack that extra "oomph," but I still never bothered to take a few minutes to re-rip them.
 
How much do you personally think it matters, the loss of quality from flac lossless to 128 kpbs mp3? Is it enough to affect your enjoyment or judgement on equipment, as one of the first questions asked when someone voices a different, negative opinion on a pair of headphones is, "Are you listening to flac lossless files? It makes a large difference."

Well, see my previous posts using ABX testing between MP3 and FLAC. There seems to be some evidence that there can be a smalldifference under laboratory conditions some of the time, and that's enough for me to use FLAC whenever possible. If I am testing a new piece of equipment I always do it with FLACS (though part of this is from now on will be that I don't know which MP3s are "clean"), but I think which speakers or headphones you use matters way more than source or amp, assuming that they have been matched appropriately.
 
Another test that I did yesterday was playing the same song through my Fiio X3II and E17 via a K5. I lined up both songs so that were at virtually the same position and just switched between them at will. There may have been a difference, but under those conditions I could not identify it reliably. I suspect that there was not. This test served me very well in demonstrating that the DAC in the kitchen CD player is terrible however.
 
Sorry, got a bit sidetracked there. As far as I can tell properly encoded MP3 vs FLAC should never be the difference between something sounding good or bad. Even any perceptible difference that exists will be incredibly minor. People suggesting that you need lossless to enjoy a set of headphones are, in all probability, mistaken.

 

[reginalb]

 
Well, see my previous posts using ABX testing between MP3 and FLAC. There seems to be some evidence that there can be a smalldifference under laboratory conditions some of the time, and that's enough for me to use FLAC whenever possible. If I am testing a new piece of equipment I always do it with FLACS (though part of this is from now on will be that I don't know which MP3s are "clean"), but I think which speakers or headphones you use matters way more than source or amp, assuming that they have been matched appropriately.
 
Another test that I did yesterday was playing the same song through my Fiio X3II and E17 via a K5. I lined up both songs so that were at virtually the same position and just switched between them at will. There may have been a difference, but under those conditions I could not identify it reliably. I suspect that there was not. This test served me very well in demonstrating that the DAC in the kitchen CD player is terrible however.
 
Sorry, got a bit sidetracked there. As far as I can tell properly encoded MP3 vs FLAC should never be the difference between something sounding good or bad. Even any perceptible difference that exists will be incredibly minor. People suggesting that you need lossless to enjoy a set of headphones are, in all probability, mistaken.

 
Indeed, a poorly encoded 128k is not the same as a LAME 320k MP3, or a VBR 256K AAC. That said, I use FLAC for a few reasons:
 

• It's open source, and that gives me warm fuzzies
• It's supported on nearly all current audio devices - I realized that I had quite a bit of ogg on my ZX1. The native player doesn't support Ogg, so it didn't see those 800 some files. I don't know a recent MP3 player that can't play FLAC. Even a lot of phones can now. [EDIT: yes, U-3C of course mentions Apple, so when I say I don't know a recent MP3 player, I guess that excludes the largest player in the space. Oops. I forget about Apple because I don't use their devices, haha]
• FLAC includes a checksum, so you can easily and quickly make sure that your collection doesn't have any corruptions
• At 16/44.1, the files aren't that big, and I have plenty of space for them, since I rarely buy albums any way

 
I'd probably encode in 256k VBR AAC using Apple's encoder, if it made it easier to transcode in bulk. 
 
EDIT: Because grammar

 

[U-3C]

That said, I use FLAC for a couples reasons:

1. It's open source, and that gives me warm fuzzies
2. It's supported on nearly all current audio devices - I realized that I had quite a bit of ogg on my ZX1. The native player doesn't support Ogg, so it didn't see those 800 some files. I don't know a recent MP3 player that can't play FLAC. Even a lot of phones can now.
3. FLAC includes a checksum, so you can easily and quickly make sure that your collection doesn't have any corruptions
4. At 16/44.1, the files aren't that big, and I have plenty of space for them, since I rarely buy albums any way

I'd probably encode in 256k VBR AAC using Apple's encoder, if it made it easier to transcode in bulk. 

1. Dem warm fuzzies~
2. Apple, I hate you.
3. Yay!
4. Apple, I hate you. Add expansion options like a micro SD card slot and we can be friends again.