[Frankt87]

Hi everyone. As the title says, I need some good suggestions about which format is the most convenient for my DAP.

First, some informations about my equipment. I mainly use a brand new Ruizu A50 (with a 256 gb SD card), which has a great compatibility with various formats (it can even read DSD files). Regarding headphones, I use a pair of Superlux HD681B, Liam & Daan Swan and KZ Z65.

My huge library (more than 180 gb) is entirely ripped in AAC 320kbs, VBR. I'm slowing starting to rip my CD collections in Flac, but I'm really conflicted about which kind of format use on my player. I generally can notice a really subtle difference between lossless files and mp3 files, while I rarely can tell the difference with aac. (Many people say that even aac 256 is a good format)

Going straight to the point, I'd like to know if, given my actual setup, 16 bit or 24 bit flac would be just a waste of space, or if I could have a real improvement. ). I actually can fit my whole aac library in my sd card, but I would be ready to sacrifice some space just in case.

Is 320 aac a good compromise between space and quality?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Whazzzup]

I’m no tech dude but flac 16 bit 44.1 min running bit perfect is what you want. Convert to flac. Apple lossless is ok. Concerning higher pcm frequencies, or dsd, or higher bit rates depends on your entire rig, your audio perception, and hard drive space, dsd 64 albums can be huge, like 2-5 gigs

 

[Frankt87]

Thank

I’m no tech dude but flac 16 bit 44.1 min running bit perfect is what you want. Convert to flac. Apple lossless is ok. Concerning higher pcm frequencies, or dsd, or higher bit rates depends on your entire rig, your audio perception, and hard drive space, dsd 64 albums can be huge, like 2-5 gigs

Thank you I exclude dsd files because they're really huge. I tried some 24 bit files but I guess my equipment it's too basic, so it's not worth it. Flac 16 bit seems to be the best choice. My question takes place from a doubt: are my player and headphones good enough for a noticeable improvement with flacs or I should I stay with lossy files?

 

[buke9]

If you can hear a difference even small that you say I would just go with Flac then for the rips at 16 bit anything higher is silly as they are 16 bit 44.1 kHz to start with and all you will do is increase the size at anything higher than that and will not increase the sound quality .

 

[Whazzzup]

If you can hear a difference even small that you say I would just go with Flac then for the rips at 16 bit anything higher is silly as they are 16 bit 44.1 kHz to start with and all you will do is increase the size at anything higher than that and will not increase the sound quality .

Off the top correct and depends on your ear acuity. But, if you have a great source, I don’t think this dap is onetho, and your end to end. One can identify differences on frequency pcm and or say dsd128. I prefer 16bit 384 in my rig. I’m not sure if I can tell the difference in bit rates tho.... then again I’m no golden ear, and ymmv and all that.

Ps, I’m referring to up sampling through a server, hi res is another thang, I’m converting lossless to flac, it’s good enough, and cheap.

 

[buke9]

Off the top correct and depends on your ear acuity. But, if you have a great source, I don’t think this dap is onetho, and your end to end. One can identify differences on frequency pcm and or say dsd128. I prefer 16bit 384 in my rig. I’m not sure if I can tell the difference in bit rates tho.... then again I’m no golden ear, and ymmv and all that.

Ps, I’m referring to up sampling through a server, hi res is another thang, I’m converting lossless to flac, it’s good enough, and cheap.

Yes hearing acuity does have something to do with it but still say rip your cd’s to flac 16bit 44.1 and you can’t go wrong if you have the space. Even if you can’t hear too much difference now you might later upgrade and you won’t have to re-rip them.

 

[Monsterzero]

For a portable player I'd go with 320 mp3s. I have mostly lossless on my desktop system,but lossless,especially 24 bit takes up huge amounts of space. Most 24 bit songs are over 100 mbs
16 bit can be upward of 40-50mbs per file.

 

[tomb]

Store in a lossless format, period - no upsampling - it's pointless. However, a FLAC conversion should be a fully lossless compression, but it needs to be the same quality bitrate and sampling rate as the original. A Redbook CD would convert to 16 bit, 44.1kHz FLAC. If you go Hi-Res, then whatever bit rate and sampling rate that was used - convert it to FLAC if it's not already. To be honest, I haven't found anything higher than 24-bit, 192kHz, even though there are USB boards and DACs that claim 32-bit and 384kHz. Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places.

P.S. Even if you can't tell the difference now, you will eventually if you continue in this hobby. I can tell the difference almost immediately with great equipment. With so-so equipment, not so much. However, as long as you're collecting music anyway - might as well get it as high-quality as you can, so that you know you have no limitations in your source.

There are enough issues with trying to upgrade/improve all the other components in your audio chain. This is one that you can eliminate quickly - up front and forever.

 

[buke9]

Store in a lossless format, period - no upsampling - it's pointless. However, a FLAC conversion should be a fully lossless compression, but it needs to be the same quality bitrate and sampling rate as the original. A Redbook CD would convert to 16 bit, 44.1kHz FLAC. If you go Hi-Res, then whatever bit rate and sampling rate that was used - convert it to FLAC if it's not already. To be honest, I haven't found anything higher than 24-bit, 192kHz, even though there are USB boards and DACs that claim 32-bit and 384kHz. Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places.

P.S. Even if you can't tell the difference now, you will eventually if you continue in this hobby. I can tell the difference almost immediately with great equipment. With so-so equipment, not so much. However, as long as you're collecting music anyway - might as well get it as high-quality as you can, so that you know you have no limitations in your source.

There are enough issues with trying to upgrade/improve all the other components in your audio chain. This is one that you can eliminate quickly - up front and forever.

I have yet found music higher than 24 192 either (other than DSD and just hate that I said it) but I’m sure there is a couple just to show it can be be done .

 

[PointyFox]

Differences in anything higher quality than 16 bit 44.1kHz can't be perceived by humans.

 

[megabigeye]

Hi everyone. As the title says, I need some good suggestions about which format is the most convenient for my DAP.

First, some informations about my equipment. I mainly use a brand new Ruizu A50 (with a 256 gb SD card), which has a great compatibility with various formats (it can even read DSD files). Regarding headphones, I use a pair of Superlux HD681B, Liam & Daan Swan and KZ Z65.

My huge library (more than 180 gb) is entirely ripped in AAC 320kbs, VBR. I'm slowing starting to rip my CD collections in Flac, but I'm really conflicted about which kind of format use on my player. I generally can notice a really subtle difference between lossless files and mp3 files, while I rarely can tell the difference with aac. (Many people say that even aac 256 is a good format)

Going straight to the point, I'd like to know if, given my actual setup, 16 bit or 24 bit flac would be just a waste of space, or if I could have a real improvement. ). I actually can fit my whole aac library in my sd card, but I would be ready to sacrifice some space just in case.

Is 320 aac a good compromise between space and quality?

Thank you in advance.

Why don't you try converting a few files to different formats/bit rates and see if you can hear a difference?
While you're at it, you should check how much space each file takes up relative to each other. My guess is lossless is gong to be close to 3 times as large as a 256kbs AAC and about twice as large as 320kbps. (I just checked with one of my files, and ALAC takes up 27.6MB, while 256kbps is only 8.9MB... So nearly 3x exactly. Though if memory serves FLAC is slightly smaller than ALAC.) Your 256MB card probably wouldn't be sufficient.

Also, I believe that lossless generally uses more processor/battery power than compressed, so your DAP might not play as long. This used to be true in the days of iPods, I don't know if this holds true for newer DAPs. At any rate, nobody mentions it much anymore because they're so hung up on getting the best sound.

Also, also consider how you'll be using your DAP. Most people test their equipment and hearing in quiet places, but with portable gear this isn't always how it's used. If you're mostly going to use it out and about-- commuting to work, walking the dog, concentrating on something else, etc.-- there's often so much ambient noise that you won't be able to hear any difference at all between different formats. Something that's subtly better while you're sitting in you living room listening carefully won't be noticeable at all as soon as you step outdoors. You might be surprised at how much ambient noise there is outdoors, even when you don't notice it.

Also, also, also, think about how closely you're actually going to be listening. I can kind of, sort of, if I use my imagination and concentrate real hard hear a difference between ALAC and 256 AAC, but as soon as I start getting into the music that difference fades away. Maybe you listen more closely than I do, I don't know.

Personally, I use 256kbps AAC on my phone and rip everything to ALAC at home. It saves space, it saves battery, and I really don't think I'm missing much of anything.
But that's just me.

 

[buke9]

Differences in anything higher quality than 16 bit 44.1kHz can't be perceived by humans.

I do not agree with this. So you are saying that cd’s have more information than a vinyl album?

 

[PointyFox]

I do not agree with this. So you are saying that cd’s have more information than a vinyl album?

Information isn't the same as quality. Once the digital file is processed, it becomes analog like vinyl and possesses as much information necessary to achieve highest perceived quality. Also past this point you could have more "quality" but it wouldn't be detectable due to how humans work. For example, 44.1 kHz can reproduce frequencies up to about 22 kHz perfectly (without aliasing per the Nyquist Theorem), which is already beyond the hearing of humans.

 

[Frankt87]

Differences in anything higher quality than 16 bit 44.1kHz can't be perceived by humans.

Interesting. I actually perceive a difference between 24 bit albums and standard 16 bit-flacs. But I'm pretty sure the difference regards only the volume level. So I guess that the quality of the master matters more than the actual bitrate. I probably compared original 16 bit files with 24 bit remastered albums.

 

[Brooko]

Allow me to present a somewhat different view.

The above good people will tell you what they can (anecdotally) hear - but the real question is what you can. And there is a very easy way to test. Here's the link

Its a pretty old post now - but the methodology is still valid and all the software is free. All it takes is time. Then you can tell accurately what format meets your personal threshold. I'd be willing to bet (if you do the tests properly) you won't tell the difference (when properly volume matched and from the same master) between aac256 and FLAC. The reason I say that is because so far - no-one who has tested properly can. I had one person claim to me they could, and I was lucky enough to be in Europe at the time, so I offered to visit and be the independent variable. The person declined. One of the members we originally tested with (all honesty based) was a 20yo with a Stax SR007(2). He could successfully abx mp3 320 killer samples with lossless, so he knew what to listen for, and his hearing was fantastic (unlike mine - age related). He gave up after a week testing with aac 256. To him it was transparent.

So my advice - ignore everyone else (including me). Test your own threshold. And if you find that it is perfectly transparent at aac256 - rejoice (like I have). Rip your master library in FLAC (so you always have a lossless copy), and have your portable library in aac256 (or whatever hits your own personal transparency).

Most people who "claim" to have performed proper abxs (in my experience), and claim they can tell the differences .....

1. Haven't OR
2. Haven't ripped properly from the same master OR
3. Haven't volume matched.

And fully ignore anyone who says they can do it "easily" or that its "night and day"

The differences are in fact extremely small - and the compression algorithms are designed so we can't tell the difference. AAC happens to be very, very good.

IMO of course