[estreeter]

Quote:

I did some FLAC-to-ALAC conversion when I got my Classic.....not for the whole FLAC library, but for some favorites. Any other DAP I use high-grade lossy files on, but with the Classic I had plenty of space.

 
Hey, it will be seen as heresy here, but I am quiet happy with 256K AAC downloads for most of my pop/rock - it's not the end of the world if you cant hear Keith Richard's string break near the end of 'Jumpin Jack Flash' ..... 

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

 
Hey, it will be seen as heresy here, but I am quiet happy with 256K AAC downloads for most of my pop/rock - it's not the end of the world if you cant hear Keith Richard's string break near the end of 'Jumpin Jack Flash' ..... 

It may be seen as heresy by many here, but I look at it as simply being rational. 

 

[tds101]

Hey, it will be seen as heresy here, but I am quiet happy with 256K AAC downloads for most of my pop/rock - it's not the end of the world if you cant hear Keith Richard's string break near the end of 'Jumpin Jack Flash' ..... 

I agree,...you're using common sense. We don't need to prove anything to anyone but ourselves. I applaud your honesty. I personally use 192kbps VBR LAME/mp3. Works fantastic for me.

 

[gavinfabl]

I agree the recording bit is only relevant if you can tell the difference. Plus there is a balance between memory, quality used and number of tracks you can get on a device.

I use 320 bit as its a good balance between good quality and practicality. However, for the first time I can tell the difference of a 256 bit rate vs 320 since using my new Sennheiser Amperior headphones. Would I change anything though. No. Not worth it.

 

[Ramthrax]

Quote:

And how are you listening to FLACs on all these iPods/iPads? I know there is an app for the iOS models that lets you play FLAC, but there isn't for the Classic...

 
Quote:

It really depends on which Classic you have, many have returned back from the 160 GIG back to the older/smaller memory versions thinking it was better SQ.This of course would only mainly matter if you were using the I-pod internal DAC and not sending to an external DAC/AMP combo.
 
Are you using Rockbox for FLAC replay?

 
RockBox all the way guys! It's so awesome!!!

 

[ExpatinJapan]

Quote:

 
 
RockBox all the way guys! It's so awesome!!!

Meh, I would rather use flacplayer app on my touch/iphones and just use ALAC on my ipod 5g.

 

[Ramthrax]

Quote:

Meh, I would rather use flacplayer app on my touch/iphones and just use ALAC on my ipod 5g.

I actually do use FLACPlayer on the iOS devices, It's just the Classic that can run Rockbox.

 

[burnspbesq]

Everybody's mileage varies, but I went for quality over quantity. My mobile files are 44.1/16 or 48/24 ALAC. I can carry about 150 full-length albums on a 64 gig device, and when I get bored I change the playlist.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Everybody's mileage varies, but I went for quality over quantity. My mobile files are 44.1/16 or 48/24 ALAC. I can carry about 150 full-length albums on a 64 gig device, and when I get bored I change the playlist

 
And I completely respect that - many of the files on my iTouch are ALAC, but the point I was making earlier is that I dont run screaming from the room if I am suddenly confronted with Belinda Carlisle warbling 'Leave a Light on for Me' via a compressed  lower bitrate download. Some of us are incredibly precious about such things.

 

[justanut]

Quote:

I agree the recording bit is only relevant if you can tell the difference. Plus there is a balance between memory, quality used and number of tracks you can get on a device.
I use 320 bit as its a good balance between good quality and practicality. However, for the first time I can tell the difference of a 256 bit rate vs 320 since using my new Sennheiser Amperior headphones. Would I change anything though. No. Not worth it.

 
Thats what I thought too till I ran tests using ABXTester for the Mac with 192 kb/s and ALAC tracks on my Ed8s... Couldn't tell any difference~ Zzz... But thats only on the computer system with the Dacport... maybe the conversion's so good it makes up for the lossy format I don't know. I still swear there's a difference on my iPod / iPhone though thats why I still stick to lossless... and change albums every other month

 

[audionewbi]

Cant believe no one sentence about the sound quality of this unit can be found in this thread -_-

 

[uelover]

Quote:

Cant believe no one sentence about the sound quality of this unit can be found in this thread -_-

Hahaha!

 

[qusp]

hmm, you read the thread?

 

[audionewbi]

Quote:

hmm, you read the thread

I did, from where I left off last time which was page 4. 

Here is my two cent on ipod nano vs ipad mini: iPod nano seem to have a stronger amp section than ipad mini. I had the chance to audition the mini and at full blast the mini did not made he music loud enough for me! However ipod nano does a fine job. Maybe it was the song variation that cause this. But all that aside the inference on mini is just darn perfect for music. SQ i cannot comment. 

 

[ronrad]

I just picked up a mini yesterday. For reference I have access to most major mobile phones through work my best portable all in one to date was a nexus s with voodoo sound. I also have a d10 cobra. I have an original iPad 1. With almost no listening time the iPad mini definitely seems well above the original in sound quality detail and soundstage on my iems. I was however slightly disappointed with the way it drove my um miracles at first listen. Might lend credence to the weaker amp theory as the miracles do better with more current from my understanding. However my ety hf3s sounded excellent out of it. Haven't had much chance to do real a/b listening yet with other sources though