[skeeder]

I find it sad that so many on this forum say they cannot tell.
 
My opinion is simply back up your music in the highest quality possible just in case something happens to your discs.  I've seen people rip things in Wav files, or just keep CD images around.
 
For playback I tend to favor FLAC, I don't have a ton of money in audio equipment, but you should be able to hear a difference.  If you cannot, I'd recommend listening to something that doesn't attempt to keep the volume above 11 for the whole time, Pink Floyd, Depeche Mode, Classical, you will hear a difference...plan and simply.
 
of course B&W 601's tend to not play nice with MP3's in comparison.

 

[bigshot]

It all depends on the codec and bitrate. It doesn't mean much to say that the difference is night and day if you're talking about an mp3 encoded at 96. But an AAC file at 256 is audibly identical for listening purposes. If you can hear a difference in direct A/B Comparison, you should try different settings or a different codec. It's worth keeping a lossless backup to prevent generation loss, but good quality lossy encodes are fine for playback on even the best systems.

 

[Alghazanth]

Quote:

It all depends on the codec and bitrate. It doesn't mean much to say that the difference is night and day if you're talking about an mp3 encoded at 96. But an AAC file at 256 is audibly identical for listening purposes. If you can hear a difference in direct A/B Comparison, you should try different settings or a different codec. It's worth keeping a lossless backup to prevent generation loss, but good quality lossy encodes are fine for playback on even the best systems.

The codec isn't all it is. You can't get past the fact that losing bitrate is simply losing quality in any part of a track that could use those extra bits.

 

[bigshot]

You can't hear each and every bit. Just because something is compressed in file size, it doesn't mean that it is noticeably inferior. The trick is to experiment for yourself with real world examples of encoding and find the level where compression becomes imperceptible. I did this myself and determined that 99% of the time AAC 192 was that point. I found one track where a massed string section began to artifact, but bumping it up to 256 corrected the problem. I encoded my entire library at 256 AAC and use it for my everyday listening and I haven't heard an artifact yet.

The thing that people don't understand is that compression problems are all related to artifacting... That weird digital gurgle or boxy sound that results from not having enough of a bitrate to define a sound. It isn't a "veil" or muffling of the sound overall. Compressed audio doesn't lead to "listening fatigue", and the only parts where the soundstage and transparency are affected are the specific areas of artifacting. Compression error is occasional glitches which become less and less frequent as you up the bitrate. If you determine the level where the bitrate is sufficient to reproduce the sound without artifacts, throwing more bitrate at it won't make it sound any better. Likewise, high end equipment won't "reveal" compression errors better than midrange systems. A glitch is a glitch. It isn't a subtle thing.

Those who claim to hear an overall difference in sound between compressed audio with high bitrates and uncompressed are not eliminating to chance of wishful thinking affecting their results.

 

[185717]

Flac is only worth it if you really like the artist or song for all that it matters and you guys do know that this thread started last year right??? Nice way to revive a thread lee730

 

[Alghazanth]

Quote:

You can't hear each and every bit. Just because something is compressed in file size, it doesn't mean that it is noticeably inferior. The trick is to experiment for yourself with real world examples of encoding and find the level where compression becomes imperceptible. I did this myself and determined that 99% of the time AAC 192 was that point. I found one track where a massed string section began to artifact, but bumping it up to 256 corrected the problem. I encoded my entire library at 256 AAC and use it for my everyday listening and I haven't heard an artifact yet.

The thing that people don't understand is that compression problems are all related to artifacting... That weird digital gurgle or boxy sound that results from not having enough of a bitrate to define a sound. It isn't a "veil" or muffling of the sound overall. Compressed audio doesn't lead to "listening fatigue", and the only parts where the soundstage and transparency are affected are the specific areas of artifacting. Compression error is occasional glitches which become less and less frequent as you up the bitrate. If you determine the level where the bitrate is sufficient to reproduce the sound without artifacts, throwing more bitrate at it won't make it sound any better. Likewise, high end equipment won't "reveal" compression errors better than midrange systems. A glitch is a glitch. It isn't a subtle thing.

Those who claim to hear an overall difference in sound between compressed audio with high bitrates and uncompressed are not eliminating to chance of wishful thinking affecting their results.

 
Please, listen to a fast track in any compressed file type with a high end pair of headphones. Then listen to that same track in lossless. If you don't notice the difference, congratulations, enjoy the saved space. For the majority of us, and I would dare to say ANYONE with a good system and good ears, the difference is there. I mean, it's not like I haven't tested it out hundreds of times. I know I couldn't hear the difference between 320kbps CBR and FLAC back when I had my D2000s+ sound card. But with anything I use now, it's extremely easy for me to tell.

 

[codeninja]

That's what's sad about the upgrade as well. I spend money to improve the audio quality. However, not all of fav albums are benefitting from it. Many do sound worse with more revealing system. Certainly, this hobby is affecting my music preference, and I'm not sure it's a good thing.

 

[bigshot]

Please, listen to a fast track in any compressed file type with a high end pair of headphones. Then listen to that same track in lossless.

The tempo of the music has nothing to do with how well it encodes. It has to do with the texture of the sound, not the speed. The sound that I have found is most difficult to encode is certain textures of massed strings... Strangely enough, the hardest track I found to encode without artifacting was a Decca Sammy Davis Jr song from the late 50s. It had barely perceptible artifacting at 192 AAC.

I've done extensive A/B line level matched testing of compressed files. The difference is difficult, if not impossible to detect. Here is a clue... If the sound is degraded by transcoding from a CD to a 320 LAME file format, reencoding it over and over should double the degradation with each generation of reencoding. By the time you get to five generations, the degradation will be 16 times the loss in one generation. How bad is 16 times? With an audio cassette, it would be a massive drop in sound quality even with the best tape and equipment. Give it a try and see what you get. I haven't done this with 320 MP3, but I have with 256 AAC. See if you discover what I discovered.

 

[185717]

Quote:

Quote:

Please, listen to a fast track in any compressed file type with a high end pair of headphones. Then listen to that same track in lossless.

The tempo of the music has nothing to do with how well it encodes. It has to do with the texture of the sound, not the speed. The sound that I have found is most difficult to encode is certain textures of massed strings... Strangely enough, the hardest track I found to encode without artifacting was a Decca Sammy Davis Jr song from the late 50s. It had barely perceptible artifacting at 192 AAC.

I've done extensive A/B line level matched testing of compressed files. The difference is difficult, if not impossible to detect. Here is a clue... If the sound is degraded by transcoding from a CD to a 320 LAME file format, reencoding it over and over should double the degradation with each generation of reencoding. By the time you get to five generations, the degradation will be 16 times the loss in one generation. How bad is 16 times? With an audio cassette, it would be a massive drop in sound quality even with the best tape and equipment. Give it a try and see what you get. I haven't done this with 320 MP3, but I have with 256 AAC. See if you discover what I discovered.

Cool, gotta try that out
 
 

 

[lee730]

Quote:

Flac is only worth it if you really like the artist or song for all that it matters and you guys do know that this thread started last year right??? Nice way to revive a thread lee730

I know the thread is old but if you honestly have a problem with that you wouldn't have bothered to have posted yourself. Its like watching a video on youtube you didn't like and then making a smart ass comment about it when you clearly should have just saved your time and moved on

 

[lee730]

I have to agree on both sides. On certain tracks the difference is much more noticeable between flac and high quality mp3 where the music is more dynamic and busy in general. Certain genres the benefit will be minimal to virtually no benefit (regardless if you can afford the space its a good idea to have your favorite songs backed up in lossless).

 

[audiogamma]

Yeah, might as well put all your music on a (n)TB external drive that you can drag and drop to a portable when needed. For EDM/trance I don't think FLAC is necessary as the source-quality isn't great to start with, but on classical and acoustic tracks the difference between 320 and FLAC is apparent to me. Drive space is dirt cheap nowadays (to state the obvious).

 

[lee730]

Quote:

Yeah, might as well put all your music on a (n)TB external drive that you can drag and drop to a portable when needed. For EDM/trance I don't think FLAC is necessary as the source-quality isn't great to start with, but on classical and acoustic tracks the difference between 320 and FLAC is apparent to me. Drive space is dirt cheap nowadays (to state the obvious).

You can actually get internal HD for a bit cheaper than external (but the convenience of external is well worth it as well), I got a 2 TB Green Caviar for around $90 dollars and that was mainly for my FLAC music. Once doing some critical listening to the flac files I had and comparing them to the same mp3 files, I was sold. Before I didn't buy into the FLAC bit and thought it was overkill but generally there is a difference.

 

[Angelbelow]

If you have the equipment and the storage for it, its an absolute must.

 

[Rishin]

For me, I'm happy with a 320 KBPS AAC file and a hard copy just for back up. The differences are slight to me between lossless and that so it's not a huge deal. I guess it depends on the music you listen to really.