[zazex]

what is the bitrate of itunes? Sounds fine to me.

Pretty sure that 256kps AAC is the current standard.

 

[zazex]

I think OP's question is interesting and more complex than it looks at first.
 
It comes in 2 parts >  the "worth" part, and then the "320kb" part.
And then it conflates the 2 parts.
 
 
The "worth" part: everyone, more or less, has their own idea of "worth".
Will 320kb files sound better in better headphones?
All else being equal?
To me, yes.  I'd guess "yes" to most people.  
So, for them, it would be "worth" investing more in "better" headphones.
 
Next - the 320kb part:
 
Do 320kb files sound as good through better headphones than higher bitrate files?
To me they don't - assuming very good recordings. I think lossless sound better.
 
But I'd guess that to most people, who listen to music for background or sheer pleasure
(as opposed to gearheads, musicians and the like analyzing every note) -
it doesn't make a difference.
 
 
Finally, it doesn't matter into which group one fits.
We're all valid in our music listening and preferences.
 
One doesn't have to listen to lossless files or CD's
simply because they exist.

 

[sonitus mirus]

No need to overthink it.  It is all just opinions, but if headphone A is generally considered to be an improvement to headphone B, this can be observed with 320 kbps content as well as lossless.  Maybe lossless sounds better than 320 kbps, but that difference would barely be a notch on the total scheme of things when the differences in the transducers are brought into play.

 

[pp312]

  I think OP's question is interesting and more complex than it looks at first.
 
It comes in 2 parts >  the "worth" part, and then the "320kb" part.
And then it conflates the 2 parts.
 
 

 
 
Wow. My head hurts.
 

 

[bzippy]

For those who don't already know about it, take your best gear over to the Philips Golden Ears Challenge. I am personally stuck at the mp3 quality test, and at the 128 Kbps level even - for shame! Anyway, it's pretty enlightening and might just change many of your opinions about lossless vs HBR MP3. I feel a little foolish now, having converted most of my library from 320 to lossless. Though as memory gets cheaper and cheaper, I guess there's no real downside to consuming 3x more space than you need.

 

[Brooko]

  I feel a little foolish now, having converted most of my library from 320 to lossless

 
Just a quick question - how did you 'convert' your 320 library to lossless?

 

[bzippy]

   
Just a quick question - how did you 'convert' your 320 library to lossless?

sorry, i shouldn't have used the word 'convert'. obviously that's impossible. no, i effing re-ripped and it was an effing pain in the ass! i'm actually not even 100% done yet.

 

[masterfuu]

320kbps is enough for most headphones especially if your listening with tube amp. It makes it forgiving and enjoyable listening experience. For those that do not have Spotify Premium I can highly recommend it.
 
Now if you move to extremely accurate HD800 and very detailed DAC/ AMP there can be slight difference between 320kbps and FLAC.   I switched to TIDAL without regrets. Its little pricy at $20 a month but if you enjoy this hobby as much as I do its not unreasonable. With TIDAL I can honestly say that its worth it and there is a difference you can hear... for example voices sound little clearer and there is a slightly greater detail and fuller sound compared to Spotify Premium.   The difference is maybe 5%.  So conclusion is that Spotify Premium is the minimum with FLAC being optimal.

 

[sonitus mirus]

 
sorry, i shouldn't have used the word 'convert'. obviously that's impossible. no, i effing re-ripped and it was an effing pain in the ass! i'm actually not even 100% done yet.

 
I was using FLAC to archive all my CDs.  With the FLAC archive, as the number of albums grew, I was having to find more space, and maintaining a backup is crucial, as I found out the hard way and lost everything in one of my frequent computer builds/upgrades.
 
Now I simply keep the CDs in storage as my archive, and I only use them to rip an MP3 to upload into Google to fill any gaps in my music that is not currently available to stream.  Once uploaded, they are available to me at all times wherever I have access to the internet, and these songs are perfectly integrated with the entire catalog of music available with the Google subscription.  I've only had to rip and upload a handful of CDs to cover some of the artist holdouts.  (Tool, Bob Seger, Beatles, and a smattering other favorites not currently available to stream)  I only have about 1000 songs uploaded, and Google will allow up to 50,000 of my own songs, so I have a long way to go before I run into any problems.

 

[Brooko]

  Now if you move to extremely accurate HD800 and very detailed DAC/ AMP there can be slight difference between 320kbps and FLAC. 

 
If you get a chance at some stage - take any of your flac files - and using something like dbpoweramp, convert to aac256 from the original master. Queue up the 2 files with Foobar2000's abx comparator - volume match and blind abx.  Won't matter how resolving the gear is - I'm yet to find anyone who can tell a difference (in a controlled blind test).  Had a guy (who is really good at abxing) try with a Stax 007 system. Couldn't pass. Essentially transparent. 

 

[bzippy]

   
I was using FLAC to archive all my CDs.  With the FLAC archive, as the number of albums grew, I was having to find more space, and maintaining a backup is crucial, as I found out the hard way and lost everything in one of my frequent computer builds/upgrades.
 
Now I simply keep the CDs in storage as my archive, and I only use them to rip an MP3 to upload into Google to fill any gaps in my music that is not currently available to stream.  Once uploaded, they are available to me at all times wherever I have access to the internet, and these songs are perfectly integrated with the entire catalog of music available with the Google subscription.  I've only had to rip and upload a handful of CDs to cover some of the artist holdouts.  (Tool, Bob Seger, Beatles, and a smattering other favorites not currently available to stream)  I only have about 1000 songs uploaded, and Google will allow up to 50,000 of my own songs, so I have a long way to go before I run into any problems.

streaming -- no i'm definitely not there yet. i still have the wall of CD's in my living room and play them on my main system more often than not. but my goal is to keep archiving them to lossless and then someday load it all into an NAS and move the wall of CD's into storage. the only real question is: which player to get for my main system? i want it to be as simple and user friendly as using a CD player on my home system. that is, remote control, large display with easy browsing, and either a good quality DAC or digital out to my receiver's DAC. perhaps some version of the Squeezebox, right? (but this is for another thread)

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
If you get a chance at some stage - take any of your flac files - and using something like dbpoweramp, convert to aac256 from the original master. Queue up the 2 files with Foobar2000's abx comparator - volume match and blind abx.  Won't matter how resolving the gear is - I'm yet to find anyone who can tell a difference (in a controlled blind test).  Had a guy (who is really good at abxing) try with a Stax 007 system. Couldn't pass. Essentially transparent. 

 
I would suggest using the iTunes AAC encoder for any ABX testing instead of the Fraunhofer version available through dBpoweramp's codec central.  The FDK appear to apply a slight boost to the bass and treble that can be identified by some.  I can fly through the 15 trials that Tidal Music offers online with a perfect score in under 3 minutes.  There is a measurable difference that was captured between the Tidal FLAC and Tidal AAC 320, and this could be reproduced when converting AAC  using dBpoweramp, but not with iTunes.  It may have already been resolved, but it might be worth testing.
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/2n4zm5/my_apologies_to_tidal_with_a_caveat/

 

[Headzone]

  For those who don't already know about it, take your best gear over to the Philips Golden Ears Challenge. I am personally stuck at the mp3 quality test, and at the 128 Kbps level even - for shame! Anyway, it's pretty enlightening and might just change many of your opinions about lossless vs HBR MP3. I feel a little foolish now, having converted most of my library from 320 to lossless. Though as memory gets cheaper and cheaper, I guess there's no real downside to consuming 3x more space than you need.

I was stuck at that too. I think the source file sucks. But once I learned to listen to the right part I noticed that the "artifacted" sounded terrible in comparison.
 
edit: to my surprise the difference was not so much on high frequencies that I focused on, but vocal/overall dynamics..

 

[Sonic Defender]

   
If you get a chance at some stage - take any of your flac files - and using something like dbpoweramp, convert to aac256 from the original master. Queue up the 2 files with Foobar2000's abx comparator - volume match and blind abx.  Won't matter how resolving the gear is - I'm yet to find anyone who can tell a difference (in a controlled blind test).  Had a guy (who is really good at abxing) try with a Stax 007 system. Couldn't pass. Essentially transparent. 

100% agree. I would bet that the VAST majority of those who say they can hear differences have not actually tested this assumption with enough rigor to have confidence in their claim. I would stake a great deal on that statement. Even when the few I have encountered attempted to do so in blind listening tests, often the tests were still poorly controlled, and most often in conjunction they simply do not do enough trials. As you said, with a 320 file compared against the lossless master it came from, good luck telling them apart reliably. ​

 

[zazex]

An important part of the issue is whether you can tell that you're hearing a difference - or not.
You might think you're hearing a difference (between let's say 320 and FLAC) - but you might
not be able to quite pin down what the difference is.  
 
I say that if you're not certain, you'll want the better files.  It's worth owning "the real thing" i.e. lossless,
as technology moves apace,
 
 
A 320K file is, at its core, only an ersatz "complete" file.  In a strong sense it's actually therefore defective.
People wonder and dither and argue about whether the 320K file sounds "as good" as a lossless file.
With lossless, there's none of that.  It's complete, true, and right.
[IMO]