[Fickle-Friend]

I have just been told this...

QUOTE: "Any quality difference above 192Kbps AAC and Lossless is all in your head."

Is that true?

 

[akwok]

Usually the people who say that have 'crappy' sources to start with.

 

[lini]

Yes, of course it is - 'cause no brain = no hearing. So, yes, it's all in your head. Yours, that is - not mine. Mine is filled with cogwheels. Any more questions?

Grinnings from Hannover!

Manfred / lini

P.S.: If your hear a difference, there is a difference. Don't worry about what others hear.

 

[Melchior]

"All in your head", is probably the case most of the time. There are differences but I have a feeling most would not be able to tell if you could flip a switch and seamlessly go from AAC-lossless-AAC. I'm probably one of those people. This excludes obvious problems in the rip/encode though, I've heard some really horrid 192K rips and some pretty damn good 160k ones, 128k is pretty easy to spot, unless the original sounded bad already or you don't have the original to compare it to.

 

[elrod-tom]

I've done the test with 320K MP3's, and I picked correctly 8 out of 10 times. This was with tracks that I knew well, with very good equipment.

With my iRiver CD and MP3 player, it's almost impossible to tell. I'm thinking that's the issue - the quality of the source equipment especially.

 

[EdipisReks]

i have been able to double blind 320 AAC and Lossless. it's easy enough to do an experiment, you just need the help of a couple friends.

 

[MD1032]

I've been doing a big comparison lately between FLAC, MPC, MP3, and WAV. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between the four with max quality on each, but if you really stare at the re-decoded waveforms for a while, you can see subtle differences.

 

[akwok]

Again, it all depends on the quality of your source. If you use nothing more than a $20 sound card, then the difference will be neglible.

 

[EdipisReks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD1032 but if you really stare at the re-decoded waveforms for a while, you can see subtle differences.

it really depends on the song. if you do an overlay in some there are fairly large (meaning pretty tiny, but more than subtle) differences.

 

[Fickle-Friend]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks it really depends on the song. if you do an overlay in some there are fairly large (meaning pretty tiny, but more than subtle) differences.

What about an ipod?

 

[EdipisReks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fickle-Friend What about an ipod?

i don't know what you mean by that.

 

[Fickle-Friend]

sorry my mistake. Was ment to say what about using an ipod as source?

 

[EdipisReks]

for what i use my iPod for (well, used, as it died a week ago) i wouldn't put anything higher than standard quality LAME MP3 or 192 KBPS AAC on it. those formats are perfectly enjoyable even when used with a good amp and a set of ER-4S. hell, i'm listening to 192 KBPS AAC out of my Bithead and CD3000's right now and i'm enjoying it quite a bit.

 

[Fickle-Friend]

Cos with the advent of the new ipods, I'm thinking about getting the 60 gig one. Thing is I want the best possible quality files on there and no lossy format. So I should go no more than 192 Kbs AAC? How big does that make the average 70 min cd? I have about 600 CDs to upload.

 

[EdipisReks]

at 192 AAC, an hour is about 80mb.