RockStar2005
Headphoneus Supremus
Did you do blind listening, or you knew what the file playing was when you compared? I have played drums for over 30 years and I can't tell a difference with cymbals when they are high bitrate mp3 files. Anyway, not trying to get the format debate going, just trying to at least offer a different perspective for somebody who is considering the use of lossy files. Typically these people are told they will suffer a sonic penalty, and yes with a poor encoder such as was common back in the early days of mp3 encoding, or with low bitrate files there certainly can be some audible issues, but with a good encoder (and most today are quite good) and a high bitrate I just like to encourage people to test their assumptions.
Frankly the vast majority of my collection is in Flac or ALAC, ripped right from my CD collection, but I have some 320mp3 albums, and in the past when space was more of an issue for portable sources, I used 320mp3 and personally never suffered for it. Cheers.
I did my own blind testing a couple times on AAC vs. FLAC. Not sure if I did an mp3 one. I might have though. But the thing is, I wasn't trying to hear differences when I compared them. I would compare the mp3 version of a song I had with a CD-Quality or Hi-Res one, and many times the bass just sounded deeper and better on the latter ones. So I'd go back and forth several times to see if I was just imagining it, and it turned out I wasn't. I was actually fighting to prove myself wrong, but in the end I simply couldn't. lol
No that's cool. I'm NOT against lossy at all, b/c AAC is lossy too. I couldn't agree more that FLAC/ALAC sounds no different than AAC. We just differ on mp3s I guess. lol
Cheers my friend.