[Somnambulist]

Oh, and my set-up's in my sig. I have most things in FLAC, but some stuff e.g. mixtapes are mp3 as that is all they are made available online as. It's mainly in FLAC because I'm too lazy to convert everything, even if I do most of the listening in situations where it's not just me and the music. The nature of the player using microSD's as well means because I have to swap them about, I don't really think in terms of storage space used, where as if I had, say, a fixed 32GB HDD player I'd probably make the effort to make lossy copies in order to fit as much on there as I could.

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

Some folks use portables for "reference" listening, and others for convenience. I am squarely in the latter category.
 
I have two iPods -- a 160GB Classic filled with 320k rips of my home ALAC library, and a Rockboxed 5.5Gen 80GB that I use for downloaded FLAC files (mostly acquired via BitTorrent). The lossy Classic library allows me to have the vast majority of my home library with me -- I'm a very moody listener -- and the Rockboxed 5.5Gen makes it easy to drag and drop newly downloaded FLACs. I currently listen via Grado SR60s (at the office) and Grado GR8s (on the road) and am very happy with the sound quality I enjoy respective to the convenience of my two players.
 
For "reference" listening at home with the pricey gear, it's all ALAC (when I'm in the digital world) except for a very few lossy downloads.
 
Now, if I had some JH13s or something similar and expected reference-quality listening with a portable, I probably wouldn't use an iPod, and I certainly wouldn't use lossy rips. But for my use, 320k rips and the ease-of-use of the iPod is a great combination.

 

[uofmtiger]

 
Quote:

 Some folks use portables for "reference" listening, and others for convenience. I am squarely in the latter category.

I do both.  I think it really just depends on what you use for a player.  Like I mentioned, on my iPhone 3GS, I have millions of songs available via Rhapsody.  This falls squarely in the convenience category and I want to listen to stuff I don't own category.  I can also stream my entire library of songs via Jukefly and I subscribe to SiriusXM.  Needless to say, these are not lossless formats and I listen to them a lot for background music.  However, the iPhone also has its own storage.  Since I will occasionally have time to listen closely (airplanes, waiting rooms, lunch breaks, etc..) I like to have lossless for those times.  I also have an iPad that has those same sources and choices assuming I am in wifi range.
 
As for my 160GB iPod.  It is hooked to my car via an iPod adapter and I can control it with the steering wheel controls or head unit.  I thought about creating a separate library for 256kbps mp3s, but it just isn't worth the time to trancode thousands of songs, especially when I would not be able to fit all of my music on there at that bitrate anyway.  Of course, when I travel out of town by car, I can just pull the iPod out of the car and use it when I am at the hotel if I want more "reference" quality material. 
 

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uofmtiger /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I thought about creating a separate library for 256kbps mp3s, but it just isn't worth the time to trancode thousands of songs, especially when I would not be able to fit all of my music on there at that bitrate anyway. 
 

I used to struggle mightily with this same issue. A few months back, I found Doug Adams' Lossless to AAC Workflow script for iTunes. Works like a charm and completely eliminates the need for a separate iPod lossy library. The big dump of about 150GB worth of AACs took three nights to finish. Every so often, I compare the Date Added column on my iPod to that of my home iTunes library. Highlight the new tunes not yet on my iPod, start the script, and come back a while later. A great utility.

 

[eric0531]

I used to obsess about only using Lossless on my iPod Classic, until I used the Foobar ABX Comparator to do a double-blind listening test to determine if I could hear the difference between lossless and LAME -V0 versions of the same music.  I couldn't.  Now I only keep lossless on the PC for home listening, and my Classic and iPhone both get LAME -V0 versions - the Classic for listening around the house or when travelling, and the iPhone for my commute and other mobile uses. 

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

Hello, I am fairly new to the whole audiophile thing, esp the portable side of things, but I am wondering:

How many of you people are listening to lossless audio files on your portable players?

I have an iPod Classic 160Gb and almost insist on buying all my music on cd so I can copy the music down to iTunes via Apple's lossless encoder.

I am wondering because ya'all are using very high-quality (and expensive) headphones and portable amps, lod's, etc, but a lot of you seem to be using small-capacity music players, like 8Gb Sansa's, etc - which would make using large digital audio files difficult.

Some people say that they can't hear a difference or that it isn't neccesary for portable devices. I think this is true unless you get some really good portable equipment with very good headphones.
 
I can hear a difference and right now I'm using T51 mini mini iBasso PB1 Blue-Dragon K702s // ER4S. I think that for aportable setup, to hear the differences, you're going to have to get some very good phones, but if you do you will be able to hear the differences. 
 

 

[Hero Kid]

You don't even need "very good phones", all they need to do is support upwards of 16kHz which most do. The most important thing is your ears/hearing.
Without that being up to par it's no use.

 

[poloman]

I find it funny that Ray over at RSA says, " Get an Ipod Classic, RSA protector, and JH13's and ripp in ALAC, nothing is better I promise you" That was quoted from a phone conversation I had with him. Is this not true? He also said not to listen to the 13 year olds on here. Is this true also? Are there "grown ups" on this site or not? I would like to know if these are true statements.

 

[usf09]

Quote:

I find it funny that Ray over at RSA says, " Get an Ipod Classic, RSA protector, and JH13's and ripp in ALAC, nothing is better I promise you" That was quoted from a phone conversation I had with him. Is this not true? He also said not to listen to the 13 year olds on here. Is this true also? Are there "grown ups" on this site or not? I would like to know if these are true statements.

Never take one person's advice as the unequivocal truth on a matter. That applies to anything Ray says as well. There are plenty of members here with a wealth of information to share, and a minority of them are young teens, though Ray seemed to have stated otherwise. Find out several members' opinions, make sure you aren't falling into an impulse buy of a flavor-of-the-month product, and watch out for the fanboys who do not acknowledge the possibility of different equipment being better than their own. Take your time, read a lot of posts and threads before buying anything, and you'll be happy you used this site. I'm just saying, don't take any one members' opinion as the end-all explanation...

 

[nonsupremous]

I personally have just a couple of cd's on my ipod in a lossles format.  I really believe most people cannot tell the difference between 256kbps and lossles audio.  I can't tell for the most part.  Not on an ipod with a decent amp and a couple hundred dollar pair of headphones.  If I am in a very quiet place with nothing going on around me so that all my focus is on the music, there is a a small difference for me.  Now it's quite possible that my hearing has been affected over the years by my destructive listening habits.  My 20's was like one long rock concert. 
 
I also subscribe the theory of garbage in, garbage out.  There are some cds that are recorded so poorly it wouldn't matter if it was put on your portable in 128 or lossles.  Take Metalica's newest cd.  It was recorded somewhere in the neighborhood of 92 to 95 db.  It wouldn't matter if it was encoded at 128 or lossles.  It's overmodulated and poorly recorded no matter what.  Although I'm not a fan, I always like to listen to Michael Jackson when I am testing new headphones.  The recordings are always high quality and there is lots of detail sprinkled all through the music. 
 
I say for those out there that have not killed their hearing over their lifetime, then lossles is defintely the way to go.  For those out there that are like me, the difference isn't enough to make a big difference. 

 

[bluntman]

Would .WMA Lossless be considered as good as FLAC?
 
 
EDIT: I don't bother to burn in .FLAC through winamp because I like to put my music on my zune too...so I burn in .WMA Lossless and put it on my zune.

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

I personally have just a couple of cd's on my ipod in a lossles format.  I really believe most people cannot tell the difference between 256kbps and lossles audio.  I can't tell for the most part.  Not on an ipod with a decent amp and a couple hundred dollar pair of headphones.  If I am in a very quiet place with nothing going on around me so that all my focus is on the music, there is a a small difference for me.  Now it's quite possible that my hearing has been affected over the years by my destructive listening habits.  My 20's was like one long rock concert. 
 
I also subscribe the theory of garbage in, garbage out.  There are some cds that are recorded so poorly it wouldn't matter if it was put on your portable in 128 or lossles.  Take Metalica's newest cd.  It was recorded somewhere in the neighborhood of 92 to 95 db.  It wouldn't matter if it was encoded at 128 or lossles.  It's overmodulated and poorly recorded no matter what.  Although I'm not a fan, I always like to listen to Michael Jackson when I am testing new headphones.  The recordings are always high quality and there is lots of detail sprinkled all through the music. 
 
I say for those out there that have not killed their hearing over their lifetime, then lossles is defintely the way to go.  For those out there that are like me, the difference isn't enough to make a big difference. 

Very nice post man, I agree with your overall statement on the matter. I used to obsess over ripping in flac or getting flac versions of rock/hardcore/hip hop/electronic/pop music for my system but lately I just said "screw it" and have been getting 320kbs mp3s. 
 
However for natural music (acoustic, classical, vocal) er, stuff where you need to pay attention to detail, I always get lossless.

 

[bluntman]

Good post, very informative! That does it for me.
 
Quote:

Very nice post man, I agree with your overall statement on the matter. I used to obsess over ripping in flac or getting flac versions of rock/hardcore/hip hop/electronic/pop music for my system but lately I just said "screw it" and have been getting 320kbs mp3s. 
 
However for natural music (acoustic, classical, vocal) er, stuff where you need to pay attention to detail, I always get lossless.

 

[Young Spade]

NP. But dont' get me wrong: given the chance I ALWAYS get lossless formatted music because it sounds better to me. Do I ABX my files? Nope. However knowing that I am getting the highest quality from my source is good enough for me. 
 
I just don't sit down and critically listen to those other genres so the lossless format isn't needed however it IS wanted

 

[poloman]

Thanks! That's what I was hoping to here

 
Quote:

Never take one person's advice as the unequivocal truth on a matter. That applies to anything Ray says as well. There are plenty of members here with a wealth of information to share, and a minority of them are young teens, though Ray seemed to have stated otherwise. Find out several members' opinions, make sure you aren't falling into an impulse buy of a flavor-of-the-month product, and watch out for the fanboys who do not acknowledge the possibility of different equipment being better than their own. Take your time, read a lot of posts and threads before buying anything, and you'll be happy you used this site. I'm just saying, don't take any one members' opinion as the end-all explanation...