[truckdriver]

   
The funny thing about it is that you'll hear the differences if that is what you believe and you've never tested yourself properly (the incredible power of your brain).  However - after testing and knowing you stop worrying about the differences in file formats (knowing you can't differentiate anyway).  This then lets you just enjoy the music and the only question you need to answer then is if there is a better mastering of the album you want.
 
The other good thing for me (knowing my limitations) is if there is an album I can't get on easily CD, it's normally available on iTunes (aac256).  Now there is no hesitation buying the music I want to hear.

You're preaching to the choir brother. I use to swear I could hear the difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC. Maybe I could with the inferior software on my previous music player. Now with Viper4Android (V4A) on my Note 3, I will likely re-encoded all my CDs to 320 MP3 to save space.
 
After my experience with the HiFiMAN HM-802, I have zero interest in the 901. It's the same user interface. The 802 couldn't compete with my Note 3 (with V4A). On the 802 someone else chooses the sound signature for you with the various amp cards. It sounded good, but the Note 3 sounds better and more dynamic with way deeper sub-bass because I can choose the sound with various changes.

 

[Leonardo Drummond]

Im talking lossy vs loseless ive done plenty of abx lossles to lossy n its pretty obviouse the differance between flac n mp3

as for 320 vs 256 vbr theres much less of a differance if any.

so flac vs mp3 is my point. n to my ears mp3s sound closed in. I doubt even need to abx i know what lossy sounds like an I always confirm my supessions will spectrual readings

but as always thank u brooko. ny point is why listen to lossy when u a hm901. stick with lossless to get the most bang for ur buck :3

n do we need to visit the spl discussion again. I have the app for my android n yes i use it.

but truck also makes a great point

 
How were these tests conducted, and where did you get those mp3s? Have you conducted a test using a lossless file and an mp3 encoded with a good codec taken from a CD that you own?
 

   
The funny thing about it is that you'll hear the differences if that is what you believe and you've never tested yourself properly (the incredible power of your brain).  However - after testing and knowing you stop worrying about the differences in file formats (knowing you can't differentiate anyway).  This then lets you just enjoy the music and the only question you need to answer then is if there is a better mastering of the album you want.
 
The other good thing for me (knowing my limitations) is if there is an album I can't get on easily CD, it's normally available on iTunes (aac256).  Now there is no hesitation buying the music I want to hear.

 
There you go! Couldn't agree more.
 

   
I'm trusting you're referring to common sense, as opposed to sense of sound and pleasure.

 
You mean when I spoke about skepticism? If you do, then yes! What I mean is that I think it's incredible how people can sometimes strongly believe what they hear/see/feel even when they go against well estabilished "models" of reality and when the fragility of our senses is so well understood and documented.
 
An analogy would be like someone saying that they can hear a difference between, say, the black Marantz PM-11S3 and the gold one. This is an absurd example (or maybe not so much if we consider how things go sometimes...), but imagine that many people believe this. The observation is "they perceive a difference", and there would be several hypotheses to explain this, considering that we can't make a double blind test that would prove if their perception is correct for whatever reason. One would be them deducting that "there's a difference caused by an electromagnetic interference that happens because of the paint", which is highly unlikely since it goes against the established model of electronics, physics and so on and another would be "they're mistaken – their perception doesn't translate into reality and it's merely wishful thinking", a hypothesis that can be backed by many psychological studies.
 
Now change the paint thing for burn-in, extreme cables, ultra-high resolution formats and so on. I think it's incredible how so many people can choose the former hypothesis simply because they cannot conceive how they could possibly be wrong if they hear/see/feel something.

 

[Brooko]

  You're preaching to the choir brother. I use to swear I could hear the difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC. Maybe I could with the inferior software on my previous music player. Now with Viper4Android (V4A) on my Note 3, I will likely re-encoded all my CDs to 320 MP3 to save space.
 
After my experience with the HiFiMAN HM-802, I have zero interest in the 901. It's the same user interface. The 802 couldn't compete with my Note 3 (with V4A). On the 802 someone else chooses the sound signature for you with the various amp cards. It sounded good, but the Note 3 sounds better and more dynamic with way deeper sub-bass because I can choose the sound with various changes.

 

 
What I'd really like from a DAP is:

1. Very good SQ
2. Interface of an i-Device (along with bluetooth for vehicle/other connectivity)
3. Amp that allows driving up to 300 ohm cans (thinking DT880 / HD600 etc)
4. Battery life of at least 12-15 hours (preferably longer)
5. Either 150 or so Gb onboard, or expandable via mem cards
6. Quick indexing of library
7. Parametric equaliser
8. Low output impedance on the H/P out

 
Unfortunately while many come close - few deliver on everything, and if they do - the cost is exponential.  If Apple ever release a 128gb Touch with good SQ - I'd seriously consider just grabbing an Arrow (for the amplification) and calling it a day.  A bit bulky - but would solve all my wants in one hit. 

 

[soundbear]

Hey One-eyed Jack!  Hope you left room for a review of the DX90.   Seems like some X5 pre-orderers are jumping ship to Ibasso.

 

[fiascogarcia]

   

 
What I'd really like from a DAP is:

1. Very good SQ
2. Interface of an i-Device (along with bluetooth for vehicle/other connectivity)
3. Amp that allows driving up to 300 ohm cans (thinking DT880 / HD600 etc)
4. Battery life of at least 12-15 hours (preferably longer)
5. Either 150 or so Gb onboard, or expandable via mem cards
6. Quick indexing of library
7. Parametric equaliser
8. Low output impedance on the H/P out

 
Unfortunately while many come close - few deliver on everything, and if they do - the cost is exponential.  If Apple ever release a 128gb Touch with good SQ - I'd seriously consider just grabbing an Arrow (for the amplification) and calling it a day.  A bit bulky - but would solve all my wants in one hit. 

If the other DAP makers had the interface of an iDevice, you'd eliminate 75% of the posts on the DAP threads!!  

 

 

[Brooko]

  If the other DAP makers had the interface of an iDevice, you'd eliminate 75% of the posts on the DAP threads!!  

 

 
QFT

 

[Makiah S]

truth is subjected to are opinions. Ive abxd from golden ears. my buddy an i abxd tested each other n time n time again flac is noticeably better than mp3

thats long been established but even objective data is in the end subjected to ur opinion. For me the hm801 is all i need in a dap. For me flac is siperior to lossy. ive done all the objective testing n proven to my self what i believe is truth.

if u disagree so b it. so long as we both njoy the music. this is a hobby for me, Brooko n I agree on mny things n disagree on some as well n we both njoy our music. n both make valid recommendations. n we both have as much a chance to b wrong in our beliefs... but thats ok isnt it. now that said im off to go watch a movie

 

[Leonardo Drummond]

truth is subjected to are opinions. Ive abxd from golden ears. my buddy an i abxd tested each other n time n time again flac is noticeably better than mp3

thats long been established but even objective data is in the end subjected to ur opinion. For me the hm801 is all i need in a dap. For me flac is siperior to lossy. ive done all the objective testing n proven to my self what i believe is truth.

if u disagree so b it. so long as we both njoy the music. this is a hobby for me, Brooko n I agree on mny things n disagree on some as well n we both njoy our music. n both make valid recommendations. n we both have as much a chance to b wrong in our beliefs... but thats ok isnt it. now that said im off to go watch a movie

 
Well, in my opinion what we regard as "truth" is a representation of a certain state of reality, so there can be only one if we're talking about a condition of physical things, which is the case here.
 
Regardless, my question stands – I ask because you may have used a badly encoded mp3 for your tests. I remember a friend of mine was confident of lossless' superiority because he was listening to badly encoded mp3s. As soon as he used a good codec and converted a track from a CD that he owned himself, both to a FLAC and to an mp3 file, he realized that he could not, in fact, hear a difference as he previously thought. It's also not uncommon to find 128kbps files (or other inferior bitrates) that have been encoded to 320kbps. They're obviously still only have the 128kbps file's data.
 
And when you spoke about the Golden Ears, did you mean the Philips Challenge? I took it as well and passed this bit of the test with flying colours (I passed the whole thing, but a few other sections were difficult), but they only go to 160kbps which is very very easy to distinguish from a lossless file.

 

[Makiah S]

   
Well, in my opinion what we regard as "truth" is a representation of a certain state of reality, so there can be only one if we're talking about a condition of physical things, which is the case here.
 
Regardless, my question stands – I ask because you may have used a badly encoded mp3 for your tests. I remember a friend of mine was confident of lossless' superiority because he was listening to badly encoded mp3s. As soon as he used a good codec and converted a track from a CD that he owned himself, both to a FLAC and to an mp3 file, he realized that he could not, in fact, hear a difference as he previously thought. It's also not uncommon to find 128kbps files (or other inferior bitrates) that have been encoded to 320kbps. They're obviously still only have the 128kbps file's data.
 
And when you spoke about the Golden Ears, did you mean the Philips Challenge? I took it as well and passed this bit of the test with flying colours (I passed the whole thing, but a few other sections were difficult), but they only go to 160kbps which is very very easy to distinguish from a lossless file.

 
i did it with my own files, my point is these arguments are endless and pointless.
 
A large group of ppl feel that lossless is better audibly than mp3, it may be that in the last 5 years LAME has realeased a new mp3 codec that sounds better, but lame 3.99.3 is what I've been using and it is in my and others opionion not on que sonically with FLAC, or WAV or PCM
 
in addition the point of players like the hm901, or 701 or even the 601 or the Studio V Anniversy or the Fiio X5 or the AK 120/100/240 is the ability to play what we feel is a higher quality sound. If your opinion is that mp3 256 vbr is the same audibly than 24/92 Lossless, then there's not a whole lot of reason to own anything besides an iPod, which for mp3 sounds nice, or rather for aac sounds nice. And I agree that 256 aac is on par with 320 mp3s it's still lossy

 

[eke2k6]

   
i did it with my own files, my point is these arguments are endless and pointless.
 
A large group of ppl feel that lossless is better audibly than mp3, it may be that in the last 5 years LAME has realeased a new mp3 codec that sounds better, but lame 3.99.3 is what I've been using and it is in my and others opionion not on que sonically with FLAC, or WAV or PCM
 
in addition the point of players like the hm901, or 701 or even the 601 or the Studio V Anniversy or the Fiio X5 or the AK 120/100/240 is the ability to play what we feel is a higher quality sound. If your opinion is that mp3 256 vbr is the same audibly than 24/92 Lossless, then there's not a whole lot of reason to own anything besides an iPod, which for mp3 sounds nice, or rather for aac sounds nice. And I agree that 256 aac is on par with 320 mp3s it's still lossy

 
My question is this. Did you convert these files from the FLAC file you're using for comparison?

As for your second point, I find it invalid. A Ferrari would still smoke a Prius in a race if the Enzo was equipped with 87 octane fuel.

 

[Leonardo Drummond]

   
i did it with my own files, my point is these arguments are endless and pointless.
 
A large group of ppl feel that lossless is better audibly than mp3, it may be that in the last 5 years LAME has realeased a new mp3 codec that sounds better, but lame 3.99.3 is what I've been using and it is in my and others opionion not on que sonically with FLAC, or WAV or PCM
 
in addition the point of players like the hm901, or 701 or even the 601 or the Studio V Anniversy or the Fiio X5 or the AK 120/100/240 is the ability to play what we feel is a higher quality sound. If your opinion is that mp3 256 vbr is the same audibly than 24/92 Lossless, then there's not a whole lot of reason to own anything besides an iPod, which for mp3 sounds nice, or rather for aac sounds nice. And I agree that 256 aac is on par with 320 mp3s it's still lossy

 
I see, then.
 
Note, however, that I never said anything about 256kbps VBR. As I said before in this topic, I find the difference between lossless and anything below 320kbps to be detectable; I can consistently differentiate a 256kbps from a 320kbps or lossless file. But if you're saying that you can consistently tell a lossless file and a 320kbps apart reliably and consistently in relatively controlled ABX tests... more power to you! I can't

 

[Brooko]

truth is subjected to are opinions. Ive abxd from golden ears. my buddy an i abxd tested each other n time n time again flac is noticeably better than mp3

thats long been established but even objective data is in the end subjected to ur opinion. For me the hm801 is all i need in a dap. For me flac is siperior to lossy. ive done all the objective testing n proven to my self what i believe is truth.

if u disagree so b it. so long as we both njoy the music. this is a hobby for me, Brooko n I agree on mny things n disagree on some as well n we both njoy our music. n both make valid recommendations. n we both have as much a chance to b wrong in our beliefs... but thats ok isnt it. now that said im off to go watch a movie

 
Sorry mate - the body of actual evidence is against you on this.  There are a few (and that is not many at all) "killer' samples out there that have proven that trained listeners can discern 320 kbps MP3 from lossless - but that was under controlled conditions - and subjects had to really concentrate to find them.  Give them normal music samples transcoded properly from the same source - and the differences disappear.  For info on some of the killer samples - Hydrogenaudio is a good start.
 
I'd be interested in your methodology - as I guarantee it will be flawed (not being pretentious - just stating my view).  Even experienced listeners with almost perfect hearing will tell you that the idea of:

 my buddy an i abxd tested each other n time n time again flac is noticeably better than mp3  //  ive done plenty of abx lossles to lossy n its pretty obviouse the differance between flac n mp3

does not actually hold up under real testing conditions (ie same source files, properly transcoded, volume matched properly, blind abx using software like Foobar).
 
But as you said - each to their own.  You believe what you want to believe - just expect to get called on it when you state it.

 

[Brooko]

Sorry if this is going off topic - Eke.  I'll try and keep myself restrained 

 

[eke2k6]

No worries. Just not too much to where the thread gets banished to the dark realms sound science forum.

 

[devouringone3]

 
For the purposes of listening to music, your senses is the only thing you have to please.

 
But music could sound better depending on your mood, on the amount of light present in the room, on what you're doing, seeing, touching, thinking, what you just did, what you are going to do next, the people who are with you... every aspects of the context matters.

It's how all of the psychological pathways are interrelated. If you rub your hands together, record the sound it makes, alter pitch, and hear the altered recorded rubbing sound instead of the normal one, a lower pitch will give you the impression that your hands are wet, and a higher one will give you the impressions your hands are like sand paper.
 
The McGurk effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQoYKuNcCpU
 
I followed Psychoacoustics 1 and 2 at the university in Audiology. I'll return see my course notes and try to bring back other cross-senses illusions.

 
You cannot tell apart certain close minimal pairs (in phonology, words that are different only by one phoneme/sound; for example in English, “tone” and “cone”) in other languages because your brain filters out slight phoneme differences not present in your language. It could approximate a “bin” to make it sound like a “pin”, for someone who doesn't know English, depending if whether the “b” and “p” sounds are in the phonological repertory for his language.
 
That's the reason why “th” is a bitch to learn when you're coming from French, as there's nothing quite like it. It sounded like a “f” or a “t” to me until an anglophone corrected when I was 18 (in a phonology course, she told me “My name is Theodora, not Teodora, apicoalveolar, darn it”). French people often pronounce it as an “s” or a “z” (because that's similar to the way they hear it). Seodora.

The baby isn't even out of the womb that he can tell his mother's language from a foreign one, because of plasticity.
 
That explains a part of the McGurk effect, the fact that you hear only what your brain wants you to hear.