[Kvud]

and I noticed that fresh digitization, with CD are better than the old ones!

 

[gerelmx1986]

  and I noticed that fresh digitization, with CD are better than the old ones!

i feel the inverse at least for classical (esp in so called budget labels ahem ahem Brilliant classics) otherwise DG, Decca. Naxos are very good

 

[Kvud]

I don't listen to the classics is that light rock after heavy metal!

 

[gerelmx1986]

  I don't listen to the classics is that light rock after heavy metal!

getting insane lows

 O__o, these pipes made fro wood or metal w/resonator 32' huge pipes bombarde, contra bombarde or bass posaune contra posaune
 

 

[Kvud]

lie, very rarely can listen to music from the movies before bedtime it helps me sleep!

 

[fish1050]

  why I don't hear much difference between MP3 and FLAC files!

You say you can't hear much difference so does that mean you do hear a difference?   I am very clear to point out that differences are very subtle.
 
Perception colors everything in our lives, what you perceive as beautiful I might think is ugly.  What you think sounds good I might hate, and I might hear a difference you may not.   Lots of other factors may be at play here, quality of headphones,  amplification, hearing loss etc..
 
Life would be pretty boring if we all perceived things the same way my friend.  For one thing we would have no need for forums like these if we all perceived things exactly the same way.  Someone would simply post something and everyone would agree, sounds pretty damn boring to me.

 

[castleofargh]

   

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

  there is an option to use everything, or to stick to 1 folder. but then I don't think it will go into subfolders.
but why not just create a playlist? wouldn't that solve your problem?
nobody will ever contest the right to just enjoy and care not about all those stuff. in fact ignoring it all is probably the way to really enjoy music. the same way, everybody is certainly free to express his opinion on the subject. but it's a very very different thing when someone comes making a claim about what he can hear for everybody else to read. then it turns into something like "I can jump above 3 people without touching them!". people will ask me to prove it! and if I go saying "I don't need to prove it, I know what I can do", people will also think that I didn't have to make the claim and that I'm just talking big. not the best possible result.
that's what separates opinions from claims. it's ok not to try and prove our opinions, but for everybody's sake, we should always try to verify things before making claims.

If you are truly interested in the debate between lossy and lossless audio here is a link to a great article.  https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/articles/lost-in-translation.htm
 
There are a number of factors to consider when we talk about compression.   I am 50 years old so I was alive when CD's first came on the seen and later napster and the whole mp3 pirate music movement started.  In the early days of mp3 encoder quality varied quite a bit in their ability to preserve sound quality after compression.  Then the lame encoder came along and things improved greatly.  Today mp3 encoders are mostly high quality so this isn't an issue.  When I listen to some older mp3's I feel I can hear more of a difference in sound quality than mp3's encoded with the encoders available today.
 
Whether you can or can't hear a difference between lossless flac and lossy mp3 can be debated endlessly.  Compression namely mp3 pretty much chops everything about 16 KHZ and everything below 20 HZ.   It also reduces the dynamic range and reduces the bandwidth of the music to some degree which may or may not be noticeable depending on the type of music.  If you listen to mostly pop, rock, the blues etc.. you are not likely to miss the content above 16 Khz and content below 20 hz.  If you listen to classical music or orchestral music that has a lot more higher frequency and lower frequency content then you may perceive a slight decline at those higher and sub bass frequencies.  Music with sub bass (lfe) can lose some impact after compression maybe not so much in sound quality but more in the way we can feel sub bass frequencies.  My primary headphones have a frequency range from  10 hz to 20 Khz so I can sense the rumble so to speak from songs with sub bass content.
 
Instruments like cymbals that have a fairly long decay can lose some impact (air) and sound slightly more tinny than natural after compression.  The width and depth of the sound stage may also be reduced.  My B&W P5 Series 2's can produce a fairly large and deep sound stage for a closed headphone. Sometimes I can sense that mp3's produce a slightly smaller sound stage and perhaps slightly poorer imaging.  I find it is more the intangibles of the music for lack of a better word  (sound stage, imaging, air, resonance etc..) that is affected by compression more so than say the instrumentals and vocals themselves if that makes any sense.
 
Again we are talking very slight and subtle differences here and you would have to listen very intently to hear them which some people like to do.  I look at it this way, if I have all my music is encoded in a lossless format like flac I can always reencode down to mp3 etc.. but I can't reencode up in quality.  If the day comes when I start to run out of space on my A17 I can always reencode some tracks to mp3 to save space

 

that wasn't the purpose of my post at all. to make it short, making a claim and proving it should always try to go hand in hand, be it because we mind what we're telling, because we're a community and want to avoid spreading disinformation, or simply following the burden of proof's logic.
sadly what we see most of the time follows very much what doc Banner said above. people claiming to hear a difference in a 320mp3 compared to flac, or cd vs highres, etc, also happen to be in a suspiciously vast majority, those who never really cared to test themselves objectively to make sure they really could. and that's where I have a problem, and only there. not that people decide to stay lossless, or use highres, or that others might hear what I cannot(which is obvious as I don't hear much after 16.5khz anymore ^_^).
 
BTW 320kbps mp3 does not cut at 16khz, and I have some doubts that you can sense a normal listening level 10hz tone from your headphone. at least I know I can't.
else when I want to discuss the audibility of mp3, I go to the sound science sub forum^_^.

 

[Kvud]

 
getting insane lows

 O__o, these pipes made fro wood or metal w/resonator 32' huge pipes bombarde, contra bombarde or bass posaune contra posaune
 

It will be too heavy metal for me!

 

[nekromantik]

  there is an option to use everything, or to stick to 1 folder. but then I don't think it will go into subfolders.
but why not just create a playlist? wouldn't that solve your problem?

Thanks

 

[gerelmx1986]

 

that wasn't the purpose of my post at all. to make it short, making a claim and proving it should always try to go hand in hand, be it because we mind what we're telling, because we're a community and want to avoid spreading disinformation, or simply following the burden of proof's logic.
sadly what we see most of the time follows very much what doc Banner said above. people claiming to hear a difference in a 320mp3 compared to flac, or cd vs highres, etc, also happen to be in a suspiciously vast majority, those who never really cared to test themselves objectively to make sure they really could. and that's where I have a problem, and only there. not that people decide to stay lossless, or use highres, or that others might hear what I cannot(which is obvious as I don't hear much after 16.5khz anymore ^_^).
 
BTW 320kbps mp3 does not cut at 16khz, and I have some doubts that you can sense a normal listening level 10hz tone from your headphone. at least I know I can't.
else when I want to discuss the audibility of mp3, I go to the sound science sub forum^_^.

I am happy with 16/44.1 the most beautiful recordings, propably recorded in 16/44 (1980's-2000) and i see no point of a "hi-res remaster" unless those were analogue tapes or vinyls. the very few i have on hi-res are because bitTorrents and i don't dare to resample them to 16 if i don't know the proper way only thn just dither them in dbpower

 

[fish1050]

 
that wasn't the purpose of my post at all. to make it short, making a claim and proving it should always try to go hand in hand, be it because we mind what we're telling, because we're a community and want to avoid spreading disinformation, or simply following the burden of proof's logic.
sadly what we see most of the time follows very much what doc Banner said above. people claiming to hear a difference in a 320mp3 compared to flac, or cd vs highres, etc, also happen to be in a suspiciously vast majority, those who never really cared to test themselves objectively to make sure they really could. and that's where I have a problem, and only there. not that people decide to stay lossless, or use highres, or that others might hear what I cannot(which is obvious as I don't hear much after 16.5khz anymore ^_^).
 
BTW 320kbps mp3 does not cut at 16khz, and I have some doubts that you can sense a normal listening level 10hz tone from your headphone. at least I know I can't.
else when I want to discuss the audibility of mp3, I go to the sound science sub forum^_^.

Actually the 16 Khz max frequency figure I gave was the original max quoted when the mp3 format was first introduced as most humans can't hear much above that frequency.  I was selling audio equipment at the time so I was given literature to study on the format.  Whether that has changed over time I can't say as I really haven't paid attention.  Certainly if it isn't the cutoff max frequency, most sound detail above that will be lost when mp3 compression is applied.

 

[gerelmx1986]

Actually the 16 Khz max frequency figure I gave was the original max quoted when the mp3 format was first introduced as most humans can't hear much above that frequency.  I was selling audio equipment at the time so I was given literature to study on the format.  Whether that has changed over time I can't say as I really haven't paid attention.  Certainly if it isn't the cutoff max frequency, most sound detail above that will be lost when mp3 compression is applied.

yeah that mp3 192kbps fraunhoffer same as 128!!!!! in LAME 192 cuts at 19Khz but by cutting off at 16 or 19 you lose subtle cues suchs as reverb in a concert hall, it is made shorter I had to pump volume a bit on MDR-1R, use a chronometer and Mozart Flute Concerto No. 1 with Orpehus chamber rochestra DG is noticiable how mp3 192 = 128 cyts reverb for 1.75s vs FLAC and wav lasta for almost 3s, even instruments are removed in those cut offs! boccherini flute quinets op. 19 i dint heard the flute where the viola was playing "loud" in the mp3 version (called temporal masking)

 

[fish1050]

 
that wasn't the purpose of my post at all. to make it short, making a claim and proving it should always try to go hand in hand, be it because we mind what we're telling, because we're a community and want to avoid spreading disinformation, or simply following the burden of proof's logic.
sadly what we see most of the time follows very much what doc Banner said above. people claiming to hear a difference in a 320mp3 compared to flac, or cd vs highres, etc, also happen to be in a suspiciously vast majority, those who never really cared to test themselves objectively to make sure they really could. and that's where I have a problem, and only there. not that people decide to stay lossless, or use highres, or that others might hear what I cannot(which is obvious as I don't hear much after 16.5khz anymore ^_^).
 
BTW 320kbps mp3 does not cut at 16khz, and I have some doubts that you can sense a normal listening level 10hz tone from your headphone. at least I know I can't.
else when I want to discuss the audibility of mp3, I go to the sound science sub forum^_^.

I never said I can hear down to 10 hz I merely stated that my P5's have a frequency range down to 10 Hz.  The theoretical bottom end for human hearing is 20 Hz but it isn't an absolute cutoff frequency and so you may be able to hear some below that.  Frequencies below 20 hz can sometimes be felt if not heard which is also what I said previously.

 

[fish1050]

Yeah there are plenty of sources available that discuss the merits and limitation of mp3 compression.  As with all published research there is always a certain amount of bias depending on whether you are pro mp3 or against mp3.
 
I can remember way back shortly after CD's were first introduced we started selling higher end CD players that were 18 and 20 bit and even single bit players.  Like HiRes now it was pretty much a gimic to convince consumers to spend more money with no real improvement in audible sound quality.  History is truly destined to repeat itself.

 

[The Walrus]

  I am happy with 16/44.1 the most beautiful recordings, propably recorded in 16/44 (1980's-2000) and i see no point of a "hi-res remaster" unless those were analogue tapes or vinyls. the very few i have on hi-res are because bitTorrents and i don't dare to resample them to 16 if i don't know the proper way only thn just dither them in dbpower

Just use MeiaGo to downsample 24 Bit files to 16/44. Don't worry about dither. The background noise is inaudible in any case. Dither is used "just in case"