[trose49]

After much abuse on the lossless schmossless thread. I put some John Mayer Continuum back on my IPOD in 192AAC.

Let me tell you. You dont need and a/b, abx, qzk, wkk, xyz test to tell that lossless blows the 192aac stuff away!!! [size=medium]NOT EVEN CLOSE!!![/size]

I will Accept any challange of the same 10 songs in both formats with my UE-10's and if I dont get em all right I will eat my UE-10's. [size=xx-small](gotta be something in it for me of course)[/size]

People Really! Defending compressed files especially to the noobies Shame on you! I dont care if its portable or not!

Now 320AAC I have not compared and thats a different story for now.

But the lesson of the day is dont encode to 192AAC if you use a high quality amp/LDO and good cans or IEMS.

You are missing what makes this "hobby" special!

WHeeeewwww I feel better. OK BRING IT ON! Im READY! LOL!

 

[wakeride74]

I use 256 AAC with VBR on most and lossless on my favorites and although the difference is there it is so small it's really only worth the space if you were using it as referrence for writing reviews on gear IMO.

 

[Benco]

Totally agree. Every time someone says, well you know, 192k is "good enough", I completely balk. I can tell the difference between FLAC & VO with my E5.

 

[eitook]

its a HOBBY, not a sport btw

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eitook /img/forum/go_quote.gif its a HOBBY, not a sport btw

Thats what I meant LOLOLOLO!!!! ROTFL!!!!!! SPORT!!!!!!! LOL!!!!

 

[Morph201]

I'm a perfectionist... so I have to agree with Trose.... Too bad, because I would really like to see someone chow down on some UE-10s!

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morph201 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm a perfectionist... so I have to agree with Trose.... Too bad, because I would really like to see someone chow down on some UE-10s!

Where were you guys when I was getting killed on the other thread!!!!!!

by the way I changed "sport" LOL!!! SEE HOW MAD I WAS!

 

[Thelonious Monk]

i'd rather have thousands of songs in -v0 than hundreds in lossless, to be honest... the difference is really only worth it if you're using a really nice DAC (at LEAST a HeadRoom micro DAC...)

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morph201 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm a perfectionist... so I have to agree with Trose.... Too bad, because I would really like to see someone chow down on some UE-10s!

If someone puts up a good enough prize I do it at the NY Meet!

Let put the money where the mouths are!!!!! If they think 192AAC is sooooo great!

Man can you imagine I'd be crying as I chomped down my UE's BOOOOOHOO!

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'd rather have thousands of songs in -v0 than hundreds in lossless, to be honest... the difference is really only worth it if you're using a really nice DAC (at LEAST a HeadRoom micro DAC...)

Disagree all the way!

IPOD>CRYO>HORNET>UE-10's Very noticable. Change up your play lists now and then! I make smart folders and just check which folders I want to sync it makes it real easy.

or get an 80GB IPOD!!!! THATS NEXT when the new one comes out!

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benco /img/forum/go_quote.gif Totally agree. Every time someone says, well you know, 192k is "good enough", I completely balk. I can tell the difference between FLAC & VO with my E5.

I dont know the thing about AAC, but with modern MP3 encoders 192k is definetly a good enough. Not in same league as lossless, but a minimum for high quality equipment to be enjoyable. And Im very sure none of you can hear difference between 256VBR vs. Lossless.

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaZa /img/forum/go_quote.gif I dont know the thing about AAC, but with modern MP3 encoders 192k is definetly a good enough. Not in same league as lossless, but a minimum for high quality equipment to be enjoyable. And Im very sure none of you can hear difference between 256VBR vs. Lossless.

Thats a different thread! Although I will go as bold as to say I could get 7 of 10!

 

[widds2v]

Definitely all depends on your equipment, what the music is you're listening to, etc. If you have a $2,000 source, listening analytically to a song with $500+ headphones, then sure lossless is going to be quite obvious of a difference versus a lossy encode. Enjoying Rock out of an iPod even with UE10s you won't tell that much between well encoded VBR and lossless (the highlight of Enjoying was due to fact you shouldn't be analyzing music when you're doing every day listening.. you should be listening to it

)

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thats a different thread! Although I will go as bold as to say I could get 7 of 10!

Anyone willing to put up a test-file with 256VBR + Lossless samples mixed up? This really needs to be done.

 

[mirumu]

I just don't see the point of lossy formats any more, disc space is cheap and it gives you the ability to transcode files properly later. Yeah, maybe it's a pain not being able to fit everything on your portable but personally I'll take quality over quantity any day. I never saw the other thread but I've yet to hear any 192Kbps file of any format that is not significantly inferior to the same song encoded lossless. At 320Kbps it's another matter, but as far as well encoded MP3s go (I'm talking Lame here, I've not tried 320Kbps AAC) the files are not consistently equal to the lossless files. Maybe a new encoder would change that opinion.