[rhymesgalore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because if you care about the sound quality of your music, you are an audio nerd? Nice.

This should be fun

I just meant, the music itself doesn't give a damn how it is encoded, it is you...

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif This thread, though crazy long and fast pased, and full of lots of hyperbole, was AWESOME, because it showed some folks that 192k AAC is NOT transparent. It may be very close, and it may be good enough for many people in many applications, but it is NOT transparent. Trose49, you have done a good service to music here. I hope enough people actually wade through this thread to see that if your equipment is at a certain level, then you owe it to yourself to use a good encoder. So, as I (and many others) have posted many times: RIP CDs in LOSSLESS. Then if you want to use a lossy codec for a portable, transcode to lossy, and use 256k VBR or better, if you have a decently high-resolution rig.

I almost agree with you. I have long been an advocate of using lossless for archiving and lossy for portable use. The only disagreement that I have is with your statement "192k AAC is NOT transparent." That statement certainly seems to apply to Trose, at least for the one test that he conducted, and perhaps a couple of other people in the thread. But there are others in the thread (myself included) who did the ABX and were unable to successfully distinguish a difference. For us, 192kbps IS transparent, and there is simply no need to use 256k VBR or better. It is just a waste of space with no audible benefit.

To me, the real lesson from this thread is that different people have different sensitivity to encoding artifacts, and that there is no single answer that will apply to all people. I think that is essentially what you were getting at when you said "it may be good enough for many people in many applications."

My philosophy here on Head-Fi when making recommendations regarding lossy codecs is to recommend that people listen for themselves, preferably in a proper ABX test, and make their own personal decision about what type of encoding best suits their needs. For those who do not want to take the time to do that, I recommend using something like LAME MP3 at the -V2 setting, which averages about 192kbps. I'm always careful to say that most people find that to be transparent, but even for those who don't, the difference should be small. I still believe that is a valid recommendation.

I would like to hear Trose's thoughts on how big the difference is, to his ears, between the two clips that he tested. The ABX test shows that he can tell a difference. Was it really as big as he claimed in the first post? Or did he find that in a blind test using level-matched files, the difference was much smaller than what he originally claimed?

 

[lan]

While it is nice to be able to tell the difference between lossless and lossy compression, it's important to see the big picture.

Is the difference large enough to you? If you can hear it cool, if not, then that's also fine. I find the differences small but I can usually hear them. To me the differences are smaller than using different cables. Portable use isn't really that critical / demanding.

Does it bother you? The mind has a powerful effect on things. If you never heard the original, it would most likely still be fine. Is it still enjoyable? If I like the music I could listen to a radio version of it fine.

Does it matter given the ipod isn't a high end playback device? I cannot stand listening to most ipod even if you put lossless files on there. Sound quality would still increase on a lossy file on better hardware but the hardware can be limiting IMO.

 

[LFC_SL]

For me, I started testing at 192 and moving up in increments till 320, always a/b comparing along the way with the WAV originals of the test tracks I use of course. Difference became less apparent as I went on, until I hit 256.... so I thought I may as well use 320 just because I can

What's this thread trying to say? Don't bother with lossy below 256 or don't bother with lossy at all? Appears to me to be the former. Or maybe this thread is a great advert for the UE10s. Or maybe not! If they did reveal differences to me, I wouldn't be happy with finally being forced to re-rip to flac after putting it off for 1.5 years!

 

[nickchen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you cant tell 192AAC VS LOSSLESS GIVEUP THIS HOBBY!

Too bad, I really liked this hobby. ***sighs*** Looks like I have to give away my collection to someone more challenged...

 

[yoritomo79]

A better idea is to just rip the stuff to lossless that you know won't survive lossy encoding without problems.

Saying to rip everything to lossless might include audiobooks... I for one am not going to rip my audiobooks to lossless, it's pointless. Same with most CD sourced electronic. Quality live recordings and vinyl rips should always be lossless.

Take for example my AV. You won't get that picture off the spectrograph unless you listen to a lossless copy of the song..

However the third track off of that CD, nannou would probably be transparent at -v5 or vbr 128 or even less.

I still stand by the theory that 70-90% of modern released music would be transparent at -v0. As audiophiles, though, we sometimes pick our recordings not based on the quality of the performer, but based on the quality of the recording/mastering. So for an audiophile, his/her collection might only be 5% overproduced poop that would end up transparent when encoded to a lossy format.

 

[Indygreg]

somewhat of a n00b here and not willing to A) read all the pages in this and B) weigh in on the difference or the quality of 192.

But I had to laugh at someone saying that the 80GB would solve issues of space w/ lossless. LOL. I have 100+GB of compressed music. I probably have more than that in lossless (mainly PHISH, Primus, etc live FLAC files).

Most of my music is compressed and I am okay with that. I have NO doubt that a large % of you could tell lossless from 192, but I also do not think that 192 is as bad as these same people say.

 

[LeChuck]

I can't tell the difference between Musepack Q6 and lossless, so I use Musepack on my X5L with UM2's and it sounds great. That being said, on my home system I only listen to lossless for a few reasons:

1) Lossless transcodes perfectly, which makes it great for converting files for portable use. It also gives me piece of mind that should anything happen to my CD's, I still have a bit-perfect copy of them.

2) I paid for 100% of the CD, why not listen to it. I mean really... if I'm going to spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment, I don't want to even chance creating a bottleneck in my system at the audio compression level.

3) Lossless compression is getting VERY good these days, especially with classical music, which is 70% of my listening. It's not unusual for me to compress a file to a high bit-rate lossy and it turn out larger than its lossless original!

4) Hard drive space these days costs nothing. I have a a server setup with 4 x 400gb HD's in a RAID 1 setup. Sure there was an initial investment, but that's going to last me a LONG time.

 

[Coltrane]

I haven't read the whole thread, so bear with me. As one of the people downplaying the benefits of lossless, i figured I should respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif After much abuse on the lossless schmossless thread. I put some John Mayer Continuum back on my IPOD in 192AAC.

Personally, I think if you listen to John Mayer you should give up this 'hobby.'

Oh yeah, and what did I say in other thread about your posts bordering on 'hysterical' at times?

If you stop trusting your own ears, or start thinking that sound quality is more important than music, that is when you need to give it up. Comments like 'anything under 192 is unlistenable' is just plain ridiculously absurd to me. I could listen to Coltrane encoded at 22kpbs playing through a tin can and he would still amaze me. I surely can take 192kbs and be VERY happy.

I dont have the HD space to archive all my music, regardless of how cheap HDs might be now. Ripping at lossless is simply impossible for me. No matter how much some of you think money is always no object, some of us are actually trying to avoid credit card debt.

Finally, just because we are willing to accept lossy files doesnt mean we are bad people, we simply have different priorities. Bullying people into accepting your opinion is hardly a good way to go about one's life.

 

[Indygreg]

agreed on hard drives - they do cost nothing today. My view was on the portable front.

I still buy a lot of compressed music and always will (under the current model, conditions, offerings, etc). The pop music fan in me (just one genre I like) is not going to buy CDs of stuff I am getting a single song. I cannot afford it, nor do I want to keep empowering that model with my money.

 

[Coltrane]

Since Hard drives are so ridiculously cheap these days, can someone send me a 500gb one? Pm me and we can work something out.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I almost agree with you. I have long been an advocate of using lossless for archiving and lossy for portable use. The only disagreement that I have is with your statement "192k AAC is NOT transparent." That statement certainly seems to apply to Trose, at least for the one test that he conducted, and perhaps a couple of other people in the thread. But there are others in the thread (myself included) who did the ABX and were unable to successfully distinguish a difference. For us, 192kbps IS transparent, and there is simply no need to use 256k VBR or better. It is just a waste of space with no audible benefit. To me, the real lesson from this thread is that different people have different sensitivity to encoding artifacts, and that there is no single answer that will apply to all people. I think that is essentially what you were getting at when you said "it may be good enough for many people in many applications." My philosophy here on Head-Fi when making recommendations regarding lossy codecs is to recommend that people listen for themselves, preferably in a proper ABX test, and make their own personal decision about what type of encoding best suits their needs. For those who do not want to take the time to do that, I recommend using something like LAME MP3 at the -V2 setting, which averages about 192kbps. I'm always careful to say that most people find that to be transparent, but even for those who don't, the difference should be small. I still believe that is a valid recommendation.

I basically agree with everything you've said here, but I still maintain that, in absolute terms, 192kbps is not transparent, in that even if ONE person can reliably tell the difference, then it is, by definition, not completely transparent. It may, in fact, be transparent on some (most?) music, to some (most?) people, some (most?) of the time. But if it isn't 100% transparent to 100% of people 100% of the time, then it is not transparent.

Nonetheless, everything else you have said makes good sense. People should listen and decide for themselves, no doubt, and there may be valid reasons to use a codec even if the listener doesn't find it transparent.

I'm just not one of those people. I don't want to be distracted from music by even the briefest coding artifact. Which is why this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhymesgalore /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just meant, the music itself doesn't give a damn how it is encoded, it is you...

While true in as literally stated, is still a silly thing to say. Of COURSE it's the listener who cares!!!!

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't read the whole thread, so bear with me. As one of the people downplaying the benefits of lossless, i figured I should respond. Personally, I think if you listen to John Mayer you should give up this 'hobby.'

John Mayer's mushy girly music was only a vehicle to get what he really loves out to the public THE BLUES. He is a considered a true blues man by many including Billy Gibbons, Eric Clapton and many others. Have you ever him seen him actually play that srat? He can rip it!
[size=small]
WATCH THIS AND THEN COME BACK TO RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT![/size]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sPmTgPvx28

 

[rhymesgalore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif While true in as literally stated, is still a silly thing to say. Of COURSE it's the listener who cares!!!!

sheees, you're not in for a little casual joke, are you?

 

[Indygreg]

Agree on John Mayer - way too me people base rock solid beliefs on so little information. If you have directv, watch 101 and look for his concert footage. He is a rock solid blues man. He will be around for a while. I think he will continue to follow this pattern, putting out some mainstream stuff and then some blues stuff. To be fair, that is not much unlike Clapton. Many think John will be this generation's Clapton. I am not claiming that as only time can tell.

He shreds on the guitar, that much I do know.