[audiofreak7]

To me, 256 kbps MP3 sounds fine. I don't have the desire for lossless.

192 kbps is where I draw the line. I still can't believe Apple is still selling $1 songs at 128 kbps (but that's another rant).

 

[Arothorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps I am missing your point here, but if you got half right and half wrong, then you in fact cannot tell the difference, because you could get the same results purely through random guessing. Or are you saying that you could always tell with some music, and never tell with other music?

Hi Febs,

Nope, you got it. I could always tell with classical and had a hard time with some rock and blues. The clincher was at the high end, a fast roll off above something around 12khZ. I had to listen very carefully and even then it was tough... It might have been easier if I had a decent set of cans (I did this using portaPros). Because I was basically "guessing" on some songs, I decided that 192k was "good enough". It really blew my mind that 192k could be that good... and took my "audiophile ego" down a few notches...

Before blind 192kbps AAC test: "No compression will ever be as good as lossless."

After blind 192kbps AAC test: "Damn. 192kbps AAC is freekin' good! But it still isn't lossless..."

The thing that still irritates me is iTunes selling everything at 128kbps. If I really like something I go out and buy the CD and import it at 192k...

->Aro

 

[trose49]

With the new 5.5Gen iMOD Lossless is a must!

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif With the new 5.5Gen iMOD Lossless is a must!

Yes, but do you think FLAC sounds brighter than wav though?

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnOYiN /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but do you think FLAC sounds brighter than wav though?

I only use Apple Lossless so I cant comment on the others.

To much work to use the other formats. Unless someone can make it as easy as Itunes.

 

[islewind]

After the pot-stirring (and the other red-herring thread that need not be linked) I've been glad to discover this thead. The debate, of course continues across countless similar threads that keep repeating, often with a pretty low signal-to-noise ratio, but some of the latter posts on this thread especially make some good points about making choices for your own needs. Personally, with over 900 cd's, only very recently has it even been possible for me to consider storing everything lossless, and 7 years ago when I began encoding my music it was out of the question. And all along, I've been glad that I've retained every CD that I would ever care about listening critically to, so I can listen to it directly or re-encode as I see fit. I haven't had to re-encode a lot, because even early on I selected higher bit rates for music I cared about more.

But honestly, do I really need to worry about the poor-quality rips I made of MC Hammer and Debbie Gibson all those years ago? I'd make the argument that even though I can tell anything at 192 or below from the original, 128 is just fine for those artists.

Of course the "Shaq Diesel" that I got from the original Napster at 96kbps is another story...

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by islewind /img/forum/go_quote.gif After the pot-stirring (and the other red-herring thread that need not be linked) I've been glad to discover this thead. The debate, of course continues across countless similar threads that keep repeating, often with a pretty low signal-to-noise ratio, but some of the latter posts on this thread especially make some good points about making choices for your own needs. Personally, with over 900 cd's, only very recently has it even been possible for me to consider storing everything lossless, and 7 years ago when I began encoding my music it was out of the question. And all along, I've been glad that I've retained every CD that I would ever care about listening critically to, so I can listen to it directly or re-encode as I see fit. I haven't had to re-encode a lot, because even early on I selected higher bit rates for music I cared about more. But honestly, do I really need to worry about the poor-quality rips I made of MC Hammer and Debbie Gibson all those years ago? I'd make the argument that even though I can tell anything at 192 or below from the original, 128 is just fine for those artists. Of course the "Shaq Diesel" that I got from the original Napster at 96kbps is another story...

Is everyone grumpy today or what????

Need not worry the Red-Herring has been tossed in the river by the MODS!

I agree some cd's just dont warrant it. Even the new Lily Allen CD I just got sounds terrible no matter what format. Bass is all crunchy and distorted. I cant believe someone mixed this in this day and age. The guy should be banned from the business.

 

[wakeride74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is everyone grumpy today or what???? Need not worry the Red-Herring has been tossed in the river by the MODS! I agree some cd's just dont warrant it. Even the new Lily Allen CD I just got sounds terrible no matter what format. Bass is all crunchy and distorted. I cant believe someone mixed this in this day and age. The guy should be banned from the business.

LOL! I thought the same thing when I got that CD... right away I looked at my Hornet to see if the light was dim or off because the bass sounded like poop!

islewind - Debbie Gibson should be lossless... foolish beat never sounded so good ::cough:

:

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakeride74 /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL! I thought the same thing when I got that CD... right away I looked at my Hornet to see if the light was dim or off because the bass sounded like poop! islewind - Debbie Gibson should be lossless... foolish beat never sounded so good ::cough: :

Im bummed because I like a few of those tunes but cant listen to it.

LOL!!! I did the same exact think with my hornet. Checked to see if the 600OHMs were dragging her down!

 

[islewind]

Sorry your herring ended up in the river.

I agree on the Lily Allen CD - it's so poorly mixed, I thought it was defective.

Cheers!

 

[ricmat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaZa /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone willing to put up a test-file with 256VBR + Lossless samples mixed up? This really needs to be done.

I did that, but with PC sound card -> MS-1. Couldnt tell them!

the line was about 192CBR

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricmat /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did that, but with PC sound card -> MS-1. Couldnt tell them! the line was about 192CBR

Its gotta be an abx test with foobar and I would still challenge someone to get 14/16 as I did. But that was 192AAC vs lossless.

You guys just want me to eat my UE-10's

Not gonna happen!!!

 

[senny-ftw]

I rip with Apple Lossless. Now my library doesn't fit on the iPod, but my bitrate worries are gone.

I'd take a good recording at a decent studio @ 192 over a badly produced CD any day, though. For example, I have duplicate songs where I've bought them in iTunes and subsequently ripped a lossless copy from a pre-recorded, store-bought multi-artist compilation CD. In almost all cases, the compilation version is vastly inferior.