[KeithEmo]

I haven't changed my point of view at all.
Therefore I haven't lost or won.

I have no doubt that, MOST of the time, I won't notice any difference between an AAC 320 files and lossless ones.
However, I am NOT convinced that that I will NEVER hear a difference, under ANY circumstance, with ANY file.
Although I am forced to accept uncertainty in many things, I dislike it, and prefer to avoid it whenever possible.
In this case, I can actually have a degree of certainty, and the extra cost for it is minimal.

I don't honestly know if any file I currently have, or will ever own, would trick the AAC encoder into making a mistake.
However, considering how complex the models involved in lossy compression are, I suspect that it does or may in fact happen occasionally.
But, for the cost of a little extra space, I can have a lossless file, which I DO know with ABSOLUTE certainty is identical to the original.
I simply see no purpose in seeking "the best possible copy", or even "a perfect copy", when I can have the original for a small extra premium.

I am curious.....
How many hudreds or thousands of files have you actually carefully compared?
Personally, I would have to have compared at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, before I would "simply trust that the process probably never screws up".
(If space was expensive, and I faced a choice between sacrificing a little certainty, in return for room to save a lot more songs, I might be willing to compromise - but that isn't the case.)

Do I need that level of certainty?
No
But, for a few cents extra, I absolutely enjoy having it.

Keith, you were told how the test worked before you took it, and you said you doubted you would be able to hear a difference even before you heard the test files. You know the truth here, you've just boxed yourself into an argumentative corner and you don't want to admit it. You told me that you were interested to take the test and find out what it would tell you. You did that and found out. Don't cry and try to tear apart the test because you feel like you "lost". You didn't lose. You won. You found out about where your threshold of transparency lies. Take that information and put it to good use. There's nothing to be gained from making more conflicting arguments and digging the hole deeper. You should just retire gracefully from this subject and move on to points you can discuss straightforwardly without having to make logical backflips to defend.

 

[KeithEmo]

That's pretty much my sentiment......

I don't disagree that, in most cases, most of the time, good quality lossy files are plenty good enough...
However, because space is cheap, I see no reason to settle for "plenty good enough" when I can have "absolutely perfect"...

There is another issue which I would also point out...

If you RIP your own CDs, and then encode them, you will same a small amount of space by using lossy compression rather than FLAC.
However, you will still have to purchase the CD, or the lossless file, in order to encode it yourself.
Therefore, the only place you're saving space is on your library drive or portable player.

And, if you purchase files that have already been compressed using lossy encoding, you have no control over the encoder or settings that were used.
You are not only trusting that lossy encoding CAN be audibly transparent; you are trusting that THE ENCODER AND SETTINGS USED ON YOUR PARTICULAR FILE are audibly transparent.

And, of course, if you download or trade bootleg files, it is quite possible that they were processed using a low quality or outdated encoder, or re-encoded multiple times.
Lossy encoders cause cumulative differences, so encoding a file with a lossy encoder, then re-encoding or converting it, increases the odds of audible artifacts and differences.
(But, then, if you download or trade bootleg files, it's distinctly possible they were sourced from low quality files anyway.)

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/

No dog in this fight from the perspective of the codec side. I have many lossy (mp3, etc.) and non-lossy (CDs --> FLAC) songs in my library...wasted storage left and right -- oh the humanity!

I know that, for my ears, the lossy files work just fine and I routinely purchase compressed downloads when buying the CD is difficult/inconvenient/doesn't make sense to me.

That said, storage is cheap...so I rip my CD's to FLAC and never give it another thought.

For me...it's more about the master and the transducers.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

right? ...why cant they just say a simple thank you to me? But please do not trust your eyes to judge audio gear, if you think im brilliant, wise and clever, please lets wait and ask what 40 dollar dac sounds like a 1400 dollar oppo dac, then when we know the answer we buy it and put pretty led lights and a shiny case to make it look expensive. Now we acoustically satisfy the ear and the eye... simply genius like Einstein lol

Well every dac I’ve ever tried has sounded the same so I guess I will be needing those flashy lights then.
My iPod nano sounds the same as the Pioneer xdp300r...and that sounded the same as my Aune X1. The latter I have tested extensively in a/b blindtesting where I’ve compared it to the Hugo 2, the Schiit Yggdrassil, Benchmark 2 as well as a lot of others.
Volumes level matched, instant flick of the switch to change unit, set up in my apartment for a weekend where I was free to listen to whatever for as long as I felt like it..in order to sniff out which was “better”.
They were all “best” though and unless your momma got it on with a feisty spermwhale I very much doubt your claims that completely go against established science.

 

[71 dB]

Lets assume there is a minute difference between 256 lossy and lossless. A difference someone can just notice. Can such a small difference have an effect of enjoyment of the music? Huge diffrence can of course affect the enjoyment (such as +3 dB too much bass), but these tiny differences? People say they can tell A and B apart if they listen to carefully, but does it matter? Were is the threshold of where it starts to matter? Do we listen to music to detect differences or to enjoy music? How about forgetting about bitrates and just enjoying the music?

There is a fine balance in audio. Most people are totally ignorant about sound quality while some people want ultra-high samplerate downloads. People should ask themselves "do I enjoy listening to music?" If not why? Good music helps enjoying music. Sometimes improving sound quality helps.

 

[StandsOnFeet]

I can't differentiate between relatively low bit-rate lossy and FLAC. I purposely haven't trained myself to be able to spot the compression artifacts, so I'm probably comparing the "wrong" parts of the music in my testing. I am, however, concentrating on the parts of the music that bring me the most pleasure, and those are indistinguishable between the two formats. I find that I can enjoy the heck out of my music, even when drastically compressed, and I reckon that that is a Good Thing.

 

[GearMe]

Lets assume there is a minute difference between 256 lossy and lossless. A difference someone can just notice. Can such a small difference have an effect of enjoyment of the music? Huge diffrence can of course affect the enjoyment (such as +3 dB too much bass), but these tiny differences? People say they can tell A and B apart if they listen to carefully, but does it matter? Were is the threshold of where it starts to matter? Do we listen to music to detect differences or to enjoy music? How about forgetting about bitrates and just enjoying the music?

There is a fine balance in audio. Most people are totally ignorant about sound quality while some people want ultra-high samplerate downloads. People should ask themselves "do I enjoy listening to music?" If not why? Good music helps enjoying music. Sometimes improving sound quality helps.

Can't stress how much I agree with post!

TBH, spending time looking for those nuances would absolutely kill the joy I get from listening to great music

 

[gregorio]

[1] why cant they just say a simple thank you to me?
[2] ...if you think im brilliant, wise and clever ...

1. You've already asked that question and it's already been answered, so why are you asking it again?
2. Why would we think that when you're trying your best to make us think the exact opposite?

G

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

71db touches upon a subject that has been bugging me lately: how many actually listen to the gear via the music ..and not the other way around?
I slowly but steadily got snuck into this false equation unknowingly leaving my immense enjoyment of music by the side of the road whilst my mind was chasing mice inside my skull - continuously reading conflicting reviews and opinions on what my next “upgrade” should take its form as.

It’s insane...most especially now that I found out that most if not all of those differences I clearly heard between different daps/dacs/amps somehow magically disappears once I focus entirely on how they sound without using my peepers. Granted some times these things are complex and highly difficult experiments to set up if you want to eliminate every bias you possibly can, but for me at least it has been worth it.
I do believe most audiophiles would need similar convincing in order to get back to that oh so carefree state where music just is and one almost never worries about sq because you did the legwork yourself and realised you couldn’t run a hundred miles an hour.

I have a lot of headphones. I do. Every time I go from one to another I am reminded of how I used to be. I’d instantly inspect sound sig, sound field, bass, mids and treble, clarity and yaddayaddayadda...
I still do this to a certain extent but then again who wouldn’t if they’ve got ears? BUT I am almost instantly shot into a certain place of affection - one where the music is paramount and instantly put up on a plinth.
I had great difficulties in achieving the peace of mind that allowed me to do so previously to all these blind tests.

Also small thing before I go: I remember not giving a damn about the production of an album..if it was the bee’s knees. Everything from The Stooges to poorly recorded Rock Progressivo Italiano had equal chance of ending up in the stereo.
Not when I was sick ie had the audiophile bug where it mostly resembled a never ending search for specific albums recorded in a certain way.
Again a deroute from the enjoyment of music...and boy there are a lot of those!
I guess I’ll just get back to my obscure gem from the boot country, Blocco Mentale’s Poa, where the vocals seem to be much too much for the poor mic to handle...yet it gives off a charm - a powerful connotation to the music - almost as if this sudden jolt of fire couldn’t be held back by physical contraptions and exceeded the very bounds of reality.
-All that wonderful esoteric mumbojumbo that turns music into wondrous things instead or having to play second fiddle to the gear.

 

[GearMe]

Agreed...would rather listen to an artist/song I like on a boom box than the best recorded piece on $100,000 system

 

[Phronesis]

Listening to music and listening to sound are definitely not the same thing, and focus on one can interfere with the other, since our attentional bandwidth is limited.

But if recording quality is notably poor, I’ve experienced that reducing my enjoyment of music, and I’ve also experienced excellent recording quality increasing my enjoyment of music.

Best scenario is to have excellent recording quality and gear, but only pay attention to the music, sort of like how the acting is good when you don’t notice how good the acting is, and instead get lost in the characters and story.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

With regards to headphones and poor production this whole sickness actually stems from my love of the AKG Q/K701/2 and how that sounds with a wellproduced album. I was listening to Dead Can Dance earlier over my Q701 and seriously questioning why I have it up for sale.
Had I played that Blocco Mentale album it would have been a rough ride and I would have been far too concerned with the production than the actual music.
An HD800 will do the same.

Which is why I’ve decided to rid myself of these scalpel-like headphones that more than often puts bad production under a miscroscope over the actual musical content of the album.
(Also I bought the K7XX which fixes the above..yet still retains the sparkling nature of a 7 series AKG)

All in the name of eliminating possible hurdles standing between me and my music.

 

[Phronesis]

With regards to headphones and poor production this whole sickness actually stems from my love of the AKG Q/K701/2 and how that sounds with a wellproduced album. I was listening to Dead Can Dance earlier over my Q701 and seriously questioning why I have it up for sale.
Had I played that Blocco Mentale album it would have been a rough ride and I would have been far too concerned with the production than the actual music.
An HD800 will do the same.

Which is why I’ve decided to rid myself of these scalpel-like headphones that more than often puts bad production under a miscroscope over the actual musical content of the album.
(Also I bought the K7XX which fixes the above..yet still retains the sparkling nature of a 7 series AKG)

All in the name of eliminating possible hurdles standing between me and my music.

My solution (for now) is to have multiple headphones and choose a headphone based on my mood and the recording. For example, I find that the combo of the HD800S and a great recording with a lot of sound/music content packed into it can enhance my enjoyment of the music, whereas other times I prefer the more laid back and somewhat 'warm' sound of the LCD-3 or 99 Classics. The Clear sort of splits the difference between these two cases.

 

[gregorio]

Listening to music and listening to sound are definitely not the same thing, and focus on one can interfere with the other, since our attentional bandwidth is limited.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean? There are some conceptual differences when working with music or sound but I don't think those differences are what you're referring to.

G

 

[analogsurviver]

Regarding the sheer sound quality requirements, there are genres that actually demand it - nothing but the best available would do, while still leaving the space to desire more - and thus fuel the need to develop better gear that, eventually, should close the gap of live vs recorded sound once and for all.

There is nothing as demanding as contemporary music - where the composers would leave no stone unturned, be it either the frequency range, dynamic range and/or direction of the sound..

I certainly can listen to familiar music recorded less than optimally and/or on limited capabilities equipment. But, I would have enjoyed it more if the recording and playback equipment would be better- absolutely no doubt about that.

I see absolutely no point in listening to a superbly recorded "extreme" music on poor equipment - or vice versa.

Somewhere above, I have seen 100 K $ mentioned as being some sort of "limit" or "guarantee" to be able to truly appereciate the difference between say lossless to compressed audio.

There is no such thing ... - only in one's head. I have seen - and HEARD - systems well north of 100K that not only struggled, but frankly failed at reproducing a decent uncompressed recording. Most audiophile oriented gear generally can not reproduce more dynamic range than possible with conventional analogue record .

One extreme case for the absolute requirement for the equipment to be at least "unobjectionable" is electronic portable organ player https://www.cameroncarpenter.com/.



To fill the actual music hall with the sound that does not look an absolutely pale Minimundus https://www.minimundus.at/en/ copy of the real thing , the speakers HAVE TO BE UP TO THE TASK. He has been playing at the Cankarjev dom, in the Gallus hall, which sportra very good real organ instrument - and could , at very least, hold his own - even in A HALL OF THIS SIZE:
https://www.google.si/url?sa=i&sour...aw3BcYdjJVAJbCGIE8Ublncb&ust=1548079035585097

It was a reality check regarding equipment for the audiophiles being grossly and outrageously overpriced - as similar speakers as used by him in audiophile livery sell for many times multiple of the normal pro use price.

Such equipment/price limitations apply FAR less in headphone world - and this IS head-fi. No reason one could not put together a decent headphone system for say under 2 k that could support hirez ( 88.2 kHz sampling and above ) and make recent topic of limited bandwidth RBCD vs lossy storm in a teacup - moot for good.

 

[StandsOnFeet]

I'm not sure, either. I sometimes just bathe in the sound of the music without paying a lot of attention to how that sound strings itself out in time. One beautiful chord after another, without much conscious thought of how they relate to each other. I doubt that's what he meant, though.