[UNOE]

I find it's such a huge gap between 320KB/s and Losseless CD. I can't really tolerate 320 mp3. AAC encoded with 127 gives near 380kb/s average there is nothing lossy I would want lower than that. Lately been experimenting with lossy wavpak. For 16bit wavepak I use about 500kbs. For 24bit I use 900kbs. I don't know if there is any other lossy that does 24 bit.

 

[Francisk]

I find it's such a huge gap between 320KB/s and Losseless CD. I can't really tolerate 320 mp3. AAC encoded with 127 gives near 380kb/s average there is nothing lossy I would want lower than that. Lately been experimenting with lossy wavpak. For 16bit wavepak I use about 500kbs. For 24bit I use 900kbs. I don't know if there is any other lossy that does 24 bit.

Don't mind sharing with us what amp & headphone/IEM you're using? Are you sure AAC encoded in 128kbps gives near 320kbps sound??? What encoder are you using?

 

[UNOE]

Don't mind sharing with us what amp & headphone/IEM you're using? Are you sure AAC encoded in 128kbps gives near 320kbps sound??? What encoder are you using?

Alpha Dogs or Momuntum 1 on ear and over ear. I have a lot of DAC and amps.

Not 128kbs. Didn't say that it's AAC VBR with quality slider maxed out at 127. To me MP3 320 sits somewhere between AAC 320 and 256. AAC 320 verses MP3 320 and AAC wins. But AAC with 127 is the best and yes I can tell the difference with A/B. Probably would be tuff to blind though.

I seen the AAC true VBR slider on several encoders even iTunes will encode over 320 for VBR. But personally I'm using xAct on OS X. Because I can store all my files in FLAC in proper folder names. Then copy over a duplicate of folders let's say about 40 CDs to a new folder. Then in xAct. Choice encode to folder and delete originals. Then with settings in xAct I set it to use 12 cores that I have on Mac. I encode all 40 albums in about 12 min. Then I retain all my folder structure but now have AAC or what ever codec I choose. I can tranfer it to my phone or dap then delete the 40 albums in AAC. Just keep the flac originals. Then redo it again when needed. That's why I use xact. I haven't found another program that creates a scheduled encode list that well.

 

[thecfg]

I went to sleep, went to work, and am just about finishing the day "changing the world one PowerPoint at a time" as they say...
 
But you folks seem to be discussing
(a) whether FLAC is different/better/worth it compared to MP3
(b) whether permanently changing the file itself to normalise the volume is the way to go
 
For me, the answers are
(a) of course it is - why would you settle for less when storage is so cheap, why go WORSE than CD anyway? mp3 was for cheap portable players from years back, we've all got mutliple Tb drives and NAS haven't we?
(b) no.... non bit-perfect playback... why?
 
On the latter, I like EQ. I get the need for it. Because my headphones at a sensible volume don't display enough Bass.
But I prefer the hardware Bass/Treble of the Fiio X3 1st gen.
 
Because I have too much time on my hands I now build playlists for the X3 of similar volume (as measured by JrIver).... gets round the lack of ReplayGain!
 
Waddya think to that! lol

 

[iancraig10]

Sorry to hear that

Even worse. I'm a pro musician and hear raw studio files too.

I don't get hung up on formats, that's all.

I can hear differences, but it's not the be all and end all to me. I think there's too much ripping off going on in the hi res world as well. Where for instance, source material from not that great a source is merely converted for people who claim to hear the difference at a tidy price too.

People are easily fooled. I did some rips of my own stuff and merely raised the bass depth a little on one file for my students, asking them to decide which files were high re or low. The high res stuff had a proper bass while the 320 mp3s had slightly raised bass examples amongst them. Most got it wrong. I extended it to so called audiophiles ... Again they got it wrong.

You often get files that are remixed and sent out in hi res so that some claims of how much better the format is, is down to a simple remix.

I am suspicious of the source and whether the differences are mainly that or just a remix. That's not the format.

That's why, I don't particularly worry about the format, as long as it sounds respectable.

The guy using Momentums .... Are you hearing differences between say 320 and lossless on them? I find the newer over ear ones less fussy than many headphones in that respect.

I can spot differences on music that helps exploit the high res, but find that pretty hard on a Momentum tbh. What is it that makes 320kbs so unbearable to you?

 

[Alje]

"Don't get hung up on formats"
"I think there's too much ripping off going on in the hi res world"
 
I agree

 

[TheGiantHogweed]

If storage actually was really cheap, I would have almost all of my CDs as flacs on my X3. If I changed all my Mp3s to flacs, I would have to move from my cheap 64gb card to an incredibly expensive 128gb card. Since 64gb cards seem to be available for only about £5 more than 32gb ones, that is actually very good value. However, all 128gb cards I have seen are a huge amount over double the price of 64gb cards. To me it just isn't worth making my 320kbps Mp3s sound a tiny bit better when it involved spending lots of money on storage. Even on my open backed AT ATH-AD700s with the X3, I can only tell a tiny difference between 320kbps Mp3s and flacs. Even on my 24bit flac album, there wasn't a massive difference in the sund quality. Noticeable, but not really worth the 1.6gb of space it takes up! The advantage with Mp3s is that I have about 4200 tracks that only take up 48gb of space. Most of mine are 320kbps. Some are a bit lower. I also have several oggs and CD quality flacs. I think that Mp3s really are not that bad so long as the bitrate is reasonable. Yes, you can get better but not without having to take up way more space.

 

[Francisk]

Alpha Dogs or Momuntum 1 on ear and over ear. I have a lot of DAC and amps.

Not 128kbs. Didn't say that it's AAC VBR with quality slider maxed out at 127. To me MP3 320 sits somewhere between AAC 320 and 256. AAC 320 verses MP3 320 and AAC wins. But AAC with 127 is the best and yes I can tell the difference with A/B. Probably would be tuff to blind though.

I seen the AAC true VBR slider on several encoders even iTunes will encode over 320 for VBR. But personally I'm using xAct on OS X. Because I can store all my files in FLAC in proper folder names. Then copy over a duplicate of folders let's say about 40 CDs to a new folder. Then in xAct. Choice encode to folder and delete originals. Then with settings in xAct I set it to use 12 cores that I have on Mac. I encode all 40 albums in about 12 min. Then I retain all my folder structure but now have AAC or what ever codec I choose. I can tranfer it to my phone or dap then delete the 40 albums in AAC. Just keep the flac originals. Then redo it again when needed. That's why I use xact. I haven't found another program that creates a scheduled encode list that well.

Try encoding mp3 320kbps with Fraunhofer and tell me if AAC is still better. I never use VBR, I use CBR religiously. I am very impressed that you can hear so much difference through your Alpha Dogs and Momentum.

 

[iancraig10]

I find differences quite minimal as well GiantHogweed. I can hear them if I hold my breath and concentrate. Believe it or not, there's a slight difference even from original to hi res PCM as well IMO but mostly in dynamic attack and range I think. Files are slightly compressed in sound by comparison.

I'm not convinced that it's a 'night and day' difference if I'm honest; especially on gear that might not even be as resolving as all that. To be able to consistently tell any differences, I need to use a headphone that has a slightly exaggerated top perhaps. Something more analytical and even then, it can depend on the music. Certainly, I'd have problems with my Momentums which really isn't the best in resolving fine detail in all honesty.

I can live with 320kbs on portable gear quite easily. Having said that, I do have quite a lot of 24bit FLAC and dsd files. Even then, quite a few here on HF turn their noses up at dsd as well.

AAC is a better format at low rates, I believe. The new UK dab broadcast standard is using AAC in order to stay at low bitrate and sound reasonable. That way, everyone can have more stations. Even MP3 is supposed to be better than AAC at higher rates.

I really don't mind too much about the format. A bad master at 24 bit FLAC sounds just as bad as the same mix at 320!! Unfortunately, for some hi res copies, they are simply remixed, which very often accounts for the supposedly 'huge' differences that some seem to hear. The industry rubs it's hands together, charging double for these 'special' hi res copies. Keeps prices up nicely. Makes me wonder why .....

Why are we charged so much for a hi res copy of music already recorded in hi res and put down to 16 bit for cd? The music has already been recorded and mastered but it seems that the hi res copy is more expensive just because it's hi res.

The industry loves hi fi people a lot.

 

[BruceBanner]

I can quite easily hear ther difference between 192kbps and 320kbps Mp3s. what I find harder to tell appart is between 320kbps Mp3s and CD quality flacs. There is a very minor difference at times that I can only hear on certain tracks. They have to be very well recorded for me to notice. I can also tell the difference when I downloaded some 24bit flacs. That double album took up 1.6gb. The difference in sound quality is noticeable so I would say the space that is takes up is worth it.

 
128kbps and perhaps a few 160kbps (and only certain tracks at that) and it becomes pretty obvious I am not listening 320kbps. 192kbps and higher and it becomes 'critical listening' for me. Hell!... some 160kbps and FLAC I can't tell the difference!
 
 

   
Sorry to hear that

 
Why sorry? At the end of the day we don't have to spend as much xD
 
 

I find it's such a huge gap between 320KB/s and Losseless CD. I can't really tolerate 320 mp3. AAC encoded with 127 gives near 380kb/s average there is nothing lossy I would want lower than that. Lately been experimenting with lossy wavpak. For 16bit wavepak I use about 500kbs. For 24bit I use 900kbs. I don't know if there is any other lossy that does 24 bit.

 
 

  I went to sleep, went to work, and am just about finishing the day "changing the world one PowerPoint at a time" as they say...
 
But you folks seem to be discussing
(a) whether FLAC is different/better/worth it compared to MP3
(b) whether permanently changing the file itself to normalise the volume is the way to go
 
For me, the answers are
(a) of course it is - why would you settle for less when storage is so cheap, why go WORSE than CD anyway? mp3 was for cheap portable players from years back, we've all got mutliple Tb drives and NAS haven't we?
(b) no.... non bit-perfect playback... why?
 
On the latter, I like EQ. I get the need for it. Because my headphones at a sensible volume don't display enough Bass.
But I prefer the hardware Bass/Treble of the Fiio X3 1st gen.
 
Because I have too much time on my hands I now build playlists for the X3 of similar volume (as measured by JrIver).... gets round the lack of ReplayGain!
 
Waddya think to that! lol

 
"Huge gap"? Really?
AFAIK there is no one out there who has successfully past abx testing to the point that the difference could be considered 'huge'.

Ok.. first I apologise for derailing the thread, I only mention MP3Gain as a way of replaygaining (for devices that don't support it), then I wanted to point out that replaygaining was possible through the foobar conversion process (albeit perma vol change).
I merely wanted to point out that MP3 files have other advantages than just 'smaller files', and when it comes down to it, are 'you all' sacrificing storage and convenience over placebo or even perhaps the smidgest teeny tiny bit of audio improvement?

It's funny, because there is a serious amount of scientific evidence that supports the idea that we are very susceptible to placebo, or unable to tell the difference between 320>Hi Res etc, yet many still claim to do so without actually posting any abx testing results.
Even if you have the same recording/files, A/B between the two, but have one a tad louder than the other, it will give you percieved higher quality when in fact it is simply just a tad louder. There is so much evidence that points to this being more likely than the human ear being able to pick up differences than 320kbps vs 24bit etc.
My point is you can't trust your own senses! And it's not just our ears, anyone remember the blue/gold dress thing? lol

Lots of peoples opinions saying they can tell a difference, but no results posted, never, ever. It's not that I doubt the sincerity or honesty of the people posting, I'm saying their own senses could be fooling them and the only real way to find out is to abx test (extensively) and post results (perhaps in signature) and point these results out to people in forums etc. But folk are too lazy, and instead would rather pay extra dollar for more storage and be more inconvenienced for the safety blanket of FLAC lol.
 

Even worse. I'm a pro musician and hear raw studio files too.

I don't get hung up on formats, that's all.

I can hear differences, but it's not the be all and end all to me. I think there's too much ripping off going on in the hi res world as well. Where for instance, source material from not that great a source is merely converted for people who claim to hear the difference at a tidy price too.

People are easily fooled. I did some rips of my own stuff and merely raised the bass depth a little on one file for my students, asking them to decide which files were high re or low. The high res stuff had a proper bass while the 320 mp3s had slightly raised bass examples amongst them. Most got it wrong. I extended it to so called audiophiles ... Again they got it wrong.

You often get files that are remixed and sent out in hi res so that some claims of how much better the format is, is down to a simple remix.

I am suspicious of the source and whether the differences are mainly that or just a remix. That's not the format.

That's why, I don't particularly worry about the format, as long as it sounds respectable.

The guy using Momentums .... Are you hearing differences between say 320 and lossless on them? I find the newer over ear ones less fussy than many headphones in that respect.

I can spot differences on music that helps exploit the high res, but find that pretty hard on a Momentum tbh. What is it that makes 320kbs so unbearable to you?

 
Clever, and yes I agree.
 
 

If storage actually was really cheap, I would have almost all of my CDs as flacs on my X3. If I changed all my Mp3s to flacs, I would have to move from my cheap 64gb card to an incredibly expensive 128gb card. Since 64gb cards seem to be available for only about £5 more than 32gb ones, that is actually very good value. However, all 128gb cards I have seen are a huge amount over double the price of 64gb cards. To me it just isn't worth making my 320kbps Mp3s sound a tiny bit better when it involved spending lots of money on storage. Even on my open backed AT ATH-AD700s with the X3, I can only tell a tiny difference between 320kbps Mp3s and flacs. Even on my 24bit flac album, there wasn't a massive difference in the sund quality. Noticeable, but not really worth the 1.6gb of space it takes up! The advantage with Mp3s is that I have about 4200 tracks that only take up 48gb of space. Most of mine are 320kbps. Some are a bit lower. I also have several oggs and CD quality flacs. I think that Mp3s really are not that bad so long as the bitrate is reasonable. Yes, you can get better but not without having to take up way more space.

 
Yes agreed, I too would have to fork out the cash for a 128gb card just to go 100% lossless, and for what? To my ears I wouldn't hear a difference, I know this as I have abx tested, I would better spend my time seeking out all the 128 and 160kbps files I have kicking about and replace with 192-320kbps.


In summary I will just say this. I am a proud Alien Shozy owner, it is a FLAC and WAV only player. Paired with my PFE 232's I have heard some of the nicest audio quality to date. But it has nothing to do with FLAC or WAV. I have taken 320kbps mp3 file (from same source as WAV) and converted to FLAC (or WAV) just so that it would be compatible with the device and can hear no audible difference at all. If the damn device supported MP3 it would sound just the same, this I am sure of.
The Alien Shozy sounds good due to 'other stuff' going on than the source files. Recently RMAA results said it to be very flat FR.

I am also now a happy Hidizs AP100 owner, the addition of an EQ being a welcome advantage over the SHozy.
Both (Shozy and AP100) sound good, but the addition of the eq on the AP100 can make up for ****tier recorded albums whereby I can increase or decrease aspects to compensate. As much as I like the Shozy it can't play Sooundgarden's Louder Than Love album as good as the AP100 simply because that albums needs tweaked.
But even if the song/album didn't require a EQ tweak I still find it hard to 'pick a winner', they both sound good, just different kinds of good.

Far more important than source files is EQ imo, many albums don't need any tweaking, many do. Many headphones suit the user in a variety of practical ways but EQing them also allows them to 'fit in' better with what equipment/genre is at hand etc.

I love the dedicated EQ button on the AP100, I don't understand that in a world of 'Audiophile' we have had to wait till 2015 to get a DAP that features this, instead we get ripped off on 'Hi Res', basically pulling us in the wrong direction if our goal is really to listen to each song at their best.

 

[TheGiantHogweed]

   
128kbps and perhaps a few 160kbps (and only certain tracks at that) and it becomes pretty obvious I am not listening 320kbps. 192kbps and higher and it becomes 'critical listening' for me. Hell!... some 160kbps and FLAC I can't tell the difference!
 
 
 

 
Well, I used to have Spotify unlimited. Everything on that was 160kbps. I think it is the ogg format. I then upgraded to Spotify Premium. Now most tracks are 320kbps and it is a noticeable difference. It is only minor again though. I often record albums from Spotify by a program called Audacity. I split and name the tracks and export them as 320kbps Mp3s. They sound exactly the same as listening to them on Spotify when put onto my X3. Since so many people say Spotify Premium has really really good quality sound, it actually sounds no better than an mp3 at 320kbps. I think it is more to do with the quality of the recording that makes the biggest difference. With some music, no matter what the format, the audio sounds poor. Others sound very good even when at as low as 160kbps. I'm not saying they won't sound better at a higher bitrate but that will probably only make a small difference. I will have to think carefully when if I buy a 24 bit album again. If it isn't really well mastered, the difference between 16bit CD quality flacs will probably hardly be noticeable. This is what the case is with my 24 bit album I think.
 
 
Sorry all for going so off-topic!
 
Another point for me though is that when I use the X3, it is generally on the move. While on the bus with all the vibrations and other sounds, the difference in sound quality is even less noticeable. I use the AKG K550s and they do block out some background noise.

 

[iancraig10]

Well, the topic is kind of linked to X3. It is an interesting one too. It's just that I hear the 'original' of my stuff and most rips are pretty ok. Even CD is a downgrade but as you say, it can also depend on exactly what the music is.

You wear the k550 outside? Do you wrap the lead around you? I have a few k550s. They're kept for my students, but you know, the newer ones sound slightly better than my original!! I had to keep a new one for myself and then I got a K553.

I'm surprised you didn't go for a K551 mobile. Less lead to contend with.

I use to use the old Momentum for mobile which I've now changed to the bigger, new ones. Much more comfy. Or I often use Klipsch or Senn ie8 iem's. Just about to try the new Fiio iem which are really Dunu Titans in disguise. They're only semi-closed though. My Senn iem's have a custom fit and actually, they tend to block out a bit too much, making them a little dangerous for walking out on the street. You just don't hear the car that's going to hit you!!!

I suppose it's a nice way to go though, listening to music!! I hope it's not low res playing when I go. It would be SO embarrassing.

 

[TheGiantHogweed]

Well, the topic is kind of linked to X3. It is an interesting one too. It's just that I hear the 'original' of my stuff and most rips are pretty ok. Even CD is a downgrade but as you say, it can also depend on exactly what the music is.

You wear the k550 outside? Do you wrap the lead around you? I have a few k550s. They're kept for my students, but you know, the newer ones sound slightly better than my original!! I had to keep a new one for myself and then I got a K553.

I'm surprised you didn't go for a K551 mobile. Less lead to contend with.

I use to use the old Momentum for mobile which I've now changed to the bigger, new ones. Much more comfy. Or I often use Klipsch or Senn ie8 iem's. Just about to try the new Fiio iem which are really Dunu Titans in disguise. They're only semi-closed though. My Senn iem's have a custom fit and actually, they tend to block out a bit too much, making them a little dangerous for walking out on the street. You just don't hear the car that's going to hit you!!!

I suppose it's a nice way to go though, listening to music!!

I hope it's not low res playing when I go. It would be SO embarrassing.

Take a look at the latest pic on this thread

They are my K550s

 
I didn't go for the K551s because several people said the cable was cheap and nasty in comparison. Very thin and flimsy with a very chunky end where the jack is. Also at the time I bought them the K551s were about £20 more. £129 was what I paid which may sound very expensive now. I have seen them at £89 in several places. Even if both of them have the same price, i would rather have the K550s. I am also not keen on the in-line remote.
 
I think the K550s must be very good at preventing noise leakage. I tried playing my X3 very loud while the K550s were face down on my desk. I can just about hear the music but you don't get that tinny treble sound leakage that you often hear on public transport coming form cheap IEMs. I lift them off my desk and they are suddenly really loud. Not suprised that people hardly every notice my music while on the bus even when I do listen to is quite loud. I also love that when I do listen to music, I hardly hear anything around me. (I never would listen to them walking down the street!)
 
What is the most strange thing about the K550s is that you loose so much bass when on public transport. Maybe this is normal? On average, I think I have the bass boost on the X3 at around +8 most of the time. When At home, the K550s sound pretty bad when they have that much bass added. But when I am on the move the bass boost is really useful. I really do think I would mess the hardware bass if I had any other FiiO DAP.

 

[iancraig10]

I agree. For portable, for some reason, many prefer more bass. That's why I use the Momentum 2. It's not particularly analytical or anything, but has a raised bass and is sensitive. It goes extremely loud with the x3.

I swapped the cable for something more substantial without switches in the way as well. Expensive but ok for portable.

 

[thecfg]

What I would say, is that it's a shame to use the X3 for mp3 or lossy music in general.
 
I think of it like this:
Neil Young, Sony, they're trying to get us to jump from mp3 to HiRes. There's no money in CD's anymore, they represent the greatest 2nd hand purchase bargain at the moment! (I buy plenty!). Who wants them? We all want downloads or streaming (but not me lol)
Take a look at how it's either Spotify, Rdio, Deezer, or QoBuz, Tidal for HiRes.
But....
What about the simple, humble, lovely, quite acceptable well-mastered CD? That's what I want, not HiRes at £10+ an album (again!).
What about those from KD Lang etc where extreme care was taken from source through to mastering?
Sure, your average 80s CD with 8bit synths, or Sex Pistols punk, or PJ Harvey possibly wasn't meant to focus on that end to end quality.
Focus on the music, on the content, not the quality? It comes across as audiophile snobbery
Do we need Rage against the Machine to be in HiRes? You can download Nirvana's Nevermind in HiRes from QoBuz, but do you need to?
 
For an album or track I know inside out, every hihat, every jangly guitar, I can hear the difference between 44.1/16bit and 320k mp3.
It's in the hi-hats, and the acoustic guitars. It's less fatiguing to listen to, but the boosted treble of a lot of lower res mp3's can be attractive to some.
A guy at work argues that he only listens to music in the car, and it doesn't matter, there's so much noise anyway.
And he's over 50, and admits his high frequency hearing has gone.
He's right. He's right to prefer what he likes.
 
I just love having the ACTUAL CD's on my X3. That's a fantastic opportunity!!! I love it!! Isn't that ok?
Why do I have to PROVE the FLAC cd versions sound better than mp3?
My point is more "why do I need to compress them?"
My partner and I like to watch Star Wars on BluRay, can we tell the difference between it and DVD?
It's just like the 1980s again, when we all had actual CD players and amps in our houses, until they all got replaced by iPod docks