Not spreading misinformation and the comparison is not garbage. WAV, ALAC, FLAC, AIFF 16/44.1 CD quality lossless are the same as locking the adjustments and still provide a level of file size compression (except WAV) similar to zip or rar file compression. Conversion to mp3/AAC 320 lossy dumps information to accommodate even smaller file sizes at the expense of lost information. High resolution 24bit/48kHz and up, and DSD, are Master Studio Quality with extra information for headroom.
Here are the relative comparisons to clarify:
I edited my previous post to reflect a little closer to what I mean to say, which is well mastered music vs poorly mastered as well as lossless and lossy. In that regard the video comparison is spot on. A poorly shot video (ISO, Aperture, etc.) looks like crap on highly resolving displays. Even poorly shot film content looks bad. However, I've seen a lot of highly compressed HD footage in my career and the fact is when you lose information you see artifacts and it's not as realistic. On a less resolving display you don't notice it, just like with audio but much harder to articulate.
Same with JPEG and RAW. Again, for a living, I deal with a lot of photography and have shot both (ever use a Spheron camera for the film industry?) and I can pick out the differences quite readily. The differences aren't huge and are mostly how the camera's processor interprets the RAW data when creating the JPEG which may lead to more chroma noise or slightly blown out highlights or fringing or extra sharpening in the JPEG. Computer software handles this translation from RAW much better than most cameras. Lossy audio is like low/medium quality JPEG vs high quality JPEG (huge difference). Raw vs high quality JPEG is like the difference between studio masters and lossless CD quality audio (small, difficult to tell difference).
When I convert to lossy for storage concerns the music loses some of its realism and life, plain and simple. Information is being lost (lossy). Im not saying all lossy music sounds like crap, just that the differences from less resolving players to the X5 are smaller with lossy files because you can't hear nuances that aren't there.
The large bit depth (word length) and sample rate are what is in studio masters for headroom. There is a lot more information in 24bit/192kHz and DSD than in 16bit/44.1 lossless (CD redbook standard) and that's where the headroom is. I find 16/44.1 lossless perfectly acceptable but going to lossy there is a clear and distinct difference. Just like a photograph or video (pixels/color depth vs bits/sample rate), when info is lost it's not going to come back.
The comments that the X5 shows little improvement (or sounds worse) leads me to believe that the music being fed to it isn't well mastered or lossy or both and the X5 is just revealing this or the headphones can't resolve the details (headphone sound signature not part of this equation). The whole point was that the X5 can't fix the entire chain from source to headphones and the expectations that it will be the only upgrade needed for the best quality sound is somewhat a little too hopeful (if the rest of the audio chain isn't up to snuff). That's the cold reality of Head fi and newcomers should know this. I wish I did because it would have saved me a lot of time and money.
hopefully this doesn't overly hijack the thread woops. But to answer you, yes the bulk of my songs are lossless cd rips, and a lot of my test tracks are in very well recorded and mastered tracks. So yes while it may be my first DAP, I would like to point out that I actually took care to ensure that every step of the way is decent. While I personally feel that 320kbps mp3s are very fantastic already, for the purpose if an objective evaluation, i used high res and 16 bit files.
