[Nexus6]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5540512/

I mean, sure, lossless is good and I archive all my music with FLAC, but to my ears, I really can't tell a difference between FLAC and AAC @ 128kbps, so why wouldn't I go for the smaller file size on a portable device?

And this guy is recommending people use AIFF or WAV. Hasn't he heard of Apple Lossless or FLAC (both of which are now supported by portable devices)?

Poor reporting like really gets me going. Do a little reasearch first.

 

[HD-5000]

I find it comforting that there is at least some mainstream opinions against hugely compressed music files, which I'm afraid is becoming the norm for the future of music. I think lots of us here are fighting for higher quality music, and this guy isn't hurting at all by stating there are alternatives to 128K AAC.

 

[PeterR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus6 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5540512/ I mean, sure, lossless is good and I archive all my music with FLAC, but to my ears, I really can't tell a difference between FLAC and AAC @ 128kbps, so why wouldn't I go for the smaller file size on a portable device?

Well, your ears aren't everyone's ears. Telling low bitrate compressed from lossless isn't really that difficult at all at least under reasonable conditions. If you're listening on a portable in a noisy environment, the smaller filesize may outweight the sonic degradation...

 

[andrzejpw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus6 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5540512/ I mean, sure, lossless is good and I archive all my music with FLAC, but to my ears, I really can't tell a difference between FLAC and AAC @ 128kbps, so why wouldn't I go for the smaller file size on a portable device? And this guy is recommending people use AIFF or WAV. Hasn't he heard of Apple Lossless or FLAC (both of which are now supported by portable devices)? Poor reporting like really gets me going. Do a little reasearch first.

1. If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't mean others can't as well.
2. AIFF and WAV (WAV especially) are supported by every device out there (ok, maybe AIFF only by the ipod). AL is ipod only, and flac isn't all that popular either.

 

[Faelix]

I see I agree (and disagree) with a lot of points here:

1. Lossless compression is quite exagerated on portables. Before using it, it is worth testing higher bitrates on lossy files: you get more quality than the usual 128kbps and save more space than with lossless.

2. If lossless is already unnecessary, uncompressed files are nuts. They take a lot of space, turning your large iPod into a limited player, no more a jukebox.

3. Although the author seems to ignore the existence of lossless encoding, it is refreshing to hear someone saying: "we don't want crappy 128kbps music any more, give us really CD-quality music".

 

[lojay]

If you still can't tell the difference between mp3's and CD quality (flac inc.), you should get away from this forum ASAP or your wallet will be sorry!

 

[blessingx]

That is weird the whole thing was written and ALAC wasn't considered.

I think lossless and uncompressed have their place. I agree they are over-exaggerated on audiophile boards, but hell that's what audiophile boards do.

Like laptops being used as desktop replacements, portable music players are likely too. Stand alone systems for many moved to computer based to soon portable? Doesn't it seem natural? I just moved in that direction with a new iPod and a friend is doing the same with his Karma. In those cases environmental noises, etc. that always get used against high bitrate files, get wiped away. Course you can still question the DAC, but in the top portables even that is decent.