[RP2X]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jagorev Yes, easily. Here's why: When I listen to music from CDs, it's in my comfy listening area with a very quiet CD player, chilling on the sofa or bed. When I listen to music at high bitrate MP3s, it's at my noisy computer, sitting at the chair in front of my study desk, while I'm doing other work or browsing the web or reading email, generally stressed out or focussing on things other than the music. Sometimes, I listen to MP3s at the gym with a DAP and mediocre IEMs. Trust me, the CD listening sounds much better.

Thats since your at home chilling out and can have a stress free flowing mind

 

[RP2X]

I have some music cds I got Dido-Life after rent here and ive mp3ed the cd (320kbps) and ive also done it in APE Lossless format, cant tell the difference yet but I have yet to use some quality canns maybe when I get my HD-595s.

To be on the safe side im not chancing it on my favorite albums/songs ill try sticking to a lossless codec (head-fi+your lot fault) just in case there is a minimal difference, id say theres gotta be how can a compressed 9-10meg 320kbps file compete with an 45-60meg uncompressed lossless file ?

 

[zenzog]

The biggest difference for me was when at the DFW meet, I listened to Coldplay - Speed of Sound lossless and heard an echo. Not a bad echo, but one that's supposed to be there. I couldn't hear the same on a 192kbps mp3.

Now I take the argument between lossless/cd & lossy/mp3 with a little more seriousness.

 

[JahJahBinks]

Also it depends on the music itself.

 

[Ayreonaut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jagorev I guess my point is, the principle of ABX testing on foobar is completely irrelevant to me, since I would never listen to CDs through foobar anyway.

Circumstance or principle? A good USB DAC is better than a lot of CD players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenzog The biggest difference for me was when at the DFW meet, I listened to Coldplay - Speed of Sound lossless and heard an echo. Not a bad echo, but one that's supposed to be there. I couldn't hear the same on a 192kbps mp3.

Did you rip it yourself using a top notch encoder? There really is a huge difference between a bad rip and a good one at the same bit rate. Most of the clearly audible distortions (in my old downloaded files) are from bad rips.

 

[jagorev]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut Circumstance or principle? A good USB DAC is better than a lot of CD players.

True enough, but I'd still have to use my noisy keyboard and mouse, and keep walking over to the computer to control foobar, wouldn't I? And what about noise - I have yet to find a laptop as noiseless as the average CD player.

 

[zenzog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut Did you rip it yourself using a top notch encoder? There really is a huge difference between a bad rip and a good one at the same bit rate. Most of the clearly audible distortions (in my old downloaded files) are from bad rips.

No, I didn't. A friend sent this album to me and it's when I got hooked on Coldplay (somehow I hadn't heard of them other than from clocks and yellow). It might be a bad rip!

 

[anyatinagan]

i guess a badass rig has something to do with the overall clarity of the music, but your hearing ability is also a factor. I can't abx anything above vbr4 vbr new(lame 3.97b2).

 

[xUKHCx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jagorev True enough, but I'd still have to use my noisy keyboard and mouse, and keep walking over to the computer to control foobar, wouldn't I? And what about noise - I have yet to find a laptop as noiseless as the average CD player.

You should get a mac

 

[wakked1]

I can tell the difference with good gear in direct A-B comparison between max quality VBR and FLAC.. slightly less grain in the vocals and a better sense of space/effortlesness/soundstage. But I don't feel like I'm missing something otherwise when just listening straight to the MP3s.

 

[Sisyphos]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosk There is a difference. The original CD will sound more airy and effortless among other things. To hear the difference I suspect you need a more highly resolving rig than the majority of head-fi'ers possess (as demonstrated above), that and a decent set of ears. There is a definate difference betwen them. People don't use lossless files just because they enjoy wasting more space.

Have you ever really confirmed this in a blind test? I guess most people who believe that it sounds better only do this because the player shows a bitrate of 1411kbs instead of a VBR of about 250kbs. That's just how placebo works.

I don't want to say that there is probably no one with a very high quality rig and better than normal hearing who can distinguish them in a blind test.
And I really understand why one uses lossless files for archiving but I'm angry about the fact that a lot of people keep telling that .mp3's just crap, only based on the thought that it must be crap because it compresses the original.
Those who developed the major compression formats knew a quite a lot about psychoacoustics and cleverly used this knowledge.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosk True enough, but I'd still have to use my noisy keyboard and mouse, and keep walking over to the computer to control foobar, wouldn't I? And what about noise - I have yet to find a laptop as noiseless as the average CD player.

I recently tried a few cheap laptops (IBM R50, Samsung X20) and finally found one that's really silent: a Toshiba L10 with Pentium M. It's possible to turn off the fan completly via a simple setting n the bios, but even in the default setting the fan never starts when playing music files. And this laptop has a slow 4200rpm HDD which's the most silent I've ever (almost not) heard.

P.S.: Just to let you know: my Rega Planet CDP is not as silent as this laptop is.

 

[Ayreonaut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sisyphos I'm angry about the fact that a lot of people keep telling that .mp3's just crap, only based on the thought that it must be crap because it compresses the original.

Its not crap; its a very effective solution to reducing file size and maintaining high sound quality. Just because you can tell a slight difference with ABX doesn't mean that you'll know the difference otherwise. I agree with wakked1; I'm not missing much with good mp3s.

 

[Nar1117]

If you really want to get technical, the quality of the file will come down to the quality of the recording. Whether or not one can tell the difference is something different. You need experienced ears, and a track that you're familiar with. Coldplay-Parachutes is a great test track for this kind of thing.

I can distinguish between Lossless and MP3 VBR only when the lossless file is below about 140 or 150 kbps. Most of my collection is in Lossless or AAC VBR, encoded with iTunes. I havent used FLAC or MP3 very much just cause thats how i am. Now, vs the actual CD, if its a bad MP3, yes, sure i can tell the difference. But if its pretty well encoded, its hard to tell save with the higher-end equip.. Ive heard the UE-10 pro brings out the encoding in an unfortunate way, but only conditionally.

 

[Jam_Master_J]

I have alot of vbr mp3s averagine around 224 kbps on my Karma. They sound as good as the FLACs to me, and slightly better than the 192 cbr ones. I haven't extensively listened to them on my home rig though.

 

[bmclaurin]

For me, it was impossible to distinguish my LAME-encoded MP3's (-V 0 --vbr-new) from my FLAC files until I added a DAC between the source player and my amp. The combination of a decent DAC and high-end cans has exposed the admittedly subtle differences between the formats. But to be honest, the difference is not huge by any means. Personally, I can only detect it when I switch back and forth between the two formats in succession at the same sitting. But I would not be able to reliably distinguish between the two if someone were to randomly select one of the formats and play it. To me, the difference between the two is such that the FLAC file seems slightly more "expansive," for the lack of a better way to describe it, than the same track encoded as an MP3. A previous poster in this thread I think used the term "airy," and I would concur that that is a good way to describe it. If you're not using a DAC and/or somewhat high-end cans, the SQ advantages of FLAC (as compared to high quality encoded MP3's) is probably not worth the drive space it will cost you IMO.