[cdvsmp3]

  http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
give that a read 

Thanks for the article. I share the same opinion about HD audio.

 

[Makiah S]

  Thanks for the article. I share the same opinion about HD audio.

For me 24/96 is pushing it, any higher than that and well you know
 
but on the other end, the notion that mp3 and Flac [or Alac or Wav or Ape] are in distinguishable is equally "pushing it"  as far as I am concerned 

 

[cel4145]

For me 24/96 is pushing it, any higher than that and well you know

Well, you know some 24/96 audio will sound better because it's been mastered better. So certainly the sampling rate and bit rate is not an advantage, but the version that is sometimes being sold is better than the 16/44.1. Then again, the mastering could be worse. LOL

 

[vipervick]

As to respond to original post.


If your buying HD tracks try downloading a FLAC player from the Apple App Store. The best one I tried is called AmpliFlac and costs $9. There are also a bunch that are free. VLC is free. I also use FLAC Player by Khoa Tran Anh but the files are out of order and you gets unwanted adds showing up at the bottom of your screen. Lol


Anyway Apple DACs max out at 48 kHz still you can mix your iTunes library with your iDevice FLAC library and listen to both. I find even 24 / 96 HD tracks sound better than any files out of my Touch Gen 5, especially with AmpliFlac. Cheers.

iPod Classic doesn't have apps. I enjoy my 160Gb of space. Until the next thingamajigger is released, I stick to mp3 for mobile listening. No problem with WAV whatsoever on my computer.

 

[cdvsmp3]

  iPod Classic doesn't have apps. I enjoy my 160Gb of space. Until the next thingamajigger is released, I stick to mp3 for mobile listening. No problem with WAV whatsoever on my computer.

You can download HD tracks in ALAC format (which is Apple Lossless). You may import them to your iTunes library and they will play in your iPod (but I don't think you will any difference at all). No need for any other applications.
 
_____________________
cdvsmp3.wordpress.com

 

[Makiah S]

Well, you know some 24/96 audio will sound better because it's been mastered better. So certainly the sampling rate and bit rate is not an advantage, but the version that is sometimes being sold is better than the 16/44.1. Then again, the mastering could be worse. LOL

exactly, 25/96 are most often Vinyl Rips, which can often be mastered better 

 

[Redcarmoose]

I'm using the VLC player to play FLAC files with an Apple Touch Gen 5. Works flawless.

Movies in HD stutter but 24/96 music files are smooth as silk. The player is free and has no restrictions just a perfect program for Apple products.

 

[vipervick]

I'm using the VLC player to play FLAC files with an Apple Touch Gen 5. Works flawless.

Movies in HD stutter but 24/96 music files are smooth as silk. The player is free and has no restrictions just a perfect program for Apple products.

Well, I'm not buying another DAP since my classic still works. All the other DAP's have a piss-poor price to storage ratio...

 

[Redcarmoose]

  Well, I'm not buying another DAP since my classic still works. All the other DAP's have a piss-poor price to storage ratio...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockbox
 
As I remember Rockbox sounded fantastic with flacs on the Classic. I don't know about the high rez content though?
 
I don't have that many 24/96 albums so even though the storage is small it forces me to concentrate on maybe 4 albums at a time. You can also mix regular MP3s too.

 

[62ohm]

Hi guys, I'm currently trying out converting my WAV files to FLAC using dBpoweramp, what's the 'real difference' between the lossless level encoding options? It seems that the default is Lossless Level 5, but if I ticked the Lossless Uncompressed option the file size became exactly the same as my WAV. Which level do you guys use?

 

[A_Man_Eating_Duck]

The only difference is compression amount, time it takes to compress and higher compression mode are a little slower to decode (you wont notice this on a modern PC or laptop.

I tend to use level 8 for my encodes. There isn't much of a space saving going from level 5 to level 8.

 

[Roseval]

A simple experiment is to decode to FLAC with e.g. 0,5 and 8
8 yields the highest compression but the difference with 5 is small.
 
There are people who claim to hear a difference between playing a track  in WAV and in FLAC.
Invariably they claim WAV sound better.
Tagging support of WAV is haphazard
Hence if you rip to uncompressed FLAC you have the same data as in case of WAV but with the excellent tagging support of FLAC added.
 
BTW: I always use 8. With todays CPU's you won't notice the difference. The I/O is probably the limiting factor

 

[62ohm]

The only difference is compression amount, time it takes to compress and higher compression mode are a little slower to decode (you wont notice this on a modern PC or laptop.

I tend to use level 8 for my encodes. There isn't much of a space saving going from level 5 to level 8.

 
Cheers.

 

[62ohm]

So I've just finished converting my WAVs to FLACs, and 123GB of music turns into 77GB... That is about 60% capacity saved 

 

[vipervick]

  So I've just finished converting my WAVs to FLACs, and 123GB of music turns into 77GB... That is about 60% capacity saved 

More like 38% saved...