Latest Thread Images

Why do we use lossless?
May 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM Post #63 of 88


Quote:
dobrescu george said:
i forgot to say that with cowon j3 i can turn sub-sonic bass louder, and upper bass lower, so ie8 sound like proffesional 2500$ iems?....
Click to expand...



And how exactly do you do turn the "sub-sonic" bass louder?
confused_face%281%29.gif

 
Aug 9, 2011 at 12:35 AM Post #67 of 88
Anyone have a few graphs using a single pair of headphones showing one frequency response curve with lossless vs lossy ( say 192 kbits )?  The track obviously must be the same.
I am trying to do direct A/B in foobar tracks from CD and then 192 kbits.  I think I can hear the difference, but it sure is subtle.  Each track in the comparison I sense a crispness and slight extension in both soundstage and frequency response straight from CD in comparison to 192 kbs.
 
Aug 9, 2011 at 6:33 AM Post #68 of 88
na blur said:
Anyone have a few graphs using a single pair of headphones showing one frequency response curve with lossless vs lossy ( say 192 kbits )?  The track obviously must be the same.
I am trying to do direct A/B in foobar tracks from CD and then 192 kbits.  I think I can hear the difference, but it sure is subtle.  Each track in the comparison I sense a crispness and slight extension in both soundstage and frequency response straight from CD in comparison to 192 kbs.
Click to expand...


What is your equipment chain?

Does your dac use ASRC?
 
Aug 10, 2011 at 12:17 AM Post #69 of 88
I go from PC ( foobar2000) to m903 via USB into a pair of AH-D2000's.  If I had to guess 192 kb/s at 24 bit is probably not easily discerned from CD.  When I play CD's I use my DVD drive as it is much better than my CD burner drive.  I used foobar2000 both to play the CD and go straight to the compressed track.  Could it be possible that when I ripped the CD to mp3 at 192 kb/s at 24 bit, because the CD is 44.1 kb/s, the 192 kb/s rate basically kept most of the uncompression?
 
In one simple question: Can anyone honestly hear the difference between CD and the same tracks on that CD in mp3 format at 192 kb/s 24 bit?
 
Aug 12, 2011 at 5:49 AM Post #70 of 88
 
Quote:
na blur said:
I go from PC ( foobar2000) to m903 via USB into a pair of AH-D2000's.  If I had to guess 192 kb/s at 24 bit is probably not easily discerned from CD.  When I play CD's I use my DVD drive as it is much better than my CD burner drive.  I used foobar2000 both to play the CD and go straight to the compressed track.  Could it be possible that when I ripped the CD to mp3 at 192 kb/s at 24 bit, because the CD is 44.1 kb/s, the 192 kb/s rate basically kept most of the uncompression?
 
In one simple question: Can anyone honestly hear the difference between CD and the same tracks on that CD in mp3 format at 192 kb/s 24 bit?
Click to expand...


I think you've mixed up sampling rate and bit rate. A CD will have a bitrate of around 1400 kbps and sampling rate at 44.1 kHz. CD is also limited to 16 bit so you don't need to rip it at 24 bit. Most people including myself may have trouble discerning lossy and lossless for recording we're not familiar with. But if I've heard a recording 100 times on lossless, it's easy to point out the flaws in lossy formats with good enough equipment. Which is what makes those online "tests" a little irrelevant. Plus, I believe they intentionally choose recordings that doesn't lose much detail when compressed like simple, non congested recordings with a limited dynamic range.
 
 
Aug 12, 2011 at 11:37 AM Post #71 of 88
Quote:
tuahogary said:
I think you've mixed up sampling rate and bit rate. A CD will have a bitrate of around 1400 kbps and sampling rate at 44.1 kHz. CD is also limited to 16 bit so you don't need to rip it at 24 bit. Most people including myself may have trouble discerning lossy and lossless for recording we're not familiar with. But if I've heard a recording 100 times on lossless, it's easy to point out the flaws in lossy formats with good enough equipment. Which is what makes those online "tests" a little irrelevant. Plus, I believe they intentionally choose recordings that doesn't lose much detail when compressed like simple, non congested recordings with a limited dynamic range.
Click to expand...


Have you tried the ABX comparator plugin for Foobar?
 
Aug 12, 2011 at 1:56 PM Post #72 of 88
I was writing in a flurry and did not realize my mistake.  Thanks for pointing this out tuahogary!
 
I should be able to hear the difference from 1400 kbps at 44.1 kHz once it is compressed to 192 kbps at 44.1 kHz, but it sure is subtle to my ears if I am even hearing the difference.  I am also listening at lower volume levels so that could also be why I am not picking up the difference.  I can, on the other ear as it were, hear the difference between a good sounding track on my car audio system in comparison to my home rig.  Some CD's I cannot listen to at home because their audio engineer and/or equipment was terrible.
 
I mentioned 24 bit because the m903 is a 24 bit device and if you use it at 16 bit the noise floor is somewhat sibilant.  At 24 bit I cannot hear anything within the noise floor.
 
There is no doubt that when sampling an audio file from a site and then listening to it after you download it that the audio is completely different.  The sample is usually drastically compressed whereas the actual download is much less compressed and enjoyable.  This leads me to believe that at certain levels there are distinct and quantifiable advantages to lossless.
 
Aug 12, 2011 at 2:18 PM Post #73 of 88
I just brought some Insignia NS-B2111 Bass Reflex Speakers at Best Buy and i was startled at how good my lossless rips sounded compared to my under 192 kbps mp3 rips. So for me using lossless is for making the most out of my audio bliss the equipment is capable of giving me.
 
 
 
Aug 16, 2011 at 10:21 AM Post #74 of 88
I use LAME V0 because I'm unable to ABX V0 from FLAC. I also like to carry my entire music library with me wherever I go. If I had it in ALAC or FLAC it would be too large for my iPod Classic.
 
Once PMPs have huge storage I'll consider FLAC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top