[Cosmid]

I rip my CDs to computer in lossless format. It is easier if a portable player supports lossless format so I can copy my files to player and it is ready to go.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Yes, indeed it is. But if your source is already jamming instruments together, when you compress if further, the end result is much worse. If you are already limiting the dynamic range, then compressing it to mp3, you further destroy much of the nuances. You start to lose the resonance of the guitars, or violins, bass drums don't have the same impact, and you theoretically have a flatter sound.

No, encoding a track that uses dynamic range compression (and most all do to some degree) will not make the results of the encoding process any better or worse.

 

[Luminette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubermang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just wanted to ask people who play lossless files on their portable players. I want to ask them "what difference" they hear.

They hear that which is not lost?

And being sure you are missing absolutely nothing from that aspect of the listening is invaluable

 

[UseName]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, encoding a track that uses dynamic range compression (and most all do to some degree) will not make the results of the encoding process any better or worse.

Care to explain?

 

[oicdn]

I think it boils down to a psychological thing. I know most people aren't usually in the environment to discern the difference between a really good rip/mp3/aac file and lossless when out and about. On a computer at home or in an environment more condusive to listening, sure, but lossless files when commuting on a train or walking around, or doing things with less attention on the music, the differences are probably all psychological or peace of mind knowing you have lossless files on your DAP rather than REALLY hearing the difference.

I don't store my music in lossless unless it's on a HD, like an iMod or a computer, as really, it's likely the source can't really reveal the differences to a highly discernible level...IMO atleast.

 

[Quaddy]

why do some people wear an expensive watch on their wrist, when the same basic time information can be emparted from a $20 casio?

seems to be another case of "if i cant tell the difference" how or why should anyone else.

because it sounds better.

also some, like me, use a 'portable' rig at home as part of a decent little listening setup!

explaining it is pointless, as only those who want to listen will hear the reasoning!

and practicality wise, its easier to deal with one standard.

i do occasionally dip into what mere mortals must endure, when i listen to my sony with atrac and mp3, but thats just to ensure i have my feet on the ground and i dont let lossless change me or my life

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by UseName /img/forum/go_quote.gif Care to explain?

An encoder will try to provide an audibly transparent copy of the source. There is no technical reason why the amount of dynamic range compression used in creating the source material will necessarily affect the ability of the encoder to do it's job.

 

[UseName]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif An encoder will try to provide an audibly transparent copy of the source. There is no technical reason why the amount of dynamic range compression used in creating the source material will necessarily affect the ability of the encoder to do it's job.

I suppose that makes some sense... however, it still doesn't make sense to me that you use the full dynamic range in the original, you would get close enough to it in the output on an mp3. It just seems like it would be easier to compress a file that has a short dynamic range.

I can't really put into words right now why i think that way, so for the time being, I stand corrected.

 

[brown274]

Well I can hear major differences in the recording setups using lossless files. Less unknown artist and music recorded before 1990, seems to sound like crap on my K701's. A beachboys greatest hits sounds like it was recorded in a shoebox compared to blues traveler. I enjoy getting new cd's because they seem to sound better each year after year.

I used to do car audio competition a few years back. I got the chance to watch a 20k system installed in a BMW where money was no object to the owner, he just wanted to win in the SQ division. He used focal speakers all around with zapco amps. Took at least 1 month to sound stage test and find the proper speaker placement (mid drivers in doors and 7" in floors). What was used to test this system? Dave Matthews band. Why? Because if you put bands that skimped on production cost, these focal speakers would show you that.

I think that there is more of a difference in what gear was used to record with. Some cd's sound good and some don't. But lossless vs mp3 is a debate that we will see each week. I can tell a slight difference in the 2 but I plan on just keeping lossless so in 10 years when I buy the new 8tb ipod nano, All of my music will be the same as the source I ripped it from!

 

[bigshot]

Portable players aren't optimized to play lossless files. They can do it, but they're really designed to play compressed files. The sound quality of a well encoded MP3 or AAC is audibly indistinguishable from a lossless file, but it makes sense to maintain lossless masters on your computer to back up your music uncompressed. I can see how some folks may not have a large enough library or a small enough capacity player to bother to encode to MP3. But for me, with a wide range of musical interests, it's well worth the time it takes to compress and organize my music. There's no loss in sound quality, only an increase in capacity, so it's a win-win.

See ya
Steve

 

[Skylab]

I prefer to have music in Lossless, because I feel better knowing that I have not compromised the music in any way. I have a 160GB iPod, so it works out OK. My library is 240GB, but I get plenty of music on there

 

[3x331m]

I took the recommendation of 192K compression to build the library for my iPods. I was happy with low-end phones for a long time. However, not until the arrival of the GS1000, which showed me how bad the compression has done to my music. I had to scrap all of my compressed files and gone lossless. Even I have only 8gig on my iPhone, all files are lossless. I can no longer stand the distraction from badly compress files.

You need to hear it to believe it.

 

[Insanity]

As other have said, i prefer to know that i am listening to the exact song as it was released to consumers.

In addition, i often connect my portable to a high-end home theater system where the difference is clear.

 

[joay]

All I can say is "why lossy"? Currently we have 160GB HD players and 32GB flash players. We're seeing "lossy" become irrelevant right before our eyes.

3 years from now MP3's will be irrelevant. 6 years from now MP3's will be obsolete.

I will revive this thread in 2013 and i'll have a laugh while listening to my 800 CD's of lossless files on random (using only 20% of my 1.5Terabyte Media player)

Maybe someday itunes will allow us to trade in our garbage 128Kbs MP3's for lossless (with an $.89 fee per song of course).
Attachment 2877

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

I will revive this thread in 2013 and i'll have a laugh while listening to my 800 CD's of lossless files on random (using only 20% of my 1.5Terabyte Media player)

Or why wait... I'll just pretend MP3's on my 30gb player are actually lossless files on my 1 tb player... either way they'll sound the same...