Latest Thread Images

Why lossless on portables?
Mar 13, 2008 at 7:23 PM Post #76 of 262
Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I didn't say that it couldn't be transcoded... anything can be transcoded if you have the space and time. I was just suggesting that if one used a non-proprietary format you wouldn't be faced with having to transcode your entire library if you happen to change player brands.



This is a different argument. What skylab and I are saying is that unlike MP3 vs lossless, Apple lossles can be transcoded without further sound degration down the road. And it is a simple process... you simply highlight what you want transcoded and to what format and let itunes do the rest. If you take an MP3 file and decide you want to transcode it into some future format you will lose SQ- not the case with lossless. Regardless of it being proprietary it will always be future proof/sq proof.

Your argument is more in reference to AAC, which would have SQ issues if you chose to transcode down the road.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 8:36 PM Post #77 of 262
Quote:

What skylab and I are saying is that unlike MP3 vs lossless, Apple lossles can be transcoded without further sound degration down the road.


Yes, I understand, but why bother to face that potential 'down the road' event at all? What seems to make the most sense (to me) for someone with a large library is to archive in a non-proprietary lossless format that is supported on all platforms, in which case you will only have to deal with your coding your main library once no matter what hardware you own in the future. I really wouldn't want to be messing with my main library archive just because I purchased a different brand player, lossless conversion or not.

Admittedly not an enormously big deal either way, but even if I had an Apple product I think I'd use FLAC for archival purposes. Maybe that's just me.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 8:52 PM Post #78 of 262
Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Admittedly not an enormously big deal either way, but even if I had an Apple product I think I'd use FLAC for archival purposes. Maybe that's just me.


This is how I work it. FLAC for archiving my music and then if I move it to the iPod I transcode to ALAC. I have FLAC working in iTunes, still waiting desperately for FLAC on the iPod (come on Apple!)
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 8:53 PM Post #79 of 262
"Yes, I understand, but why bother to face that potential 'down the road' event at all? What seems to make the most sense (to me) for someone with a large library is to archive in a non-proprietary lossless format that is supported on all platforms, in which case you will only have to deal with your coding your main library once no matter what hardware you own in the future. I really wouldn't want to be messing with my main library archive just because I purchased a different brand player, lossless conversion or not.

Admittedly not an enormously big deal either way, but even if I had an Apple product I think I'd use FLAC for archival purposes. Maybe that's just me."

^ that is the whole point you would have to transcode as an ipod does not play FLAC. You are never going to have it all- and again my original post was not trying to sell Apple Lossless, just saying that I simply archive and listen in one format: lossless. If apple ain't your thing go with FLAC, but understand it ain't playing on all players- just like apple lossless.
 
Mar 14, 2008 at 12:48 AM Post #80 of 262
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pangaea /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Admittedly not an enormously big deal either way, but even if I had an Apple product I think I'd use FLAC for archival purposes. Maybe that's just me."

^ that is the whole point you would have to transcode as an ipod does not play FLAC. You are never going to have it all- and again my original post was not trying to sell Apple Lossless, just saying that I simply archive and listen in one format: lossless. If apple ain't your thing go with FLAC, but understand it ain't playing on all players- just like apple lossless.


I like to use FLAC as well. I also use rockbox so that my iPod plays FLAC though its not native support.
 
Mar 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM Post #82 of 262
Quote:

Originally Posted by Muziklover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
An interesting article on MP3, Lossy And lossless here

Stereophile: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD


The only interesting thing the article tells you is that lossy is lossy. There are no double blind listening test. Looking at lossy spectrum for integrity is like checking a mental hospital for sanity; you are supposed to see these things.

The question is, can you HEAR it?
 
Mar 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM Post #83 of 262
For me, I fail to see the reason for bothering to debate with myself whether or not I can hear it. Stuff is MISSING in the music when lossy coding is used, period. That is fact. And I find that fact psychologically disturbing. So I use lossless, and I am happy. It's FREE to use lossless, and it makes me feel good. So sue me
biggrin.gif
 
Mar 14, 2008 at 1:24 PM Post #85 of 262
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif
For me, I fail to see the reason for bothering to debate with myself whether or not I can hear it. Stuff is MISSING in the music when lossy coding is used, period. That is fact. And I find that fact psychologically disturbing. So I use lossless, and I am happy. It's FREE to use lossless, and it makes me feel good. So sue me
biggrin.gif



that is fine...but faulting lossy codecs of data missing is daft; I don't mean to accuse you of this behavior but if people were honest and say they use these codecs for archiving and the feeling better their would be alot less debate.

99% of the time you get some poster raving about the sonic deficiencies of lossy codecs and how they can hear a difference. Another poster then pressures them to abx but the comment is ignored or they have some circular way to say abx is flawed. Hell, the test doesn't even have to be an abx; post your methodology.
 
Mar 14, 2008 at 2:18 PM Post #86 of 262
Quote:

Originally Posted by wanderman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
that is fine...but faulting lossy codecs of data missing is daft; I don't mean to accuse you of this behavior but if people were honest and say they use these codecs for archiving and the feeling better their would be alot less debate.

99% of the time you get some poster raving about the sonic deficiencies of lossy codecs and how they can hear a difference. Another poster then pressures them to abx but the comment is ignored or they have some circular way to say abx is flawed. Hell, the test doesn't even have to be an abx; post your methodology.


I agree with all of your post EXCEPT for Quote:

faulting lossy codecs of data missing is daft


This may be true for LISTENING (pointless to debate); however, it's 100% valid to fault lossy codecs for missing data for ARCHIVING.
 
Mar 14, 2008 at 2:36 PM Post #87 of 262
Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There is an interesting link from that article describing a unwhitting double blind test. Well I found it interesting form a relative noob point of view.
plainface.gif


Stereophile: Watching the Detectives


As a noob you will need to develop your BS sensor when it comes to this subject matter... and that article is a classic example of something that should trigger it...
 
Mar 14, 2008 at 3:24 PM Post #88 of 262
I just use lossless for all my favourite albums, and 256 and 320 for the rest. I can't usually hear the difference between 320 and lossless, but with my favourite music I don't even wanna chance it that I might miss some detail in there. With a 160 gig player you can afford to mess around with the drive space anyways, so why not.
 
Mar 14, 2008 at 3:34 PM Post #89 of 262
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I just use lossless for all my favourite albums, and 256 and 320 for the rest. I can't usually hear the difference between 320 and lossless, but with my favourite music I don't even wanna chance it that I might miss some detail in there. With a 160 gig player you can afford to mess around with the drive space anyways, so why not.


And what would your (or others') recommendation be for someone who owned a 16gb flash-based player (vs. a 160gb unit)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top