[streetdragon]

Quote:

That's definitely a good example for lossless compression.
 
Not quite sure how lossy compression works myself though, as in how it chooses which data to throw out. 

i wrote it down from memory based on what i read on wikipedia about picture compression, yeah im not sure about lossy also.
for audio compression however im not sure, maybe they take likes and reduce the data points in them when the sound is a simple wave or a straight line?

 

[gnarlsagan]

Someone posted this article describing lossy compression very well: http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression/

 

[BLACKENEDPLAGUE]

I have blind tested FLAC vs. 256 CBR MP3, couldn't tell a damn bit of difference.
 
Audio chain was [ALC889 optical out -> Maverick D2-> Maverick A1 -> Audio Technical M50] Song was Aaron Neville Bridge Over Troubled Water CD rip using EAC

 

[Destroysall]

I agree with most here. I own a few 256kbps AAC files and they sound almost, if not exactly, the same as their ALAC counterparts.
 
Destroysall.

 

[Xtron2112]

I personally rip all my cds as ALAC files for backup/archival purposes. BTW, how big of a difference in battery life does using ALAC or 328k have?

 

[proton007]

Quote:

BTW, how big of a difference in battery life does using ALAC or 328k have?

 
I'd say about 25% less.  Also, if you shuffle music, then it'll be affected further.

 

[CreativeCthulhu]

Quote:

Guys rockbox is available for iPods (even the classic) and supports FLAC.

Wait what?  According to the website it does NOT work on the Classic?

 

[Digital DJ]

I listen to AAC 256bit VBR. Sounds pretty awesome. I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between AAC 256bit & AAC 320bit. But I can definitely tell the difference between 128bit & 256bit. I consider AAC 256bit VBR great sound quality for song format, albeit it's not the "best" - but you still get excellent sound quality without having to worry about clogging up too much space when ripping/downloading songs onto your portable audio device. Like I said, I find AAC 256bit more than satisfactory, but I'm sure my standards will change as sound quality barriers are broken.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

I listen to AAC 256bit VBR. Sounds pretty awesome. I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between AAC 256bit & AAC 320bit. But I can definitely tell the difference between 128bit & 256bit. I consider AAC 256bit VBR great sound quality for song format, albeit it's not the "best" - but you still get excellent sound quality without having to worry about clogging up too much space when ripping/downloading songs onto your portable audio device. Like I said, I find AAC 256bit more than satisfactory, but I'm sure my standards will change as sound quality barriers are broken.

 
Good to see you're halfway there with your reasoning (all you need to do is back it up with testing) - refreshing to see someone relatively new to the forums not having the "but lossless must sound better" mentality just because it's what they've heard others say.
 
If you haven't already - read my post #62 in this thread
 
Next step is to actually run a test - it's easy - and as long as you have a PC and a CD - all it will cost you is time.  Walk-through is here (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding)
 
Once you've done a few of these - then you can say with certainty if you can or cannot tell the difference.  It's actually very liberating knowing your limitations rather than guessing them.  Post back if you do the tests.  Always interested in seeing how people's perceptions change with real-world experience.  A belated welcome to the forums.

 

[Digital DJ]

Quote:

 
Good to see you're halfway there with your reasoning (all you need to do is back it up with testing) - refreshing to see someone relatively new to the forums not having the "but lossless must sound better" mentality just because it's what they've heard others say.
 
If you haven't already - read my post #62 in this thread
 
Next step is to actually run a test - it's easy - and as long as you have a PC and a CD - all it will cost you is time.  Walk-through is here (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding)
 
Once you've done a few of these - then you can say with certainty if you can or cannot tell the difference.  It's actually very liberating knowing your limitations rather than guessing them.  Post back if you do the tests.  Always interested in seeing how people's perceptions change with real-world experience.  A belated welcome to the forums.

Then try I shall. I will report back with findings. Thank you for the greeting on these forums. To be honest, I really think that "lossless" ravers/people are under the influence of the placebo effect, if that makes any sense.  

 

[Digital DJ]

Quote:

 
Good to see you're halfway there with your reasoning (all you need to do is back it up with testing) - refreshing to see someone relatively new to the forums not having the "but lossless must sound better" mentality just because it's what they've heard others say.
 
If you haven't already - read my post #62 in this thread
 
Next step is to actually run a test - it's easy - and as long as you have a PC and a CD - all it will cost you is time.  Walk-through is here (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding)
 
Once you've done a few of these - then you can say with certainty if you can or cannot tell the difference.  It's actually very liberating knowing your limitations rather than guessing them.  Post back if you do the tests.  Always interested in seeing how people's perceptions change with real-world experience.  A belated welcome to the forums.

I'm back to inform you that I can't tell an audible difference...

 

[Brooko]

Well done!
 
Now the fun part - try it again with different bit-rates  ........
 
I started recognising very occasional artifacts at around 160 kbps (which really surprised me that it was so low using aac before it started becoming slightly noticeable).  So from there I just bumped all my music (on the portable) to aac vbr around 200 kbps.  It's perfect for me and completely transparent.

 

[alanriedi]

A good mastering makes much more difference than the audio file being lossless or lossy.

 

[Digital DJ]

Quote:

Well done!
 
Now the fun part - try it again with different bit-rates  ........
 
I started recognising very occasional artifacts at around 160 kbps (which really surprised me that it was so low using aac before it started becoming slightly noticeable).  So from there I just bumped all my music (on the portable) to aac vbr around 200 kbps.  It's perfect for me and completely transparent.

What bitrate do you usually listen to music on? 256bit?

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

What bitrate do you usually listen to music on? 256bit?

 
At home everything is lossless - simply because it is all digitally archived that way (foobar).
 
After extensive testing - for my portable I use aac vbr ~ 200 kbps.  For MY ears - it is essentially transparent compared to the CD.  Remember though - these old ears are 46 and I do suffer from mild (but permanent) tinnitus.  Your own threshold may very - but in my experience whilst on these forums - very few people so far have been able to reliably abx (blind) properly volume matched (same source) aac256 from lossless.