[Chri5peed]

Team Lossless FTW!

 

[mcsamms]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed Team Lossless FTW!

I think you said it right

 

[wanderman]

I rip to lossless (wavpack 4.31) and listen to it on my pc and transcode to lame 3.97b2 v2 vbrnew on my portable. Ogg and MPC really shine at low bitrates. MPC is probably the best codec for lossy transcoding, though frowned upon and not recommneded. I use mp3 because it is handled really well by my mp3 player so I get really good battery life, sounds transparent, and easy to deal with.

 

[grandenigma1]

I have 380GB or so of FLAC files on my comp... use Rockbox on my iPod and convert to MP3 if I find a need to burn a CD of which I own all of them so its worthless in most cases.

Hurray for 1186 CDs

 

[asdf]

In response to the origianal question, I use mp3 for my ipod and my car's player. It's compatible with both players, and it's convenient because of that. I use VBR and find the quality acceptable for its size and limited use. As a fan of open source, I would prefer ogg, though.

My archive on my computer is lossless (flac), and I'm trying to find an acceptable way to use that as my primary source. So far, though, I have to rely on my CDP for critical listening. Hopefully that'll be remedied soon, because I like the convenience of accessing my library via computer.

--asdf

 

[dknightd]

I use mp3 because it seems to be good enough, and takes up less room, and can be played on almost everything.
If somebody can point me to a abx comparison where anybody could tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and lossless I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dknightd I use mp3 because it seems to be good enough, and takes up less room, and can be played on almost everything. If somebody can point me to a abx comparison where anybody could tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and lossless I'd love to hear about it.

That isn't necessarily the point. For portable listening, sure, what you said makes sense. But for archiving (and hence listening on the PC), using a lossy codec does not make sense, since lossy codecs will continue to improve, and once you rip in Lossy, you can never take advantage of those improvements without re-ripping.

 

[hciman77]

Most people (and I include myself in that category) cannot tell the difference between high bit-rate MP3 and Uncompressed Wav.

While I use Red Book CD and headphones for "serious" home listening, for my work system MP3 (iRiver Slimx) via a pair of (better but not unremarkable) powered speakers is perfectly pleasant and the convenience of getting 5 - 6 hours at a stretch is nice too. I dont download music and I dont sell my CDs after I have ripped them so I could rerip them in the future but I probably never will. If I am worried about my original CDs getting damaged I can always make back-up copies and I never play them in the car anymore and am generally careful with them so that should not be an issue.

 

[dknightd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab That isn't necessarily the point. For portable listening, sure, what you said makes sense. But for archiving (and hence listening on the PC), using a lossy codec does not make sense, since lossy codecs will continue to improve, and once you rip in Lossy, you can never take advantage of those improvements without re-ripping.

If your PC is your archive, then sure you should use only lossless
(and make lots of backups!).

I don't archive my music on my PC. The CD's are my archive.
I do listen to music from my PC though.
I guess my point is that if I can't hear a difference between
320mp3 and lossless now, how will an improved lossy compression
method do me any good? My ears are not likely to improve with age.
If my reproduction equipment gets better, or my brain gets better
at telling the difference, then I'll be stuck with the task of reripping
all my CDs (if we are still even using CD's by then). That would not be fun.
I currently have about 3TB of
disk commited to music (and backing it up) - Do you want to buy
me the additional space I would require to rip lossless (I estimate
I'd need about another 5TB or so). Aparently some people think that disk
space is cheap, but, I'd rather spend my money on more music. . .

There is a big difference between 128 mp3 and lossless. So far
I have not been able to reliably detect an audible difference between 320 mp3 and lossless.

I still have not heard of any reliable abx testing that showed anybody could tell the difference between 320 mp3 and lossless, on any system.
If such a test exists I'd sure love to hear about it so I'll have
motivation to start ripping lossless and spend my money on disk space
instead of music.

 

[Xakepa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab That isn't necessarily the point. For portable listening, sure, what you said makes sense. But for archiving (and hence listening on the PC), using a lossy codec does not make sense, since lossy codecs will continue to improve, and once you rip in Lossy, you can never take advantage of those improvements without re-ripping.

Ohhh, this argument's been around 100 times.

Your loseless recording will be just as lossy as MP3 once the same old recording is "digitally remastered" to 24/192 DVD-A, SACD, AAC or whatever format comes next. It's our brain that sets the limit, not the technology. By any means modern MP3 codecs exceed brain's limit, so there's no point to go beyound. It's no different from assertion that we can "percieve" freq above 20KHz

 

[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xakepa Your loseless recording will be just as lossy as MP3 once the same old recording is "digitally remastered" to 24/192 DVD-A, SACD, AAC or whatever format comes next.

only in relative terms not in absolute terms as my lossless will not degrade any by you having a superior format

 

[bigDee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab and once you rip in Lossy, you can never take advantage of those improvements without re-ripping.

How, wouldn't it still be a transcode if you encoded from flac to another codec?

Anyway, I am no fan of lossless. I don't see the point. If you can't hear the difference between lossless and 320kbps CBR, then what is the point? Having a perfect archive of your music seems like a way to be some uber elitest. There's just no point. If you can't hear the difference now, no matter what happpens, even if stock headphones of the future are 10x better than they are now, you still won't hear the difference. You can't hear the difference on any kind of gear. There is just no point. Perfect archive is pointless.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I use MP3's to sample new music, and see if it is worth getting in lossless. My music collection is about 50/50 in terms of mp3 vs. lossless, however, I'd say lossless gets 95% of my listening time, including on my portable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigDee How, wouldn't it still be a transcode if you encoded from flac to another codec? Anyway, I am no fan of lossless. I don't see the point. If you can't hear the difference between lossless and 320kbps CBR, then what is the point? Having a perfect archive of your music seems like a way to be some uber elitest. There's just no point. If you can't hear the difference now, no matter what happpens, even if stock headphones of the future are 10x better than they are now, you still won't hear the difference. You can't hear the difference on any kind of gear. There is just no point. Perfect archive is pointless.

It is a "transcode" per-se, since you're going from one format to another, but the result is the same as if you had made the MP3's directly from ripping the CD.

Some of us can hear the difference between lossless and high-bitrate lossy. The treble roll-off of lossy codecs is invariably annoying to me, on a good rig (i.e. not a car stereo, earbuds, etc.). The idea that nobody can hear the difference on any kind of gear is simply ridiculous. Why have a rig that can extend to 20kHz and beyond, if you encode your music by chopping off the top end? Lossy listening is antithetical to an audiophile rig's purpose.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xakepa Ohhh, this argument's been around 100 times. Your loseless recording will be just as lossy as MP3 once the same old recording is "digitally remastered" to 24/192 DVD-A, SACD, AAC or whatever format comes next. It's our brain that sets the limit, not the technology. By any means modern MP3 codecs exceed brain's limit, so there's no point to go beyound. It's no different from assertion that we can "percieve" freq above 20KHz

This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, and in any case completely misses the point.

It's true that there is additional resolution in a 24 bit (versus a 16 bit) recording, and this may yield slightly better sound, but the dynamic range of a 16 bit recording (which is what bit depth effects) is already impressively good.

And yes, 96 or 192 kHz sampling will extend frequency response, which some people *may* bea ble to hear.

BUT - lossy codecs do not work by changing bit depth of sampling rate. They are, as most know, based on pshyco-acoustical algorithms which actually remove data that is WELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF HUMAN HEARING. True, in most modern lossy codecs this removal of sound is imperceptible, but it is NOT the same as changing bit depth or data rate at all.

So your argument does not hold water. I'm not arguing that people should listen to lossless -- that is up to the individual. But when you rip, you should rip in Lossless. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just making themselves feel better about having spent time and effort ripping CDs in a sub-optimal way.

And also, there is nothing "uber-elitist" about this -- it's quite the opposite, it's about utility and flexibility. If you ripped in MP3 320k, it may sound perfect to you. But if you them want to transcode to AAC 192 for some reason later, you will SERIOUSLY compromise the sound quality, whereas if you had ripped in lossless, this would be no problem.

 

[JACK5ON]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab If you ripped in MP3 320k, it may sound perfect to you. But if you them want to transcode to AAC 192 for some reason later, you will SERIOUSLY compromise the sound quality...

That sounds interesting. Would you be interested in posting the results of an ABX test to prove you can tell the difference in [320 MP3 -> 192 AAC] from a [lossless -> 192 AAC] conversion?

Should be easy to do, since in your opinion it 'SERIOUSLY' compromises sound quality.