I just want to know if people notice a difference between lossless formats compared to high quality lossy. We know that lossy is always going have less information but I just want to know if people pick up noticeable differences with a portable player while using a headphone.

I just want to know if people notice a difference between lossless formats compared to high quality lossy. We know that lossy is always going have less information but I just want to know if people pick up noticeable differences with a portable player with a headphone.

I do/can in most instances of 128kbps music vs lossless so I only use (Apple) lossless on my iPhone and iPods. However I do use UE11 pro's IEM's and not the OEM junk.

I was refering to any compression of mp3's @ 320 kbps(correct me if I'm wrong but this is the ceiling for lossy).

I used to think I could tell with my MPC player and IEMs.
Now though, at least in my better home system, I am very happy with what I have bought from iTunes. All the CDs I ripped are in Apple lossless, but I can't say there's a difference that I notice when listening. Maybe if I did some scientific tests . . . .
Since this is such a cheap experiment, definitely try it yourself. Now everything on iTunes is plus, but it's still not lossless. Buy something you already have and try it out. then, let us all know what you think!

I just want to know if people pick up noticeable differences with a portable player while using a headphone.

The better the headphone output and the better quality of headphone and the quieter the enviornment, the chances are greater that people will able to hear the difference. However, the higher the bitrate and the better MP3/AAC encoder being used, there is less chance of hearing the difference. In fact, through the years, it seems as if the LAME mp3 coder at VBR 192k+ and iTunes AAC encoder are close enough quality to CDs to nearly everyone, except the 10% with the pickiest of ears, awesome equipment and a quiet enviornment. However, the past 10 years, the loudness war has made pop music CDs so terrible in general that it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between loudness war era CD and a well encoded MP3s version of it.

However, in the enviornment most people use PMPs and it's included headphones (out and about in a noisy public environment) they probably cannot tell the difference and if they are aware and can hear the difference, the convienience of more songs per device often outweigh that difference. The good news is for those who can tell and appreciate the difference of higher quality sound, they have the options of losslessly compressing or encoding lossly with a better encoder to help get more songs on each device. I myself have finally moved from CDs in a car to a CD containing MP3s which my vehicle has always been capable of for years, but I have not taken advantage of it until recently. It's mostly out of laziness since it's already on CD, but also to 'preserve' the sound quality compared to MP3s --which in a car when you're driving is realistically hard to tell given the noisy car enviornment. My other far more important reason for going to a CD full of MP3s... no more waiting for a red light to swap CDs.

I was refering to any compression of mp3's @ 320 kbps(correct me if I'm wrong but this is the ceiling for lossy).

I only tried with 128Kbps AAC vs. Apple Lossless and it was difficult (and impossible some times). However since to me I see no downside to using lossless, then why not. While lossy may or may not be as good as lossless it is a fact that lossless will be as good or (always technically) better than lossy. ;)

I only tried with 128Kbps AAC vs. Apple Lossless and it was difficult (and impossible some times). However since to me I see no downside to using lossless, then why not. While lossy may or may not be as good as lossless it is a fact that lossless will be as good or (always technically) better than lossy. ;)


the only downside is space. If people do not have disk space issues then lossless is great.

With a 32GB Cowon PMP, I find I have enough room for FLAC encoded audio.

I dont have to worry about poorly recorded MP3's and their downfalls.

A well ripped 320kbps song would be very hard to distinguish IMO but like Penngray said, if you have the room, why not.

Just a side note: On my player, a SD card can be utilized once the flash drive starts to fill up and you want/need more room. A huge bonus in my eyes.

the only downside is space. If people do not have disk space issues then lossless is great.

You can buy a 1TB HD for <$100. I have 17,000 songs and it only takes up 400GB or less than $40 worth of HD space. That is almost 2000 CD's stored for the price of about 3 CD's.

Also keep in mind that in a couple of years will likely have 2TB HD for $80 or less. Making the time and effort of re-ripping far more valuable than just going with lossless to begin with.

You can buy a 1TB HD for <$100. I have 17,000 songs and it only takes up 400GB or less than $40 worth of HD space. That is almost 2000 CD's stored for the price of about 3 CD's.

Also keep in mind that in a couple of years will likely have 2TB HD for $80 or less. Making the time and effort of re-ripping far more valuable than just going with lossless to begin with.

I have 8 TBs in my house currently (over 20,000 songs and 500 DVDs, 50 BDs already too!!), I know they are very cheap because for a buddy I bought a WD 1TB drive/WD HD media player and I helped him put his 200 DVD collection on it so he could have a portable DVD playback system :cool:

The space opinion above was actually talking about space on Ipods (nanos,etc) , PSPs (8GB cards) etc. They are not that big so people need to compress songs if they want more songs on them ;)

The better the headphone output and the better quality of headphone and the quieter the enviornment, the chances are greater that people will able to hear the difference. However, the higher the bitrate and the better MP3/AAC encoder being used, there is less chance of hearing the difference. In fact, through the years, it seems as if the LAME mp3 coder at VBR 192k+ and iTunes AAC encoder are close enough quality to CDs to nearly everyone, except the 10% with the pickiest of ears, awesome equipment and a quiet enviornment.

It's usually not the awesomness of the equipment or even the quietness of the environment that allows a rare few to ABX high-quality lossy from lossless. It's training specifically to hear mp3 artifacts -- and also the use of 'killer' samples that are very hard to encode, thereby pointing up the artifacts.

Thanks for the input guys. I just bought a 16 GB Cowon D2 player and the reviews don't lie. It sounds better than my creative zen (served me well for 2 years). I have Shure E2C ear phones and they are decent.

For myself, I think that I will just convert some of my favorite .flac tunes to mp3(320@kbps) for portables. 16gb full of .flac isnt a lot of room.

I will stick with lossless with music from the 70's and older. I'll use mp3 for electronic, hip hop and newer rock records.

You can search the forum at Hydrogenaudio for a number of listening tests performed on the various lossy formats. Most folks find 320 kbps mp3 or AAC files transparent, and many folks find transparency at lower bitrates.

Thanks for the input guys. I just bought a 16 GB Cowon D2 player and the reviews don't lie. It sounds better than my creative zen (served me well for 2 years). I have Shure E2C ear phones and they are decent.

For myself, I think that I will just convert some of my favorite .flac tunes to mp3(320@kbps) for portables. 16gb full of .flac isnt a lot of room.


320 CBR is overkill. You'd do just as well quality-wise using 192 kbps VBR , assuming you use the LAME encoder.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame

krabapple,

Ok I will try it out! Thanks.

You can alwyas test the transparency of an MP3 using WinABX or foobar2000's ABX comparator.