AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
1) 1141kbps (16/44) FLAC loosless sounds way better than 320kps mp** or AAC lossey it's especially noticeable on decent phones.

2) streams which will fit 24/192 streams into 1.5 MB so better than CD streaming is coming soon and is needed.

3) "I am happy for you that you find standard CD quality pretty amazing. Personally, I, find that, if I may be so bold to say so, it just sucks from here to all eternity." RF: CD quality streaming
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Fmw + 1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
1) 1141kbps (16/44) FLAC loosless sounds way better than 320kps mp** or AAC lossey it's especially noticeable on decent phones.

2) streams which will fit 24/192 streams into 1.5 MB so better than CD streaming is coming soon and is needed.

3) "I am happy for you that you find standard CD quality pretty amazing. Personally, I, find that, if I may be so bold to say so, it just sucks from here to all eternity." RF: CD quality streaming

Agree for 1 and 3...

2 okay if you're able to hear the difference on your rig, otherwise it is not needed...

With minimalists all over the place, you can expect plenty of tech talk and lopsided opinion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
1) 1141kbps (16/44) FLAC loosless sounds way better than 320kps mp** or AAC lossey it's especially noticeable on decent phones.
"Way better"? The most difference you might hope for is "marginally better." Even though I'd like to think that lossless files sound significantly better -- I have a large lossless library myself -- I've never seen any objective evidence to support that, and it's not so obvious to me. (I agree that headphones would be the best means to discern tiny differences; but if I had better headphones -- I have vintage AKGs -- I'd rarely listen that way.)

2) streams which will fit 24/192 streams into 1.5 MB so better than CD streaming is coming soon and is needed.
It might be nice, but "needed" by whom? Other than a tiny sliver of society (which has always embraced religion over fact), who actually cares about this? The difference between standard- and high-def video is obvious, and consumers gobbled it up. The difference between standard- and high-res audio (not to mention reduced-res audio) is dubious, and maybe outright made up. With all due respect to Neil Young, I seriously doubt consumers care or will ever care.

3) "I am happy for you that you find standard CD quality pretty amazing. Personally, I, find that, if I may be so bold to say so, it just sucks from here to all eternity." RF: CD quality streaming
We live in a free society; I (for one) have no interest in what people believe about audio. I would be interested in what people can objectively prove, but that's antithetical to "audiophilia," so I recognize that as a pointless pursuit and try not to fret over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
"Way better"? The most difference you might hope for is "marginally better." Even though I'd like to think that lossless files sound significantly better -- I have a large lossless library myself -- I've never seen any objective evidence to support that, and it's not so obvious to me. (I agree that headphones would be the best means to discern tiny differences; but if I had better headphones -- I have vintage AKGs -- I'd rarely listen that way.)



It might be nice, but "needed" by whom? Other than a tiny sliver of society (which has always embraced religion over fact), who actually cares about this? The difference between standard- and high-def video is obvious, and consumers gobbled it up. The difference between standard- and high-res audio (not to mention reduced-res audio) is dubious, and maybe outright made up. With all due respect to Neil Young, I seriously doubt consumers care or will ever care.



We live in a free society; I (for one) have no interest in what people believe about audio. I would be interested in what people can objectively prove, but that's antithetical to "audiophilia," so I recognize that as a pointless pursuit and try not to fret over it.
These questions were not put here as a vehicle to massage your ego.

Good grief.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
1) 1141kbps (16/44) FLAC loosless sounds way better than 320kps mp** or AAC lossey it's especially noticeable on decent phones.

2) streams which will fit 24/192 streams into 1.5 MB so better than CD streaming is coming soon and is needed.

3) "I am happy for you that you find standard CD quality pretty amazing. Personally, I, find that, if I may be so bold to say so, it just sucks from here to all eternity." RF: CD quality streaming
My personal take on FLAC vs a good MP3, or 24/192 vs standard 16/44 is simple: it depends on the recording. I'd venture to say over 80% of the music out there is very indifferently recorded, and sometimes awfully recorded on purpose (loudness wars etc). Most music barely deserves 256k VBR, really.

There are well recorded albums (jazz mostly, classical too) where it's possible to tell the difference with revealing equipment and paying very close attention, especially if you know what the psychoacoustic model of MP3 goes for. Percussion tends to be a giveaway. Very fast transients are the MP3 "Achilles Heel", and i use apsotrophes because anyone that claims it's "easy" to tell the difference can probably easily be embarrassed because they'll get it wrong 1 out of 4 times even when they're highly confident and well versed in the art.

I have good equipment. I *HATE* the exercise of listening to differences between MP3 and FLAC because it distracts me from enjoying the music and taking in the performance, and honestly a good MP3 sounds great. And a well recorded 16/44 album can sound absolutely sublime.

I do the FLAC thing for my fav albums merely for archiving purposes. it's nice to know it's a perfect copy of the "original". I can fully enjoy my favorite songs as good MP3s. most of my popular music i never bothered ripping as a FLAC because, as much as it entertains me, the recording doesn't merit it remotely. *that* i can tell. :)

as to 24/192 vs 16/44, some remasters are a total hoax, some i prefer to the original 16/44 i have, and i think it is merely because they possibly went to a different master or something.

it *all* has to do with the original recording.

i have read that tests prove pretty conclusively even the best hearing tops our at 20/44. i still buy the 24/192 stuff just in case. it's an additional dollar or two, so why not. i don't fool myself for a second i can or care to hear the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,656 Posts
I think this topic has been questioned, argued, discussed, debated and regurgitated.

Use what sounds best to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
There are well recorded albums (jazz mostly, classical too) where it's possible to tell the difference with revealing equipment and paying very close attention, especially if you know what the psychoacoustic model of MP3 goes for. Percussion tends to be a giveaway. Very fast transients are the MP3 "Achilles Heel"
Compared LP, CD, 256k aac of the same album recently, cheap phono setup and Marantz 7702 DAC for the digital. Listening real closely, the decay on various percussion and even guitar was clearly better on LP and CD. (read: there was decay) But that was when trying to listen for it. Probably doesn't really matter for "normal" listening. I've been pretty happy with iTunes Match tracks and an iPhone 6, either Airplay to my system or quality headphones. The recording definitely makes a huge difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Compared LP, CD, 256k aac of the same album recently, cheap phono setup and Marantz 7702 DAC for the digital. Listening real closely, the decay on various percussion and even guitar was clearly better on LP and CD. (read: there was decay) But that was when trying to listen for it. Probably doesn't really matter for "normal" listening. I've been pretty happy with iTunes Match tracks and an iPhone 6, either Airplay to my system or quality headphones. The recording definitely makes a huge difference.
Totally agree. I hate to be a SQ Nazi because the returns range from non-existent on most music to small in the best recordings, and because being so obsessive about *listening* (which i can do) interferes with my urge to simply sit back and *enjoy* (which i much prefer to do).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I coulda just said, "disagree, disagree, disagree" and left it at that. Instead I gave you reasons why those statements were bogus. You can wrestle with that, I guess.
or you could have answered as did pablolie, with reason, opinion, zero pomp and no agenda.

just sayin'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
My personal take on FLAC vs a good MP3, or 24/192 vs standard 16/44 is simple: it depends on the recording. I'd venture to say over 80% of the music out there is very indifferently recorded, and sometimes awfully recorded on purpose (loudness wars etc). Most music barely deserves 256k VBR, really.

There are well recorded albums (jazz mostly, classical too) where it's possible to tell the difference with revealing equipment and paying very close attention, especially if you know what the psychoacoustic model of MP3 goes for. Percussion tends to be a giveaway. Very fast transients are the MP3 "Achilles Heel", and i use apsotrophes because anyone that claims it's "easy" to tell the difference can probably easily be embarrassed because they'll get it wrong 1 out of 4 times even when they're highly confident and well versed in the art.

I have good equipment. I *HATE* the exercise of listening to differences between MP3 and FLAC because it distracts me from enjoying the music and taking in the performance, and honestly a good MP3 sounds great. And a well recorded 16/44 album can sound absolutely sublime.

I do the FLAC thing for my fav albums merely for archiving purposes. it's nice to know it's a perfect copy of the "original". I can fully enjoy my favorite songs as good MP3s. most of my popular music i never bothered ripping as a FLAC because, as much as it entertains me, the recording doesn't merit it remotely. *that* i can tell. :)

as to 24/192 vs 16/44, some remasters are a total hoax, some i prefer to the original 16/44 i have, and i think it is merely because they possibly went to a different master or something.

it *all* has to do with the original recording.

i have read that tests prove pretty conclusively even the best hearing tops our at 20/44. i still buy the 24/192 stuff just in case. it's an additional dollar or two, so why not. i don't fool myself for a second i can or care to hear the difference.
nice post. Pretty much sums up my opinion.

I still can't completely accept either "side" so I keep questioning, hence the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pablolie

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
nice post. Pretty much sums up my opinion.

I still can't completely accept either "side" so I keep questioning, hence the thread.
i grant either side their way of enjoying music. it's cool. in the eyes of 99% of the population we're total audio nerds, all of us, bat-**** crazy to even remotely care about audio quality. it is a thoroughly entertaining aspect of humans that those who *share* a passion disagree more vehemently with fellow devotees than they ever would do with people who think the entire passion is ridiculous to begin with. an audio is particularly harsh in that respect.

i'll give one example - one of my fav albums to chill to for many years was "Best of Bill Evans". i had the CD, but it seems somewhere along the line i forgot to rip it, so for many years i was listening to it as one of my earliest iTunes downloads... as a 192k MP3. honestly, i didn't even notice. love the music. enjoy the performance. seems to sound great. one day, about 3 months ago, while listening to it i check, and go "oh heavens it's a 192k"! i went and ripped the CD and now have it as a FLAC. c'mon it's 1960s stuff, it sounds pretty much the same, honestly, i *LOVE* the music, it is absolutely stunning, but anyone that claims they can hear the difference between the MP3 and the FLAC is hallucinating...

every time they re-issue a 1960s Motown album as a 24/192 i actually wonder... who on earth thinks it'll sound better than a 256, no 192 MP3? they recorded the stuff for AM radio sound, and time prolly isn't kind to analog master tapes...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
It's all in the quality music ♪ recordings themselves (studios, equipment used, mics, recordist's techniques, music genre).

CDs can sound phenomenal, SACDs can sound subliminal, LPs can sound differential.

@ the end it all depends. But I tend to agree (1 and 3). ...As for 2, it don't matter and Pono is lost in the cloud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
anyone that claims they can hear the difference between the MP3 and the FLAC is hallucinating...

.
Although I to don't hear a difference (I never bother to try) I have read several times where people on the "all things sound the same" side of the fence conceded that the difference between Flac and MP3 is audible.

That is changing now that Pono is released. It "seems" many of those same people now can't hear a difference. The switch seems agenda driven.

David Pogue, in his now infamous story about Pono, did a half azzed ABX and the results showed that people preferred the sound of an Iphone to Pono. What he did not write is what he did not understand. If people preferred Iphone to Pono, they did indeed hear a difference.

That they preferred Iphone speaks to the way people interpret what they hear. He failed to recognize what he discovered.

Now he has a legion of "science" enthusiasts screaming in bliss that Iphone sounds better than Flac instead of realizing that the conclusion showed that people CAN hear a difference!

Isn't it ironic?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
@ the end it all depends. But I tend to agree (1 and 3). ...As for 2, it don't matter and Pono is lost in the cloud.
Pono is not in the cloud, it's a hand held. :D
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top