I'm very interested in the Alpair 10p but I sort of have a large MP3 collection since my home setup is a home theater PC with digital library.
The note from Mark about not using these speakers with compressed music has made me uneasy about proceeding with the A10p project. However, the MP3 format offers a HUGE variance in the level of compression depending on the encoder and settings applied. My CD collection was converted at the highest quality Variable Bit Rate (VBR) that the MP3 file format offers (yes, it’s still a lossy compression).
So here's my HELP NEEDED to the forum:
Can someone please do an A to B comparison for me (any track of your choosing) – CD compared to MP3? It’s important that the encoding is accomplished with the LAME encoder with VBR applied and command line including -V 0 (that’s how my whole library was converted, -V 0 switch setting). I use Exact Audio Copy (EAC) for conversion, but you can use whatever you want…..so long as the software you’re using is set to use the LAME encoder set to VBR and -V 0.
LAME - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase
Anyone interested trying this out?
jonathan
The note from Mark about not using these speakers with compressed music has made me uneasy about proceeding with the A10p project. However, the MP3 format offers a HUGE variance in the level of compression depending on the encoder and settings applied. My CD collection was converted at the highest quality Variable Bit Rate (VBR) that the MP3 file format offers (yes, it’s still a lossy compression).
So here's my HELP NEEDED to the forum:
Can someone please do an A to B comparison for me (any track of your choosing) – CD compared to MP3? It’s important that the encoding is accomplished with the LAME encoder with VBR applied and command line including -V 0 (that’s how my whole library was converted, -V 0 switch setting). I use Exact Audio Copy (EAC) for conversion, but you can use whatever you want…..so long as the software you’re using is set to use the LAME encoder set to VBR and -V 0.
LAME - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase
Anyone interested trying this out?
jonathan
Jonathan,
That is not a good excuse. My digital library is completely full-rez, not MP3s.
As to whether the A10p are revealing enuff to show the defects of an MP3 is, since you seem to have taken care to have max quality MP3, more on your ear/brain's ability to resolve them. Only you can decide.
My TV provider, of necessity, provides a lossily compressed audio (and video) stream. While i can hear that the quality is not up to a well recorded CD, i still enjoy watching TV.
I would not limit the performance of my loudspeakers to cover over poor source, it will also limit the performance of the good stuff, and degrade your enjoyment of your hifi.
That said, the more vinatge top end of the A10p (vrs say A10.3 or A7.3) will likely mean MP3s are more palatable.
dave
That is not a good excuse. My digital library is completely full-rez, not MP3s.
As to whether the A10p are revealing enuff to show the defects of an MP3 is, since you seem to have taken care to have max quality MP3, more on your ear/brain's ability to resolve them. Only you can decide.
My TV provider, of necessity, provides a lossily compressed audio (and video) stream. While i can hear that the quality is not up to a well recorded CD, i still enjoy watching TV.
I would not limit the performance of my loudspeakers to cover over poor source, it will also limit the performance of the good stuff, and degrade your enjoyment of your hifi.
That said, the more vinatge top end of the A10p (vrs say A10.3 or A7.3) will likely mean MP3s are more palatable.
dave
+1
Will also depend on choice of source (sound card, DAC - assuming playback will be from PC), and amp. Certain sound cards sound thin, flat, and lifeless (impedance mismatch?, low VRMS output? inferior opamps?). Also amps (tube amps as well as SS, chip, calss-D) sound different too.
I have mp3s as well as FLAC - properly encoded mp3s do not sound bad to me on MA speakers. Besides the mp3 encoding, the source material itself is also important - Mark's Alpair's are revealing, and poorly recorded material (there are plenty of examples) will not benefit - be it in mp3 or CD. Also if you are into music with high noise floor and lot of compression (dynamic compression in recording, not lower bitrate or other compression for making file size smaller) then wide-band single probably not the right path. For example, among various genres, I am into heavy/thrash metal - wide-band single drivers powered by low watt amps don't do metal well, especially if you start upping the SPLs.
So mp3 itself should not necessarily be the show stopper... your total chain plus what Dave has mentioned (too difficult for me to repeat
) will dictate the final outcome.
Last edited:
All of this is my opinion based on my collection and my system and my ears, so....
FLAC is lossless, i.e., completely reversible. You save 25-50% on disk space. WAV is very hard to tag, and with a large library, you will want to tag your files. I have some WMA lossless, same argument. Never tried Apple lossless.
320kb MP3 created with the current LAME is very good. You have to know what you are listening for to hear the degradation. 256kb AAC seems to me to be as good as 320kb MP3. 256kb MP3 is obviously degraded, and doesn't take much critical listening to detect. However, I used several 256kb MP3 tracks at the last LSAF and nobody called me on it.
However, I do get annoyed at the constant claims that MA drivers are too revealing to be used with SS amps or MP3's or what ever. If you are hearing the degradation on a 320kb VRB MP3, you are listening to the equipment, not the music.
Bob
FLAC is lossless, i.e., completely reversible. You save 25-50% on disk space. WAV is very hard to tag, and with a large library, you will want to tag your files. I have some WMA lossless, same argument. Never tried Apple lossless.
320kb MP3 created with the current LAME is very good. You have to know what you are listening for to hear the degradation. 256kb AAC seems to me to be as good as 320kb MP3. 256kb MP3 is obviously degraded, and doesn't take much critical listening to detect. However, I used several 256kb MP3 tracks at the last LSAF and nobody called me on it.
However, I do get annoyed at the constant claims that MA drivers are too revealing to be used with SS amps or MP3's or what ever. If you are hearing the degradation on a 320kb VRB MP3, you are listening to the equipment, not the music.
Bob
Apple Lossless (ALAC) is a version of FLAC, but unlike FLAC development has notgtound to a halt. AIFF is the equivalent of WAV but other-endian, and supports tags.
dave
I have primarily mp3 and ogg files, with a few flac. Approaching a TB in size, so i'd hate to replace it all with flac - that'd be next to impossible and would limit my ability to play files in my car. That being said, i'd much rather listen to it all on MA drivers than any of my other speakers.
I wouldn't be too concerned. While my library is mostly Flac, I do have a fair amount of MP3 files of various qualities, and have no glaring issues.
If a track in my collection sounds bad on MA drivers, it usually sounds bad on most other speakers as well. That's not to say MA drivers are not revealing.. They are very much so, but so long as your MP3 collection is of decent quality, I wouldn't worry too much.
If a track in my collection sounds bad on MA drivers, it usually sounds bad on most other speakers as well. That's not to say MA drivers are not revealing.. They are very much so, but so long as your MP3 collection is of decent quality, I wouldn't worry too much.
A few months ago I read a paper, I think from memory in JAES - but I cant be sure, that reported some blind AB tests on audibility of MP3 compression artefacts. My recollection is that at 256 kB/s, no-one could tell the difference between WAV and MP3. At lower sampler rates (higher compression), the audibility or artefacts depended a lot on the musical content - I think saxophone was one of the most problematic.
So record at 360kB/s and all will be fine.
regards
So record at 360kB/s and all will be fine.
regards
I am listening to Spotify thru my iMac and desktop CHR-70.2 speakers and all is just fine.
But when I listen to Spotify thru my iPhone on my Fostex Metronomes it is just not involving and I lose interest. Apple lossless from my CD's on that same iPhone-Metronome combination is just captivating.
So at least on the speakers with a great top-end there is a perceptible difference between high compression and lossless.
(Listening to Spotify on the iMac as I write this, I realize that here it is also missing "air" and "depth". It sounds good, it just doesn't sound great.)
But when I listen to Spotify thru my iPhone on my Fostex Metronomes it is just not involving and I lose interest. Apple lossless from my CD's on that same iPhone-Metronome combination is just captivating.
So at least on the speakers with a great top-end there is a perceptible difference between high compression and lossless.
(Listening to Spotify on the iMac as I write this, I realize that here it is also missing "air" and "depth". It sounds good, it just doesn't sound great.)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.