People should focus less on hirez/lossless and a lot more on what really counts: Speakers, Transducers, Room acoustics, EQing, DAC... and, oh yes, Music.
Mmm, I have to think about that. So we need to optimize the complete chain and room, then take the original files and encode them lossy and then play those and enjoy stuff ?
It seems more efficient to leave the lossless (original) files intact and play them unaltered on a good chain. Saves time too. I don't see the point in altering the files to a smaller size when being a serious hobbyist. Making stuff smaller can not make things better (OK this is oversimplifying but you'll know what I mean). Hard disk space is cheap these days.
IMO it seems "convenience" is at work here big time. It must be that you use a pc/Mac to play your music.
It seems more efficient to leave the lossless (original) files intact and play them unaltered on a good chain. Saves time too. I don't see the point in altering the files to a smaller size when being a serious hobbyist. Making stuff smaller can not make things better (OK this is oversimplifying but you'll know what I mean). Hard disk space is cheap these days.
IMO it seems "convenience" is at work here big time. It must be that you use a pc/Mac to play your music.
Last edited:
The source is a part of the chain - as mentioned other places - s*it in s*it out...
So it will be lossy in - lossy out.
Regards
I have to disagree Jon. Granted recording quality makes a difference, but software quality is important. If you have already thrown the information away the rest of the chain is not going to cover for that. And it is the subtle information that makes the difference between good hifi & great hifi.
dave
dave
Jean-Paul,
There is no ''better or worst'' between AAC256kbps (or 320kbps MP3) and Lossless/Hirez... On paper the Hirez IS superior, no question about that. I'm just saying it's not better or worst at the end because the human ears cannot make any difference.
It's exactly like a 4k TV v.s. HD TV (1080).... from a distance of 100 meters. Nobody can tell the difference unless they're close enough. But you cannot ''get closer'' with sound and look a the pixels with a magnifier...
University McGill of Montreal did a blind test as well few years ago and the Threshold of audibility was a lossy compression of 192kbps (MP3)...
Bottomline: the day after i conducted the test i started to buy 320 and 256kbps music online with total peace of mind.
I couldn't care less now about hirez/lossless.
Nope.
That's an old myth, pretty much based on the ''weakest chain of your system, blah blah...''
Truth is: you cannot decapitate a sound system with a weaker component that have a limited impact potential. NOT all component have the same impact potential.
Addendum: The techies won't trust anything higher than 1/5-1/6 the sampling of their digital instruments… if has been scientifically proven that humans have a time response of at least 5µs ~35k. The argument that they use can be applied to audio and we would need a sampling frequency of 35x5=175kHz.
When i 1st saw Sony's CD white paper i was taking a graduate level sampling course and my 1st response was that they would need to increase sampling by at least a factor of 4.
I am quite surprised by how good 16/44 can be today.
dave
When i 1st saw Sony's CD white paper i was taking a graduate level sampling course and my 1st response was that they would need to increase sampling by at least a factor of 4.
I am quite surprised by how good 16/44 can be today.
dave
Well that puts an end to a discussion. Next thing you'll be saying that we can't hear lossy/lossless difference from 100 meters 😀
I can clearly hear the difference between 192 kbit and 320 kbit. Between 320 kbit and FLAC I admit to have a hard time. Better not encode them lossy and keep it lossless as it can not get worse that way 😉 Saves the time that one can spend on more important issues like room optimization. And... why waste time encoding with all the possible errors and software issues ?
It takes a lot of persuasive power to convince me that the following is not true:"a chain is as strong as the weakest link".....
The various components might not have the same impact but one weak device will deteriorate the total outcome.
Last edited:
Another thruth is that you can not better a system unless you get the week parts up to par.
Anyway - everyone does what they are happy with.
Regards
Anyway - everyone does what they are happy with.
Regards
From an intellectual simplicity standpoint, I agree this is the best course of action. Audio files, even at high res are greatly outpaced by the cavernous size of a modern HDD (even multiples carefully placed for redundancy). And, given the low transfer rate demands (and sequential reads/writes), a 5400 rpm drive is more than sufficient and quieter.
But I tend to buy discs still and then rip as opposed to purchasing files online.
I'd argue that many a decently designed DAC (as I said earlier, with implementation that stays out of the way of the chip itself) are going to readily cross the threshold of audibility.
Agreed.
There is no logical reason to compress files for storage sake.
... but since i don't like to be limited, i sure won't restrain myself to buy music if only available in AAC256 (like iTunes).
The day Apple decides to make the Lossless standard offered in iTunes (for whatever reason) ... i will not care.
It just doesnt make any difference for me, as long as it's above the audibility threshold.
On the other hand, i'd be VERY happy if the artists/sound engineers would put more efforts on recordings quality (I.E. less dynamic compression, loudness war)
I prefer, by far, listening to a Lossy 128kbps file of a GOOD recording than a bad or just ordinary one in Hirez...
Not even a picosecond of hesitation which would be the most enjoyable! 😉
well.. actually there is ONE logical reason to compress for storage: if you have a huge music collection, not much money and want to store on flash memory!
My friend, you have fallen victim to "convenience", "ease of use" and such. No need to explain that further. Your goal is to obtain music online without hassle and enjoy it. That is your choice and that's OK.
But comparing DACs with that source material makes things shaky to me. I would only compare quality DACs with unaltered files (if only to avoid possible suspicion of encoding software and such). Indeed there is no need for using high res material when using lossy material but I think you should use some high res material to check the potential of the high res DACs your are comparing to hear how they can perform.
To make yet another oversimplified comparison: using a 32 bit 192 kHz DAC for 256 kbps AAC it is like using a race car to buy groceries.
Last edited:
I also thought i was earing differences. For years.
Until i tried to pass the test myself. Until i witnessed the other participants failed like i did. Until i questionned every tiny bit of equipement and methodology because i couldnt believe the results... and failed to find any problem.
Blind test. Controlled-environement. Repeatable methodology.
You're welcome to organize one and prove i'm wrong. Good luck 😉
Agreed Jon--if I were buying of Itunes, I might sing a different song.
Setting up a script or two for converting flacs to 192 vbr's for mobile devices was pretty painless for me. Kept as separate libraries.
Setting up a script or two for converting flacs to 192 vbr's for mobile devices was pretty painless for me. Kept as separate libraries.
Oh no, believe me.
If i'd were able to find only ONE music tune with audible difference, i'd be in the hirez bandwagon.
Even worst: if i had witnessed only ONE person (even other that myself) being able to spot the differences in a blind test, i'd still be in the hirez bandwagon (even though it wouldnt be logical for my own enjoyment).
Aucune différence audible. Niet. Nada.
Every thing else is purely perceptive. The brain is not built to hear music, it serves other functions.
