iPod Apple Lossless vs. 320 KBPS

[emaja]

320 ACC against ALAC good luck trying to hear a difference, you just wont.

I love it when people tell me what I can hear with my ears on my system.

I have done double-blind tests and there is a difference. Every time I can pick the lossless file over the MP3.

As seisend said, everyone's ears are different and can be trained to hear subtle differences.

 

[Bonsai1214]

I love it when people tell me what I can hear with my ears on my system.

I have done double-blind tests and there is a difference. Every time I can pick the lossless file over the MP3.

i somehow doubt that. over at head-fi, where double blind tests are banned, people post their own experiences and they can't differentiate between the files. its not the bitrate they were recorded in, but rather the quality of the recording.

also, unless you've invested several grand into your system, you won't be able to get that difference in details anyways.

 

[blackburn]

I don't have any super audio material like those frigging expensive dacs or amps. The only difference I notice is from 192kbps mp3 to 320 aac or lossless (I never tried to compare 320 to lossless).

But still there are funny stories like a friend of mine that uses the built in output of is macbook pro (noisy as hell at least with my ie8 senns) and it's 15€ headphones says that he can hear the difference between 320 and lossless.

The dac and the headphones make a lot more difference than 320 AAC and lossless.

I've had the chance to listen to hires recordings and boy do they sound great, but that's more because the audio engineer didn't brick walled the recording. For cheap crappy music I don't really care about loudness (1 hit songs that easily fade away), but listen to the remasters these days, for example I've got nirvana's "Nevermind" album (the original edition) and the "Nirvana" compilation disk here the songs are completely brick walled, that just sucks (they have a few repeated songs so I can easy compare). Another recent album that got way to brick walled was metallica's "Death Magnetic".

Edit: I've uploaded a screenshot of the different versions of "Come As You Are" from nirvana. Theres a big difference and it ain't the worst, I've seen albums that the only thing that I can see along with and filled bar it's the fade in and the fade out.

 

[emaja]

i somehow doubt that. over at head-fi, where double blind tests are banned, people post their own experiences and they can't differentiate between the files. its not the bitrate they were recorded in, but rather the quality of the recording.

also, unless you've invested several grand into your system, you won't be able to get that difference in details anyways.

Assumptions are being made. I do not use headphones and I have invested several thousand dollars in my system. No, I am not one of those who have $2000 cables and only listen to vinyl, but I do have quite a nice system with quality components and cables. I am also a trained musician with many years of experience.

My ears. My system. I can hear a difference. You may not, but I do. It is all a matter of whose ears and their sensitivity and training.

 

[TMRaven]

Brickwalling is so bad.

 

[SactoGuy18]

You can usually tell the difference between a lossless format and a "lossy" format for one reason: a high dynamic range recording like a traditional orchestra. In that case, a problem with "lossy" formats--even at 320 kbps data rate--is you can clearly hear the somewhat harsh treble and dynamic range compression of a lossy format recording on any really good home stereo system.

This is why I'm disappointed that the war between Sony's Super Audio CD (SACD) and the DVD-Audio format killed any chance for a major leap up in home audio recordings. I've heard DVD-Audio discs that use the 20-bit 176.4 kHz sampling rate and with a full-range orchestra, all the high-frequency harshness you hear from standard Compact Discs--especially with a piccolo, the higher notes on a piano and cymbals--is completely gone, and unlike vinyl records, you don't have to deal with wow and flutter, turntable rumble, needle mistracking and physical wear issues, either.

By the way, owners of Blu-ray players already enjoy audio quality superior to Compact Discs: the DTS-HD Master Audio format, which has become the de facto standard for multi-channel audio encoding on Blu-ray discs (relatively few Blu-ray discs use the competing Dolby True HD format nowadays). Since DTS-HD Master Audio uses 24-bit 96 kHz sampling rate for the disc 5.1 or 6.1 surround sound encoding, you get superb sound quality from the lowest bass to the treble range--the Blu-ray release of Avatar is a very good example of this.

 

[Krafty]

I take it it would be stupid to convert everything to Lossless once it's already been ripped?

 

[Tilpots]

I take it it would be stupid to convert everything to Lossless once it's already been ripped?

That's right. Once you've used a lossy compression on a track, there's no retrieving that missing info. Converting lossy to a lossless format is a waste of space.

 

[emaja]

That's right. Once you've used a lossy compression on a track, there's no retrieving that missing info. Converting lossy to a lossless format is a waste of space.

That leads me to what I think is the best argument for ripping lossless in the first place. You will never get a better quality rip if you transcode from a lossy format to a lossless one, BUT you can always transcode from one lossless format to another without any degradation of sound quality.

Rip lossless once and convert all you want.

 

[TMRaven]

Edit: I've uploaded a screenshot of the different versions of "Come As You Are" from nirvana. Theres a big difference and it ain't the worst, I've seen albums that the only thing that I can see along with and filled bar it's the fade in and the fade out.

Kanye West's Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.

One of the most popular albums of the year and probably the one to get best overall album of the year come next grammys also just so happens to be poorly mastered!

 

[SRLMJ23]

Dime21...what system do you use??? I have a $13,000 home audio system and a $7,000 car audio system. I'm just curious what you use?

 

[dime21]

Dime21...what system do you use??? I have a $13,000 home audio system and a $7,000 car audio system. I'm just curious what you use?

My home stereo system:

Cary CAD-120S Mk2 integrated amplifier
Tyler Acoustics D3's
Arcam FMJ CD37 cd player
Northstar Designs m192 DAC (for airport express / iTunes)
Genesis Digital Lens (between airport express and m192 dac)
Magnum Dynalab MD-100t FM tuner

Even with all this, I cannot tell AAC320 from Apple Lossless. Maybe my ears are not good enough. I still only use Lossless though, just on general principle.

 

[Rawkfist]

My home stereo system:

Cary CAD-120S Mk2 integrated amplifier
Tyler Acoustics D3's
Arcam FMJ CD37 cd player
Northstar Designs m192 DAC (for airport express / iTunes)
Genesis Digital Lens (between airport express and m192 dac)
Magnum Dynalab MD-100t FM tuner

Even with all this, I cannot tell AAC320 from Apple Lossless. Maybe my ears are not good enough. I still only use Lossless though, just on general principle.

What software do you use for playback? itunes, Amarra, Pure Music? I know this is kinda off topic bit I'm curious.

 

[kaelell]

you might see a mini cooper coming down the street, and a few minutes later you see another. to you they looked virtually the same! You might see them all day long and be hard pressed to tell the difference between models...

but then, one day when it comes to buying one yourself you do some research, you view as many different models as you can, you start recognising the subtle differences. It just clicks, you realise the vast differences in models, and you can tell one Mini cooper from another, and even what year it was made. A few weeks ago that was unthinkable, and now every groove, every grill, every chrome plated extra stands out.

This is much like music....and Art...and pretty much everything in life. One person may make the assumption that just because he/she cannot recognise the difference between something this one time that no one else can either. The truth is, its a slow, gradual thing that you train yourself to recognise. Spend long enough learning about something and your body also adapts, your sensitiity fine tunes itself, you begin to hear music in a way you can never go back.

Because you personally ( me nethier actualy) cant hear the difference between a compressed and a lossless audio file, doesnt mean the difference isnt there, its just your ears are like cheap headphones that only play a portion of the available sound.............


mmmm.....ok.

 

[genevan]

Science has been done on this topic

See the very nice article written at http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd

 

[tkermit]

Brickwalling is so bad.

Kanye West's Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.

One more reason to listen to classical music!

 

[AdrianK]

Since DTS-HD Master Audio uses 24-bit 96 kHz sampling rate for the disc 5.1 or 6.1 surround sound encoding...

It can do, but it isn't mandatory. You're implying that all BDs utilise 24/96 for 5.1/6.1 (no 7.1?) DTS-HD MA, but in reality most are 24/48.

 

[ChrisA]

...
This is much like music....and Art...and pretty much everything in life. One person may make the assumption that just because he/she cannot recognise the difference between something this one time that no one else can either. The truth is, its a slow, gradual thing that you train yourself to recognise.....

I agree. What I tell people is to listen to the music objectively and try and see if you can hear various little things. How aggressive is the bass player on the strings is there a lot of attack or not. Where is the drummer hitting. What kind of rig is the guitar player using. Same type of things with classical music or jazz. Ask if you can hear some small effect. Then listen with different equipment or file formats. This is a much more objective test then just "do you like the sound?"

 

[blackburn]

One more reason to listen to classical music!

Or to listen to dire straits. The original mastering of brothers in arms sounds great

 

[emaja]

One more reason to listen to classical music!

Or to listen to dire straits. The original mastering of brothers in arms sounds great

...or Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" or Jennifer Warnes "Famous Blue Raincoat" - two of the more famous reference type recordings.

 

[bigpoppamac31]

Is it okay to resurrect this thread? I'm actually curious about this myself. I have my CDs ripped in 256Kbps AAC with VBR but have been thinking of re-importing in Apple Lossless. Or what about 320Kbps AAC with VBR? I have a 512GB SSD in my Mac so space shouldn't be an issue. I do have good headphones now in the Sennheiser 6XX/650 and 58X and a pretty decent sound system. I'd like to get the best quality out of my music as possible.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Apple Lossless = CD Quality. It's an exact 1:1 copy of all the 1's and 0's on the physical disc.

No, it uses compression, so it is not an exact copy.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Is it okay to resurrect this thread? I'm actually curious about this myself. I have my CDs ripped in 256Kbps AAC with VBR but have been thinking of re-importing in Apple Lossless. Or what about 320Kbps AAC with VBR? I have a 512GB SSD in my Mac so space shouldn't be an issue. I do have good headphones now in the Sennheiser 6XX/650 and 58X and a pretty decent sound system. I'd like to get the best quality out of my music as possible.

The common wisdom today is FLAC is the way to go, unless you insist on using iTunes to manage your music. There are ways to play FLAC files in iTunes, but it seems more trouble than it's worth.

Personally, here is my thinking: FLAC is supported by nearly everything but iTunes (most importantly for me, Sonos). 90% of the music I listen to is on Spotify, but the music I really like, my favorite albums and artists that I've been listening to for a long time, those I want to have in the best possible quality. Thus, FLAC files on my NAS seems the best way to go, manages using Swinsian.

 

[ChrisA]

Google "ABX Testing".

ABX test software will allow you to choose two audio files "A" and "B" then it randomly selects either A r B and you have to guess which file you are listening to. If you can do better then 50% it means you can hear the difference.

If you want to know if 320 is better then 256 then do ABX testing and see if yo can score at least about 75%

ABX testing make audiophiles very angry. These people think they have super human hearing and can tell just by listening what kind of coper their speaker wires are made from. When they score 50% on these ABX test they argue the test must be invalid. It's not.

For may people, they will find that ABX testing shows that they can not tell the difference between 250K and lossless. Some of this is listening experience and some is that the playback equipment is not very good. These both can change over time.

As others say "lossless is lossless" it is bit for bit perfect. But can you hear the difference between lossless and 320 AAC? If you do an honest ABX test I doubt it.

 

[bigpoppamac31]

The common wisdom today is FLAC is the way to go, unless you insist on using iTunes to manage your music. There are ways to play FLAC files in iTunes, but it seems more trouble than it's worth.

Personally, here is my thinking: FLAC is supported by nearly everything but iTunes (most importantly for me, Sonos). 90% of the music I listen to is on Spotify, but the music I really like, my favorite albums and artists that I've been listening to for a long time, those I want to have in the best possible quality. Thus, FLAC files on my NAS seems the best way to go, manages using Swinsian.

Well unless there is a good solid app that could replace iTunes as my go to music player than I'm gonna have to remain with iTunes. Is FLAC superior to ALAC? Can CDs be ripped into FLAC? I can't see myself moving away from the "Apple ecosystem" anytime soon so going with ALAC probably wouldn't be so bad for me.
[doublepost=1533842350][/doublepost]

Google "ABX Testing".

ABX test software will allow you to choose two audio files "A" and "B" then it randomly selects either A r B and you have to guess which file you are listening to. If you can do better then 50% it means you can hear the difference.

If you want to know if 320 is better then 256 then do ABX testing and see if yo can score at least about 75%

ABX testing make audiophiles very angry. These people think they have super human hearing and can tell just by listening what kind of coper their speaker wires are made from. When they score 50% on these ABX test they argue the test must be invalid. It's not.

For may people, they will find that ABX testing shows that they can not tell the difference between 250K and lossless. Some of this is listening experience and some is that the playback equipment is not very good. These both can change over time.

As others say "lossless is lossless" it is bit for bit perfect. But can you hear the difference between lossless and 320 AAC? If you do an honest ABX test I doubt it.

Hmm I'll have to check that out. My understanding though is that a song ripped to lossy format will have some info removed to make the file size smaller. Wouldn't it be a good thing to want to hear all of a song and not just some of it? The artist put things into their song to be heard right?