As above really, can you tell the difference? I have done a couple of comparisons but really couldn't tell which was which blind.
You opinions?
Y/N would be fine
You opinions?
Y/N would be fine
Can YOU tell the diff between 320/lossless??
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
My iTunes library has lossless files, and I convert them to 320 AAC and keep those on a playlist which I sync with my iPhone to save space. It is very very very difficult to tell the two part.
I'm in the process of changing my CD collection from 256kb AAC to lossless FLAC. There is a difference but both sound good. Either way I'm aiming to build a HTPC and stream into my AV amp so therefore being a mildly OCD I've gone for lossless. I've bought a terabyte HD so space is not an issue.
Different story with iPod as pointed out above.ÿ
Different story with iPod as pointed out above.ÿ
There are some very interesting opinions from readers in the current (June) issue on this very subject.
For my part, I think the difference between 320kbps and lossless is significant enough to be worth the hard-drive space.
For my part, I think the difference between 320kbps and lossless is significant enough to be worth the hard-drive space.
I'm with Simon on this one - though I do have more compressed versions of some songs so they fit on my iPod (with Lossless versions for playback via my main system).
Some less complex songs bear compression far better than intricate, layered tracks, so it's hard to do an A/B comparison using just a single song (which is why we used a trange of tracks for our feature in the June issue).
Some less complex songs bear compression far better than intricate, layered tracks, so it's hard to do an A/B comparison using just a single song (which is why we used a trange of tracks for our feature in the June issue).
AKL: It is very very very difficult to tell the two part.
Sorry I meant difficult to tell the two bitrates apart when playing via DAC into amplifier.
Sorry I meant difficult to tell the two bitrates apart when playing via DAC into amplifier.
Simon Lucas:
There are some very interesting opinions from readers in the current (June) issue on this very subject.
For my part, I think the difference between 320kbps and lossless is significant enough to be worth the hard-drive space.
Hi Simon/Clare, can you describe the difference(s) you hear? Thanks
There are some very interesting opinions from readers in the current (June) issue on this very subject.
For my part, I think the difference between 320kbps and lossless is significant enough to be worth the hard-drive space.
Hi Simon/Clare, can you describe the difference(s) you hear? Thanks
Music complexity has a lot to do with it, I've seen lossless as low as 400kbps.
Some blind tests between my wife and myself showed that we could tell, but that was with a small sample set and was macbook into amp direct so may not the best conditions.
Given the small ish filesize differences I've gone lossless, I'd rather rip once and be done. I have brought my 30GB iPod back into service along side my iPhone 16G and bought a larger hard drive for my Macbook Pro though.
Might get a 120GB iPod at some point too
Yes you can tell, sometimes, but the filesize differences make it not worth going for the 320k versions
Some blind tests between my wife and myself showed that we could tell, but that was with a small sample set and was macbook into amp direct so may not the best conditions.
Given the small ish filesize differences I've gone lossless, I'd rather rip once and be done. I have brought my 30GB iPod back into service along side my iPhone 16G and bought a larger hard drive for my Macbook Pro though.
Might get a 120GB iPod at some point too
Yes you can tell, sometimes, but the filesize differences make it not worth going for the 320k versions
manicm
Well-known member
AKL:
AKL: It is very very very difficult to tell the two part.
Sorry I meant difficult to tell the two bitrates apart when playing via DAC into amplifier.
I think you're spot on here. Without a dedicated DAC (I haven't played with one yet sadly) I can tell the difference. Compressed lacks bass weight/ a bit of fullness.
AKL: It is very very very difficult to tell the two part.
Sorry I meant difficult to tell the two bitrates apart when playing via DAC into amplifier.
I think you're spot on here. Without a dedicated DAC (I haven't played with one yet sadly) I can tell the difference. Compressed lacks bass weight/ a bit of fullness.
A slightly different take on this is that I still in preference buy CDs and rip them to lossless rather than buy 256k AACs or 320k MP3s, the physical disk acts as a reasonable backup too.
idc
Well-known member
Yes. (Though mainly with tracks I know well and not so that it makes a huge difference. The more detailed a setup you have the more noticeable the difference is).
matengawhat
Well-known member
yes most def but does depend on what you're listen to for example with something with delicate vocals or accoustic stuff its easy to tell but rock/metal/indie etc that has a little distortion anyway is a lot harder in my opinion - lossless def better
Alec
Well-known member
I can tell the differnece to the point where im happy theres a noticeable difference to my ears in the far from ideal circumstances in which i tested it. However, i doubt i could do it in proper blind conditions tho, if im entirely honest. Im not even sure - based on some experience but admitedly little experience - that a better system makes a aparticularly noticeable difference.
I would go with the idea that you should use lossless as the space is so cheap but, in fact, im having difficulty getting a media player i like that will play FLAC or Apple Lossless, which are the two most widely aupported by hardware, are'nt they? So, because i know and like AMP, id be tempted to rip to lossless and MP3 but listen to MP3 most the time as the play nicely with wmp...
* All opinions subject to change based on experience.
I would go with the idea that you should use lossless as the space is so cheap but, in fact, im having difficulty getting a media player i like that will play FLAC or Apple Lossless, which are the two most widely aupported by hardware, are'nt they? So, because i know and like AMP, id be tempted to rip to lossless and MP3 but listen to MP3 most the time as the play nicely with wmp...
* All opinions subject to change based on experience.
On the iPhone with Shure SE420 headphones, yes on a direct comparrison, yet the 320k mp3's still sound very listenable. ÿAnything less than that is not listenable, luckly I have never surcome to the iTunes lack of quality and alway roll my own.ÿ
Gerrardasnails
Well-known member
Pmaninit:
As above really, can you tell the difference? I have done a couple of comparisons but really couldn't tell which was which blind.
You opinions?
Y/N would be fine
I've not done an A, B test. However, I'm of the opinion that if you put the very best source into your system, you know that if you are not happy, it's not down to that. Hard drives are so cheap nowadays and I have a 1 TB one just for music, so I'm not going to run out of space. Therefore, there is no need for me to rip at anything other than lossless.
As above really, can you tell the difference? I have done a couple of comparisons but really couldn't tell which was which blind.
You opinions?
Y/N would be fine
I've not done an A, B test. However, I'm of the opinion that if you put the very best source into your system, you know that if you are not happy, it's not down to that. Hard drives are so cheap nowadays and I have a 1 TB one just for music, so I'm not going to run out of space. Therefore, there is no need for me to rip at anything other than lossless.
Pmaninit:
As above really, can you tell the difference? I have done a couple of comparisons but really couldn't tell which was which blind.
You opinions?
Y/N would be fine
I could definitely tell difference between ALAC and 192k but difference between ALAC and 320k..... not as easy!
As above really, can you tell the difference? I have done a couple of comparisons but really couldn't tell which was which blind.
You opinions?
Y/N would be fine
I could definitely tell difference between ALAC and 192k but difference between ALAC and 320k..... not as easy!
The step up from 128kbps to 320kbps is a much more noticable difference for me, but I hardly have a massively expensive setup. Since all I do with my digital music is rip it to my Sony MP3 player (16GB) I stick with a decent quality MP3. If I was going down the route of a computer based music system though I would definately just stick in a massive hard drive and rip everything at lossless quality, as others have said, hard drives are dirt cheap these days you might as well go for it.
idc
Well-known member
I think that the reason why telling the difference between lossless and 320kbps can be hit and miss is that with lossless the bit rate can vary significantly. I have checked my collection on itunes and the lossless bit rates range from Blondie 'Good Boys' on Live by Request at 1156kbps to a Beethoven Piano Sonata at 317kbps. That would explain why some can hear the difference and why some cannot, it depends what music is used to make the compariosn.
Alec
Well-known member
I realise its probably me but my tiny mind still isnt quite geting the whole low bitrate with lossless files thing...
Lossless means, presumably, lossless. If you compare the same track (im assuming you wouldnt compare differnet tracks), then the lossless file ought to be the higher bitrate file...?!?!?!
Is this (i genuineley dont know, tho perhaps im being a bit provocative too), but is it perhaps Apple getting the whole lossless thing wrong? Would FLAC provide different bitrates? I have no relevant progs up and running now so cant check, alas.
Just where am i or apple or everybody else going wrong?
Lossless means, presumably, lossless. If you compare the same track (im assuming you wouldnt compare differnet tracks), then the lossless file ought to be the higher bitrate file...?!?!?!
Is this (i genuineley dont know, tho perhaps im being a bit provocative too), but is it perhaps Apple getting the whole lossless thing wrong? Would FLAC provide different bitrates? I have no relevant progs up and running now so cant check, alas.
Just where am i or apple or everybody else going wrong?
al7478:
I realise its probably me but my tiny mind still isnt quite geting the whole low bitrate with lossless files thing...
Lossless means, presumably, lossless. If you compare the same track (im assuming you wouldnt compare differnet tracks), then the lossless file ought to be the higher bitrate file...?!?!?!
Is this (i genuineley dont know, tho perhaps im being a bit provocative too), but is it perhaps Apple getting the whole lossless thing wrong? Would FLAC provide different bitrates? I have no relevant progs up and running now so cant check, alas.
Just where am i or apple or everybody else going wrong?
Well from what I understand, Lossless audio codecs will basically do some clever stuff with the information on the discs and store it in a different way that means that it takes up less space, but all the information you need is still there. Some tracks can probably be reduced in file size more than others depending on the content of the audio.
When youi rip something to a lossy format such as MP3, you basically say what bit rate you want and it compresses it down to that size regardless of how much information it has to throw away in the process.
I realise its probably me but my tiny mind still isnt quite geting the whole low bitrate with lossless files thing...
Lossless means, presumably, lossless. If you compare the same track (im assuming you wouldnt compare differnet tracks), then the lossless file ought to be the higher bitrate file...?!?!?!
Is this (i genuineley dont know, tho perhaps im being a bit provocative too), but is it perhaps Apple getting the whole lossless thing wrong? Would FLAC provide different bitrates? I have no relevant progs up and running now so cant check, alas.
Just where am i or apple or everybody else going wrong?
Well from what I understand, Lossless audio codecs will basically do some clever stuff with the information on the discs and store it in a different way that means that it takes up less space, but all the information you need is still there. Some tracks can probably be reduced in file size more than others depending on the content of the audio.
When youi rip something to a lossy format such as MP3, you basically say what bit rate you want and it compresses it down to that size regardless of how much information it has to throw away in the process.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
al7478:
I realise its probably me but my tiny mind still isnt quite geting the whole low bitrate with lossless files thing...
Lossless means, presumably, lossless. If you compare the same track (im assuming you wouldnt compare differnet tracks), then the lossless file ought to be the higher bitrate file...?!?!?!
It'll depend on the efficiency of the codec to a certain extent, lossless codecs will ensure they don't lose any audio information (otherwise they wouldn't be lossless obviously...) but will compress the file as much as it possibly can. If the track is sufficiently simple in composition then you can achieve a pretty low bit-rate, without losing any of the audio information contained in the track (in very simple terms it depends on how much empty space within the track you can get rid of, a full on thrash metal track is going to have a pretty well occupied frequency range, whereas something simple like a single pianist playing a simple tune will have lots of "empty space" that can be discarded without losing anything, so will have a lower bitrate).
However a 320kbps mp3 file will be encoded at 320kbps (unless you select variable bit rate, which I'm not sure you can with 320kbps, I couldn't the only time I tried it), the codec will throw away whatever it needs to in order to achieve 320kbps, if your simple piano track doesn't require 320kbps it won't throw anything away, it'll remain at 320kbps, so will seem to have a higher bitrate than the lossless track, even though, in theory, they'll actually sound exactly the same.
Is this (i genuineley dont know, tho perhaps im being a bit provocative too), but is it perhaps Apple getting the whole lossless thing wrong? Would FLAC provide different bitrates?
I doubt it, in both cases, it's simply the different philosophies that lossless and lossy encoding are using to achieve the same result. Lossless is basically saying "use whatever bitrate is required NOT to lose anything", lossy is saying "lose whatever you need to, to achieve this bitrate".
I realise its probably me but my tiny mind still isnt quite geting the whole low bitrate with lossless files thing...
Lossless means, presumably, lossless. If you compare the same track (im assuming you wouldnt compare differnet tracks), then the lossless file ought to be the higher bitrate file...?!?!?!
It'll depend on the efficiency of the codec to a certain extent, lossless codecs will ensure they don't lose any audio information (otherwise they wouldn't be lossless obviously...) but will compress the file as much as it possibly can. If the track is sufficiently simple in composition then you can achieve a pretty low bit-rate, without losing any of the audio information contained in the track (in very simple terms it depends on how much empty space within the track you can get rid of, a full on thrash metal track is going to have a pretty well occupied frequency range, whereas something simple like a single pianist playing a simple tune will have lots of "empty space" that can be discarded without losing anything, so will have a lower bitrate).
However a 320kbps mp3 file will be encoded at 320kbps (unless you select variable bit rate, which I'm not sure you can with 320kbps, I couldn't the only time I tried it), the codec will throw away whatever it needs to in order to achieve 320kbps, if your simple piano track doesn't require 320kbps it won't throw anything away, it'll remain at 320kbps, so will seem to have a higher bitrate than the lossless track, even though, in theory, they'll actually sound exactly the same.
Is this (i genuineley dont know, tho perhaps im being a bit provocative too), but is it perhaps Apple getting the whole lossless thing wrong? Would FLAC provide different bitrates?
I doubt it, in both cases, it's simply the different philosophies that lossless and lossy encoding are using to achieve the same result. Lossless is basically saying "use whatever bitrate is required NOT to lose anything", lossy is saying "lose whatever you need to, to achieve this bitrate".
Alec
Well-known member
I understand what lossless is in that sense - all the audio compressed but wi' nowt taken out.
But isnt bit rate different to file size? In other words, shouldnt the bit rate in playback be the same...
I dunno. I am aware that im in a muddle and not putting things very well, but i know what i mean and something doesnt add up to me...
Sorry, this hasnt beeb the most helpful post in the world...
But isnt bit rate different to file size? In other words, shouldnt the bit rate in playback be the same...
I dunno. I am aware that im in a muddle and not putting things very well, but i know what i mean and something doesnt add up to me...
Sorry, this hasnt beeb the most helpful post in the world...
Alec
Well-known member
Thanks, the_lhc.
You imply silence would be lost in a lossless file tho, but it shouldnt be, should it? Indeed, if anything at all is taken away, its tantamount to an mp3...
You imply silence would be lost in a lossless file tho, but it shouldnt be, should it? Indeed, if anything at all is taken away, its tantamount to an mp3...
professorhat
Well-known member
In very simple terms, lossless compression works like this. Say I have a binary code which is 01010101 - I could compress this using an algorithm which says 014 - the algorithm knows that the 4 means 01 is repeated four times, so I've compressed 8 bits of information (8 numbers) down to 3 bits (3 numbers) for storage. When I want to read the data, I decode it using the algorithm and since it knows 014 means 01010101, I haven't lost any information.
On the other hand, if I have a binary code of 00111010, then I might compress this down to 0213010 - (i.e. 0 is repeated 2 times, 1 is repeated 3 times and 010 is left as is since there's no pattern). Since it's more complicated, I only managed to compress it down to 7 bits instead of 3 bits, but I used the same concept in the algorithm i.e. when the number is more than 1, it means the numbers in between are repeated that many times.
As I say, this is an incredibly simplified version, but it shows how you can get different compression rates depending on how clever the algorithm is and howÿcomplicatedÿthe data you are compressing is.ÿ
ÿ
On the other hand, if I have a binary code of 00111010, then I might compress this down to 0213010 - (i.e. 0 is repeated 2 times, 1 is repeated 3 times and 010 is left as is since there's no pattern). Since it's more complicated, I only managed to compress it down to 7 bits instead of 3 bits, but I used the same concept in the algorithm i.e. when the number is more than 1, it means the numbers in between are repeated that many times.
As I say, this is an incredibly simplified version, but it shows how you can get different compression rates depending on how clever the algorithm is and howÿcomplicatedÿthe data you are compressing is.ÿ
ÿ
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Biggest Upgrade Improvement? Rega Aphelion 2 or Aura?
- Started by hybridauth_Google_112692162581130744674
- Replies: 5
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram