320 bitrate vs FLAC (distinguishable differences)?

[andurilnarsil1]

I do listen to a lot of pops/rocks as you say and just to confirm, it's same here. I just mentioned this in a conversation the other day; I have some 320's that sound better than FLAC's and it's pop music. I would just add one thing; it is the quality of the mastering, for sure, but I suspect it is the ripping process as well.

I am yet to confirm this ripping business, I'm not there yet. What leads me in this direction is one case where two identical ripps were made from the same mastering/source. One was awful. I have no means to exclude the possibility that one of the rippers was laying, though.

editinig just for the sake of the conclusion; I think 320 is 'big enough' if you do everything properly. Since you can not rely on everyone putting in the effort, I dl FLAC's simply because I see fewer bad apples. If it is lossless or exact copy, it should be all there.

Right, conclusion like i stated to PENG, "it seems that 320 is enough unless everything else is aligned perfectly." I'll have to process that logically (I also suffer from 'i want the best' syndrome) .. lol

 

[lovinthehd]

Got it.. so in real world usage it sounds like a FLAC will not stand out that much for most people, if at all. Howevr considering types of music and quality of recording, it seems that 320 is enough unless everything else is aligned perfectly.

Btw, im offended that you knocked my CM9s ...lol To me they were my first real ENTRY level purchse of quality good speakers. In fact, i bought the whole 5.1 set. If I upgraded, I'd have to go to 9000.00 / pair 800 D3s. OUCH! That means EVERYTHING would need upgrading since I'm a HT guy. I'll need a second job

Is B&W your only choice in speakers? Much better HT choices out there IMO.

 

[andurilnarsil1]

Is B&W your only choice in speakers? Much better HT choices out there IMO.

Well, I'm definitely open minded.. .can you make a few suggestions? BTW, the reason I think i was attracted to them initially was what I "perceived" to be clear sounding audio although not everyone agrees (that they sound crystal clear like i do)

I've certainly not listened to all speakers out there, but I did go through the whole Magnolia collection at BB. Incidently, I run 5.1 setup with 4 subs (12in, 8in, and 2 6in) My living room is smaller, 17x20 roughly.

 

[lovinthehd]

Well, I'm definitely open minded.. .can you make a few suggestions? BTW, the reason I think i was attracted to them initially was what I "perceived" to be clear sounding audio although not everyone agrees (that they sound crystal clear like i do)

I've certainly not listened to all speakers out there, but I did go through the whole Magnolia collection at BB. Incidently, I run 5.1 setup with 4 subs (12in, 8in, and 2 6in) My living room is smaller, 17x20 roughly.

It depends how furniture-like you need your speakers to be to an extent. I'd tend to look at more dynamic speakers like perhaps JTR or JBL pro/synthesis speakers, or put together some kits from diysoundgroup.com. Why bother with the 6 inch subs? Even the 8 is doing little in a room that size. I run four subs, too but three of 'em are 18"s, one is a dual opposed 15" so I may be a little more into bass

 

[andurilnarsil1]

It depends how furniture-like you need your speakers to be to an extent. I'd tend to look at more dynamic speakers like perhaps JTR or JBL pro/synthesis speakers, or put together some kits from diysoundgroup.com. Why bother with the 6 inch subs? Even the 8 is doing little in a room that size. I run four subs, too but three of 'em are 18"s, one is a dual opposed 15" so I may be a little more into bass

I see what you mean about aesthetics and furniture... These look very industrial, although im sure sound is nice. I would prefer something with a nice finish as well. Years ago, i wanted the Reference Klipsch series.. not to mention the paladium series.. so pretty. Although i shud listen to them first too haha.

I love bass, i actually inherited the smaller subs from the pro media klipsch 2.1. The give a little extra umph but i agree not much. For bass i was thinking upgrading to SVS subs , seem like reasonable prices.

 

[lovinthehd]

I see what you mean about aesthetics and furniture... These look very industrial, although im sure sound is nice. I would prefer something with a nice finish as well. Years ago, i wanted the Reference Klipsch series.. not to mention the paladium series.. so pretty. Although i shud listen to them first too haha.

I love bass, i actually inherited the smaller subs from the pro media klipsch 2.1. The give a little extra umph but i agree not much. For bass i was thinking upgrading to SVS subs , seem like reasonable prices.

JTR can do custom finishes/veneers IIRC. Nicer finishes I'd look at Salk, Philharmonic and Ascend. Funk Audio makes really gorgeous looking and high performing speakers and subs, too. Hard to go wrong with the subs from the likes of SVS, Power Sound Audio, Rythmik, Seaton, JTR, Hsu, etc.

 

[yepimonfire]

Got it.. so in real world usage it sounds like a FLAC will not stand out that much for most people, if at all. Howevr considering types of music and quality of recording, it seems that 320 is enough unless everything else is aligned perfectly.

Btw, im offended that you knocked my CM9s ...lol To me they were my first real ENTRY level purchse of quality good speakers. In fact, i bought the whole 5.1 set. If I upgraded, I'd have to go to 9000.00 / pair 800 D3s. OUCH! That means EVERYTHING would need upgrading since I'm a HT guy. I'll need a second job

It's more than sufficient. I am young and have excellent hearing and I am unable to reliably a/b/x 192kbps. Besides some being more hard of hearing than others, nobody has golden ears. Sure, you can train yourself to detect sound quality differences and to point out what they are, but that doesn't mean one person can hear differences another person with similar hearing can't.

 

[cel4145]

I think some people who are confident they can hear the difference would be surprised if they did a volume level matched DBT.

 

[cel4145]

Well, I'm definitely open minded.. .can you make a few suggestions? BTW, the reason I think i was attracted to them initially was what I "perceived" to be clear sounding audio although not everyone agrees (that they sound crystal clear like i do)

I've certainly not listened to all speakers out there, but I did go through the whole Magnolia collection at BB. Incidently, I run 5.1 setup with 4 subs (12in, 8in, and 2 6in) My living room is smaller, 17x20 roughly.

What 12" and 8" are you running? Certainly could be some room to improve the SQ. Also, depending on how serious you are, you might want to time align them if you are not already.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I think some people who are confident they can hear the difference would be surprised if they did a volume level matched DBT.

That would be an interesting test, but on what speakers in what room, and with what source material? And let's say I failed the DBT, in a world where gigahertz is a solved problem and solid-state storage prices are falling by some large fraction of their cost annually, tolerating lossy compression for 20-20KHz just isn't something I'll ever do. For me, it's CDs or FLAC or nothing.

 

[lovinthehd]

That would be an interesting test, but on what speakers in what room, and with what source material? And let's say I failed the DBT, in a world where gigahertz is a solved problem and solid-state storage prices are falling by some large fraction of their cost annually, tolerating lossy compression for 20-20KHz just isn't something I'll ever do. For me, it's CDs or FLAC or nothing.

Your choice of gear/source for a test. As to storing in either full lossless or compressed lossless, with today's storage prices I agree in general but for some portable devices storage is more limited and more appropriate for loading up with lower bitrate mp3 (I use my FLACs to sometimes burn a disposable CD, or compress it into mp3 for storage on a portable device; I also use a usb drive in a vehicle that can't handle WAV/FLAC).

 

[Irvrobinson]

Your choice of gear/source for a test. As to storing in either full lossless or compressed lossless, with today's storage prices I agree in general but for some portable devices storage is more limited and more appropriate for loading up with lower bitrate mp3 (I use my FLACs to sometimes burn a disposable CD, or compress it into mp3 for storage on a portable device; I also use a usb drive in a vehicle that can't handle WAV/FLAC).

FLAC files use lossless compression. I'm fine with anything lossless, that has at least as much resolution as 16b/44.1K PCM. What I don't like are the lossy MP3 schemes.

 

[lovinthehd]

FLAC files use lossless compression. I'm fine with anything lossless, that has at least as much resolution as 16b/44.1K PCM. What I don't like are the lossy MP3 schemes.

Yes, I know. That's why I said compressed lossless, which is what FLAC is.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Yes, I know. That's why I said compressed lossless, which is what FLAC is.

I wasn't sure, since you used the non-standard term "full lossless". I now see that you mean uncompressed lossless.

 

[cel4145]

That would be an interesting test, but on what speakers in what room, and with what source material? And let's say I failed the DBT, in a world where gigahertz is a solved problem and solid-state storage prices are falling by some large fraction of their cost annually, tolerating lossy compression for 20-20KHz just isn't something I'll ever do. For me, it's CDs or FLAC or nothing.

That's are some good questions to answer for yourself.

My point comes from having seen many people convinced that lossless is better go do some DBTs, and they are often surprised that either

a) they can't tell a difference
b) they can rarely tell a difference
c) the difference is not nearly as much as they thought it would be

It's an interesting lesson in the influence of confirmation bias and other fallacies of sighted testing. It also helps to reduce the number of audiophiles trumpeting the great superiority of lossless to newbies and heading them down the wrong track. (lol)

 

[PENG]

Got it.. so in real world usage it sounds like a FLAC will not stand out that much for most people, if at all. Howevr considering types of music and quality of recording, it seems that 320 is enough unless everything else is aligned perfectly.

I wouldn't say that, it really depends what the person listens to. If one listen only (or most of the time) to high quality/high resolution source media (including the so called audiophile kind of CDs), then 320 is not enough. Conversely for those who only listen to low quality/low budget production kind of pops/rocks/country music CDs then ripping those CDs using bit perfect rippers to 320 will likely be good enough.

Btw, im offended that you knocked my CM9s ...lol To me they were my first real ENTRY level purchse of quality good speakers. In fact, i bought the whole 5.1 set. If I upgraded, I'd have to go to 9000.00 / pair 800 D3s. OUCH! That means EVERYTHING would need upgrading since I'm a HT guy. I'll need a second job

Not me, I never said anything about your CM9s, never even mentioned them. In fact, I like B&W speakers.

 

[lovinthehd]

I wouldn't say that, it really depends what the person listens to. If one listen only (or most of the time) to high quality/high resolution source media (including the so called audiophile kind of CDs), then 320 is not enough. Conversely for those who only listen to low quality/low budget production kind of pops/rocks/country music CDs then ripping those CDs using bit perfect rippers to 320 will likely be good enough.



Not me, I never said anything about your CM9s, never even mentioned them. In fact, I like B&W speakers.

Peng, you have some examples of such "audiophile" CDs or high-res recordings that sound obviously superior to 320?

 

[PENG]

Peng, you have some examples of such "audiophile" CDs or high-res recordings that sound obviously superior to 320?

Sure, just take a look of the list in the link below:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/high-quality-sound-albums.78328/page-14

Try to get one from #100-103, in fact the 1812 Telarc CD costs less than the MP3 version.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000003CSG/ref=tmm_acd_new_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=new&qid=1483921360&sr=1-1-fkmr0

Also, this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Pawnshop-Ultra-Definition-32-Bit-Master/dp/B00AANGGYG/ref=pd_sbs_15_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B00AANGGYG&pd_rd_r=7EDDJWE508PJPHTYE7Q2&pd_rd_w=M2QRB&pd_rd_wg=Mgq5x&psc=1&refRID=7EDDJWE508PJPHTYE7Q2

I can't imagine how it would sound if ripped to 320 kbps. It probably will still sound very good because the original is good.

 

[vsound5150]

It's a no brainer, go lossless and never look back...simple.

 

[Pogre]

So where's a good place to download lossless files? I've done a little Googling, but I'm having a hard time finding my music. I listen to a lot of alternative metal and hard rock. I mix it up a little though. I have a soft spot for a few female singers and some classic stuff from the 70's and 80's.

But yeah, some of my favorite bands are proving tough to find outside of cd's or mp3's. Mainly the alternative metal bands like Nine Inch Nails, TOOL or Deftones and hard rock like System of a Down, Godsmack or Alice in Chains.

*Edit: I'll be damned, I re-worded my serch just a little bit...

http://flac-lossless.org/heavy-metal/

Anyone familiar with the site?