320 bitrate vs FLAC (distinguishable differences)?

[lovinthehd]

yup. after I finished getting all my physical media ripped in to digital files, there was no way on earth I was going back and re-doing the first dozen or so that I did in a fairly light bitrate. I totally understand there are diminishing returns. Also, there are a lot more fun things to do with your time than watch a CD spin in to a file. Fishing for instance.

This was my attitude back when I had first started using iTunes for my cd rips, took a while before I realized the iTunes limitations on format, let alone their automatic settings or buying downloads from them. iTunes started to hide my own rips over time before I deleted iTunes altogether, at that time I did rerip all my cds (I was injurecd anyways) to FLAC and now use Foobar2000 happily. Mostly I still buy on cd as it is more cost effective than downloads I've found generally.

 

[MrBoat]

yup. after I finished getting all my physical media ripped in to digital files, there was no way on earth I was going back and re-doing the first dozen or so that I did in a fairly light bitrate. I totally understand there are diminishing returns. Also, there are a lot more fun things to do with your time than watch a CD spin in to a file. Fishing for instance.

Fishing is (FIF) Fundamental. That's it more than anything. Other things to do. The other thing is I don't use portable music very often. I used to use it for my car but now that cell phone drivers have entered what was already dicey situation, I don't enjoy the distraction in the car like the 'olden' days. At work, I don't really have time to focus on music beyond background noise so just about any random radio station will do. I rarely internet from my phone. Some things I reserve for home. Serious music happens to be one of those. By the time I get to this spot, cd's don't really seem such a chore. They at least share that collectible attribute like the vinyl days from whence I came.

It's all good. Not discounting the electronic alternatives. Just haven't really gotten to that point. . . .yet. By then, perhaps it will be decidedly better.

 

[MrBoat]

Mostly I still buy on cd as it is more cost effective than downloads I've found generally.

That was half of my reasoning. It seemed more cost effective and you get a physical cd that is immune from whatever mercy electronic may pose. I have lost photos and other electronically archived material before. Which means, if I care about something, I need backup anyway, so. . . .

 

[lovinthehd]

That was half of my reasoning. It seemed more cost effective and you get a physical cd that is immune from whatever mercy electronic may pose. I have lost photos and other electronically archived material before. Which means, if I care about something, I need backup anyway, so. . . .

Yep, best cheap backup there is I just store the discs in binders with the artwork for the most part, altho I do still play a disc now and then but it really is easier to find them electronically (for me, the phone's bubbleupnp app is very easy and fast to use to find/direct content on my computer/drives).

 

[Bucknekked]

iTunes started to hide my own rips over time before I deleted iTunes altogether.

I have observed a love/hate relationship with iTunes since I migrated to Apple years ago. There are the folks who love it, and those that literally hate it and anything associated with it.

Is this a "thing" like what most audiophiles feel about Bose? (The hate it part. As far as I know, I have never heard an audiophile say nice things about Bose).

Do AH folks have a consensus opinion on iTunes?

 

[lovinthehd]

I have observed a love/hate relationship with iTunes since I migrated to Apple years ago. There are the folks who love it, and those that literally hate it and anything associated with it.

Is this a "thing" like what most audiophiles feel about Bose? (The hate it part. As far as I know, I have never heard an audiophile say nice things about Bose).

Do AH folks have a consensus opinion on iTunes?

Full disclosure is iTunes was on a variety of pcs, migration/updating was my major issue. I only have an old gen 2 nano ipod otherwise when it comes to the apple universe. I just didn't like iTunes, it not only didn't work very well for me in my circumstances in migrating particularly, but it wasted a lot of my time just being annoyed by the constant updates and store intrusions, just fucking annoying especially when limited to apple universe things like ALAC. YMMV.

 

[Bucknekked]

I just didn't like iTunes, it not only didn't work very well for me in my circumstances in migrating particularly, but it wasted a lot of my time just being annoyed by the constant updates and store intrusions, just fucking annoying

lovinthehd:
I think you've given me enough of a hint to know where to place your vote on iTunes

 

[Bucknekked]

Yep, best cheap backup there is I just store the discs in binders with the artwork for the most part, altho I do still play a disc now and then but it really is easier to find them electronically (for me, the phone's bubbleupnp app is very easy and fast to use to find/direct content on my computer/drives).

I have a stack of binders in my gun safe. All the original media. Its good backup but like all backups it has a lifespan. Not because the CD's/DVDs/Blu-Rays will degrade in my lifetime, but because the devices that we use to play them will eventually age out and be gone. Ever tried to play a DAT tape? I have them in my safe. But can't for the life of me find a player anymore in my house. I have a number of other early digital formats nicely saved. But no devices to play them on. 100% self inflicted wounds. 100% first world problem. 100% in my "don't give a crap" collection of problems to solve someday. I will just move what I play forward like everyone else.

 

[lovinthehd]

I have a stack of binders in my gun safe. All the original media. Its good backup but like all backups it has a lifespan. Not because the CD's/DVDs/Blu-Rays will degrade in my lifetime, but because the devices that we use to play them will eventually age out and be gone. Ever tried to play a DAT tape? I have them in my safe. But can't for the life of me find a player anymore in my house. I have a number of other early digital formats nicely saved. But no devices to play them on. 100% self inflicted wounds. 100% first world problem. 100% in my "don't give a crap" collection of problems to solve someday. I will just move what I play forward like everyone else.

LOL yes had to use DATs to back up our computer system at one point at work. Never tried one at home, tho, just use standard pc/hard drives.

 

[Blue Dude]

To clarify, I don't think its worth storing less than a lossless version.....but you can create useful lossy files from the lossless as needed....

I've done this many times. Converting a CD from FLAC to MP3 is trivial with Foobar 2000 or similar utilities. Personally I don't bother with FBR 320. I'm a fan of the Lame encoder VBR 2 setting. It saves storage space without sacrificing much, if anything, in the way of sound quality.

 

[yepimonfire]

I have observed a love/hate relationship with iTunes since I migrated to Apple years ago. There are the folks who love it, and those that literally hate it and anything associated with it.

Is this a "thing" like what most audiophiles feel about Bose? (The hate it part. As far as I know, I have never heard an audiophile say nice things about Bose).

Do AH folks have a consensus opinion on iTunes?

I'm one who hates it. Personally I don't like the "jail" apple puts you in. If I buy an iPhone I'm forced to use iTunes. Unfortunately on a PC it has been nothing but problems since 2008 when I started getting into digital music formats. I have nothing against the quality of their downloads, just their software. For videos they can only be played on a PC with ITunes or on an apple product.

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.

Pretty much any speakers, headphones, or good hearing will fail a dbt past a certain bit rate regardless of the musical content. Just like 96/24, where you gain nothing except frequencies that are inaudible to humans, you can't hear what high bitrate lossy compression is throwing away. It has nothing to do with the music or the equipment, and more to do with your brain. If an orchestra is playing full blast at - 15dBfs, you're not gonna be able to hear the sheet music stand creaking at - 90dbfs at the same time, this is essentially what mp3s throw away. Obviously at low bit rates this becomes more aggressive and you can hear it, but at 320kbps you're keeping more than is necessary anyways. I've yet to see someone pass a dbt even at 256 or 192kbps. Masking happens in the real world without recordings, so why waste storage space or bandwidth to preserve it? The only purpose flac serves imo is for archival purposes where someone intends to transcode it to a low bitrate lossy format to put on a small music player. I'd hazard to guess 99% if portable usage is going to be on a phone, and since, like you said, storage is cheap, one could just rip everything to 320kbps at slightly over 100mb an album and save themselves the hassle of transcoding.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Pretty much any speakers, headphones, or good hearing will fail a dbt past a certain bit rate regardless of the musical content. Just like 96/24, where you gain nothing except frequencies that are inaudible to humans, you can't hear what high bitrate lossy compression is throwing away. It has nothing to do with the music or the equipment, and more to do with your brain. If an orchestra is playing full blast at - 15dBfs, you're not gonna be able to hear the sheet music stand creaking at - 90dbfs at the same time, this is essentially what mp3s throw away. Obviously at low bit rates this becomes more aggressive and you can hear it, but at 320kbps you're keeping more than is necessary anyways. I've yet to see someone pass a dbt even at 256 or 192kbps. Masking happens in the real world without recordings, so why waste storage space or bandwidth to preserve it?

So, you've participated in or observed double-blind tests on lossy compression schemes? How many?

Lossy compression is not analogous to 96/24. 96/24 adds information, it doesn't subtract it at all. And while the 96KHz sampling rate doesn't add any value beyond pushing out artifacts of digital filters, the 24bit word length is very useful for recording, reducing the possibility of digital overload during peaks.

Your example of an orchestra playing at "full blast" *is* a situation where information losses could make a difference. When was the last time you listened to an orchestra at a live event?

Finally, "wasting" storage space and bandwidth on lossless recordings has become so cheap that rather than make sweeping conclusions like you have on the value proposition of lossless, I just made the decision to have a lossless strategy, on the chance it might a make a difference under unpredictable circumstances. You've chosen to just make assertions.

 

[Bucknekked]

yepimonfire
What does it mean to fail a dbt ? I am unfamiliar with the acronym. I looked up dbt and I get a psychotic disorder on google. You mention passing and failing this test in your own personal experience. Can you explain for the newb in the room?

 

[Pogre]

Double

yepimonfire
What does it mean to fail a dbt ? I am unfamiliar with the acronym. I looked up dbt and I get a psychotic disorder on google. You mention passing and failing this test in your own personal experience. Can you explain for the newb in the room?

Double blind test. I had to think about that one too.

 

[Bucknekked]

Pretty much any speakers, headphones, or good hearing will fail a dbt past a certain bit rate regardless of the musical content.

Pogre: Thank you for the acronym identification. I would never have got that. I speak three letter acronym fluently. I am even conversant in four letter acronym. Double blind test as dbt, one more for the catalog.

yepimonfire:
The question still remains. What does it mean to fail a double blind test? You mentioned your own experience failing in a "dbt". I believe I understand what a double blind test is. The issue I have with audio folks bandying it about is that often the common usage is anything but a double blind test.

 

[lovinthehd]

Pogre: Thank you for the acronym identification. I would never have got that. I speak three letter acronym fluently. I am even conversant in four letter acronym. Double blind test as dbt, one more for the catalog.

yepimonfire:
The question still remains. What does it mean to fail a double blind test? You mentioned your own experience failing in a "dbt". I believe I understand what a double blind test is. The issue I have with audio folks bandying it about is that often the common usage is anything but a double blind test.

FYI there's another acronym that's related, the double blind ABX (double blind a-b-x test). You can use a comparator device like this for such http://avahifi.com/products/accessories/abx-comparator-switchbox

 

[yepimonfire]

So, you've participated in or observed double-blind tests on lossy compression schemes? How many?

Lossy compression is not analogous to 96/24. 96/24 adds information, it doesn't subtract it at all. And while the 96KHz sampling rate doesn't add any value beyond pushing out artifacts of digital filters, the 24bit word length is very useful for recording, reducing the possibility of digital overload during peaks.

Your example of an orchestra playing at "full blast" *is* a situation where information losses could make a difference. When was the last time you listened to an orchestra at a live event?

Finally, "wasting" storage space and bandwidth on lossless recordings has become so cheap that rather than make sweeping conclusions like you have on the value proposition of lossless, I just made the decision to have a lossless strategy, on the chance it might a make a difference under unpredictable circumstances. You've chosen to just make assertions.

Actually, I've done several dbt's on multiple compression schemes with variety of genres. I can't reliably pass at 320kbps on anything. I grew up attending symphony orchestras, I know exactly what a live one should sound like. Where would it make a difference? Have you taken a dbt and passed? Choosing lossless to err on the side of caution is fine, but you stated that you frequently recommend against them and that their effects are unpredictable and content dependant, when that's just not the case, I explained to you how lossy compression manages to compress files, by removing sounds that are inaudible due to masking. Even with the best equipment you can't hear a pin drop over a guitar solo.

If somebody has a large collection of mp3s from Amazon, I most certainly would not recommend buying the CD's and wasting the money that could be better spent on music just to rip it to flac, nor would I suggest that they spend extra money on lossless downloads. Likewise I definitely wouldn't recommend that someone pay $20 a month for tidal vs $10 a month for Spotify at 320kbps vorbis just to get lossless audio, because they would be spending money on something they couldn't truly hear a difference in.

Also, I never stated that higher sample rates and bit depth had no value in recording, just playback.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bucknekked]

Actually, I've done several dbt's on multiple compression schemes with variety of genres. I can't reliably pass at 320kbps on anything. I grew up attending symphony orchestras,

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

yepimonfire:
I am interested, how does one get involved or get to participate in dbt tests for xxx reason in audio?
I'm not sure I could pass a dbt on any topic, much less a sketchy one like sampling rates and bit depth.
Nobody has ever invited me to participate in a dbt. I'm still quite sure most folks still don't understand what a dbt is compared to an a-b test. Not the same. Not the same at all.

I can agree with your entire last paragraph: "i wouldn't recommend". I wouldn't recommend any of those items either. There are folks who will do them anyway. There are folks who will recommend them anyway too. That's why this subject generates discussion.

I suspect the discussion will continue.........................for a long, long time..............

 

[Irvrobinson]

yepimonfire:
I am interested, how does one get involved or get to participate in dbt tests for xxx reason in audio?
I'm not sure I could pass a dbt on any topic, much less a sketchy one like sampling rates and bit depth.
Nobody has ever invited me to participate in a dbt. I'm still quite sure most folks still don't understand what a dbt is compared to an a-b test. Not the same. Not the same at all.

I can agree with your entire last paragraph: "i wouldn't recommend". I wouldn't recommend any of those items either. There are folks who will do them anyway. There are folks who will recommend them anyway too. That's why this subject generates discussion.

I suspect the discussion will continue.........................for a long, long time..............

What is a DBT? I can hear Swerd's footsteps, so I'll let him answer. You don't pass or fail a DBT, you either select a source in the test a statistically significant number of times or you don't. If you don't it just means you can't reliably discern a difference. Or it could mean that audio DBTs with humans are not a reliable means of having humans identify differences, and they're a waste of time. But I didn't say, nope, not me, because that would rehash an argument already discussed in multiple threads, and only a worthless troll would do that. So I won't, ahem.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Actually, I've done several dbt's on multiple compression schemes with variety of genres. I can't reliably pass at 320kbps on anything. I grew up attending symphony orchestras, I know exactly what a live one should sound like. Where would it make a difference? Have you taken a dbt and passed? Choosing lossless to err on the side of caution is fine, but you stated that you frequently recommend against them and that their effects are unpredictable and content dependant, when that's just not the case, I explained to you how lossy compression manages to compress files, by removing sounds that are inaudible due to masking. Even with the best equipment you can't hear a pin drop over a guitar solo.

I'm not sure where lossless would make a difference, but I don't care to find out. As for orchestras, they make a difference because there are many tens (often a hundred) discrete sound sounds playing at once. In the fourth movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony it's more like 250 sources.

You really have done several DBTs on compression schemes? Why? What prompted you to torment yourself like that? Or do you actually like being tested? How many trials per test did you do, roughly?

I know how lossy compression schemes work, and they are calculated, educated gambles, but gambles biased towards data reduction. MP3 320Kbps is dropping about 60% of the incompressible information. (Compressed lossless CD data rate is about 750Mbps.) You can argue with me all you want, but we're just going to agree to disagree, because I think DBTs as proof point for equality in this case are inconclusive at best.