Comparison of loss less to 256 Kbps (my impressions)

[joessportster]

Recently purchased some Cd's through Amazon which included a free Rip to WMP at 256 Kbps, I took one of the albums and ripped it loss less on the same laptop,

Gear used, Schiit Uber Bifrost DAC, Schiit Valhalla OTL Tube amp, Sennheiser Hd-650 Headphones

I allowed the amp to warm up for about an hour (I find this to be about the sweet spot for the tubes, they really seem to open up)

The album used for the experiment, was Chesky Records, Worlds Greatest Audiophile vocal Recordings

I will say the comparison was closer than i thought it should be. But the Loss less is clearly better

First there is a slight loss of detail, some of the ambiance is lost, IE.. venue effects on the sound, also some small details in the music, Spanish Harlem for instance there are audible background noises, only some of these were picked up with the 256,

I did not pick up on any loss of extension with 256, but it definitely sounded dryer, Vocals and acoustic guitar were Fleshed out better via loss less.

Best way i can describe the difference is the Loss less sounds much more analog, While the 256 has a definite edge of Digital, certainly dryer and a minor bit of harshness

I doubt any of this would be an issue on portable listening, But I'm certainly sticking with loss less

I will have to give 320Kbps a try, I have read countless excerpts that claim you cannot hear a difference between 320 and loss less

[JL Sargent]

I'm guessing those are the findings you expected? Are the loss less files a good bit bigger in size? I find that clean vinyl is the best sounding music on my system. That said, I can enjoy just about any source. I have some terrible 96kbps stuff that I got off Napster back when it showed up on the net with that first big peer to peer networking thing. I still enjoy listening to those pitiful files. Some even have digital "skips" in them. It really is all about compromises though isn't it? .

[joessportster]

4.35 song loss less takes up 44mb, same song at 256 kbps takes almost 9mb, so yea loss less eats up 5 times the space, Hard drive storage space is cheap now days, Iv'e been prowling around looking for a 1Tb desktop i can load all my music on and use it as a server, I will hook a second drive up as a mirror for backup, Probably get another external for redundancy

[bracurrie]

4.35 song loss less takes up 44mb, same song at 256 kbps takes almost 9mb, so yea loss less eats up 5 times the space, Hard drive storage space is cheap now days, Iv'e been prowling around looking for a 1Tb desktop i can load all my music on and use it as a server, I will hook a second drive up as a mirror for backup, Probably get another external for redundancy

Not only is storage cheap, but if you need a lower res version you can convert.

[ClaudeJ1]

Not only is storage cheap, but if you need a lower res version you can convert.

It's like having too much resolution in a photograph. You can always downsample.