I Don't Have Dog Ears

[derrickdj1]

I have been on the fence with my digital music for sometime now.  Don't get me wrong, I love it and have no intention of storing physical media.  Digital is just way more convenient, since I don't have dog ears.  I have been doing some listening test between the HT setup with the avr and a tube hybird amp using the RF 7's.

 

Music file were mp3 256 kbps VS HD Tracks high resolution files.  The mp3 albums are roughly 85-95 mb vs 850 to 1000 mb for the high res files.  So, the HD stuff uses around 10X more storage space.  One thing on the 256 mp3, they were done with a variable bit rate encoding.  This uses more space for demanding sections of a song and not as much for thin parts of the song.

 

I don't have duplicate albums in both formats but, these test were done with some of my favorite artist where I have a decent amount of their albums.  So, I have a real good ideal of their music quality in both formats.

 

After hours of comparison, I can't reliably hear a difference between the two file types.  Don't start throwing tomatoes yet.  I said, self, maybe the avr is different than separates.  So, I used the same speakers with the avr and speakers set to large to compare to a tube hybird amp and the BDP running the show.  The two systems sound slightly different as expected but, I was not better at hearing a real difference between the two file types.

[SWL]

You're not alone...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

[Schu]

The main issue with that type of evaluation is that is relies on memory as a basis for quality... it would be better to say that you a more than happy with what you are getting via that storage method.

I tend to agree with you... with high quality playback gear, I am more than happy with the majority of music being reproduced, even mp3's.

That being said, when critical listening multiple sources... I can definitely hear differences in qualities. Most of the time, thise differences are astoundingly vast, and other times it comes down to very minor differences that mainly reside in the granularity area and separation areas (layering) of what is being listened to.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Schu

[Thaddeus Smith]

i often listen to my library streamed abroad and encoded to mp3 on the fly, but would much prefer to start out with and maintain the higher res source. who knows where the tech will be in 5-10 years and what can be done with compression - especially if if I haven't already stripped out the important bits.

 

i also shoot my photos in RAW format (converted to DNG) even though I rarely do any extensive correction or editing, for much the same reason.

 

storage is cheap.

[SWL]

My lossless files definitely sound superior. However it's just not night and day to me. Sometimes it matters to me, sometimes it doesn't depending on mood I suppose. It's nice having the option to choose one or the other.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

[Thaddeus Smith]

My lossless files definitely sound superior. However it's just not night and day to me. Sometimes it matters to me, sometimes it doesn't depending on mood I suppose. It's nice having the option to choose one or the other.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

 

Traversing the HiFi spectrum is entirely about nuance in sound. It's only night and day when you go from bottom of the barrel, entry level to ...anything else.

[Thaddeus Smith]

to further explain my point - i keep FLAC files for when I'm feeling especially critical and because I want future flexibility. Most of the time MP3 or XYZ streaming app is sufficient enough for me to enjoy music.

[derrickdj1]

The main issue with that type of evaluation is that is relies on memory as a basis for quality... it would be better to say that you a more than happy with what you are getting via that storage method.

I tend to agree with you... with high quality playback gear, I am more than happy with the majority of music being reproduced, even mp3's.

That being said, when critical listening multiple sources... I can definitely hear differences in qualities. Most of the time, thise differences are astoundingly vast, and other times it comes down to very minor differences that mainly reside in the granularity area and separation areas (layering) of what is being listened to.

 

I did not want this to be more scientific because this is the way I enjoy music.  I know measurement gear may show a difference. 

 

 

i often listen to my library streamed abroad and encoded to mp3 on the fly, but would much prefer to start out with and maintain the higher res source. who knows where the tech will be in 5-10 years and what can be done with compression - especially if if I haven't already stripped out the important bits.

 

i also shoot my photos in RAW format (converted to DNG) even though I rarely do any extensive correction or editing, for much the same reason.

 

storage is cheap.

 

If I ripped CD's I would definitely keep the disc or any other HD source.  Something just feels good about doing it.  Storage is cheap but, there is a decent price difference between the two type of media.

 

My lossless files definitely sound superior. However it's just not night and day to me. Sometimes it matters to me, sometimes it doesn't depending on mood I suppose. It's nice having the option to choose one or the other.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

 

The not night and day parts sticks out because that is what I am experiencing.  I can't reliably pick out the HD format the majority of the time.  I have 3 TB's for music but, keep a lot of music on the laptop and use some in the car.  The 256 works well for portability.  I can take several thousand song on a stick drive to use in the car or carry on the laptop instead of maybe a few hundred.  My HD files are all FLAC.

Edited January 18, 2016 by derrickdj1

[BobK]

256mp3 VBR are decent quality I can believe many would not be able to hear any difference.

 

We keep the original Flacs as the source as hard drive space today is cheap.  And can always down-sample to what ever bit rate for say a phone etc.  Depending on the type of music I would say 192mp3 and higher is the point where you have to really struggle to hear a big difference vs the flac source.

 

The main difference between say CDs and vinyl we have is the the way the company decided to use compression on the CD version of the track.   If CD is the source, the song usually (not always) has its dynamic range compressed for more loudness than the vinyl version.   We did A/B or Mahavishnu Orchestra (Vinyl vs CD) and was hard pressed to hear much of a difference,  but on some newer CDs you can tell they played around with the dynamic range (because they can on CD) and the CD will sound much louder with less dynamic range vs vinyl.  

 

In my opinion you want the source as close to the original as possible.  Also, just because its a Flac does not mean its good.   you can make a flac from a 96mp3 it will be no better than the original 96mp3.

[twistedcrankcammer]

I have been on the fence with my digital music for sometime now.  Don't get me wrong, I love it and have no intention of storing physical media.  Digital is just way more convenient, since I don't have dog ears.  I have been doing some listening test between the HT setup with the avr and a tube hybird amp using the RF 7's.

 

Music file were mp3 256 kbps VS HD Tracks high resolution files.  The mp3 albums are roughly 85-95 mb vs 850 to 1000 mb for the high res files.  So, the HD stuff uses around 10X more storage space.  One thing on the 256 mp3, they were done with a variable bit rate encoding.  This uses more space for demanding sections of a song and not as much for thin parts of the song.

 

I don't have duplicate albums in both formats but, these test were done with some of my favorite artist where I have a decent amount of their albums.  So, I have a real good ideal of their music quality in both formats.

 

After hours of comparison, I can't reliably hear a difference between the two file types.  Don't start throwing tomatoes yet.  I said, self, maybe the avr is different than separates.  So, I used the same speakers with the avr and speakers set to large to compare to a tube hybird amp and the BDP running the show.  The two systems sound slightly different as expected but, I was not better at hearing a real difference between the two file types.

 

 

I absolutely agree with this, except as already mentioned about relying on memory, which is an extremely valid point.

 

We ALL hear differently! Just realize how inefficient the human ear is to begin with, without even taking into consideration differences between individuals.

 

I think it is refreshing that you do not just drink the cool aide, and admit that to you, what you personally are hearing is different, it could definitely save you a lot of money on gear and wondering what if, which in itself is fun, but at the same time a curse.

 

Roger

[derrickdj1]

I think it is refreshing that you do not just drink the cool aide, and admit that to you, what you personally are hearing is different, it could definitely save you a lot of money on gear and wondering what if, which in itself is fun, but at the same time a curse. Roger

 

I buy HD file because it's just one of those audiophile things to get the best source possible.  For me, the best source seem to be pretty much equal to the MP3 256 kpbs variable rate files.  I can definitely hear a difference with streaming things like Pandora or internet radio.  I can also hear a difference if I pull out some real old 128 kbps MP3's.

 

Actually my hearing is pretty good.  I would bet most people would fail to reliably hear a difference between the good MP3 files and the HD counter part.  Then the real question is, why spend the additional money on HD files?

Edited January 18, 2016 by derrickdj1

[bobdog]

Hard drive storage has become so cheap that I can see no reason to ever convert lossless files to lossy there just is no disadvantage to a lossless file anymore.  Files can be converted to the lossy formats when loaded onto portable devices for portable use.  Once a file has been converted to mp3 and the lossless file deleted it can not be restored you may regret it.

 

If your question is just weather or not Hires music is worth the extra cost.  The answer is maybe.  Some of the HD downloads are better masterings than any of the 16bit offerings.  They can sound so much better that the cost is worth it for me.  That said most are not well mastered and a better sounding 16bit version will often be available on rebook CD.  To get the best sounding music takes research unfortunately.

[derrickdj1]

I can see no reason to ever convert lossless files to lossy there just is no disadvantage to a lossless file anymore.

 

So true, keep the lossless files by all means.  I find myself purchasing MP3's in the 256 version just because the selection is so much more plentiful.  I would buy more lossless files if the variety was there for my taste in music.

 

The interesting thing is that, I feel good setup and some room Tx made the music much better than the HD files.  I am not knocking HD files in the least.  They are good and will remain a digital audiophiles truest source for unaltered music.  The digital domain has great appeal for me do to storage space and the ease of finding things.  digital files don't get dusty and nobody ask to barrow an album, lol.

Edited January 18, 2016 by derrickdj1