Clarence Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I am listening to Police - Walking on the moon on my Squeezebox www.slimdevices.com that I ripped from cd at 128k and I cant tell the difference from listening on the original disc. I must not be an audiophile. It sounds fing great. Duke is right. Any its even streming wirelessly to my amp! wireless networks rule. if anything its missing a bit of "depth" maybee a smidge of "richness". other than that its great. 22,000 mp3's at my fingertips and a volume control. damn. FLAME AWAY! [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classichits Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 All my cds are on my hard drive at 128k. I use Musicmatch as my player and the music sounds great in my La Scalas. Ah the pc. The worlds best jukebox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Would not dispute a thing you said. However, I rather doubt you could tell an Amati from a Strad at that data rate. While I cannot tell $$$$$$ a foot speaker cable from zip cord, I can readily spot the difference between 24/96 and 24/192...and both of these are beaucoups more data than CD, much less 128k mp3. When the medium is matched well to the information, it will work...and this apparently works well for the Police, and you. That's a good thing. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny dB Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Sounds like you need a better CDP.[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarence Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 prodigy "smack my ***** up" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarence Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 Sounds like you need a better CDP.[] i dont call my sony dvd player bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dflip Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I can hear the difference betweeen 128k and 256, or even better 320k with a MAudio Revolution 7 sound card, a set of Klipsch 4.1 computer speakers with a RC-10 as the centre channel. It is fairly evident to me that there is a difference. If you can't hear it, then great, it is a lot cheaper for you. The sound is even more noticeable on the main system (McIntosh MC-30's, Peach and Cornwalls). The differences are most noted at the extremes, the high end and bass end where the lower level recording is more compressed. Just my humble opinion. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarence Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 s#!t now I'm starting to hear it. oh well. it still RAWX!!!! I will try to rip to 256 when I buy a cd from now on. I appreciate your opinion! nice to see a digital -> peach -> Mac-> cornwall user. your PC is the source, right?? I was considering a merlin.. (already) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 With khorns, Sunfire pre pro, Carver amps and 128 or 320 mp3 running over optical out from a Turtle Beach Audiotron to optical in on the Sunfire I can easily tell the difference. Throw them in a car or for casual listening on my other systems and I don't notice a difference I agree that having all your CDs ripped to a computer and streaming wireless is a huge bonus, but with the cost of hard drive space so cheap you really owe it to yourself to rip at a higher rate or go with something like FLAC. Glad you are liking what you hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjith Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I can very easily tell the difference between 128 and a 320, depending on one's setup the difference maybe faint or if you are fortunately enough to have a setup like rplace mentioned above then the difference is quite evident. FLAC is my choice of format though, pretty much as good as it gets without considering WAV. I'm considering getting a 250GB external HDD, and rip away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I can hear the difference between 128k and 256, or even better 320k with a MAudio Revolution 7 sound card, a set of Klipsch 4.1 computer speakers with a RC-10 as the centre channel. It is fairly evident to me that there is a difference. If you can't hear it, then great, it is a lot cheaper for you. The sound is even more noticeable on the main system (McIntosh MC-30's, Peach and Cornwalls). The differences are most noted at the extremes, the high end and bass end where the lower level recording is more compressed. Just my humble opinion. [] I'll second that. I can easily hear the difference to me 128K sound horrible on my system. I have all mine done at 226 and I think that was a mistake 4800 songs worth of mistake. I plan to build a huge server with enough place to forget MP3's all together like a bad dream! But they are convenient as all get out for the time being. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 When I ripped my CD collecton to my hard disk I tested all "resolutions" and decided that 192 was probably OK on the computer speakers. To be safe, therefore, I went one level up and recorded the lot at 256 Kb. On the main system the performance does vary quite dramatically with the music being played and the source equipment. I have 3 units that will play Mp3 available for use on the main system. A computer, a Pioneer 575 DVD/all-in-one player and a no-name (well Comet) unit that cost less than $50. Surpisingly the Pioneer is the worst source and the Comet the best. None are the same as a CD playing - but I am not always convinced that the musical experience is worse. YMMV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Hahaha! There isn't if you are a teenager listening to shriek-rock on an IPOD. I used to question whether the differences were enough to be anal about until I learned I somehow wasn't enjoying the music as much when I listened to my "copied" music. After doing some critical listening and evaluation, it became apparent to me I would only be satisfied with lossless compression. While I often question the "improvement" one thing makes of another, I know the sound degradation which accompanies using anything other than lossless is substantial and unsatisfying - although I can live with 192 on a portable mp3 player temporarily. If you don't pay much attention to the sound, the degradation may not annoy the hell out of you. Of course, it also depends on the music you listen to and 64 may be just fine on that elevator music that passes as jazz - I refuse to listen to either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def Leper Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 ....I cant tell the difference from listening on the original disc. .....I must not be an audiophile. ...... if anything its missing a bit of "depth" maybee a smidge of "richness". other than that its great. Make up your mind. If missing a 'bit' and 'smidge', you must be able to tell the difference, eh? If I look into the crystal ball, I see a Bose system in your future. [6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 @128 there is not to much to right with mp3 quality either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Max: I was looking at your post as to how you'd tested various resolutions and it brought up a question to you and to the group as well. Except for those who can tolerate Ipod or other of the minature portable systems, why do any of us "audiophiles" ever downgrade resolution given that terabyte-level storage is available and getting cheaper all the time? I made my first LP>CD efforts in the mid-90's and only did a few. While I could detect nothing wrong with them not atributable to the limits of the CD, I found I only used them in the car and always ran for the LP when listening at home. When storage prices really began to drop, I started again, but this time digitizing at 24/88.2. While I could still tell the difference, it was slight enough to be tolerable, provided convenience, and protected those irreplaceable LP's from the inevitable wear or accident. Further, I could make a CD as 24/88.2 is an even multple of Redbook. Now, with cheap, reliable storage like TeraStation at less than a 1000.00, I don't even consider compression. I am even storing my video as DV-AVI at 12GB/hour. A TeraStation set to RAID 5 will safely store 750GB...that's a lot of ANYTHING! Used in conjunction with a fine DAC like CardDeluxe, it is a worthy adjunct to any fine audio (or home theatre) system and with a wireless G or Cat5 network can feed a whole house. From what I've read of your posts, perhaps you never listen "casually," but many of us do. As I expect to hand my LP's down to my children I only play them on high occasions (don't read anything into that) and find the 24/88.2 copies fine for all but the most critical listening moments. BlueRay will be quite affordable by this time next year if not before, and from there on I am going to be wondering why anyone would ever compress or transcode. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarence Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 ....I cant tell the difference from listening on the original disc. .....I must not be an audiophile. ...... if anything its missing a bit of "depth" maybee a smidge of "richness". other than that its great. Make up your mind. If missing a 'bit' and 'smidge', you must be able to tell the difference, eh? If I look into the crystal ball, I see a Bose system in your future. [6] The "i must not be an audiofile" and "cant tell the difference" might have been delivered with a "smidge" of sarcasm. Keep in mind, the only original "cds" i own is the Pink Floyd box set. All of my originals were stolen a few years ago. Thanks god I have been able to keep 2 large hardrives over the years with many "BETTER THAN DECENT" copies of my music, or I would be listening to judge judy on the boob toob right now. The speakers make most any source sound phenominal, thats why were all here, right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dflip Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Clarence: The source is a Teac VRDS - 10 cd player in the main system and in the computer, M-Audio Revolution 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Damn Dave that was a good question or series of questions. Why compress at all if you dont need to? - In a nutshell. For me it was simpy a case of deciding not only to rip everything to the hard disk but also to decide on the real use for the thing. As you have spotted, correctly, I do not do a lot of casual listening - very little in fact. When I listen to music it is all that I do - I do it in the late evening for a couple of hours at most prior to going to bed. 100% of that listening is to vinyl - I will not listen to anything else at this time. There are ocasions, however, that I do listen to other sources. The main one of the moment is my MP3 playing / video playing / all singing all dancing mobile phone - although I do also listen to the computer on ocasion and when on holiday to the JVC system I have there. The common factor amougst all of these, and indeed all other music playing devices these days is MP3. Whatever else a device will play it will ALWAYS support that - it is the default standard. No other format that I know of is as widely supported - even CD. I therefore took the view that practicality had to be foremost in my decision making process. However good or bad MP3 is (and lets face it portable audio has never really been any good historically) I need it to play on whatever hardware I choose. Having gone for MP3 I could have ripped everything at the maximum bit resolution of 320. The computer has a 300 Gb disk on it so there is no space issue, but, the phone has only a 1 Gb card. I needed to compromise the sound a little further to be able to get a bit more music on there. Having said that, frankly, there is not a huge difference between 256 and 320 Kb IME. Factor in the relatively poor speakers in the case of both the computer and the phone and it was a none issue for me. As it happens I did test ripping songs in WAV format and then only down-sampling(?) them to MP3 when in use on the phone. This works but it is very slow. I like to refresh my music on the phone weekly and it takes about 20 minutes with a simple copy - with a conversion in the way it takes hours. Practicality won through - I am a sham of an audiophile really....[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleve Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Max, if you have lots of hard drive space, you should try using lossless compression like FLAC. Yes, it does take up more space than 320 kb MP3s, but I think it's worth it - considering how the price per gigabyte of storage continues to drop, and drop.... I am converting all my CDs to FLAC, by first ripping them to .WAV files with a program called Exact Audio Copy (EAC). Some claim that there's a sonic improvement by doing the above - since it takes the CD transport quality out of consideration. And EAC has many error correction advantages over programs such as iTunes. There's a lot more info here at www.slimdevices.com There's also a device they sell called the Squeezebox which is truly revolutionary. Basically, it's been THE source device for my system since November, when I added it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.