What format is your main collection encoded in?

Discussion in 'Soundcards, Speakers HiFI & File formats' started by ROBSCIX, Apr 9, 2012.

  1. aless83

    aless83 Guest

    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    11
    GPU:
    Gigabyte r9 280x
    Nice! My brother has some HD 650 Headphones and they sound awesome...
    I've recently bought a Cyrus One Amp in mint condition, but it doesn't have a headphone output... how is the one you're using? any comments?


    on topic: I have everything original on cd... took a long time (and money), and have everything ripped in mp3 320kbps on my pc.

    thanks!
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2012
  2. N0sferatU

    N0sferatU Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    153
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080 Ultra
    I'm running HD600s (I prefer them over the 650s). AMP/DAC is an Audio-GD FUN. Works great. Powers them easily. Head-fi.org is helpful for any detailed questions about headphone stuff (or you can just PM me if ya want). :)
     
  3. ROBSCIX

    ROBSCIX Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    22
    GPU:
    22" LCD on GTX260 C216
    To me, if I wanted to have the best sound on my system I figured why would I start with damaged Mp3 or other lossy encoding?
    Might aswell get lossless copies of the tracks I like then work my way outward.
     
  4. TruMutton_200Hz

    TruMutton_200Hz Guest

    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Iris Xe
    I know for a fact the DAC that I have is only small peanuts compared to a dCS Scarlatti DAC. I don't consider myself a real audiophile. Just someone who loves good music. The music matters alot more than sound quality. Music is an artform, whereas file formats and gear can only compare to it the same way a camera compares to a painting.

    But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy listening to good music more if the sound quality of the music is good too. For that to happen, choosing the right encoding format is equally important as gear choice.

    @ automaticman: The harder I try to listen critically, the less I can hear the differences that I'm trying to hear. Only by listening purely for pleasure instead, the flaws are magnified and, no, listening through bad gear doesn't make these flaws disappear.
     

  5. pokerapar88

    pokerapar88 Guest

    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Amp!

    I believe, after seeing the Scarlatti DAC specs and looks and reviews, that all the men that tried it had ears before putting their headphones on and had puss1es instead, when they took 'em off.
     
  6. F1refly

    F1refly Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    970GTX-oc edition
    appreciating better hi fi doesn't mean lower quality will bother that person. The fact that it bothers someone is similar to what you find annoying, meaning that something you find annoying is not a guarantee that it would annoy everyone..thats why its in your head. Lower quality music in fact does not bother everyone, if it did, it wouldnt exist and it also means that 128kbs would bother me as much as it does you. since it doesn't then obviously its a fact that it very much varies person to person, regardless of your hearing abilities.
    and that is why my comment is not wrong.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2012
  7. TruMutton_200Hz

    TruMutton_200Hz Guest

    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Iris Xe
    Even the best headphones are crap next to a decent pair of big floorstanding speakers. And I don't just believe it but I know it for a fact.

    EDIT:
    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2012
  8. Darren Hodgson

    Darren Hodgson Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    17,213
    Likes Received:
    1,537
    GPU:
    NVIDIA RTX 4080 FE
    Mine are MP3s encoded at 256-320 Kbps along with tagged album art of at least 600x600 or higher. It took me two weeks to download and attach the art a few years back but now I just add the art at the same time I rip the CDs and then I do two backups, one to an internal 500 GB hard drive and another to an external 1 TB hard drive.
     
  9. pokerapar88

    pokerapar88 Guest

    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Amp!
    Well, a guy who ate food in mcdonalds since he was born and nothing else won't really know he/she is eating garbage.
    Let him eat in a fine restaurant a couple of times and he won't go to mcdonalds no more.
    Its not an "illusion" in your head, its about having tried something else.
    Of course there will be people that don't care **** and like to hear 128kb/s mp3 as they don't care **** and pass through a crossing with the red light on ;)
     
  10. thatguy91

    thatguy91 Guest

    Like I said earlier, don't see the point of using anything but VBR for MP3 these days (algorithm quality is set by -q, with -q 0 being the highest), and bitrate quality set by -V. -V3 or -V2 (higher bitrate) will provide sound much better than most MP3's you've heard, particularly when using the latest LAME (even the latest alpha's are fine if you test them first) and not one from 5 years ago.

    192 CBR is still too low for some parts of music, and other parts too high and wasteful. 320 is definitely wasteful 99 percent of the time! I've actually heard properly encoded MP3 files (like I said above, almost all aren't encoded properly) using VBR settings even at -V 4 that sound better than 256 CBR, and in a couple of cases 320, simply because the algorithms etc in whatever they encoded it with sucked, or were based on older psycho-acoustic modelling.
     

  11. pokerapar88

    pokerapar88 Guest

    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Amp!
    I agree. It would mean to rip them yourself, which is always the best option. Anyway, I rather have lossless audio. Faithful to the original recorded sound.
     
  12. thatguy91

    thatguy91 Guest

    True :) lossless is definitely well, lossless! but as a compressed format, a properly encoded MP3 is probably the most diverse and compatible format.
     
  13. pokerapar88

    pokerapar88 Guest

    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Amp!
    Agreed. I believe nowadays there's no media player that doesn't support it !
     
  14. ROBSCIX

    ROBSCIX Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    22
    GPU:
    22" LCD on GTX260 C216
    Yes but Flac can always be converted to Mp3 BUT an Mp3 can never be converted back to a true lossless copy of the original.

    An Mp3 may still have a place for portable media players where amount of files wins out over fidelity to some I guess but the question is regarding your main audio collection.

    I just figure if you are building, tuning, upgrading and trying to get the best sound out of your system you possibly can within your budget a lossy destructive compression routine is really counter productive to your end goal.

    Not to mention, the better your system becomes the more prominent the negative affects of lossy encoding become.
    As the saying goes your chain is only as good as the weakest link.
     
  15. pokerapar88

    pokerapar88 Guest

    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Amp!
    +1 to this.

    Just listened to a 128kb/s MP3 on my brother's sennheiser HD280's and felt like if someone was rubbing the song against sandpaper
     

  16. thatguy91

    thatguy91 Guest

    Very true, but a properly encoded MP3 file, using the suggested settings and LAME versions I mentioned earlier, does actually make for a good listening experience. Its true lossless like FLAC does sound true to the source (as it should, otherwise its not lossless!) but a properly encoded MP3 file also sounds quite decent. Most people haven't experienced a properly encoded MP3 file, and the majority of audio encoded out there use crappy or old encoders and the wrong settings (or very average quality sources).
     
  17. TruMutton_200Hz

    TruMutton_200Hz Guest

    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Iris Xe
    Well, if you use a program called DiffMaker to generate a file based on the amplitudinal differences between a 24/192 lossless file and the same lossless 24/192 file converted first to lossless 16/44.1 and then back to lossless 24/192 again, what happens is you get a lossless 24/192 file that contains only ultrasonic data so that if you listen to it, you hear absolutely nothing.

    However, if you blindly compare the original copy to the version that's been converted to 16/44.1 and back again, even if you haven't received any special training to develop professional listening skills, during the blinded listening test if you're listening purely for pleasure and nothing else then I can guarantee most of you will very clearly hear a big difference in the three-dimensionality of the soundstage even with onboard sound and plastic multimedia speakers worth barely 100 bucks.

    That's what the sound quality of an untouched audio CD is like when compared to proper Hi Res.

    So to me it isn't about lossy versus lossless encoding, let alone how an mp3 file has been encoded. It's all about bit depth and samplerate because I can even hear the difference between lossless 24/96 and lossless 24/192 through my DAC that won't be better than a DAC worth less than a few hundred bucks maybe five years from now. It's like DVD video versus Blu Ray video, you don't have to be a cinephile to be able to tell the difference.
     
  18. ROBSCIX

    ROBSCIX Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    22
    GPU:
    22" LCD on GTX260 C216
    That's the point what is quite decent? If the file has been damaged at all, to me it is too much.
    Why even worry about any of the points you mentioned, this encoder, that encoder..this sounds not as bad as that..etc?
    I just encode my media to lossless and be done with it.
    The idea of any lossy encoding is counter productive to getting the best sound system possible IMO.
    You can't get true to the source if your source media is not a 1:1 copy.

    Your choice, Use what you want though.... as it is not really the point of the discussion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2012
  19. Anarion

    Anarion Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,599
    Likes Received:
    386
    GPU:
    GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
    WMA Lossless. Pretty much equals size to FLAC but support in Windows is great and Foobar2000 doesn't have any issues with it nor its tags or embedded album art. I keep backups as FLAC (easier to convert into other formats).

    I name files the same way (track number first, then track name). My folder structure is rather simple. Soundtracks and large albums have their own folders, otherwise they go under album artist. It's pretty irrelevant since I make sure that every track is properly tagged.

    I just can't stand lossy music files any more. I mostly listen to progressive/uplifting trance and high bitrate is a must (lossy codecs reach about 0.75 compression ratio usually) or tracks sound bad. Anything less than 320 kbps is out of the question (and it must be in AAC). I can't understand how some use 128 kbps, MP3 at those settings sound absolutely horrible (ruined; MP3 doesn't sound that good even at 320 kbps).

    Because of size related issues I use 320 kbps AAC for my phone but for PC there's no reason what so ever why you should ruin your listening experience by using lossy format.
     
  20. ROBSCIX

    ROBSCIX Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    22
    GPU:
    22" LCD on GTX260 C216
    What issues have you had with FLAC? I have never had issues with tagging, embedded art..etc. All fine for me using the apps I have been using.
    I use Foobar totally customized and lately I have been using Album player, it is not free but has a ton of power and options I have not found in other players thus far.
     

Share This Page