What format is your main collection encoded in?

[Nato.dbnz]

Originally Posted by F1refly

128kbs mp3 works just fine for me.

Do you do most of your listening through a telephone?

[pokerapar88]

Originally Posted by Nato.dbnz

Do you do most of your listening through a telephone?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

128kb/s MP3's are like listening to 8-bit music from MAME games

I once heard a 96kb/s MP3 song while stroking my cat. He jumped off the window and suicided.

[TirolokoRD]

Lol!!!......good one that!

[automaticman]

I'm going to be the odd man out here, almost all of my collection is ripped using WMA Lossless. I just let WMP or the Zune app rip and tag the songs. I have a thumb drive with lossy versions I use in my car.

[TirolokoRD]

Does somebody here knows an app that can update the name, the album and the art of a music file by the filename?

[p0ppa]

i mainly use 320 kbps CBR. if not, FLAC or APE.

Mediamonkey is a pretty neat program for ripping off my old CDs and organising tags and such

[TruMutton_200Hz]

Originally Posted by pokerapar88

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

128kb/s MP3's are like listening to 8-bit music from MAME games

I once heard a 96kb/s MP3 song while stroking my cat. He jumped off the window and suicided.

If I was forced to listen to nothing but mp3 all day long it wouldn't be a cat but it would be me that would suicide.

I cannot even stand the sound of a "normal" audio CD, not even if it's being played through a $50K stereo system. From my point of.. err.. "view", an audiophile quality vinyl record that's been transferred to a 24/96 lossless format is typically sounding so much better than CD that it makes 128 kb/s mp3 rips and their "untouched" CD versions both sound like poo in a blender. All that's needed to demonstrate how much CDs suck is a half decent $2.5K - $3K-ish turntable setup and a stack of used vinyl.

Semi-off topic: the improvements in sound quality from moving to a decent outboard DAC such as the one that I have is miles bigger than the difference between modern day onboard sound and any internal soundcard on the market.

It's like comparing a shabby 25 year old TV to a brand new 1080p Full HD $1K LED TV.

[ROBSCIX]

Stick to the topic. Putting other people down for what they are using or getting into the my gear is better then your gear posts are NOT the topic.

[pokerapar88]

Originally Posted by TruMutton_200Hz

If I was forced to listen to nothing but mp3 all day long it wouldn't be a cat but it would be me that would suicide.

I cannot even stand the sound of a "normal" audio CD, not even if it's being played through a $50K stereo system. From my point of.. err.. "view", an audiophile quality vinyl record that's been transferred to a 24/96 lossless format is typically sounding so much better than CD that it makes 128 kb/s mp3 rips and their "untouched" CD versions both sound like poo in a blender. All that's needed to demonstrate how much CDs suck is a half decent $2.5K - $3K-ish turntable setup and a stack of used vinyl.

Semi-off topic: the improvements in sound quality from moving to a decent outboard DAC such as the one that I have is miles bigger than the difference between modern day onboard sound and any internal soundcard on the market.

It's like comparing a shabby 25 year old TV to a brand new 1080p Full HD $1K LED TV.

Interesting to know that an external DAC is better than an internal soundcard (for music)... but in the end it comes to tastes and needs, and ultimately, possibilites. I doubt a non-audiophile would be able to even comprehend the functionality of equipment like that and even less to have the good enough speaker system to take advantage from it. I need good surround and 3D sound effect that's why I'm getting an x-fi internal cards... and that's that.
I'd like for sure to have a 200k digital/analog system to listen with great orgasmic quality but I know it won't happen in a lifetime
I'll have to be happy with a couple of sennheisers and a creative sound card and 900+ kbs/s FLACS

[F1refly]

Originally Posted by TruMutton_200Hz

If I was forced to listen to nothing but mp3 all day long it wouldn't be a cat but it would be me that would suicide.

I cannot even stand the sound of a "normal" audio CD, not even if it's being played through a $50K stereo system. From my point of.. err.. "view", an audiophile quality vinyl record that's been transferred to a 24/96 lossless format is typically sounding so much better than CD that it makes 128 kb/s mp3 rips and their "untouched" CD versions both sound like poo in a blender. All that's needed to demonstrate how much CDs suck is a half decent $2.5K - $3K-ish turntable setup and a stack of used vinyl.

Semi-off topic: the improvements in sound quality from moving to a decent outboard DAC such as the one that I have is miles bigger than the difference between modern day onboard sound and any internal soundcard on the market.

It's like comparing a shabby 25 year old TV to a brand new 1080p Full HD $1K LED TV.

its in your head. If it wasn't then everyone would be like that, but not everyone listens the same or hears the same and audio quality is very much subjective, what bothers some does'nt bother others.

128 mp3 doesn't bother me at all. i'm not an audiophile and i don't care if that flute behind 10 other instruments and 20 digitized effects is playing at 5000 khz eloping into a soft bamboo toned fadeout or not.
I also don't care if my toast is ubuntu brown or milky chocolate brown either but i guess some people like me are just not so obsessively picky.

[BLEH!]

Presently mp3, bits at 320k, mostly 192. I record my own music at insane 192k/32 bit wav format then what that out at 320k mp3.

[pokerapar88]

Originally Posted by F1refly

its in your head. If it wasn't then everyone would be like that, but not everyone listens the same or hears the same and audio quality is very much subjective, what bothers some does'nt bother others.

128 mp3 doesn't bother me at all. i'm not an audiophile and i don't care if that flute behind 10 other instruments and 20 digitized effects is playing at 5000 khz eloping into a soft bamboo toned fadeout or not.
I also don't care if my toast is ubuntu brown or milky chocolate brown either but i guess some people like me are just not so obsessively picky.

As you said, its very subjective and that's why your comment is as wrong as his. Anyway, besides from the "subjetivism" there is a fact: someone with better hearing, and this is not only the hearing capability but the finesse and the ability to distinct sounds, instruments and quality of the sound (this is, on one hand, hereditary, and on the other hand can also be trained), will certainly appreciate a better hi-fi equipment than, for example, an ipod full of 192kb/s mp3s and the standard headphones.

Truth to be told: I have used, untill now, mostly onboard sound on my PCs, BUT, outside the pc environment I enjoy listening to music with an old Technics amplifier with jacked pioneer headphones SE-405 from the 80s, that give me some crispy vintage sound I love:



+

[IMG]http://3.bp.*************/-ibpcgLpsc-U/TykJLHlP40I/AAAAAAAACnQ/06Ps659aFVw/s1600/DSC03864.JPG[/IMG]

and I love it and it was for free as it was my dads and he gave them to me

[FULMTL]

320kb/s MP3's and 160kb/s Vorbis on Spotify.
I've listened to only a few of my favorite albums as FLAC to see a difference, and I couldn't tell that big of a difference probably because of my closed headphones. I don't have any decent open headphones to test it out on, but I will later on.

[N0sferatU]

Originally Posted by F1refly

its in your head. If it wasn't then everyone would be like that, but not everyone listens the same or hears the same and audio quality is very much subjective, what bothers some does'nt bother others.

128 mp3 doesn't bother me at all. i'm not an audiophile and i don't care if that flute behind 10 other instruments and 20 digitized effects is playing at 5000 khz eloping into a soft bamboo toned fadeout or not.
I also don't care if my toast is ubuntu brown or milky chocolate brown either but i guess some people like me are just not so obsessively picky.

with even halfway decent equipment 128kbit sound "washy". I'm not an analytical listener I just enjoy the music. With that said, 192kbit is needed at a minimum.

Anyways other than my home theater this is what I mostly use for my music pleasure...128kbit = no no with this rig.

Figured I'd share since the other guy shared his cool rig.

[automaticman]

Originally Posted by TruMutton_200Hz

I cannot even stand the sound of a "normal" audio CD, not even if it's being played through a $50K stereo system.

I find that it usually works the opposite way. The nicer the stereo system being used, the better the recording quality needs to be. The same things that make a high end sound system sound great also bring out all the bad details in a poor recording and make it sound even worse.

If you're just listening with a pair of computer speakers or base sound system in a Honda the mp3 quality won't make nearly as much of a difference. It all comes down to what the weakest link in the audio is.

Right now in my car I'm using 192kps WMA in my mostly stock Mustang's stereo. If I were to get around to installing the system I pulled out of my last car before getting rid of it I'm not sure if 192 would really cut it. I'd probably get a portable hard drive to keep the tracks in the lossless format they're stored on my computer in.


The other thing that matters maybe more than anything else is the difference between listening and critically listening.

[aless83]

Originally Posted by N0sferatU

with even halfway decent equipment 128kbit sound "washy". I'm not an analytical listener I just enjoy the music. With that said, 192kbit is needed at a minimum.

Anyways other than my home theater this is what I mostly use for my music pleasure...128kbit = no no with this rig.

Figured I'd share since the other guy shared his cool rig.

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!

[N0sferatU]

Originally Posted by aless83

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?

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).

[ROBSCIX]

Originally Posted by automaticman

I find that it usually works the opposite way. The nicer the stereo system being used, the better the recording quality needs to be. The same things that make a high end sound system sound great also bring out all the bad details in a poor recording and make it sound even worse.

If you're just listening with a pair of computer speakers or base sound system in a Honda the mp3 quality won't make nearly as much of a difference. It all comes down to what the weakest link in the audio is.

Right now in my car I'm using 192kps WMA in my mostly stock Mustang's stereo. If I were to get around to installing the system I pulled out of my last car before getting rid of it I'm not sure if 192 would really cut it. I'd probably get a portable hard drive to keep the tracks in the lossless format they're stored on my computer in.


The other thing that matters maybe more than anything else is the difference between listening and critically listening.

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.

[TruMutton_200Hz]

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.

[pokerapar88]

Originally Posted by TruMutton_200Hz

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.

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.

[F1refly]

Originally Posted by pokerapar88

As you said, its very subjective and that's why your comment is as wrong as his. Anyway, besides from the "subjetivism" there is a fact: someone with better hearing, and this is not only the hearing capability but the finesse and the ability to distinct sounds, instruments and quality of the sound (this is, on one hand, hereditary, and on the other hand can also be trained), will certainly appreciate a better hi-fi equipment than, for example, an ipod full of 192kb/s mp3s and the standard headphones.

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.

[TruMutton_200Hz]

Originally Posted by pokerapar88

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.

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:

 Click to show spoiler

[Darren Hodgson]

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.

[pokerapar88]

Originally Posted by F1refly

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.

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

[thatguy91]

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.