Lossless music

hmm will have to do some more tests next week then - with some different music - maybe it was just badly produced. Will make sure to report back my findings.

Anyone know of any good demo discs - i.e. I've seen a couple of times people have created discs with different bit-rates of the same song on it instead of faffing around.

fini
 
You guys need to get some blind tests on the go lol. I have listened to the same music from the origonal cd in my nad cd player with fancy interconnects and all that, the same cd played through the pc, and a 160kbps mp3 rip on the pc.

My findings were that the cd player sounded better, but you would have to have a very keen ear to tell the difference. There was absolutely no discernable difference between the origonal and the mp3 when played through the pc.

This is with a NAD C320BEE amp and both a pair of B&W DM600S3's and Monitor audio B2's. And fwiw, the B&W's are a country mile ahead of the MA's.

Almost forgot my point, 160k mp3 is fine by me, allows me to fit a lot more music on my hdd. If I had a portable player with measly storage capacity, having huge lossless files on there is going to be very limiting, and honestly through those crappy headphones supplied with 99% of those players, you wouldn't tell the difference even if it was 96k lol.
 
Last edited:
Clarkey said:
You guys need to get some blind tests on the go lol. I have listened to the same music from the origonal cd in my nad cd player with fancy interconnects and all that, the same cd played through the pc, and a 160kbps mp3 rip on the pc.

My findings were that the cd player sounded better, but you would have to have a very keen ear to tell the difference. There was absolutely no discernable difference between the origonal and the mp3 when played through the pc.

This is with a NAD C320BEE amp and both a pair of B&W DM600S3's and Monitor audio B2's. And fwiw, the B&W's are a country mile ahead of the MA's.

Almost forgot my point, 160k mp3 is fine by me, allows me to fit a lot more music on my hdd. If I had a portable player with measly storage capacity, having huge lossless files on there is going to be very limiting, and honestly through those crappy headphones supplied with 99% of those players, you wouldn't tell the difference even if it was 96k lol.
Click to expand...

I always go for 160Kbps lame. Although I've never used ultra high spec Hi Fi kit I do play my Mp3s through my Technics HiFi. I can tell no difference between the MP3s and the CD. :)
 
p4radox said:
I always go for 160Kbps lame. Although I've never used ultra high spec Hi Fi kit I do play my Mp3s through my Technics HiFi. I can tell no difference between the MP3s and the CD. :)
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side of it, does mean that you save a whole bunch of space as you don't need to record at above 160kbps then.
Just be aware that if you do ever go higher end, that you might quickly become disenchanted.
 
I go for WMA Lossless everytime - (WMA over other lossless because it works seamlessly in MCE).

This isn't because I can tell the difference, but mainly because with a lossless copy you can convert to other formats or burn an 'original' cd without any loss of quality.

I have a parallel 160k mp3 collection for portable use too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom