iTunes and ALAC? Page 2

  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Next
  • kalel 11 Jul 2013 16:15:55 83,826 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Don't think "psychosomatic" is quite the right word.

    To be honest I've never done direct comparisons of FLACs/ALACs to MP3 on like for like equipment. But I have compared vinyl on a proper separates set-up to an MP3 run through the same set-up (not through a DAC), and the difference was considerable.

    I'm aware that vinyl is a step up again to CDs, but you can't tell me that the human ear can't discern above MP3 quality.
  • nickthegun 11 Jul 2013 16:26:36 55,848 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Ive never done a straight taste test either, but my music library is a smorgasbord of different bitrates and, when listening to tune after tune you can quite clearly hear the quality difference between them.

    Not that, admittedly, its a huge problem anymore as I mainly listen to spotify premium now because I cba with buying music.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Armoured_Bear 11 Jul 2013 16:29:03 8,744 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    superdelphinus wrote:
    I think you have to be a cat to actually hear a difference in some of the higher bitrates
    No, you need non deficient ears and a decent system.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • nickthegun 11 Jul 2013 16:29:52 55,848 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You tell em, Ears_of_the_wolf.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • FuzzyDuck 11 Jul 2013 16:47:44 3,525 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I find it handier to shop around online, buy a physical CD (for less or similar prices to iTunes downloads), can then rip it to whatever format I want and I have a physical copy too.

    I've a modest, old hifi and a decent (let's call them the lower end of the audiophile range) set of cans, and can quite easily hear the difference between an audio file or a CD/record.
  • Deckard1 11 Jul 2013 16:49:26 25,364 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    superdelphinus wrote:
    I think you have to be a cat to actually hear a difference in some of the higher bitrates
    No, you need non deficient ears and a decent system.
    So you're an audiophile as well then?

    Called it

  • Deleted user 11 July 2013 16:57:20
    Genuine fucking lol.
  • wayneh 11 Jul 2013 17:09:38 2,185 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Time you get to my age your hearing has naturally degraded making it almost impossible to get any extra enjoyment from these higher bitrates. Even 256kps is a bit overkill :(

    Act like a dumbshit and they will treat you as an equal

  • Jeepers 11 Jul 2013 17:27:03 13,155 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    superdelphinus wrote:
    I think you have to be a cat to actually hear a difference in some of the higher bitrates
    No, you need non deficient ears and a decent system.
    So you're an audiophile as well then?
    :D
  • Deleted user 11 July 2013 17:28:00
    After a certain bitrate it stops mattering, and half the stuff is mastered with the encoding in mind; 256kps mp3s or better are fine for most normal people.
  • UncleLou Moderator 11 Jul 2013 17:28:16 35,171 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    superdelphinus wrote:
    I have good headphones and an exceptionally good amp. I think a lot of it is psychosomatic to he honest
    Then I dont know what to tell you. Im not in the same league as some of the audiophiles on here and I can hear the difference quite easily.
    Nothing personal, but unless you make a double blind test, you shouldn't trust yourself.
  • nickthegun 11 Jul 2013 17:32:13 55,848 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I have heard differences in music that I didnt categorically know were different bitrates until I checked, so I think thats that box ticked.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Mr_Sleep 11 Jul 2013 17:36:13 16,220 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I have done direct comparisons and I could tell the difference but there was one weird mp3 outlier that actually sounded better because the mix of the original track was shit and the mp3 conversion cleaned the track up.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • UncleLou Moderator 11 Jul 2013 17:36:15 35,171 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    @nick
    Between 128KBps or lower, particularly from a few years ago, and 320KBps or lossless from today - maybe.

    Between anything encoded in the last few years at 256 KBps and lossless? Sorry, but no.

    Edited by UncleLou at 17:36:46 11-07-2013
  • Mr_Sleep 11 Jul 2013 17:36:16 16,220 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Bloop.

    Edited by Mr_Sleep at 17:37:06 11-07-2013

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • kalel 11 Jul 2013 17:44:24 83,826 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    To be frank, even if there's no difference at all, I'm still quite up for being charged for lossless files by itunes. I just want the choice.
  • Mr_Sleep 11 Jul 2013 18:09:40 16,220 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I would also be very pleased to see the option. There are some sites like Bleep.com that provide drm free flac and wav versions for DD so I am not sure why bigger sites can't do the same. Granted, Bleep have a relatively small footprint compared to iTunes but the option for higher resolutions definitely draws me towards sites like Bleep so it surprises me that Apple haven't expanded into the HD market.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply