Recommend me something to show off my system!

[ezkcdude]

I've realized that ripping to FLAC is a good idea if you think about it in the long run. I know that not everyone can hear the differences between FLAC and some lossy codecs, especially given the wildly varying levels of hardware out there. Even on my system, which I think is pretty good, I really can't hear a difference between FLAC and 128 kps mp3's. Now, I shouldn't be criticized for that. It's a fact, given my system, and my ears. With that said, I know that down the road, hard drive space won't be a concern, and in some future system that I may own, it is possible that I WILL be able to hear differences. Therefore, if I had to start over or re-rip all my CD's, I would choose to rip FLAC as well as some other decent mp3 format. I orginally ripped everything in 128 kbs mp3 using iTunes. I really regret that now, because at some point, my system may be revealing enough that the differences will become obvious, and it will take me literally several full days to go back and re-rip everything. So, this is the take-home message: Even if you can't hear differences on your current system, you're still better off with FLAC, because you may hear differences in the future, and you only have to rip once and be done with it.

[ianjohnson_nz]

I know the standard answer among audiophiles is "I don't need to compare loseless files to lossy ones to know which is better" but I'm still curious about your experience.

Haha, now there's the rub. Hands up, in general I can't pick a 192kbps MP3 from a FLAC (or the original CD for that matter). At least not in sound tests, which achieve nothing except a headache on my part and an irritated neighbour.

However, now and again, I notice what I am certain is a metallic sound in lossy files. For example, as I write, I am listening to Tracy Chapman's debut album, and literally as I wrote the previous sentence, I am sure the guitar strings sounded a bit tinny in "Fast Car" (ogg file at about 160kbps). But that could be the laptop's soundcard...

So at home I now rip in FLAC, because I've got plenty of hard disk space, SB supports it out of the box, it uses up hardly any wireless bandwidth, and maybe someday I'll notice the difference enough to want FLAC for everything.

Ya got me.

Regards, Ian

Edit: I completely agree with your post, ezkcdude. I ripped everything to Ogg Vorbis, and I've now got a new pc, so I'm starting again with FLAC, bit by bit.

[zooropa320]

Any new cds I buy will be ripped to FLAC. My current ones were ripped using EAC and encoded to vbr MP3s using LAME and the APS flag. I've decided to spend my time listening to my new system (where I can't hear the difference) rather than spending any additional time re-ripping. I'll do that again if/when I can hear the difference. Thanks for sharing your findings.

[mrfantasy]

I'm reasonably confident I can tell the difference between most MP3 bitrates (although it gets hard between 256 and 320kbps) and certainly FLAC. Mind you, for me anything above 160 or so sounds "good", and 128 is acceptable.

I've not double-blinded myself, but I've done things like set SoftSqueeze at work to a lower bitrate when we've had network problems, and then realized my music didn't sound as good later, and changed it back and been happy. So I can tell, say, that 128 doesn't sound as good as 192, but if you gave me those two choices I probably couldn't tell you the actual bitrate of each (I might think the 192 is 256 or 160, for instance. I might get it right but I'd be guessing. Also, quality settings and listening equipment start becoming relevant at 32kpbs resolution differences.)

[Mark Lanctot]

However, now and again, I notice what I am certain is a metallic sound in lossy files. For example, as I write, I am listening to Tracy Chapman's debut album, and literally as I wrote the previous sentence, I am sure the guitar strings sounded a bit tinny in "Fast Car" (ogg file at about 160kbps). But that could be the laptop's soundcard...

Yes, that's the "MP3 sound". It's subtle but irritating. To identify it, have a listen to a really bad, heavily compressed QuickTime video. There are lots of them out on the Net. It has a characteristic fuzzy, warbly sound in the treble especially. In extreme cases it sounds like a series of chirps of different pitches that increases in volume with an increase in treble content.

What I can sometimes hear in 128 kbps MP3s is the onset of that problem, ever so slightly. I can hear it occasionally at 160 kbps as well. At 192 I can't hear it, nor can I hear it in FLACs obviously.

I'm sure there's a technical explanation for that warbly, fuzzy treble sound. Aliasing?

[nathanroberts1]

Wanted to say that I am continuing to follow up your suggestions. I've bought Diana Krall's latest (big, musical, room filling vocals) and the Jerry Garcia/David Grisman (loving the duelling mandolin-in-one-speaker, guitar in the other) Others I already owned and have re-ripped to flac (Radiohead, Air, Talvin Singh, Norah Jones - my girlfiend's, of course - and Tears for Fears). I'll pick through the others as time/money allow.

For those of a similar taste to me: Stereolab, Sufjan Stevens, Joanna Newsom and Sigur Ros are sounding delicious on flac via the SB3. My beloved Flaming Lips though, are by comparison muddy as hell. Bad recording or beyond the scope of my gear, I wonder?

Telarc have been mentioned: is this label a guarantee of audiophile quality? I'm looking to expand my classical collection and there are quite a few available on ebay.

Nathan

[Skunk]

Jerry Garcia/David Grisman (loving the duelling mandolin-in-one-speaker, guitar in the other)

Also the drumming set oh-so-perfectly in the background, and the uber realistic shakers. Here are some sample tracks and five star reviews for anyone else interested: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=glance&n=5174

My beloved Flaming Lips though, are by comparison muddy as hell. Bad recording or beyond the scope of my gear, I wonder?

I believe they experiment with bass resonance a lot, for example trying to mimic a robot comforting a human. I find it to be pretty brilliant sonically as a whole. How about Wayne saying 1,2,3,4 on Do You Realize. He seems to whisper in your ears, while a digital wheezing decay of his voice comes from more directly around the speakers. There's so much there, beneath the muddy surface.

At the risk of being 'flamed', an upgraded power supply improved this album and radiohead albums moreso than others. To an extent, I'd say yes, it's our systems. Perhaps they have knowledge of a better bass driver from "the future". Moving your speakers and seat around may help the bass. Nothing, however, will likely help the clipped cymbal signal. Isn't there a new DVD-a release?

Telarc have been mentioned: is this label a guarantee of audiophile quality?

I doubt it. The one classical Telarc disc I have (beethoven symphonies 4&8, cleveland orchestra), doesn't sound nearly as good as the chesky classical celebration tenth anniversary edition disc. It sounds like they propped two mics up and hit record, whereas the Chesky disc sounds like each instrument has it's own mic. -yMmV-

[ezkcdude]

Yes, that's the "MP3 sound". It's subtle but irritating. To identify it, have a listen to a really bad, heavily compressed QuickTime video. There are lots of them out on the Net. It has a characteristic fuzzy, warbly sound in the treble especially. In extreme cases it sounds like a series of chirps of different pitches that increases in volume with an increase in treble content.

What I can sometimes hear in 128 kbps MP3s is the onset of that problem, ever so slightly. I can hear it occasionally at 160 kbps as well. At 192 I can't hear it, nor can I hear it in FLACs obviously.

I'm sure there's a technical explanation for that warbly, fuzzy treble sound. Aliasing?

I would guess it's analagous to the block artifacts that show up in JPEG. In theory, I think lossy encoding should "smooth" the sound in the same way that image compression does. The problem is that the mp3 codec breaks up the signal into many little chunks, just like jpeg breaks up an image into 8x8 pixel blocks. It is at the transition between chunks of compressed signal (or blocks in images) that you see very sharp (i.e. high frequency) artifacts. Anyway, that's my guess. I know a lot more about image compression than mp3 compression, but I'm guessing that similar paradigms apply.

[gusi]

If you like jazz singers try the two verve albums with Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong. The se are very well recorded and the duest give it a nice dynamic so it never gets boring. I agree Flac is the way to go.

Recently some friends dropped by and while they were impressed with the quality of the music and the convenience of not having to change physical disks, what tipped them over to buying their own SB was tuning into radio Cymru through AlienBBC. Not that they can speak Welsh but the ability to tune into any internet radio station was the killer app for them.

Gus

[rulof72]

I've been enjoying this thread for a couple of reasons. 1. It has given me some ideas on new CD's to buy and 2. It has forced me to start the process of re ripping everything into FLAC for better sound quality.

I just got my SB3 last week and once I had it setup and running (which was pretty painless I might add) I played a few MP3's through it(160 or 192kbps)and they sounded great but knowing I could get better sound from FLAC's I redid a few in FLAC for comparison purposes. Every track I've listened to has been hands down better in FLAC than MP3. The sound is fuller and less tinny/metallic. My system is pretty basic, a 40wpc stereo receiver and bookshelf speakers that were decent in their day but now 18 years old. I played the same tracks for my wife and parents who were in town visiting and they all had an almost instant recognition of what sounded better. I didn't tell them which was which. I'm convinced of the quality difference and have begun FLAC'ing all of my CD's. I've also purchased a few of the suggested CD's to try out. The SB has made listening to music fun again!!