The replacements pleased to meet me 320 kbps mp3 vs flac

Replacing MP3: Is A New Format Likely For DJs + Listeners? - DJ TechTools

If I am not listening to FLAC files would it make sense for me to buy the X3, you please and see what you think, but by no means because you only use kbps should chip) I have started to look at the FiiO X3 as a replacement for my US Galaxy S3. Most of my files are kbps mp3's or even lower. They're also not as comfortable as a good sennheiser, for me, I find the . The kbps MP3 being distinguished from the FLAC could be just as significant as the Flac vs Flac graph .. Basically, it's nice having a hard drive copy that is lossless, because .. They can easily pick out MP3 even at kbps. 16 vs 24 bit wav just has to do with the number of discrete amplitude I'd personally save the storage space and go with the mp3 or 16 . Autechre- see on see [] really hear the difference between a 16 and bit WAV/ FLAC file. Although, and it may just be me, I do always notice FEELING the.

MP3 on the other hand has fast decoders available for many hardware platforms: Audio producers would just continue to put out audio in multiple formats, including MP3, which increases the inertia for switching in the first place, or for anyone to implement it. Maybe adding features that offer more options for listening might help a new format dethrone MP3. That might even extend outside of dance music.

There could be an innovation analogous to how FaceApp has changed recently changed how users think about and interact with images of people.

DAP for kbps mp3s? | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - angelfirenm.info

Small savings in file size can add up to a huge saving of bandwidth. However, scale that up to the billion-plus users that a site like YouTube has, and that can provide a big motivation. Notably though, SoundCloud are still providing their streams as kbps MP3 today: This is especially true for DJs. Even if streaming music in DJ software became more common, there are still big hurdles to overcome. YouTube aside, streaming catalogues are far from comprehensive, especially outside of the realm of popular dance music.

For plenty of music, the only way of getting hold of a digital copy is ripping from your own CD or vinyl copy, a problem that affects download stores too. And relying on internet connectivity for music is another possible point of failure that DJs playing out may be reluctant to add to their workflow.

The future, for now, is the past Photo credit: Records are resilient despite being more than a century old Cassette tapes have seen a surging demand in recent years for indie releases CDs are in decline, but some new releases are still sold in that format even after nearly 40 years.

MP3s might not see that dedicated long-term loyalty once it finally is overthrown. What is imperceptible to you, might not be imperceptible to me. And certainly imperceptible does NOT mean there is no difference.

You are the one attempting to use objective measures for this. I have maintained that perception is an entirely subjective matter. I also never argued that no difference existed. I am saying that if "you" can't perceive it then it shouldn't matter to "you".

Please tell me you're joking. Your analogy isn't even close.

Flac vs MP3 (2) - Scorpions Still Loving You

Then what is the point of this debate? If it doesn't matter to you, don't bother with it. But don't start acting like audio quality shouldn't matter to everyone, or there ISN'T objective differences between different audio encodings and other systems which play back audio. Because you'd be wrong either way.

We were debating interconnects, not source material. Talk about being wrong But don't start acting it shouldn't matter to everyone, or there ISN'T objective differences between different audio encodings and other systems which play back audio. I don't think you are thinking clearly.

Perception is a subjective and personal experience. If a given person cannot distinguish a difference i. You are arguing that they should care about something that they cannot even experience and I am interested in why. You haven't explained that bit. Please don't bring up objective differences if you can't connect them to the present discussion. I never argued about them. You seem to be trying to shoehorn them into the discussion because of the rather inapt bridge analogy.

If there is no objectivity in this debate, then it's largely absurd and pointless. Because you are going with the assumption that you can hear through everybody's ears. I do not like to argue the absurd and pointless, I like to learn whatever objectivity there is to learn in such a field.

I answered the OP in the most objective way I could, which of course seems to be a far cry from the rest of the thread. That's why they're thinking of making audio DVDs and even audio Blurays. If you get a FLAC from the original recording, that's the best sound value. Then, encoding that into a quality level 10 OGG is the best way to get a high quality lossy audio file. It'll be smaller than the equivalent MP3, also. I really don't see how Perception is a subjective and personal experience.

Apparently, this has been the cause of some confusion. It appeared to me that you were chiming in on the unfolding discussion rather than directing your response to the OP.

If you read my initial response to the OP you will find that it was also objective and only discussed bit comparisons, reversibility, etc. The discussion wandered as they are prone to do. I just checked my first post and I did allow subjectivity to creep in. I mentioned that a lossy file is not equivalent to the source from which it was derived and mentioned "transparency".

I apologize for misrepresenting this as objective. Pointless IMO, I have. Possibly they will come out on audio-bluray, but even then the better lossless versions are 'optional'. Besides, knowing bluray, they will be a right pain in the butt to rip, if its even possible. What audio codecs will Blu-ray support? I really don't see how could be construed to mean that I am claiming that my perception is universal or that I can hear through others' ears. I'm all for subjective debates when they involve some kind of profound point that can't easily be discussed objectively eg: But it's obvious this topic has quite objective answers, and the subjective aspects are quite pointless when all they involves is the perception of the self.

So it possible to keep the discussion objective then? Xbehave January 7th, I'll add this to your point: True, but its actually not that much bigger than CD-DA. The existence of an objective description actually an oxy-moron does not automatically make it superior. The perception, in this case, is of the sound transduced by the audio system.

This leads to an assessment of quality i. I find objective arguments misguided when they are applied to matters of aesthetics like which monitor looks best [qualitative] or which sound system sounds best [qualitative]. Why can't you address this simple issue? Why do objective differences matter to a given individual if they are subjectively transparent to that given individual?

It is certainly possible for such a discussion to happen. This isn't really my area of expertise so I'm not sure if I can participate if you wish to embark on a tangent focused on the details of audio compression algorithms. Think of it as increasing the framerate on your speakers, that needs more data and so a bigger medium than a CD.

Because if a quanatative analysis can show that both monitors are the same, anybody claiming different is an idiot. If a quantative analysis can show that monitor A has a higher resolution than monitor B, then while it can be argued that nobody would notice, anybody claiming monitor B gave a better reproduction of images would be wrong.

Because if i paint a car green and tell you it goes faster and you can show me it doesn't, I would be proved wrong about my claim that it goes faster. Basically while the point at which audio transparency is achieved can vary between people if it can objectively be shown that two audio reproductions are the same then there is no point in arguing about the subjective part because your ears are hearing the same thing. Yes, but is your objective to run benchmarks on your equipment and to demonstrate measurable differences or to use it to produce a pleasurable listening experience?

I could design a telescope that efficiently captures light at multiple spectral bands at great expense. This will demonstrably outperform a simple, visible Cassegrain telescope under a variety of benchmarks. However, if I am intending to collect the output from the telescope with my eye then is the added expense worth it? The fancy, expensive telescope will not allow me to see anything more than the simple telescope designed to efficiently collect visible light. Is it reasonable for me to suggest that for the purpose of direct observation of the night sky, the simpler, cheaper telescope is just as good as the fancy, expensive one?

CDs are not the highest quality to rip from.

Why so few online lossless download sites?

That is what you asked for citation on, that is what i was explaining, I doubt they will make much of a difference to everyday people but there is a reasn for them existing. Nobody has made this claim. You are constructing a straw man. This is another straw man. I agree but this isn't what we have been discussing. We have been discussing whether, in the case where a particular observer cannot distinguish between two different apparatuses, objective differences in the output of the two apparatuses matters.

How much would you be willing to pay for something you will never see or hear? If it's a lot then I have a great deal on an invisible bridge. The standard CD sampling rate is I did not understand phrostbyte's stance to be this at all. I agree with this point. Some people prefer headphones with a lot of low end, even if the frequency response curve is extremely non-flat.

Some people consider factors unrelated to performance like price, warranty, etc. Better for you is not necessarily better for me, no matter how many benchmarks you show me. That's the whole point of the thread.

All this other stuff is a one giant absurd tangent. Tell me something interesting about audio compression methods preferably lossless so we can avoid transparency issues, which are legitimately part of this thread. As you can see, a lot more PCM data per second of audio. I think you missed that. Like most digitally recorded music which is happening a lot more now is recorded at least at bit hz or higher.

CDs can only do bit hz. So they have to downgrade the original recording to work with a CD. Audio DVDs don't have that limitation. That's where the quality comes in.

But if you want to see the maths Bitrate just shows you how much its been compressed, if at all. This is why DTS is 'lossy'. Its 6 channels x 96, samples per second x 24 bits per sample, so it should be huge really, really, Really huge. I already did write a large part of what I know about audio compression early on in the thread in a vain attempt to spur a more technical and worthwhile conversation. Of course that entire post was largely ignored.

D phrostbyte January 7th, If DVD Audio is compressed, it's compressed in a lossless format only. I think either your 'maths' are way off or you are speaking about a different format. Cool story, look up sampling rate and bit depth. Also look up "Fourier" while you are it. This book does a good job of linking the two: Posted before, but here it is again and I can find lots of other junk on DTS and Dolby being lossy if you really want - http: I'm talking about DVD Audio.

So perhaps your math is correct. Thus the latter part of the statement is correct because Blu-ray doesn't factor in this. MP3 on the other hand is lossy. You'll notice that as you lower and lower the bitrate of an MP3, it gets closer and closer to approximating the sound of a sine wave, and low bitrate MP3s sound "crispy" or sine-wavey. This is because MP3 applies a discrete variant of the Fourier transform on the blocks of the PCM data before compressing it. Then using a quantum matrix it eliminates the high frequency coefficients from the transformed data, which in turn increases the waveform's entropy.

Once the waveform has greater entropy it can compressed to a much smaller size using similar entropy coding techniques as FLAC.