I wouldn't think that portable devices will have the ability to make anything sound different between an MP3 or FLAC even if someone could tell the difference, The audio in my car does not have the low bass or mid range type of speakers or hardware to tell the difference either
@Katzenfreund: That makes sense for portable devices. I would think that decoding the higher resolution formats would take more CPU processing in those devices. I'm not too sure about today's processors though. They're high speed, low power devices to begin with. @Joe C: It all comes down to the speakers and the human ear (which is highly subjective). Apart from putting a Spectrum Analyzer on the output, we really have no way of knowing. And yes. The spectra may very well be more robust and different, but can everybody hear the difference? Probably not. It all comes down to what sounds good to you.
I have a 1970's sound system and a newer Bose system too, Those 15" woofers and midrange speakers from my old system beats the snot out of this newer Bose system. The wife can't stand to look at the large speaker cabinets so it's the tiny Bose system on the tv cabinet
There’s another point not adequately considered. So suppose you do hear a small difference, in the sense that it sounds a little…different. Is that so important? If there’s no noticeable distortion or hi-end frequencies missing, I’d say not really. To quote the Vulkan authority on pragmatic logic, “A difference that makes no difference is not a difference”. (Mr Spock, Star Trek)
@Joe C: I used to have these http://www.entertainmentbydesign.ca/djhq/djhq-ebd.com/EBD/EBD_Cerwin_Vega_Lineup.HTML I also had an Electro-Voice 'Eliminator' that I added a plate amp to. So I had a 2.1 PA system in my house. The V 152s were driven by a Crown Ultratech 2020. Everything went into one of these. https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SX3242FX I always kept the mains faders to about 3 in the house. Didn't need to crank it. The headroom was -SWEET- and just about all music sounded great through that system. In the summer, we'd drag the PA system out into the yard and run Jam parties. Bring an instrument, bring food and drink. If you're not playing, you working the BBQ. @Katzenfreund: That's what happens to some Audiophiles. They obcess about their system to the point of not enjoying it for what it is. Sad, really.
Yes @MJ The RIAA-equalize curve is 'embedded' in vinyl (sound is changed / 'distorted') and again neutralized by the amplifier (phono-input EQ-curve reversing). The reason is to eliminate weaknesses of vinyl... sufficient bass range would require wider grooves and the highs wouldn't have enough dynamic range. The RIAA EQ curve reduces bass and raises highs therefore, the phono input neutralizes the changes again. Anyway 'vinyl' sound has a typical 'warmth'... To suppress 'rumble' there is subsonic filter but rather to avoid load also the phono input has far more impedance depending on kind MM/MC. It's advised to put the speakers away from the TT. Last time when I DJ'd with vinyl it was the millennium 2000 My amp is from 1988 lol..... @Katzenfreund. Cannot imagine that the higher power consumption would be really noticeable..just a bit more of volume and you'd have got already more consumption.
It's analog but still bad quality, not only the background noises, that's the completely opponent of a live concert. All these unique "natural" you hear, are just the modifies same on a 64 kpbs crap or more bad. Compare these (same song): youtube.com/watch?v=HyqzJTNcygE youtube.com/watch?v=TjMw0kEw6B0 What sounds better? 1 - very old vinyl original by Comedian Harmonists 2 - new "digital" live concert by Max Raabe Same new Max Raabe version converted to 12 kbps aac: sendspace.com/file/wk9r3l Sounds very like the very old Comedian Harmonists vinyl record, dont? That's what I'm talking about you can't create new better quality from a crappy vinly even via pure analog ways. btw I don't hate vinyl or something like that, I'm happy that we have at least these last survived unique songs from the very past. These still living through new authors as this Max Raabe for example, - very good old song, very good singer.
@Scr4tch: I'm going to respond to this because honestly, you're comparing apples and oranges. [video]youtube.com/watch?v=HyqzJTNcygE[/video] This video sounds awesome if you consider how the original was recorded, and the technology used at the time. [video]youtube.com/watch?v=TjMw0kEw6B0[/video] This recording is a product of new recording technology. Even the Microphones and the placement of them has been finely controlled; It stands to reason that this video would win out over the first one. But is it a fair test? Not in my eyes. And I applaud the original engineers who recorded both of them. They did a wonderful job. A live show has it's own beauty, regardless of the performance. It's about memories, and where you were at the time of that recording. Were you at that show? Did you have a great time there? As far as vinyl goes, If you have a record collection, you know that you have to take very good care of it, and if you're not careful, you can ruin a record if you scratch it. That's why Reel-to-Reel tape decks came into their own. You could make a fairly high fidelity copy of the vinyl record and play that without wearing out the vinyl. What should be addressed in a separate thread is Digital vs Analog. The differences and what you hear. [EDIT] You added stuff while I was in the middle of replying. But I think I addressed your added statements already.
I understand what you mean, yes you are right, but have you listen the converted version yet? We not talking about the flavor of classic music in classic things, either analog or digital, it's the pure quality of sound we doing compare. mp3 192 kbps -> mp3 192 kbps Vinly -> FLAC -> aac 12 kbps That what I wanted to say.
Sounds to me like the original vinyl (first vid link) was a 78 rpm record done in monotone, which is not a fair comparison.
What I mean is - some guys buying CD conversions of this Vinly, converted them to flac and talking its better then MP3 in 128. But the reality is, its no better then 12 kbps aac. btw I have some songs of the 60s as well, these sound REALY better then MP3 128. Ah, and I have some news about my own project. Related to this thread I would say: - If you need the originals, because you are creating music or converting very often: Keep FLAC Best format for original ones, you can have, complete lossless, compressed and open format. There also exist Apple Lossless via m4a but it results in same and its not an open format, so. - If you not doing any of these, and you just need MP3 because you are using old MP3-Player: MP3 (LAME) 256kbps Few People may able to hear any difference directly between 256 and 320, but it's not worth at all. You can feel free and do 320, but make sure you got this from a clean source as an original CD. - If you don't need any MP3, you have just a computer and mobile phone: Opus/Ogg Opus 128 kbps It have the best compression by keeping the best quality in once and still good compatible. Some people can hear difference to 192, but same as MP 320, not worth really. - If you need multi-channel audio, you have the choice between: aac ( in m4a/mp4) or Opus Depending on your devices compatibles, aac is the most used but opus have still better compression. Equivalents: CD = WAVE = FLAC = Apple Lossless (in m4a) = random what ever... MP3 320/256 = AAC 256/192 = Opus 192/128 = random what ever... All depending on your devices, music genre and your ears. For my own flavor I guess I will stay on even opus in 64 kbps, btw.
I cannot listen here @work, no speakers in my lab, lol. I can later and I can for sure say what's better. But what I can say already is your setup is flawed. 1- can never be original vinyl playing. It is a digitized playback uploaded. Only playing vinyl is playing vinyl. To make a record from it I used a very expensive music cassette recorder. I calibrated each tape manually using 2 different frequencies and bought the best cassettes available. They have lost quality due to magnetic silencing..but I still have my vinyls. Digitizing vinyl doesn't make sense..IMHO
Yes, that's true as well, never forget this aspect, people. You can save the space in your basement by doing this and yea may lose some of typical analog aspects, what ever you prefer. You can sell these vinyls probably for a very high price, and still have a digital copy of the original. With this copy you can also doing much things. My father keeps much of these as well, just as collection. I think there is no any real point of keep music quality, its more about keep antiquity or personal memories. I would prefer the modern variant, but I still understand people they keeping, it's a kind of "protection of monuments".
Despite all the other factors, isn't there any noticeable, worthy difference between, 1. MP3 128kbps and MP3 320kbps? 2. MP3 320kbps and FLAC?
Assuming you have all the prerequisites, to me : 1. The 128kbps feels gross comparing to the 320Kbps 2. I feel voices are clearer, and in term of bass.... I feel they are deeper and also clearer. The sound feels "pure", at a high point. (well a "pure" sound also consists of a sinusoidal curve on a spectro). BTW which format i'm using ? Not any from the above. Well. I do use FLAC, abut when available I directly buy DSD
Yes, it's also about the audio setup and using it. Some prefer tube amps having fun with its unique sound. I also go for the 'modern' variant, but it's nice to have the probability to play vinyl from time to time. I like to collect audio stuff that's why I still buy CDs rather than a mp3 download. Concerning portables I appreciate 'good' sound as well and it plays a role when buying portables / headphones for it. Important is the joy with it. What I like much is to use viper4android on my phone for instance, it makes a better listening experience. Modern devices have other advantages such as powerful sound processing which is another way to realize personal preferences... I'd say at 1 yes at 2 I cannot hear a difference, but tbh I never really tried it with a reasonable experiment.