Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Music, Audio, and Podcasting
Rips to iMac
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="chas_m" data-source="post: 1561485"><p>This is probably more a comment on me and my hearing than the codecs, but anyone over 30 likely has some top-end hearing loss just as a natural part of the aging process (and more loss if they went to a lot of loud rock concerts in their misspent youth). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Consequently, I can't for the life of me tell the difference between 320kbps and 256kbps AAC when it comes to rock music. Others might be able to, and for them its worth the relatively small extra HD space (a meg or two per song) as well as for potential future-proofing. If I had more of a library of classical or early jazz, I would probably encode at the best available lossy level or even consider going lossless (ALAC for me -- FLAC has no technical flaws, but doesn't natively play back on anything that people actually use).</p><p></p><p>I don't think people who encode at 320 AAC are "wasting" their storage capacity if they have really high-quality headphones -- not necessarily the $1,000 pair I linked to earlier, but you know the RBH EP2s and the like (seriously good headphone models vary in price wildly, so cost is not necessarily an indicator of genuinely faithful sound reproduction). OTOH, in my experience my AAC files sound great on anything short of true "audiophile" level equipment IMO, including home stereo systems etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="chas_m, post: 1561485"] This is probably more a comment on me and my hearing than the codecs, but anyone over 30 likely has some top-end hearing loss just as a natural part of the aging process (and more loss if they went to a lot of loud rock concerts in their misspent youth). :) Consequently, I can't for the life of me tell the difference between 320kbps and 256kbps AAC when it comes to rock music. Others might be able to, and for them its worth the relatively small extra HD space (a meg or two per song) as well as for potential future-proofing. If I had more of a library of classical or early jazz, I would probably encode at the best available lossy level or even consider going lossless (ALAC for me -- FLAC has no technical flaws, but doesn't natively play back on anything that people actually use). I don't think people who encode at 320 AAC are "wasting" their storage capacity if they have really high-quality headphones -- not necessarily the $1,000 pair I linked to earlier, but you know the RBH EP2s and the like (seriously good headphone models vary in price wildly, so cost is not necessarily an indicator of genuinely faithful sound reproduction). OTOH, in my experience my AAC files sound great on anything short of true "audiophile" level equipment IMO, including home stereo systems etc. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Music, Audio, and Podcasting
Rips to iMac
Top