320kbps

I agree that mearly measuring bit rates misses out other factors. The means of compression is important too. MP3 tends to come last in comparison tests that you can find easily on the internet. Also, the hardwear is important too. MP3 on one setup could well sound far better than on another.

Thanks all for a helpful thread.  I'm researching (euphamism for saving up for ) my first hi-fi system.  I'm definitely looking at the budget end of the spectrum- ie equivalent of £350 each on source, amp, speakers and accessories. 

For convenience, space efficiency, access to internet radio and 2-room operability I'm looking at a Sonos (2xZP120s which are amplified), 1TB Hard Disk (which presumably means ripping my CDs in lossless) and 1x decent budget speakers.  I'm guessing this will be superior to my current Aiwa cd/mini system.

So, referring to the OP, my question is... how does lossless compare to CD at budget hi-fi equipment level?  I've never really listened to hi-fi equipment before, so I guess I'm in for a real lug'ole opener...Thanks.

JamesPianoman:

 

So, referring to the OP, my question is... how does lossless compare to CD at budget hi-fi equipment level?  I've never really listened to hi-fi equipment before, so I guess I'm in for a real lug'ole opener...Thanks.

There is no technical difference between Lossless and the CD.

Easy way of understanding how it works is taking a CD, puttting it inside a zip file and decompressing it on the fly.

I don't think there's much doubt that you can't beat the cd for quality with digitised music. But I sometimes get in a bit of a quandary when using a memory stick for music files. The limitations for my system are 320kbps MP3, or 192kbps WMA when using the stick into the usb port. Though the 320 mp3 file is significantly larger than the same track in 192 wma format, one would think the mp3 should sound better. However, I often find the wma file sounds much better IMHO. So not always a clear cut decision which to use.

the_lhc:

I just don't get the argument, "it's all about the music, what does the quality matter?". It matters because I want to hear ALL of the music, not just whatever parts of it the bit-rate is going to allow me to hear, poor quality sounds just irritates me and stops me enjoying the music, that's why it matters and no, I'm not sitting there analysing the sound, I'm sitting there listening to the music but I know how the music is supposed to sound, so if it doesn't sound the same, then there's a problem.

I guess you did not see my other points or chose to ignore them.

How are you going to listen to a great live radio concert/drama/programme you missed? Buy a CD. No you can't. The performance/programme was unique.  BBC iTunes? Yes, but it is not as good as a CD so we can't listen to that.

How is a fan of some off-beat form of music - say 1920s jazz and big band or whatever - going to get on trying to find all those 78's and a deck to play them? (Because there are lots of 'speciality' music tastes that are simply not catered for on CD or have minimal availability/choice.)  Maybe an internet radio station? Oh no we can't, because the bit-rate is not high enough to satisfy our purism!

Want to watch and/or listen to a classic performance on youtube that is not available on any DVD or CD? Well it seems you can't because youtube sound quality is not up to CD standards. So let's ignore it.

Want one favourite track from an otherwise dire album? (or an unavailable album or one that is an expensive 'collector' item that you can't afford.) Well there is a good chance you could find it for 79p or 99p on some download site. Oh that's right, 256k AAC is not good enough even for a favourite track. So let's go without eh? Much better.

I love the sound of my CD player but not to the exclusion of all else that is enjoyable out there.

My ears are not that precious that I am prepared to forego the fantastic choice and variety and convenience that computer/DAC derived sources offer me in favour of nit-picking.

When I want to hear something at premium quality than I can use my CD or turntable or FM tuner but I not going to do without everything else.

This format vs that format? I'll take both thanks.

The hi-fi/technology is there to service the music, NOT the other way round.

I completely agree with Chebby on this. Of course we all want the best possible sound quality for everything we listen to but the fact that some things are only available in lower quality sound should not be a barrier that stops us from listening to them.

If that was the case I'd be missing out on some wonderful singing transferred to CD from 78s, for example. Even with the excellent work of Ward Marston (amongst others), those 1900-1920 recordings by singers like McCormack, Caruso and Gigli are never going to give us top quality sound. What they do, though, is give us a window into some of the most artistic singers and most beautiful voices of all time. I wouldn't be without them for anything in the world.

As another example, one of my favourite bands is BJH. Some of the footage that was released on VHS of BJH, for example, has never made it to DVD but is available on YouTube. The quality isn't great but that doesn't matter. Its the only form in which the content is currently available and I'd rather work through the less than ideal sound than miss out on having access to those performances.

I read requests from people wanting music recommendations who state that it must be available in a superb quality recording, and I just don't understand it. What if its superb quality music that is only available in a fairly ropey file format or recording?

In my home hi-fi is always secondary to the music and always will be.

The best sound I've ever heard today comes from either SACD/DVD-A or a really well mastered BluRay soundtrack. What upsets me is how some CDs can sound worse than the same song on a plain old DVD. Case in point (don't shoot me for this I know it's cheesy) Stardust - Take That song. The album version sound closed in and like it's dynamic range has been sat on, whereas on the DVD it really rings out spacious and clear.

I pluged in my iPod over analogues and nearly died at how rubbish it sounded through my setup below, but using a memory stick and streaming digitally into the amp, the same song sound ok. I wouldn't mind getting some definitive advice as to what to use to rip with. I've been using iTunes for 256kbps AAC and sometimes 320kbps AAC. I thought this would be the best balance between file size and sound quality. Now all I wish is that I could buy everything again on SACD.

chebby:

the_lhc:

I just don't get the argument, "it's all about the music, what does the quality matter?". It matters because I want to hear ALL of the music, not just whatever parts of it the bit-rate is going to allow me to hear, poor quality sounds just irritates me and stops me enjoying the music, that's why it matters and no, I'm not sitting there analysing the sound, I'm sitting there listening to the music but I know how the music is supposed to sound, so if it doesn't sound the same, then there's a problem.

I guess you did not see my other points or chose to ignore them.

I did, they aren't relevant to me.

How are you going to listen to a great live radio concert/drama/programme you missed?

I'm not, I only listen to the radio in the car and that's mostly Radio 4 or 5.

Buy a CD. No you can't. The performance/programme was unique.  BBC iTunes? Yes, but it is not as good as a CD so we can't listen to that.

I don't listen to iPlayer, simple as that, it's just not in a format that I find convenient, I don't want to watch TV or listen to the radio on my PC. If there is something I want to listen to on the radio at home (VERY rare), I'll listen to it via my Sky box into my amp, I also have the option of recording it there as well.

How is a fan of some off-beat form of music - say 1920s jazz and big band or whatever - going to get on trying to find all those 78's and a deck to play them? (Because there are lots of 'speciality' music tastes that are simply not catered for on CD or have minimal availability/choice.)  Maybe an internet radio station? Oh no we can't, because the bit-rate is not high enough to satisfy our purism!

Again, that's a strawman argument, no 20's recording on 78 (or any other format) is going to compare in terms of sound quality to something recorded on modern equipment, so it's the same as watching the old film, you accept that there are limits on the quality placed there by the period it was recorded in. In that case the bit-rate isn't as important, as long as it's good enough to convey what was on the original recording that's all that matters.

Having said that I do have a hard time listening to recordings of Caruso though, because he's supposed to be the greatest tenor ever but the recordings of the day completely fail to capture that (IMO), so I find it a disapointing experience.

Want to watch and/or listen to a classic performance on youtube that is not available on any DVD or CD?

Errr, no, I don't, I never have and I can't see I ever will, not because of the quality, but simply because I just don't see where I'm going to have the time to do that, working 40 hours a week, commuting for another 20, by the time I get home from work I eat, spend maybe an hour with the missus and then off to bed again. The weekends are taken up trying to catch up with all the stuff I should have done during the week but never seem to have time to now. If I do get time to sit down and listen to music (for maybe an hour, tops), you'll have to forgive me if I choose to listen to it at the best quality available to me.

That's my point, it's not that I WON'T listen to lower bit-rates/quality, it's just that I don't see the point in doing so if I've got the option to listen to something at a better standard. Whereas you appear to give the impression (might be wrong here) that you're happy to listen to anything at any quality regardless of if you have other, better, options. That's what I don't get.

Want one favourite track from an otherwise dire album? (or an unavailable album or one that is an expensive 'collector' item that you can't afford.) Well there is a good chance you could find it for 79p or 99p on some download site. Oh that's right, 256k AAC is not good enough even for a favourite track. So let's go without eh? Much better.

Again, I can't think of any point where this has happened. It might well have done, but clearly the lack of track hasn't bothered me enough to actually do anything about it, so it couldn't have been that important, because I've forgotten about it now.

I love the sound of my CD player but not to the exclusion of all else that is enjoyable out there.

My ears are not that precious that I am prepared to forego the fantastic choice and variety and convenience that computer/DAC derived sources offer me in favour of nit-picking.

When I want to hear something at premium quality than I can use my CD or turntable or FM tuner but I not going to do without everything else.

You seem to imply there that CBM doesn't offer "premium quality"? I'd beg to differ, my CDs are ripped in FLAC and streamed via Sonos, I find the quality so good that I don't even have a CD player anymore, I can't see what benefit it would offer me. Equally, I can't see why I'd want to rip in a lossy format, when I can rip in a lossless one.

This format vs that format? I'll take both thanks.

Glad we agree on something, I'll stick with my CD-sourced FLAC files and my vinyl, I find they do me very nicely, I just don't have a requirement to listen to anything else, which I think is where we differ.

It is obvious from what you say that you (literally) don't have much time for music, whereas I work from home so have the system on up to 15 hours a day.

The TV only goes on around 9pm most days for an hour or two, or for a DVD. (It would be impossible to work with television on during the day and daytime TV is pants anyway.)

We are diametrically opposed even on the subject of radio. If forced to a choice I would throw out the TV and DVD (and even the CD player) if it meant I could keep a radio and yet I cannot enjoy radio in a car.

I was talking about Spotify's 320kbps vs my CDs. All played through the DAC on my CDP, and my amps, and my speakers, using the same cables. The 320kbps lacks bass, is therefore overly trebly and really nowhere near as nice a listen. Fine for background music but for proper listening...erm no.

chebby:

It is obvious from what you say that you (literally) don't have much time for music, whereas I work from home so have the system on up to 15 hours a day.

You lucky .... Yeah, music (or even home cinema) is a luxury for me, inasmuch that it's something I only get to do now and again so I like to maximise the experience, hence as to why I got the best TV I could find for watching films. I'll be doing the same thing for the music side of things now that I'm in a position to.

We are diametrically opposed even on the subject of radio. If forced to a choice I would throw out the TV and DVD (and even the CD player) if it meant I could keep a radio and yet I cannot enjoy radio in a car.

Oh that's easy enough to achieve, just spend 4 hours a day sitting on the M5 (other motorways are available)... 

I listen to 320kbps mp3's and if anything they have a slightly more woolly bass, slightly more pronounced than Flac. They are certainly improved via my Dac.

320kbps mp3's are perfectly acceptable to me, some people on the forum seem to display a obsessive behaviour when it comes to music formats/cables/mains supplies etc.

For me, the music comes first!

the_lhc:

You lucky ....

Well I had 28 years of  'going to work' like everyone else. Not only that, but all on rotating shifts. So I worked (still work) nights, evenings, days, every other weekend, some bank holidays - even Christmas day - and a mixture of 12 hour shifts (at weekends) and 8 hour shifts.

Two years ago, when the opportunity was presented, I bought myself a (company approved) laptop and got myself set up here at home. We can use a company 'pool' laptop but I preferred to buy my own. That way I get a higher spec machine, and I get to keep it if I leave and I don't inherit someones else's old breakfast crumbs lodged in between keys etc!  My Dell laptop's 4 year onsite, next day cover is also 10 times speedier than our IT support dept could ever conceive of being.

I save a fortune in travel costs, and company 'restaurant' food/coffees etc, and my free time starts the second I log-off for the day (or night) and I 'arrive' at work 10 minutes after getting up (via bathroom and kitchen) with a great big mug of hot fresh tea made exactly how I like it to start the day (or night) rather than the overpriced  #### spat out of some machine at work.

I get to listen to whatever I want whilst working,  at whatever volume I choose (except at night when it is kept low for the folks obviously).

Anyone who can do this should. It is a great sanity saver. On a sunny day I can move the laptop/screen/keyboard/mouse/documents/wireless phone extension out on to the conservatory table and watch the garden whilst working and listen to the Pure Evoke Flow internet/DAB/FM radio instead.  

chebby:

Anyone who can do this should.

It would help if you told us what it was you were doing...

Bert Puttocks:

320kbps mp3's are perfectly acceptable to me, some people on the forum seem to display a obsessive behaviour when it comes to music formats/cables/mains supplies etc.

For me, the music comes first!

So "the music comes first", does that mean then that given the choice between ripping at 320kbps and ripping at lossless, you'd choose 320kbps?