AAC vs Lossless: Can you tell the difference?

[Sol]

Lossless to AAC a good idea

Actually - that suggests a nice iTunes/iPod feature - the ability to send re-encoded, lossy tunes to the 'pod. In other words, I could store it all Lossless on my HD, then sync with the 'pod, sending much smaller, slightly lossy versions to it.

I emailed this suggestion to Apple last week. It is very doable, especially with the PowerMac G5s' performance.

The only thing that would be a problem are the current hard drive capacities. If my current music library was to be re-encoded in Apple Lossless it would need ten times the space (in this case, 160 GB). That would not leave a lot of room for OS X, applications and files. My calculation could be wrong and perhaps someone here can correct me in regards to how much bigger a lossless file is to one that is encoded at 160 kbs. Whatever the correct size, it would be a lot for most people's hard drives and so Apple should wait a while before offering this feature.

In regards to higher bit-rate tracks in the iTMS, there is no need. The store exists to complement the iPods, not $5000 stereo systems. For most users the bigger file sizes would be an inconvinience when downloading and when playing the files in the iPod; the device has 32 MB of memory and bigger files make it use the hard drive more.

 

[Nermal]

Not only can I not tell the difference between 128 kbps AAC and Apple Lossless; I can't tell the difference between 96 kbps (stereo) MP3 and WAV!

Wow, I can definitely tell the difference there!

 

[jtgotsjets]

I didn't used to be able to tell any difference between low quality mp3s and CDs, but I've managed to slowly train my ear (this happened in middle school when I had my Rio 32 MB player, and I reencoded everything down to 56 kbps before sending it to get the most music on it. Eventually, some songs were unbearable, and I slowly moved up the quality up. I eventually had to settle at 96 kbps as a compromise, but it still sounds terrible)

I'd say that I'm currently an audiophile in training, as my current system is far better than any of my friends, but it still only cost me about 50 dollars total (not including the iPod, which replaced my terrible CD player [trust me, the quality of the iPod throught the dock with 128 kbps is way better than my cd player was]). I got the reciever, tape deck and turntable at garage sales, and the speakers were hand-me-downs from my dad's stereos that constantly breakdown in his shop (he builds vintage dragsters and his shop is not very stereo friendly).

Either way, at the low volumes my stereo is normally at, 128 kbps MP3s (I'm not switching to AAC till it becomes a tad bit more universal) sound fine, and same with iPod earbuds. The only time I can hear the difference is in my car, because my front speakers are pretty nice, as is my stereo, plus I tend to play music louder in there, so even with a direct line in (as opposed to tape or FM adaptors) I can hear difference between MP3 and CD.

As for reencoding MP3s before sending to iPod, my old Rio mp3 player did this, and while it took awhile to transmit even 12 songs, you'd only have to do it once for most iPods. So anyway, it is totally possible, but getting apple to do it might be tough.

 

[MacFan26]

I imported a couple of CD's with lossless, and didn't really have any problem with playing them on the computer, but would skip ocassionally on my iPod. I re-imported them with AAC, and the didn't skip anymore . Being an audiophile, it annoys me that I might not be getting the highest quality. It probably doesn't bother me that much though since I've been listening to MP3's, etc. for so long now. Really, one of the only things I care about is that all of these formats are going to be playable in the future, without having to do compressing or something.

 

[titaniumducky]

FWIW, I listened to the Bose TriPort Headphones at my local Apple Store yesterday and was blown away by the sound coming from such a relatively small over-the-ear headphone at a relatively decent price (US$149). Not cheap, but not a "high-end" price either.

I picked up a pair of Sennheiser HD202s from Amazon, and they sound awesome! They're definitely bulky, but are amazing headphones if you're in the market for budget headphones which sound good too.

 

[BlackMangoTree]

Never read so much rubbish in my life.

Provide ABX logs otherwise all your claims about hearing a difference is all placebo.

 

[netdog]

On any decent hifi system, 128 sounds like mud.

While many have cited the importance of decent amplification and good speakers or headphones, another important link is the quality of the DAC. Obviously computers and iPods tend to have pretty crappy DACs though the G5 video iPod apparently has a *relatively* decent DAC, at least for an iPod.

 

[Bernard SG]

For me, the threshold is generally 160 kbps. At 128 or below the basses may sound quite weak while the high frequencies - like cymbals - will sound like they pass through a phaser (effect) and it's really very noticeable and annoying for that matter.
However, it seems that the encoder used plays an important role. It seems to me that 128 kbps encoded on a today software is much much better than on a software from the early 2000's.

 

[BlackMangoTree]

Most people can't tell between 128 kbps AAC and 320 kbps AAC. And that disgusts me.

I can, without fail, tell between 320 kbps AAC and Apple Loseless, and it gets more and more apparent the higher quality your stereo is. On my new system, 320 kbps AAC sounds terrible, and i just can't listen to them.

Needless to say, I only rip in Loseless now, and convert to 320 kbps AAC when transferring to my iPod (first gen, can't play Loseless). Crappy portable headphones make the difference completely negligible, since they do a good job at destroying sound quality anyway.

What a load of ****. Without fail? You wouldn't pass any ABX test let alone without fail, unless you have dog hearing

 

[richpjr]

What a load of ****. Without fail? You wouldn't pass any ABX test let alone without fail, unless you have dog hearing

That seems pretty far fetched...

 

[Jolly Jimmy]

What a load of ****. Without fail? You wouldn't pass any ABX test let alone without fail, unless you have dog hearing

Something tells me you're not going to get and answer... This thread is over 6 years old and the user you're quoting hasn't logged in for about 2 years.

 

[ender21]

Something tells me you're not going to get and answer... This thread is over 6 years old and the user you're quoting hasn't logged in for about 2 years.

It seems, based on many of his most recent posts, as though he's looking for people with whom to argue his "side." I guess even if it goes back years.

With such types I usually let them go as it seems they're more interested in convincing themselves of something rather than understand that others may have different experiences than them. Rabidly partisan individuals unwilling to accept new or different information are usually not very interested in discussion, nor worth the investment in it.

Having said that though, the fact that this is still a debateable topic with heated discussions all over the internet tells me there's something to both sides. So I tend to take people at their word unless evidence points me elsewhere.

While I don't agree with every point in the link below, there is reason to suggest that even ABX isn't a holy grail proving one thing or another.

http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=2

 

[hachre]

I have learned to hear the difference. Even though it requires some concentration, you need to know the system you are listening on well, and it's more of a feeling kind of thing than a real quality difference you can put your finger on...

Yet I am able to tell high quality AAC and Lossless apart to an almost 100% probability degree.
I did blind tests on myself because I am quite the science person myself and couldn't believe the results either, especially because it is feelings based.

So my personal decision has been to completely go Lossless for my Library. I also no longer buy on iTunes because they don't offer Lossless versions. On my iPhone I still use Lossy versions (with the iTunes auto convert option) because I can't tell the difference in the car anyway. Also I can't be as focused on the music there as I can be at home. The upside of course is that I can fit more than 10 times more music on the iPhone thanks to the lossy files.

Short version: Yes you can tell the difference, it's a personal decision everyone has to make for themselves.

Edit: oh my god, I didn't notice this thread was from 2004

 

[BlackMangoTree]

Where are the ABX logs ? Making claims we can't believe. Just like i saying i can walk through walls.

 

[genome2k]

Given the same audio source quality (let's say the CD quality), i can't hear any difference from anything (mp3, acc, or whatever) with 192k+ sample rates.

I'd say the most important thing is the quality of your source rather than the encoding of a converted file.

 

[BlackMangoTree]

That seems pretty far fetched...

Yea and i can walk through walls.

People make all these claims and what not with no proof. Provide proof to be taken seriously.

Absolutely absurd to say you can tell between 320 AAC and lossless easily.

Unless one does a blind listen test like explained here their claims mean zero http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295