Are you a fan of AAC (Advanced Audio Codec)?

It actually is the successor to MP3. Problem is that MP3 became so entrenched that software and hardware vendors still use it to this day. Probably helps that there's no licensing requirements for MP3 anymore.

I still use LAME pretty frequently, for the above reasons. AAC doesn't work on my car's USB port, it doesn't work on some of my older DAP's, and it's flaky on my app of choice on my smartphone. Should be interesting to see how this pans out in the upcoming years as I slowly replace hardware.

 

I have assumed that AAC is slightly superior to MP3 at the same bitrate but I haven't proven that to myself with listening tests, I am sure I never will. With a 64GB iPod Touch and 64GB iPhone, I just use ALAC and don't need additional space as I don't need to carry hundreds of albums with me on portable players.

 

It's not 15 years ago anymore, I think the discussion about lossy codecs on an audiophile site like this today should be limited to "forget it".

 

Yeah, that would be great for my 2GB Shuffle...would hold about 2 albums instead of a few hundred. Thanks for the tip!

 

Unfortunately, most of the streaming sites use lossy or you pay double for lossless. So you really have to hear a big difference to pay twice as much. I also like the MFiT stuff on Apple Music even if it is 256k AAC because sometimes the master is better. In my own collection, I have all ALAC files, though. I have the hard drive space and don't worry about compressing it. Those files are matched to Apple Music in 256k, though.

 

I see, while running in the park listening to your Shuffle amidst the nature and possibly other human beings you care about the difference between AAC and MP3, then...

 

Same here, logical solution. Of course, on portable devices you can compromise quality a bit... or two.

 

I don't understand. You brought up large lossless files vs smaller lossy ones. Why are you now comparing two lossy files? I care about fitting more music onto my tiny device.

 

Didn't read all the responses but, I rip my CDs to .flac for hifi home listening and AAC 256 for the car. Sounds wonderful with all the road/engine/wind noise.

 

Because lossy codecs and their possible differences or pros and cons are the starting point of this thread, sorry. I understand very well that lossy is the only logical way to load the Shuffle, but I think we could agree about MP3 or AAC making a tiny difference there. Building the library of music you care about, you usually want it lossless today, and some even aim for an Hi-Rez-only one.

 

I’ve been using AAC since I started copying CDs to my iPod. It’s good for portable listening. I like it for the car, although I think AptX is a better codec for transmitting Bluetooth.

Since I have 10,000 songs already copied in that format I’m not changing over to lossless.

 

Can anyone tell me specifically what artifacts I should be listening for? I did a blind test with a mixture of files ripped from a good, dynamic and well-mastered CD on my FiiO X3 and Sennheiser HD598SE a few years back. I couldn't tell the difference. I did the test on my FiiO X1 more recently and still couldn't tell the difference. I've read some varying opinions on this on other forums. Everything from the difference being huge and blatantly obvious to not being audible or only being audible on high-end equipment. Generally I buy the CD and rip to FLAC unless I just want one song in which case I'll go on iTunes.

 

You're not likely to hear a difference using a Fiio and HD598. I doubt I would hear a difference with that gear.

Listening to the differences between lossy and lossless or redbook and high-res is a case where you do need better gear to hear what's different. And also the right type and style of "better" gear. It's not just a matter of buying better spec gear and throwing money at the problem. You also need to choose gear that has the right style of sound and design philosophies to end up with a system that makes the differences more audible.

With the right style of headphone system the differences I hear are things like soundstage size, imaging depth, layering and space, how real a bass drum sounds, and things like that. I'm not good at being able to hear actual identifiable lossy artifacts like pre-ringing. I've listened to various samples that are supposed to demonstrate pre-ringing and other lossy artifacts. I don't hear those artifacts well when listening specifically for those artifacts. What I do hear is how lossy encoding affects the imaging and soundstage and instrument separation and things like that. And also the ability to hear whether flipping the absolute phase makes an audible difference (with lossy I hear less or no difference flipping absolute phase, but with redbook lossless and high-res lossless I can hear a difference depending on recording). For some reason my brain and ears just don't hear lossy pre-ringing as an obvious effect. I do hear a difference between lossy and lossless in other more holistic ways, but hearing those holistic things requires better gear that is able to do soundstage, imaging, layering, space, the sense of "they are here" or "you are there", and things like that.

 

What equipment and headphones would you suggest that would make the differences audible? Is it even worth worrying about if I don't want to drop $1000+ to hear the difference?

 

I discovered and learned how to hear the difference once I got Audeze headphones. The Audeze and some similar planar headphones are able to do the soundstage, imaging, and phase right when paired with the right kind of amps. So I'll start with that sort of system as a recommendation.

Cavalli Liquid Platinum from Monoprice (or Liquid Fire, Liquid Crimson, Liquid Glass)
Audeze LCD series headphone
A good DAC that has good imaging, depth and layering and separation like Schiit multibits, Berkeley Alpha, and others of similar qualities

I can also hear a difference using a system built around Senn HD600/HD650 headphones. Using similar amps as above. But the differences are not as clear or obvious as with the above system. I first had to learn what to listen for using the Audeze system. Then I noticed I could hear some of that going on with the Senns as well.

The PonoPlayer lets me hear some differences with some headphones. But not as obviously. I had to first learn what to listen for by listening to the Audeze headphone system. Then I was able to hear some of that with the Pono.

With my Grados and Fostex/Denon and some other headphones I have I don't hear the differences. Some headphones do this better than others. Some not at all.

 

Wrong, it's not dreadful.

 

I'm sure you meant to type "audio files."

 

If he hears "dreadful," that's his call.

 

I think many posters are referring to portables without expansion, which is why I refrained from commenting about storage space.

 

It's true. After I was able to finally hear the difference between lossy and lossless audio I became a first degree black belt audiophile.

 

If only there weren't too many notes, compression would not be necessary.

 

My go-to devices aren't as low in storage as that Shuffle. But they aren't 1TB either...yet.

So lossy still has a reason for existence in my setup - a solution for on-the-go listening for devices with no storage expansion option or not cost-effective to upgrade them yet. Moving my main archives slowly to FLAC / lossless however just to plan for that future 1TB+ portable DAP.

 

But . . . why is the lower background image so pixelated?