lossless on the go

[AmirBagachelles]

I am finally ready to get a small portable player and ditch CDs for plane travel. Is Apple my only option for a player that can handle compressed lossless files on the fly? I figure an 8MB flash player with roughly 10-12 discs loaded on it ought to be good for a week away. Thanks, Dan

[LJazz]

I'm not certain about this, but wouldn't anything that reads WMA also read WMA lossless? You might want to check out the iriver products. I've got an older ihp 120 (20 GB) and have loaded Rockbox software onto it (free), and now I can load and listen to Flac files on the player.

There is an Iriver forum Here . There is a ton of info and very helpful folks who know way more about the products and their capability than I do.

Edited October 15, 2006 by LJazz

[md655321]

Why do you need lossless? Its overkill and I would bet essentially 100% of people couldnt tell the difference etween lossless and high bitrate mp3, especially on a portable player.

However, if you do need lossless to my knowledge EVERY portable player of good quality has atleast one or two lossless options.

[LJazz]

Why do you need lossless? Its overkill and I would bet essentially 100% of people couldnt tell the difference etween lossless and high bitrate mp3, especially on a portable player.

I would agree with you. It is overkill for a portable. However, if you use lossless for a system at home, it's kind of nice to be able to use the lossless files for the portable as well, without having a second set of mp3 files. That's the only reason I use lossless on my portable anyway.

[marcello]

Maybe it's just me, but I can tell the difference.

[AmirBagachelles]

If you can't tell the difference, you need to get your <pick an organ> checked. To me it's as obvious as the difference between analog and digital. Really. MP3 is pitiful, there's something missing. That's why they call it lossy. But if lossy tote-your-whole-stash is your thing, you go dudes. I will abide. I have used the same Panasonic portable CD player with no skip circuit since 1996, with Grado or Etymotic headphones, so this will be step down, yes. But my experiences with lifeless no kick MP-3 have been informed my decision (e.g. live Who Won't Get Fooled Again, Bailey-Holland on ECM), that's why I have waited til 2006. So it's lossless.

[LJazz]

If you can't tell the difference, you need to get your <pick an organ> checked. To me it's as obvious as the difference between analog and digital. Really. MP3 is pitiful, there's something missing. That's why they call it lossy. But if lossy tote-your-whole-stash is your thing, you go dudes. I will abide. I have used the same Panasonic portable CD player with no skip circuit since 1996, with Grado or Etymotic headphones, so this will be step down, yes. But my experiences with lifeless no kick MP-3 have been informed my decision (e.g. live Who Won't Get Fooled Again, Bailey-Holland on ECM), that's why I have waited til 2006. So it's lossless.

Not sure where you use your portable. I use mine on a train commuting and there is so much ambient noise, it's pretty hard to tell a difference in quality (hence the overkill statement). But for home use, or somewhere it's reasonably quiet, I use lossless. If you use your portable in a place where the difference in sound quality is discernible, then by all means go for lossless. Anyway, your question was whether you can have the benefit of lossless using something other than an Apple, and the answer is yes. Additionally (and I have no basis of comparison here so I don't know the truthfulness of the statement), I have been told that the Iriver players have superior sound quality to the Apples. If sound quality is your main objective with your portable, I suggest you check out several brands of players.

Edited October 16, 2006 by LJazz

[md655321]

If you can't tell the difference, you need to get your <pick an organ> checked. To me it's as obvious as the difference between analog and digital.

We arent talking analog vs digital. Hey, if you think you can tell the difference, more power to you!

I would suggest doing a couple ABX tests to make certain, however.

[chris]

I'm with you on that one. It's amazing how many "golden ears" I've known who talk the talk but can't distinguish lossless from even LAME alt-preset standard rips, not to mention even higher quality rips. It's incredibly rare to be able to distinguish-- in a real test environment-- APS rips from lossless... APX almost unheard of.

Some of these folks had just never heard well-encoded mp3s, most of them were just mislead by the placebo effect and their addiction to hi-fi gear (and the need to justify their addiction) and had never tried ABX tests. In my experience, good ABX tests pretty quickly separate the real thing from those who just fancifully wish they were.

I'm OK with discovering that my own golden ears were mostly an illusion-- I spend a lot more money on music that formerly would have gone to equipment

[rockefeller center]

I'm with you on that one. It's amazing how many "golden ears" I've known who talk the talk but can't distinguish lossless from even LAME alt-preset standard rips, not to mention even higher quality rips. It's incredibly rare to be able to distinguish-- in a real test environment-- APS rips from lossless... APX almost unheard of.

Some of these folks had just never heard well-encoded mp3s, most of them were just mislead by the placebo effect and their addiction to hi-fi gear (and the need to justify their addiction) and had never tried ABX tests. In my experience, good ABX tests pretty quickly separate the real thing from those who just fancifully wish they were.

I'm OK with discovering that my own golden ears were mostly an illusion-- I spend a lot more money on music that formerly would have gone to equipment

[Daniel A]

Some of these folks had just never heard well-encoded mp3s, most of them were just mislead by the placebo effect and their addiction to hi-fi gear (and the need to justify their addiction) and had never tried ABX tests. In my experience, good ABX tests pretty quickly separate the real thing from those who just fancifully wish they were.

I'm OK with discovering that my own golden ears were mostly an illusion-- I spend a lot more money on music that formerly would have gone to equipment

Hear, hear!

[Claude]

As far as iRiver goes, the new hard drive based models don't seem to support WAV playback anymore. I couldn't find it in the specifications.

To use alternative firmware like Rockbox on the iRiver, it takes some geeks skills and enthousiasm, and it will render void the guarantee, so that's not an option for everyone.

I personnally can live with compressed files on a portable player (I have a iRiver H320 with AKG K14p earbuds), although I generally care a lot about sound quality when listening to music at home. For mobile use, 192kbs MP3s sound fine for me.

[LJazz]

As far as iRiver goes, the new hard drive based models don't seem to support WAV playback anymore. I couldn't find it in the specifications.

To use alternative firmware like Rockbox on the iRiver, it takes some geeks skills and enthousiasm, and it will render void the guarantee, so that's not an option for everyone.

I personnally can live with compressed files on a portable player (I have a iRiver H320 with AKG K14p earbuds), although I generally care a lot about sound quality when listening to music at home. For mobile use, 192kbs MP3s sound fine for me.

Claude, I didn't realize using Rockbox invalidated the guarantee (can't say I ever really thought of myself as having geek skills either, but your point is well taken ) . Obviously the guarantee was not an issue for me because my player is way past that stage.

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, for me using FLAC on the portable is a convenience thing only. That's how I rip my CDs to my computer because hard drive space isn't an issue, so it's nice to be able to just transfer directly to the portable if I decide I want to take something with me. I also have many things ripped in mp3 (all of my emusic files are obviously mp3). I honestly never did a side-by-side comparison of FLAC files with a high quality mp3 -- I can't be bothered. I like good sound quality, but never considered myself an audiophile. For me, it's about the music. At a point I think all of this stuff gets a little ridiculous, but to each his own ...

[marcello]

When you think about all of the years a artist spends getting a good sound and the time and effort that is spent getting that sound on a recording, it seems to me that the very least we can do as consumers is to playback on the best equipment we can afford.

The technology is available so why not use it?

[Claude]

Marcello, to me that seems to be out of touch with reality, at least as far as pop music is concerned. Many current recordings are optimized in order to sound good on radio, TV and cheap stereos.

[Tom Storer]

When you think about all of the years a artist spends getting a good sound and the time and effort that is spent getting that sound on a recording, it seems to me that the very least we can do as consumers is to playback on the best equipment we can afford.

The technology is available so why not use it?

When my brother and I were in high school we used to try to convince my father to buy a better stereo, and he'd reply, "Who needs hi-fi if you have lo-fi ears?" Words of wisdom. I tend to have equipment that makes the music sound good to me, and it's just bog-standard consumer electronics stuff. Anything more expensive would be wasted on me, despite the long years and untold suffering an artist devotes to getting a good sound.

One of the leading French classical music magazines, Diapason, typically has a dual review of CDs: a review of the music and a review of the recording quality, done by different people. A reader wrote in and asked why they didn't have the music and sound reviews done by the same person, and the reply was that the music reviewers, professional classical music geeks all, typically have low-end equipment and don't really care about the stereophile aspects at all.

[Man with the Golden Arm]

When you think about all of the years a artist spends getting a good sound and the time and effort that is spent getting that sound on a recording, it seems to me that the very least we can do as consumers is to playback on the best equipment we can afford.

The technology is available so why not use it?

When my brother and I were in high school we used to try to convince my father to buy a better stereo, and he'd reply, "Who needs hi-fi if you have lo-fi ears?" Words of wisdom. I tend to have equipment that makes the music sound good to me, and it's just bog-standard consumer electronics stuff. Anything more expensive would be wasted on me, despite the long years and untold suffering an artist devotes to getting a good sound.

In college, some twentyfive years back, a roommate who worked at a hi-end stereo shop and called himself an audio buff, had a stereo that logged in at at least a grand and a half plus - chichi stuff for college.

Open up his LP cabinet and there were the "Best of the Doobies" and the "Eagles Greatest Hits" ... all two of 'em!

Never spend more for the goods than the goodies.

[md655321]

When you think about all of the years a artist spends getting a good sound and the time and effort that is spent getting that sound on a recording, it seems to me that the very least we can do as consumers is to playback on the best equipment we can afford.

The technology is available so why not use it?

Then why listen to CDs at all, and only purest vinyl?

This is all well and good, but it doesnt change the fact that virtually no one can tell the difference between a high bitrate lame encoded mp3 and lossless, especially in portable situations.

[marcello]

Well, I have downloaded mp3 files that were given to me as a gift and have them on my iPod along with lossless flies from cds AND anolog vinly transfers that I made to cd.

By far the best are the analog transfers to cd. I can hear the difference in the depth and the range of the mp3 files.

As far as pop music goes, maybe they do optimize the recording for lower end listening situations. I don't know. I currently happen to have on my IPod both mp3 files and analog tranfers of two recordings ( that is in BOTH formats); Miles Davis Agartha ( Japanese pressing) and Ray Brown - Something For Lester.

Now I know that the original pressing of Agartha is considered the best, but the mp3 files sound like mush compared to the analog transfer.

The Ray Brown sounds much fuller and meatier; more like a live set. If you ever heard Ray Brown live, up close, you'll know what I mean.

I guess spending so many years in front of instruments has effected my sonic palette! What we try to create ( or re-create) is that sound, right?

My point is if you have the technolgy on hand why not use it? And yes, If I have the LP, I'll transfer it to cd rather than buy it in the new format (CD). If it's only on cd, like almost all of new music is, I have to buy the cd.

To each his own.

[couw]

Well, I have downloaded mp3 files that were given to me as a gift and have them on my iPod along with lossless flies from cds AND anolog vinly transfers that I made to cd.

you are comparing apples and oranges. You need to compare the lossless files of your vinyl transfers with mp3s made from those same files. And not use 128kbps, but LAME alt-preset-standard or higher.

[Epithet]

Lots of Xing-encoded VBR MP3s being used as reference material here.

Or something.

[AmirBagachelles]

I'm not a hi-fi enthusiast (my one extravagance is Linn Tukan speakers, $400 used), nor a person w/ golden ears. Ambient room "noise", dead air, KICK. I don't hear it through my portable w/ MP-3. It's like Dolby or a cheesy hi-filter circuit, and very un-natural. So I thought the whole iPod craze was a bummer, further propelling Mp-3. I was kind of psyched to learn about Apple lossless however. I think the downside of Steve Jobs" legacy, in addition a generation who badly damaged their hearing at a young age (pronounced "class action"), will be millions of people who forgot or never appreciated spacial detail and dynamics of a good recording. Cheers, Dan

[Claude]

Lots of Xing-encoded VBR MP3s being used as reference material here.

Or something.

Yeah, a fair comparision would be between a MP3 file "found on the net" against an LP found on the street

[Deuterium]

There are some iRiver's that have been discontinued that can be had at a discount on eBay that also have line outs which allow you to use an external DAC for conversion. Many think this offers additional sonic improvements over internal player's DACs, but does require you to carry an additional box.

Personally, I rip my CDs at two compression levels a lossless version and a 320kbp lossy. I use the lossy for my portable unit. I improve my sound by using the line out of the portable player into a small portable battery driven amp and non-stock headphones. This adds a little weight, but I am happy with the sound. YMMV.

[chris]

When you think about all of the years a artist spends getting a good sound and the time and effort that is spent getting that sound on a recording, it seems to me that the very least we can do as consumers is to playback on the best equipment we can afford.

The technology is available so why not use it?

So, when I want a whistle for soccer practice I should use a dog whistle even though the kids can't hear it? I mean, why not go as far as possible?

I guess, to me, if the improvement is inaudible it isn't the least we can do, it's literally nothing...