I think that here there is some audiophile...
However, if you have a high-end expensive sound system there is little reason to use lossy compression (unless you only have lossy originals).
I have talked with a "aduiofanatic" I think that some of them... lost the contact with the music reality... and try to hear cable... and try to hear if the position of them increase the quality of the system...
Quote from: DVDdoug on 05 January, 2012, 02:42:18 PMHowever, if you have a high-end expensive sound system there is little reason to use lossy compression (unless you only have lossy originals).I fail to see how the choice to use lossless compression relates to the price of the system, especially after reading the beginning of your response.
But, to be fair, before I did blind tests I too believed I could tell the difference between a 128kbs AAC and a flac or alac. My brain assumed there would be differences so it found them. Put those same tracks through ABX and I can't tell a difference.
I think that actually:- for portable use (iPod/Car... the AAC/MP3 is good)- for home/hifi use: I think that actually FLAC is the best solutionWhy?Because I think that if we can't hear the differences between an AAC and a FLAC is not very important, but at home we can use the best "source" for our audio.And today the cost of an hard disk is very low, and the advantage of lossless is high, we can have the same quality of the CD forever.The portable way... is a different situation and I think that for an iPod we can use 256 kbps AAC without problem.
Because I think that if we can't hear the differences between an AAC and a FLAC is not very important, but at home we can use the best "source" for our audio.
And? That contradicts what you are saying. In other words, you are expressing the thought of "who cares if you can't hear a difference, just go with lossless because it is the best quality!" That doesn't make much sense especially if you are going to bring in the listening test argument. If one cannot hear a difference between a lossy and lossless file, then there is no need for them to playback the lossless content anywhere. It doesn't matter if they have access to a higher quality source since they won't need it for listening purposes. Having lossless files and playing them "just because" is not a good enough reason.
why would companies use lossless in CD's if there was no difference?
(I'm sorry if I said something wrong, this is my first time here)
Do you use AAC file on your HIFI or only lossless (FLAC/ALAC) or CD Audio?... Do you use AAC file on a 1.000 dollars HiFi system or you will prefer FLAC?