5 ms·
I'm a DJ on mid-range monitoring hardware and I can definitely hear the difference with apple's encodes vs FLAC, at least on their older encodes. I am not 100%
by pdntspa 3y ago
I'm a DJ on mid-range monitoring hardware and I can definitely hear the difference with apple's encodes vs FLAC, at least on their older encodes. I am not 100% sure its the compression protocol (could be differences in mastering since streaming has different requirements) but the attentuation on bass and watery-sounding cymbals stick out like a sore thumb in the right listening environment
I only buy music on itunes as a last resort, so I don't have a huge sample size.
- ubermonkey 3y agoI really wonder if you can do this in a double blind, ABX test.
- xoac 3y agoNote that parent is a DJ and while DJing the files are bot just reproduced but usually there is some digital processing involved. This makes it easier to hear the difference.
- pdntspa 3y agoMaybe but I don't do critical listening on club systems unless I'm checking my own mixdowns. Unless the DJ is redlining (which they shouldn't be if they're competent) the audio should come out of the mixer relatively unmolested. My critical listening rig is a broadcast amp with two passive studio monitors. Should also note I can't hear the different between well-encoded 320kbit and FLAC. But lower bitrates (256kbit and lower) on mp3 are audible.
- throwaway290 3y agoI showed a friend once how bitrate and sampling frequency start to really matter when doing stuff like slowing down a lot. But I guess it's not typical in DJing.
- Washuu 3y agoI generally record everything in 44khz, but I will record at 192khz if I know I will be doing any time stretching. The high sampling frequency matters for that.
- xoac 3y agoThat type of processing is super common in DJing, but the understanding of how it interacts with lossy files is not.
- Foobar8568 3y agoI can spot and recognize the audio on ABX if I focus with basically a 100% rate on the infamous ABX test website with a HD600 headphone, so basically a crap one. Now if you ask me which one would be the best sounding or lossless (for the "highest" quality one, obviously for other it's relatively easy to spot in a clean environment), I believe I would have a harder time.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hatsix 3y agothen you should check out SongTradr's other recent acquisition, 7digital.com... not only do they have flac, but many have 16 and 24bit available.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoThere's no difference in the data that will be delivered to you DAC using flac or whatever the non-compressed version was. flac is a lossless format. If it started as 24 bit wav, nothing is lost when you get the flac version of that. it's just smaller.
- hatsix 3y agoif you digitized at 24 bit, then 16 bit is technically compressed. with flac, the waveforms aren't compressed, but the amplitude is, so audio buffs claim they can hear more separation. I can't hear it, but I also can't taste the difference between coffee bean origins, but I know people who can.
- TomSwirly 3y agoFLAC is a lossless encoding. You can reverse it and get a bit-for-bit identical WAV file.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoFLAC supports bit depths between 4 and 32 bits per sample (the reference decoders only support up to 24 bits per sampl). Other than that, it does not change the bit depth of the data.
- pdntspa 3y agoI'm pretty sure the 16-vs-24 thing has been proven already. 24-bit only really makes sense if you're fucking with the material. Same with 44.1khz vs higher sample rates.
- astrange 3y agoYou could hear the difference with a 24 to 16 conversion only because it usually involves dithering, which means there is some injected noise. If they choose not to do that, 16-bit dynamic range is enough to store someone whispering in your ear next to a running jet engine.
- musicale 3y agoIt's a shame (and puzzling really) that Apple only offers lossless on the streaming side and not on the purchase side. I don't need a physical CD, just the bits on it.