Anyone listen with Lossless?

[sean_d]

Just wondering if anyone here listens to Rush with a Lossless format rather than MP3 or another compressing format like that. If so, do you notice much quality change or sounds that were cut out of the MP3? Just curious.

[Pags]

A few months back, I ripped the entire Rush catalog in wma lossless format. One of the things that sold me on the lossless format was The Spirit of Radio. It was the first song I tested with the lossless format. The guitar parts just seemed so much more prominent, bright, and clearer than the mp3 version. It sold me immediately on doing the rest of the collection. But to be completely honest, in most places I listen to my music (in the car, on headphones, outdoor speakers in the backyard) I really don't hear much difference between that and 320 Kbps mp3 format.

[mulletst0rm]

I convert my lossless files using the LAME mp3 encoder for use on my iPod. I am unable to differentiate between an vbr mp3 encoded at approximately 190 kb/sec, and lossless.

[PuppetKing2112]

FLAC for home use, V0 MP3 for iPod.

[RUSHHEAD666]

QUOTE (sean_d @ Jul 21 2010, 07:49 PM)

Just wondering if anyone here listens to Rush with a Lossless format rather than MP3 or another compressing format like that. If so, do you notice much quality change or sounds that were cut out of the MP3? Just curious.

I will never rip anything. I will burn in flames instead of burn a Rush cd.

 

I might as well listen to "Faithless" backwards than to to Rush album in a compressed state of stale sound.

 

I'm sticking with the Gainmore philosophy of sound.

 

Japanese SHM compact discs.

[Pags]

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Jul 22 2010, 02:04 AM)

QUOTE (sean_d @ Jul 21 2010, 07:49 PM) Just wondering if anyone here listens to Rush with a Lossless format rather than MP3 or another compressing format like that. If so, do you notice much quality change or sounds that were cut out of the MP3? Just curious. I will never rip anything. I will burn in flames instead of burn a Rush cd.   I might as well listen to "Faithless" backwards than to to Rush album in a compressed state of stale sound.   I'm sticking with the Gainmore philosophy of sound.   Japanese SHM compact discs. click-->Uh... Yeah   I'd bet you anything you'd want to wager that if you were put through a 'listen' test you wouldn't be able to identify a CD from a Lossless file, or from a 320Kbps MP3 file.

[Snyder80]

QUOTE (Pags @ Jul 22 2010, 06:58 AM)

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Jul 22 2010, 02:04 AM) QUOTE (sean_d @ Jul 21 2010, 07:49 PM) Just wondering if anyone here listens to Rush with a Lossless format rather than MP3 or another compressing format like that. If so, do you notice much quality change or sounds that were cut out of the MP3? Just curious. I will never rip anything. I will burn in flames instead of burn a Rush cd.   I might as well listen to "Faithless" backwards than to to Rush album in a compressed state of stale sound.   I'm sticking with the Gainmore philosophy of sound.   Japanese SHM compact discs. click-->Uh... Yeah   I'd bet you anything you'd want to wager that if you were put through a 'listen' test you wouldn't be able to identify a CD from a Lossless file, or from a 320Kbps MP3 file. The only way you can't tell a difference in quality between a cd or an mp3 is if your tone deaf. Nothing sounds as good as cd's. I've tried to convince myself otherwise for years and every time I think I'm getting close, something I listen to proves me wrong.

[invisibleairwaves]

QUOTE (Pags @ Jul 22 2010, 03:58 AM)

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Jul 22 2010, 02:04 AM) QUOTE (sean_d @ Jul 21 2010, 07:49 PM) Just wondering if anyone here listens to Rush with a Lossless format rather than MP3 or another compressing format like that. If so, do you notice much quality change or sounds that were cut out of the MP3? Just curious. I will never rip anything. I will burn in flames instead of burn a Rush cd.   I might as well listen to "Faithless" backwards than to to Rush album in a compressed state of stale sound.   I'm sticking with the Gainmore philosophy of sound.   Japanese SHM compact discs. click-->Uh... Yeah   I'd bet you anything you'd want to wager that if you were put through a 'listen' test you wouldn't be able to identify a CD from a Lossless file, or from a 320Kbps MP3 file. Yep. There's no way Earl, or anyone else, would be able to tell the difference between a CD and a lossless rip, because there isn't one. Digital audio is cool that way.

[Pags]

QUOTE (Snyder80 @ Jul 22 2010, 08:13 AM)

QUOTE (Pags @ Jul 22 2010, 06:58 AM) QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Jul 22 2010, 02:04 AM) QUOTE (sean_d @ Jul 21 2010, 07:49 PM) Just wondering if anyone here listens to Rush with a Lossless format rather than MP3 or another compressing format like that. If so, do you notice much quality change or sounds that were cut out of the MP3? Just curious. I will never rip anything. I will burn in flames instead of burn a Rush cd.   I might as well listen to "Faithless" backwards than to to Rush album in a compressed state of stale sound.   I'm sticking with the Gainmore philosophy of sound.   Japanese SHM compact discs. click-->Uh... Yeah   I'd bet you anything you'd want to wager that if you were put through a 'listen' test you wouldn't be able to identify a CD from a Lossless file, or from a 320Kbps MP3 file. The only way you can't tell a difference in quality between a cd or an mp3 is if your tone deaf. Nothing sounds as good as cd's. I've tried to convince myself otherwise for years and every time I think I'm getting close, something I listen to proves me wrong. Agreed - unless it's lossless, you're always sacrificing 'something' in the sound if you compress to MP3. But a 320 Kbps file sounds extremely close - and certainly good enough to not 'kill the listening experience'. I'd much rather be able to say I can listen to Rush ANYWHERE due to an MP3 file, than be confined to only those locations where a CD player is available. Plus, with files vs. CDs - I can play thousands of songs without having to return to the stereo once. No CD player can make that claim. I'll go with lossless or 320kbps vs. CD any day of any week.

[the masked drummer]

Why not just listen to a CD then if you don't like compression? I think mp3's sound like crap. Lossless still loses data, so it's a contradiction in terms. Silly....

[J2112YYZ]

When I first started collecting Rush's albums I got them on cassette first, then CD and now with my iPOD i've got them in the MP3 format. With cassettes and CDs you can hear a difference but i've never noticed much of one between CDs and mp3s.

 

I'm not even sure what all the bitching about how bad mp3s are comes from online? I've ripped all my music CDs to my computer then put in on my iPOD in that format and both new and old stuff sound fine to me. Maybe you have to be a musician to really hear the differences?

[Peart 2112]

I just rip my cds to my computer to put on my iPod. The sound quality stuff really doesn't bother me because I don't notice it that much. It's pretty convenient having an iPod and having an iPod transmitter for my car. With an iPod, I don't have to haul a shitload of cds.

[The Cat 3]

 

I just converted all of my Rush CDs and MP3s back to 8 Track, by holding a microphone next to the speakers...still sounds fantastic.

 

[RUSHHEAD666]

QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Jul 22 2010, 05:14 AM)

QUOTE (Pags @ Jul 22 2010, 03:58 AM) QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Jul 22 2010, 02:04 AM) QUOTE (sean_d @ Jul 21 2010, 07:49 PM) Just wondering if anyone here listens to Rush with a Lossless format rather than MP3 or another compressing format like that. If so, do you notice much quality change or sounds that were cut out of the MP3? Just curious. I will never rip anything. I will burn in flames instead of burn a Rush cd.   I might as well listen to "Faithless" backwards than to to Rush album in a compressed state of stale sound.   I'm sticking with the Gainmore philosophy of sound.   Japanese SHM compact discs. click-->Uh... Yeah   I'd bet you anything you'd want to wager that if you were put through a 'listen' test you wouldn't be able to identify a CD from a Lossless file, or from a 320Kbps MP3 file. Yep. There's no way Earl, or anyone else, would be able to tell the difference between a CD and a lossless rip, because there isn't one. Digital audio is cool that way.

[RUSHHEAD666]

QUOTE (ReGorLaTroy @ Jul 22 2010, 11:12 AM)

I just converted all of my Rush CDs and MP3s back to 8 Track, by holding a microphone next to the speakers...still sounds fantastic.

[Jake2112]

FLAC for home use and mp3 for the iPod

[briremo]

QUOTE (Pags @ Jul 22 2010, 06:58 AM)

I'd bet you anything you'd want to wager that if you were put through a 'listen' test you wouldn't be able to identify a CD from a Lossless file, or from a 320Kbps MP3 file.

Dude, I will take that bet in a heart beat!

 

Just because your hearing is shot doesn't mean mine is. But I'll bet yours is better than you think.

 

I can't tell you how many people came into my show room and said, I don't need anything fancy because I can't hear the difference anyway. The I'd play an ipod vs a CD and blow them away. Just regular Joe's can hear it. You can too. I can spot in a New York second.

[Some Half-Forgotten Stranger]

I'm still anxiously awaiting the triumphant return of gramophones.

[briremo]

QUOTE (Some Half-Forgotten Stranger @ Jul 22 2010, 08:14 PM)

I'm still anxiously awaiting the triumphant return of gramophones.

good point! I can tell the difference between vinyl and CD 80% of the time too. the variable is the quality of the vinyl recording (usually).

 

We used to do blind tests for all kinds of crap like this all the time!

[tk4207]

I still can't convince my grandfather that lossless sounds better than vinyl, but I'd take vinyl RUSH any day of the week over that joke the call mp3

[Mystic Slipperman]

Mine are a combination of lossless and 320kbs. 256 only if absolutely necessary!

 

 

Below that I can't take the degradation in sound.

 

 

There IS a difference between Lossless and 320 but not everyone can necessarily detect it. I can detect it but it doesn't bother me, so in the name of saving space I'll do some 320.

[danielmclark]

All other things (equipment/environment) being equal, maybe you can tell the difference between an mp3 and a lossless file. Considering that 60% of the time my music is played through laptop speakers and 40% of the time I'm listening to an iPhone/iPad with earbuds (or through its external speaker), the file format is the least of my concerns. If I get a decent home theater setup, maybe I'll re-rip all my music into lossless files, but with the equipment I currently have, I'd rather save the space on my drive and listen to mp3's.

 

Side by side, yeah, I could probably tell the difference. But I don't care

[Spindrift82]

I have most of my Rush albums on cd, but I mostly listen to the ripped aac files on my Itunes now.

 

Eventually, I'll get around to encoding the entire Rush catalog with Apple lossless, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

[Bastille Dave]

Cd>lossless>320kbps>128kbps. Always try to go with the best possible but sometimes you get what you get. I prefer cd's in the car and at home and lossless in my iPod and computer.

[karkarius]

I have listened to audience recordings in lossless but I never save them in that format. It takes up too much space and I collect too much music from other artists to consider taking up that much space.