I think you mean AAC don't you?

See here for info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

The first thing to understand is that EVERY TIME you re-save a digital file like that it suffers some loss. The real question is...is it noticeable?

I know there has been discussion on digital files and how they sound elsewhere on PA. Do a search and see what you can find.

Main points are things like, what is the playback gear, what is the source material, what programs and settings are being used, that sort of thing.

The conclusions are always the same.

Lots of technical explanations to support a case, in the end, trust your ears.

https://mpesch3.de/" rel="nofollow - https://mpesch3.de/

BTW, I should also mention that as soon as you dip your toe in the MP3 world you're already living in the lossy realm.

See here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format

You can check you this article that compares them...

https://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html

Basically, the AAC at 128 kbps and MP3 at 320 kpbs have about the same noise spectrum (noise floor around -90 dB according to Figures 6 and 7 of the attached article). AAC, however, "shapes" the noise, so it is 10 dB higher above 6 kHz. The AAC engineers claim your ears are less sensitive there, so it doesn't matter. However, I can often hear the difference. The AAC at 128 kbps encodes smaller than the MP3 at 320 kbps, so you save storage space. At the same bit rate, AAC 320 beats MP3 320, but the noise "shaping" is much more apparent (Figure 8).

Audio quality is all about your perception. That's why many people prefer the sound of vinyl, while others claim CDs sound better to their ears. If you can't hear the difference after encoding (or re-encoding), it really doesn't matter which codec or bit rate you choose.

As JD stated the big question is what is your playback gear, not that we need to now but if it is of high enough quality to differentiate dynamics and resolution then you will/might hear a difference. Whether you like it or not is your decision based on your own ears.

If your only gonna play with lossy files then I'd go MP3 320kbps, as you can manipulate that file easily and should play on any portable player. As well you can easily burn CDs with MP3 320kbps files.

I keep almost all my CDs ripped to MP3 320 simply for space issues on my portable player for plane trips and car system, it is more than adequate for listening in those situations.

Hi level mp3's for me also, however recently I had to bring down some files for the YGDRASIL JOURNAL OF POETIC ARTS edition of AUDIO poetry, due to the size, and to ensure that it allowed things to fit properly at the National Library of Canada.

The old Space Pirate Radio shows that I have (going back as far as 1974) ended up on MP3's on the highest setting, which makes these very long, since the tapes I used at the time (Maxell and TDK) were all 120's to ensure more music and less breaks. IF, I take any of those shows to Audacity (let's say) and redo any of these files to a lesser setting, IT IS VERY NOTICEABLE. But not enough for you not to be able to enjoy the show or that particular hour.

Depends on the situation I suppose. Of course that doesn't mean that an audiophile isn't educated on this file format. It would be like a 5 star Michelin chef grabbing a burger and fries at a fast food joint. Counterintuitive to the subject but not an impossibility.

 

Your saying the same thing as Webster, just different words. I like to describe audiophiles as people who want to listen to the music they like in the best possible way. But in extreme cases there are people who are gear heads and listen to their gear rather than music.

Seems to me 'fidelity' (faithful) would be a reproduction of music that sounds as close to how it sounded in that room at that moment.  

Agree, but as with any OP, the topic always goes down a rabbit hole of endless fodder. And usually ends up being nothing about the OP. 

Nothing going on in prog so what else to discuss? 

Hi,

You know ... I was thinking just this when you posted it, and my thoughts are that some folks are more concerned with the stereo, the this and the that ... than THE f**kING MUSIC.

It makes sense, in a commercial state and time, no one knows or understands the word "Art" and everything becomes an art form of some kind, including that which is not exactly an art, but is representative of the human spirit and its continuing expansion of ideas, specially into areas that ... might not be necessary, so they can find their next million dollars or bomb.

Hi-Fidelity is important ... and something that (probably) a very high percentage of folks here do not understand or know a lot about it, and how it can affect the SOUND of a lot of things, however, as I have stated hundreds of time, the "sound itself" is NOT the music, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED with it at all. This is my main issue with a lot of music that is just loud and effects ... you unplug it, and what you got? nothing ... just a lot of notes going nowhere, a veritable sketch by  PDQ Bach right in front of your nose!

moshkito wrote: as I have stated hundreds of time, the "sound itself" is NOT the music, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED with it at all. This is my main issue with a lot of music that is just loud and effects ... you unplug it, and what you got? nothing ... just a lot of notes going nowhere, a veritable sketch by  PDQ Bach right in front of your nose!

You don't like PDQ Bach?

And what do you mean by 'unplug it'? If you mean turn off the amps and echo, well that's a weird comment I don't understand. But if you mean perform the song on just a piano or acoustic guitar, well I'd have to hear example of the songs you're think of.

Hi,

I have more PDQ Bach in my collection than you do, and I saw him in concert many years ago, and it was so damn good, that I had to go out of the darn hall for 5 minutes because I was laughing so hard!

I'm not sure that I have ever seen a better concert EVER that had more entertainment and content than 99 out of 100 rock bands ... and talk about creativity ... goodness gracious! BTW, I have an autographed Autobiography by him, which he graciously signed as I brought it to the concert. He was very nice to talk to and not a buffoon as most rockers are!

JD wrote: ... And what do you mean by 'unplug it'? If you mean turn off the amps and echo, well that's a weird comment I don't understand. But if you mean perform the song on just a piano or acoustic guitar, well I'd have to hear example of the songs you're think of. ...

Yep ... take that metal and the loudness out of almost all these bands out there, and the amount of music in it would be negligible and any professor or instructor would likely not give you a good grade!

What is there to understand? That you can't play something you created without the 100k (or 1/2 million if you are DG) grandstand you carry with you? 

Only the music can reveal the true nature of the tool that is interpreting it. It's the differences in the source material that has to be listened to in order to judge the gears performance.

And as to your editing comment, I've done the same with many of my LP's in the past and it can be an arduous process. but that is a very specific operation for listening. Once the process has been completed and burned to CD, voilà, it's the music once again.

 

This misses the point of what I've been saying. What I'm saying is that audiophiles can be so obsessed with sound quality that they are focusing on it rather than the music. I wasn't discussing how sound quality is assessed. Nor was I suggesting that there is no audible difference between a top-of-the-line stereo system and a middle-of-the-road stereo system (although audiophiles do seem to think that they have superhuman hearing... but that's another topic).

 

 

JD wrote: And as to your editing comment, I've done the same with many of my LP's in the past and it can be an arduous process. but that is a very specific operation for listening.

 

So you do acknowledge that one can play music but listen quite intently to something that is not the music.

 

 

JD wrote: Once the process has been completed and burned to CD, voilà, it's the music once again.

 

Non sequitur. The point of talking about the scratch removal process was to illustrate that one can play music but listen quite intently to something that is not the music. Listening to the music after the scratch removal process has been completed is not relevant to this point.

 

 

 

I prophesy disaster wrote: JD wrote: And as to your editing comment, I've done the same with many of my LP's in the past and it can be an arduous process. but that is a very specific operation for listening.   So you do acknowledge that one can play music but listen quite intently to something that is not the music.

In a very limited scope, yes of course. But even it you are focusing on say, a snare sound, you are still listening to the MUSIC yes?

 

I prophesy disaster wrote: JD wrote: Once the process has been completed and burned to CD, voilà, it's the music once again.   Non sequitur. The point of talking about the scratch removal process was to illustrate that one can play music but listen quite intently to something that is not the music. Listening to the music after the scratch removal process has been completed is not relevant to this point.

It is in the context of the audiophile evaluating the gear.

Because I have a much better system than I did 30yrs ago, most of my music from the 70s has a different "feel" and I hear more of it and much higher details....I enjoy my music so much more now than I did, but I did not know that before. 

I prophesy disaster wrote: ...What I'm saying is that audiophiles can be so obsessed with sound quality that they are focusing on it rather than the music.

They can also be obsessed with their equipment, no matter how bad (or good) the sound is. I knew a fellow once who had a very expensive, high-end system, and he was obsessed with leaving all tone/equalizer controls set at 0dB, regardless of how bad it sounded in his living room (with wood floors, little sound absorption, high ceiling, etc). It drastically needed some boost in the bass, mid-range attenuation, and isolation between the 3x3 ft speaker cabinets and the floor. But he was adamant that the tinny, shrill, harsh pressure waves impinging on my ears was "...how it's supposed to sound because this his high-end equipment".

Audiophile: I love the resonant bass right here, and the cymbals crisp and clear. What a great sound.

Music person: I love the chord change right here, and the poly-rhythms are sublime. What a great composition.

I cannot think of any recording done in the past 20years that could rival what Alan did on that album.....So he is partly to blame for his own comment, there is no better compliment than he can receive.

Hi,

This has been, it could be said, the reason why in 1975 or 1976 I ended up with the ESS HEIL AMT-1 speakers. I took Tangerine Dream's Phaedra to the sound equipment store, and had it played on various speakers and NONE, including more expensive speakers, brought out the quality that the ESS speaker did of the album. I used "Mysterious Semblance ... " for the sample. Even a bunch of guys at the store were impressed by what was showing on the speakers, while one of them kept trying to show me how good the Rolling Stones sounded on another set! 

I wanted something else. Something that could also take on classical music and something that did not, necessarily, have that boomboom sound on it. And to me, this is the biggest issue for a lot of the speakers listed here ... I am not sure that I would use those to listen to some of the purest and best things ever done in recording, of which Alan Parsons is "one of them" but NOT THE ONLY ONE. 

For those that don't know, in the late 60's there was the RCA RED LABEL and it had the best recordings of a lot of music, including classical. Tomita's Debussy album was one of them (later) and Al Stewart had an album in 1973 as well. They did NOT do rock music for a long time, which makes the timing for Alan more opportunistic, by using processes and styles already in use by the RCA Red Seal ideas, which were designed for orchestras although Mario Lanza sure got the most albums ever! And the list was impressive, and it was done WAY BEFORE ALAN PARSONS was even an engineer, or at least just learning. But it had not, as yet gotten out of just doing classical music.

The most important thing about the albums in that seal was that it told us what Abbey Road was doing, that most of us had no idea ... the best equipment and design for music of all kinds, and Alan is (for all intents and purposes) the child of it, and he did the smart thing ... used it for rock music, for people that needed even more detail, when only the Beatles and Rolling Stones could afford the best!

Alan Parsons is nice stuff to listen to ... but then, what are you all comparing it to, when what was in one of those Red Seal albums is not even being given a shot ... the quality was comparable, if not better than what Alan Parsons did, and I think he would agree to that! Or at least agree to be on the same page with it!

BTW, (sidebar) the statement is important for ONE HUGE REASON ... it helps define the moment when you hear something special and you then work on improving it. I'm already thinking that we need to take on that line and study it some, but I think that Alan would agree that he was the student of the art of putting thigs together and he ended up becoming a sort of standard for it ... but to say that Tom Dowd, or George Martin did not have that ability is INSANE ... they brought us some of the greatest music ever, and Alan was nowhere near it. And it was their ability to define and decide how to use it in the studio that made the difference, since none of their bands or artists ever sounded as well when Tom, or George were not around!

Hi,

The wicki'd one has a listing of all titles, and skip it all until you get to 1973 or so, so you don't get Mario'd all over the place, and the over abundance of the same pieces of classical music. 

All you want to remember that this was the best recording of any music in that time, with the possible exception of the Beatles and Rolling Stones, even though, I'm not sure that a better studio makes the Stones even better ... they are better without the studio anyway (when they are in tune and not too loud!!!!!).

(BTW, weird that no one took to Alan's words and/or my reply ... it tells you how much we really care about the message, instead of the medium, which sadly is what this thread is about!

Looks like just my Tomita collection.

I came about being an "audiophile" backwards according to Parsons. I'm really too poor to be a real audiophile, so I have to be smart about it, so I do a lot of research and look at specs before I buy anything.

I like my old Yes and similar bands (like the Parsons Project)that need a lot of range-up high and down low. Furthermore, I've got a lot of vinyl and need to handle that too. My system needs to be able to bring out the magic of an album like Close to the Edge or Relayer.

My old system is what most people would call vintage and old Technics amp and turntable that gave up last summer. After looking hard at what was available in my price range, my choice came down to Rotel or Cambridge Audio. I went with a Cambridge Audio Amp and CD player and rounded it out with an Audio-Technica turntable.

Since I listen to a lot of streamed audio, I got a DAC too and can stream to my amp from my computer.

Now I sometimes hear- Maw, Crazy Uncle James is listening to metal again!