Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most digital music is sold and downloaded these days as MP3. Economics, maybe. Some audio playback equipment and/or audio apps can't handle uncompressed audio files as WAV and LIMITED storage space ON PORTABLE DEVICES is also a consideration.
WAV is container file and can contain many types of audio formats, that said the common one is PCM which is uncompressed. FLAC and WMA Lossless are compressed but they use a lossless compression which produces significantly smaller file than a PCM WAV. At least 50%.
I think that's where this discussion should be heading: rip quality.
I always rip (convert) my CD's into 320bit MP3. Surprised Mark even mentioned 256.
@John When you convert CD's into whatever format you want the highest level of that format. An 'audiophile' would use a lossless format like FLAC or LOSSLESS WMA. These are the best quality files. However these files are 5 times larger then MP3's, so that's the tradeoff.
Only reason I mentioned 256 is that’s what some services stream with their “high quality” setting, and for non-sensitive listening I am often pressed to hear a tangible difference. I agree, if you’re going to rip from a CD you pick 320.
I’ve had good luck with ripping at 256 say 15 years ago when space was at a premium, but only VBR.
Everything matters in the audio chain - from what microphones the recording engineer uses to how the mastering engineer lays down, mixes, eq's (or NOT) the tracks as well as if it gets brick walled or not, all the way to the audio system, the room, and how critical one's ear is.
This is worth repeating. If you're going to listen to digital audio, the DAC, ears, and everything between (sans monster cables) is just as important as the data stored in the audio file.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekker99
Alexa playing Adele while folding laundry will never be audiophile quality.
Well, I don't listen to Adele... but the rest sure can be audiophile quality.
This is worth repeating. If you're going to listen to digital audio, the DAC, ears, and everything between (sans monster cables) is just as important as the data stored in the audio file.
Well, I don't listen to Adele... but the rest sure can be audiophile quality.
I always thought Monster cables were pure snake-oil salesmanship. They are heavy, bulky, not easy to route aesthetically pleasing and cost a ton. I've heard excellent sound out of ordinary thin gauge speaker wire. You can tin the ends with flux-core solder for corrosion-free connections with speakers and tuner/amps.
Last edited by JohnPBailey; 04-29-2020 at 10:43 AM..
What does "audiophile" mean anyway, quantitatively?
I know what it means in general, and there are certainly several things in the signal path (including recording) that matter. Several have been mentioned here.
Years ago I toured the BOSE labs in Framingham and saw one of their testing rooms. The entire room, outfitted like a typical American living-room, was built/bolted on a side wall, so that NOTHING could move. The engineer said they do that to get consistent measurements during testing.
He also said that most listening environments are SO far from ideal that even the best set-ups have a sharp drop-off in perceived experience once you deviate from the ideal.
it allows for leeway in what you purchase...use your own ears and test in home whenever possible. Blind loyalty to a certain brand is not warranted.
Those that have dedicated listening rooms and a central chair for listening can ignore this reply.
What does "audiophile" mean anyway, quantitatively?
I know what it means in general, and there are certainly several things in the signal path (including recording) that matter. Several have been mentioned here.
Years ago I toured the BOSE labs in Framingham and saw one of their testing rooms. The entire room, outfitted like a typical American living-room, was built/bolted on a side wall, so that NOTHING could move. The engineer said they do that to get consistent measurements during testing.
He also said that most listening environments are SO far from ideal that even the best set-ups have a sharp drop-off in perceived experience once you deviate from the ideal.
it allows for leeway in what you purchase...use your own ears and test in home whenever possible. Blind loyalty to a certain brand is not warranted.
Those that have dedicated listening rooms and a central chair for listening can ignore this reply.
The room plays a much smaller part with headphones.
I always thought Monster cables were pure snake-oil salesmanship. They are heavy, bulky, not easy to route aesthetically pleasing and cost a ton. I've heard excellent sound out of ordinary thin gauge speaker wire. You can tin the ends with flux-core solder for corrosion-free connections with speakers and tuner/amps.
Not snake oil per se just poor value. I’ve bought from these guys in the past when running long HDMI cables - where quality does make a difference.
"How do you define "audiophile quality"
Easy.
If it is within your budget, it is not.
If you cannot afford it, then, bingo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPBailey
Are digital audio files in MP3 capable of yielding such quality?
Absolutely not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
