BeoSound 5 Forum

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

Puncher — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:20:38 GMT

A decent overall summary

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

Peter — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:58:41 GMT

I happily admit that I cannot distinguish between MP3 encoded at 320 kbps and CD. Tried a number of times and not any difference to my ears - lucky me!

The other format that is incredible is Sony ATRAC. I have got hold of a NW-HD1 which has a selection of music recorded at 64kbps and it is quite superb! I wouldn't record all my music at this level but for a portable player, it is excellent - far better than a BS2 at 128kbps.

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

soundproof — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:05:45 GMT

WAV is a useless format if you'd like to enjoy the benefits of Metadata, and is also needlessly fat, compared to lossless formats.

At the poster above who heard a clear difference between CD and other formats. It is incredibly important to even the volume output on both sources, while playing back. That's more critical than using the same DAC.

But if your treble/bass settings aren't identical, and if your volume isn't the same with both sources (that is, the sound pressure level produced by both sources is not the same) then you will be hearing differences due to different EQ and sound pressure level, and not differences in your sources.

SPL needs to be within 1dB, and ideally should be within 0.5dB or less. Any comparison that doesn't take this into account is useless. Generally, the louder source is preferred, and described as "more open, spacious, detailed, vibrant" etc., even when playing back from the same source, but just with different sound pressure levels.

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

mbee — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:15:55 GMT

I agree with you Alex, WMA Lossless and Apple Lossless are totally identical to the CD information. TWG : in order to use the same DAC, just compare WAV (which you seem to think is superior to WMA Lossless) with WMA Lossless on the same track on the same item : your Beosound 5. I can offer you a Beovision 9 if you find any difference in quality (that's for proving that there can't be any difference as it's the SAME audio information).

Ripping in WAV is a nonsense for 2 reasons for me :
1. It makes much bigger files for the exact same quality as WMA Lossless
2. It's a totally outdated audio format which does not support tagging or any kind of metadata.

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

burantek — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:10:14 GMT

as was mentioned in another thread -this would be a great FAQ to have on site...

maybe with a chart graded from best to worst against file size?

thanks guys!

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

Alex — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:50:46 GMT

You must make sure you do this from the same source/with the same DAC. Comparing Lossless on a BeoSound 5 with the original CD from a BeoSound 9000 will produce differing sounds as the circuitry/DACs in the two are different.

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

TWG — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:14:37 GMT

I don't like proprietary formats like WMA ;-)

But I'll give it a try and I will compare MP3 - WMA losless - WAV - CD with my own ears.

When I'm listening to a 320kb/s MP3 track and compare it directly to a CD I'm noticing the difference VERY clearly:

The CD track has much more depth, pressure and sounds more present. But I will be fair and test it out with the other format (WMA losless) to have a comparison for my own ears :-)

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

PhilLondon — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:03:38 GMT

The problem is that Lossy formats have been advertised has being audibly identical to the original, and they were not. Now that lossless formats say the same, people don't trust that promise.

People have associated the word "compression" with quality loss and do not realise it is possible to reduce the size of a file without losing any info, even though they do it every time they zip a file on their PC.

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

Alex — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:35:40 GMT

There is no difference. If there was a difference, then Word documents would lose certain bits of text when being zipped, which clearly doesn't happen.

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

PhilLondon — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:29:13 GMT

Alex, I don't think we'll ever get the message through! ;-)

Re: A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

koning — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:11:42 GMT

In what way is it pointless?? you don't going to tell me that you can not hear the difference!!!

Flac is/was the way to go.

A comment on Lossless vs. WAV vs. MP3 etc...

Alex — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:57:51 GMT

Hello All.

Just a quick comment after having read a lot of misconceptions and hence a lot of helpful replies, it's maybe best to set it clear.

WMA Lossless is identical to the original CD in every way. It works in the same way as Zipping a WAV file or Word Document - no information is lost, it's just stored in a much more efficient manner.

Ripping in WAV is a completely pointless task (IMO) which will just take up masses of space.

Alex