So far everyone's responses have been pretty good and appear to falling heavily in favor of ripping via a lossless codec for serious listening and archiving and only a lossy codec for portable devices and internet streaming. And I completely agree.
What hasn't been mentioned is that the thread linked to by the OP is making reference to an article by "The Audio Critic" and the Audio Critic happens to be full of sh*t. The guy has a serious ax to grind with the high end audio establishment. While there are plenty snake oil salesmen in high end audio (think "magic clocks"), not everything in high end audio is snake oil. Higher resolution material does sound better, provided that one is listening to it on a stereo system capable of reproducing the "clearer" sound. In other words, on a typical computer audio system ($20/pair powered speakers with a plastic subwoofer being fed by the onboard sound system) one couldn't tell the difference between a 128K mp3 file and an SACD let alone between a CD and an SACD. I also completely agree with what Robin Bowes wrote: "So, to recap the point, I believe that short-term comparison testing may not always show up any differences between sources." This is very true and for a better understanding think about the test drive at a new car dealer. Nice sunny day with clear and dry roads and the car drives great. Now take that same car and try test driving it in the rain or snow - you may come away with a completely different feeling about the car. One needs to listen to many types of music to fully understand how a stereo sounds. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43910 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
