ralphpnj;274192 Wrote: > Not that I mean to flame your post but I would have to say that you're > quite incorrect to say "That might actually the only objective > statement you can say about ll versus l." > > Satement: a lossy codec removes information, in fact it removes musical > information, in the process of creating the file. A lossless codec does > NOT remove any information, musical or otherwise. > > What's not objective about the above statement? The subjective part is > whether or not one can hear the difference between a lossy and a > lossless file and that's where and when the fur starts to fly.
Not interested in flaming in the first place I agree with anything you say. What I meant is that we have to see things i perspective here. 1) If on a tube listing on an mp3 player with rather ok headphones I believe I would not hear the difference between 128Kbps or 320kps or lossless. 2) It the sound technician had a bad day during mastering process there is already a loss. Even on a good day there is a loss. In fact it is easy to spot the difference between a live performance and any recording played on any equipment. (I hope we can at least agree on that). Therefor, I alledge that there is already so much psychoaccoustic tamperig going on what cannot be influenced I'd state that nowedays' compression has a very little influence on the whole chain. Having said that, why save the extra bytes? Go for the lossless, as moris minor was stating. -- th00ht SqueezeBox v3, SqueezeCenter (7.0-17707) Quad 303 + Two Quad Electrostats ------------------------------------------------------------------------ th00ht's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15656 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43910 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
