On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:42:59 -0700, josephkk
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:22:40 -0700, dave wrote:


this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.


Oh. So now by headphones you mean ear buds? I never said Apple owned
aac. I asked you what flavor aac you are talking about? When I got my
iPod Touch v3 I tried Apple aac and it sounded like doggie waste in a
leaky bag. Again, you say an MP3 at 320k sounds as good as an
uncompressed file and I say at 320k there is very little Mpeg
compression happening. The device has 32 GB SSD and it has never been
more than half full, even with all my .wav files (Apple won't play flac
or vorb files). If you are having storage issues there are plenty of
cloud solutions.

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the
marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly
performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000
tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.
Umm make that indistinguishable.

Suck it up.

?-)