Honestly - can you hear the difference between lossy and lossless?

[Phil Bishop]

This topic has been on constant repeat for years in hi fi circles, rather like the vinyl vs digital debate, and I never tire of it

Various opinions above, some discussing playback through high end systems, some discussing tests.

The fact is when you are doing a test you are actually listening out for differences. I bet if by accident one chose a lossy file and played it back through a high end system without being aware of the mistake, most of us would be non the wiser (I'm talking iTunes, Spotify Premium, etc).

Reminds me of the time my parents played a whole LP (Pepe Jaramillo) on their state-of-the-art B&O stereo in the 1970s and did not realise they had the turntable set at 45 rather than 33 RPM until I pointed it out

I also can't be too smug. Amongst the many mistakes I have made is having a mono switch on without realising it - I knew something was amiss but could not put my finger on it for a while, even though stereo was disabled!

 

[wylton]

I have an Auralic Aries Mini with a linear psu. For what it is, I'm really happy with it, but no way does it compare to a turntable with a decent sounding LP. So whether or not one file type sounds better than another is somewhat academic IMHO.

 

[Funk]

I have an Auralic Aries Mini with a linear psu. For what it is, I'm really happy with it, but no way does it compare to a turntable with a decent sounding LP. So whether or not one file type sounds better than another is somewhat academic IMHO.

But.....that isn't what's in question. The question is; given a lossless and lossy audio format in a blind ABX comparison, are your ears able to discern the difference.

 

[Heckyman]

I keep trying. But as my system gets better my ears get worse...

 

[wylton]

....that isn't what's in question.

...as my system gets better my ears get worse...

A good answer tbh, but equally, it is a good question too and one that I ought to address, if only out of curiosity! Certainly, for me, the free version of Spotify at 160 kbps is no use to me whatsoever from a sound quality point of view, but I’m curious as to the validity of higher resolution downloads. I suspect that on a blind test, if the source material was of a reasonably high standard, I’d not score 100% between lossy and lossless.

 

[RoA]

Well, all I can say is that it's pointless having a hi-fi then ... Second thoughts, is there a point in having the forum? Unless we want to talk about lifestyle electronics and politics of course!

Probably not for much longer if everyone was thinking like you and I mean no offense but things DO move on ...

 

[Octavian]

I have an Auralic Aries Mini with a linear psu. For what it is, I'm really happy with it, but no way does it compare to a turntable with a decent sounding LP. So whether or not one file type sounds better than another is somewhat academic IMHO.

Not at all. It is all about fidelity to the original sound, not about subjective preferences. They have no relevance in true hifi reproduction.

 

[Heckyman]

The fact is, even Spotify sounds really damn good if your source equipment is good and you're not "listening with your eyes". I have it already for the family, so the question is what is worth paying for over and above that?

Qobuz, downloads or CDs are maybe better, but it's close. The acid test: I'll often play something on Spotify that I own on CD/download rather than get up out of my chair!

I get the joys of collecting, but personally I don't want more "stuff", my house is too small...

 

[wylton]

Probably not for much longer if everyone was thinking like you and I mean no offense but things DO move on ...

With respect, moving on and improving are two different things, so we'll not see eye to eye on this point. I do have a sizeable library of music on the HDD, but I will continue to fill the wall with vinyl and will doubtless go the way of the dodo.

It is all about fidelity to the original sound, not about subjective preferences. They have no relevance in true hifi reproduction.

I have no idea what that means tbh. We are kidding ourselves if we believe that our hi-fi bears any resemblance to the original, but we can put together a collection of equipment that is subjectively enjoyable; perhaps that means that I have no interest in what you call 'true hifi reproduction.' I'll just stick to sitting in my room listening to music if that's alright with you.

 

[foxwelljsly]

Nobody uses 128K for hi-fi, or even 192K.

Once you get to 256k (Apple codec) or especially 320K (spotify) the differences, in the fringe cases where these are audible, are massively outweighed by mastering and playback equipment quality.

Lossy doesn't automatically = poor sound, far from it!
Vinyl is very lossy indeed......and it sounds great.
Ditto open reel tape.

A superb master at 320K on Spotify still sounds superb.
The average shitty consumer grade compressed output from most record labels still sounds shitty even when presented at 192K/24 lossless.
I could make an argument that most of this rubbish actually sounds more agreeable via a lossy codec.

In short, just avoid the low bit-rate stuff and stop worrying.

This.

 

[Fretbuzz]

Out of interest, what was your % result on the test?

Fifty something (forget exactly). I got 5/5 on one track and 2/5 on another, and the rest in between. But none of them were that obviously different.

 

[Anh]

For 95% of modern pop & rock, it’s really pointless above 320 kbps and a £250 digital source.

In cringe at hifi reviews for 4/5 figure systems and they play modern chart music downloads on them to validate the sound quality.

 

[Guinnless]

I found Spotify on first impressions to sound OK but over a longer listening time just failed to capture my attention and keep me engaged.

CD quality is great and most 24bit versions are better although I have come across a few exceptions though where I've gone back to CD. Maybe crappy mastering?

 

[Big Tabs]

The collector gene runs really deep with me, buying and selling vinyl has been the one constant in my life since I was at school. It is just what I do. It is what I have always done. I have no idea how to not do it!

I have always liked ‘being in at the start’ of things and having that 1st press, limited edition, signed copy etc. The likes of Bandcamp and online issues limited to specific stores (Bleep, Rough Trade etc) have made this all the more fun and fascinating. I have spent a quite serious amount of money on new vinyl in the last year, which has been great fun and I’m prepared to bet will be a superb long-term investment (as is my whole record collection). Streaming is just renting, it’s dead money, as unemotional as paying a phone bill, vinyl (or CD/SACD) is way more than that. I have so much music that I love, is a huge part of my life, and has also shown a massive increase in value from what I bought it for. What’s not to like about that?!

Says it all for me as well. (a lot less typing as well)

 

[Curtis]

I don't need to participate in this kind of thing. There's all kinds of challenges inherent.

The only test that counts is in my system with tracks I know. I would also hesitate to categorise anything by Daft Punk as music let alone a decent recording.

I can easily hear differences. Having said that, 320kbps is indeed very good.

If you can't hear differences then don't bother with decent speakers, amps and source, as you won't be able to tell the difference between them.

I'm obviously being provocative, but there is some seriousness to my comment. There's no point in putting together a decent system if you're going to feed it a sub optimal input and you can't hear the difference.

And the award of bell end of the month goes to.......

 

[OldSkool]

I most certainly don’t - anyone of my age that says they do is bonkers.

Also I often wonder how much of what we think we hear is in fact our brains filling in information for us for better or worse - rather like they cover up our blind spots in a way we haven’t yet worked out completely.

Indeed - I find watching music on TV through the in built TV speakers on something like Jools Holland completely engrossing if it's music I like and I don't notice the lack of bass response/dynamics/imaging/sound stage etc. In fact I always think it sounds great even if when I shut my eyes I realise the SQ is nowhere near as good as my hifi. I think when you can see the musicians playing the brain fills in a lot of the missing audio information.

 

[Brian S]

I most certainly don’t - anyone of my age that says they do is bonkers.

Also I often wonder how much of what we think we hear is in fact our brains filling in information for us for better or worse - rather like they cover up our blind spots in a way we haven’t yet worked out completely.

A couple of days ago I moved an integrated amp into a rack that had been previously occupied by a power amp. On the lowest shelf of this rack lingered my old Acam CD player. It struck me that playing my, unused for years twenty year old, Alpha 7 CD player through this system, I could do a direct comparison between the dac in the Alpha 7 and my relatively new Chord Qutest. I would discover how awful the years out of date dac in a modest machine would sound. The truth: I wouldn't go so far as to say there was bugger all in it, but I couldn't go farther than saying, perhaps the Qutest was a little more full bodied....perhaps?

This is not to decry the Qutest, I have a Brooklyn and Hugo. All to my ears excellent. But it is to say, bloody well done Arcam. I rember thinking, years before how superior my upgrades had been.