Time Alignment or WAV Compatibility?

[pn15 10+ year member]

I can't seem to find a H/U in my price range (

Click to read more...

 

[Imtjnotu 5,000+ posts]

A good ta is what u need...just download a music converter for ur wav files...id go with eclipse

 

[pn15 10+ year member]

Thanks for the reply. I loved my old Eclipse H/U, but I don't think there is one w/ TA that's in my price range. I already have most of my files in MP3, but the sq on WAV files is much better which is why I was interested in that feature.

 

[Imtjnotu 5,000+ posts]

Look here in the classifieds for one I saw a cd5000 for chea

 

[pn15 10+ year member]

I actually saw that but I'd like a unit w/ usb.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

If go for the WAV compatibility, and then save up to get an external processor with T/A down the road.

 

[Kangaroux 5,000+ posts]

Is there really that big of a difference between .wav and true 320kbps mp3? i dont own very high end speakers so i can't hear a difference myself, just curious

 

[whitedragon551 5,000+ posts]

Thanks for the reply. I loved my old Eclipse H/U, but I don't think there is one w/ TA that's in my price range. I already have most of my files in MP3, but the sq on WAV files is much better which is why I was interested in that feature.

Eclipse CD7000 can be had for your price range. I bought mine here for $140 in mint condition.

 

[whitedragon551 5,000+ posts]

Is there really that big of a difference between .wav and true 320kbps mp3? i dont own very high end speakers so i can't hear a difference myself, just curious

A properly encoded 320kbps is lossless to the human ear. In fact anything properly encoded 224kbps and up is lossless to the human ear.

 

[Kangaroux 5,000+ posts]

A properly encoded 320kbps is lossless to the human ear. In fact anything properly encoded 224kbps and up is lossless to the human ear.

That's what I thought..thanks

 

[pn15 10+ year member]

A properly encoded 320kbps is lossless to the human ear. In fact anything properly encoded 224kbps and up is lossless to the human ear.

I would pretty much agree with this statement except in the case of very discerning listeners in a very clean audio environment. The post linked below may be of interest to some of you. It is the results of an ABX test between 320mp3 and lossless:

Listening Test: 320kbps vs Lossless - Hydrogenaudio Forums

 

[whitedragon551 5,000+ posts]

I would pretty much agree with this statement except in the case of very discerning listeners in a very clean audio environment. The post linked below may be of interest to some of you. It is the results of an ABX test between 320mp3 and FLAC lossless:
Listening Test: 320kbps vs Lossless - Hydrogenaudio Forums

Has nothing to do with the car environment so its irrelevant. Even if it was same post:

I must admit that MP3 is far superior when comparing it to what it was couple of years ago - that's probably why I remembered there was a easy noticeable difference. It's not that noticeable at all.

He stated he had to listen to it a few times to even hear a difference. Then on top of that bring human anatomy into the mix there is no way that guy heard a difference. Its physically impossible based on the human ear.

 

[pn15 10+ year member]

Has nothing to do with the car environment so its irrelevant.

In your statement "A properly encoded 320kbps is lossless to the human ear." I didn't realize you were meant in a typical car environment.

Then on top of that bring human anatomy into the mix there is no way that guy heard a difference. Its physically impossible based on the human ear

As I stated, I pretty much agree with your statement that it is indistinguishable. However, the test results (if I'm interpreting them correctly) show that this discerning listener, in a controlled environment, actually was able to tell the difference (albeit only a slight one).

 

[whitedragon551 5,000+ posts]

In your statement "A properly encoded 320kbps is lossless to the human ear." I didn't realize you were meant in a typical car environment.
As I stated, I pretty much agree with your statement that it is indistinguishable. However, the test results (if I'm interpreting them correctly) show that this discerning listener, in a controlled environment, actually was able to tell the difference.

After reading through parts of the thread it seems as if its just a "test". There is no way to actually prove what anyone in that thread said. There is no concrete evidence. Its just taking one persons words and theories and applying them and everyone is coming up with ideas on how to test for differences and what they mean.

 

[pn15 10+ year member]

After reading through parts of the thread it seems as if its just a "test". There is no way to actually prove what anyone in that thread said. There is no concrete evidence. Its just taking one persons words and theories and applying them and everyone is coming up with ideas on how to test for differences and what they mean.

If I'm interpreting the test results correctly, the listener was able to distinguish between lossless and 320k mp3 16/20 times.

Yet, as you've mentioned, the tester noted that the difference was very slight and that he could really only tell the difference in one out of six of the samples he evaluated to conduct the test with.

Add in a car environment, less discerning listener, and lesser equipment and the differences are most likely fairly negligible. However, stating that it's physically impossible to tell the difference (outside of a typical car audio environment) does not seem to be totally accurate.