[NewToM]

Originally Posted by Tag

I wouldn't get too hung up on lossless; if you can't tell the difference then why would it matter? Most people can't, so I wouldn't let that be the deciding factor if you're fine with the quality of the mp3's currently in your library.

How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Doing that test tomorrow. Don’t want to wake the wife up. I’m guessing I’ll do horribly.

[wjones14]

If you just want to listen in the car, I would put your music on a USB thumb drive for simplicity. iDrive will recognize it immediately and list all the songs on the drive, organized by album or artist, and is searchable. It will even display the album artwork.

The iPod was discontinued in 2019, sadly, but I got a 128GB iPod Touch 7th generation a couple years ago before they went away. And it still has a headphone jack! The iOS is maxed at 15.8. I see them on eBay now for $105, new and sealed. I have my CD collection all ripped to iTunes, so I use the iPod for both listening in the house, at the gym, and in the car. You can also load podcasts on it and listen to those through iDrive.

That said, the flash drive is cheaper, smaller, easier to carry, and plays music in the car just as well.

[Viffermike]

Here's the thing about digital music: IMHO, one doesn't know what one is missing if one has never known that they were missing anything.

What do I mean by that? Well, if you've been raised on lossy digital music, run-of-the-recent-mill reproduction systems, wireless everything, streaming/storing for the masses, etc., then, by all means, stick with that if it tends to satisfy you. Or: If you don't feel that source quality makes that much of a difference in your enjoyment of audio content, then don't sweat it.

But most of us drive an M2 because of its overall performance and power, and our appreciation of BMW quality. For those of us who know that quality matters in audio programming, too, lossy digital music (and reproduction systems designed to deliver that type of source) is akin to driving (and being happy with) a Honda Civic.

Think about this: The typical bitrate of streamed digital music is 128 Kbps. Satellite services such as Sirius frequently go below 100 Kbps. Programming on CDs has a datastream nearly 10 times wider: well north of 1Mbps. What does that mean? Basically this: The recording at 128 Kbps is missing several times more data than thr CD track.

On an M2's H/K system — tuned to reproduce lossy digital music — I challenge everyone to perform this A/B test with the tone set flat, then with the bass and treble bumped up several notches:
- Choose a song that you have copies of at both 128 Kbps and at CD quality (i.e., 'lossless'), and load both onto a thumb drive.
- Play one, then the other, then the first one again.

Then, do the same on a DAP/DMP — those legacy iPods a poster mentioned will work fine — through any ol' headphones. Then, do the same through an analog aux input through your home system.

Even those of you who claim that you won't hear a difference will hear a difference. The higher quality track will, over time, be less fatiguing and more enjoyable, even if you don't or can't pinpoint exactly why — and the kicker? That doesn't just apply to music: Audiobooks, podcasts ... even comedy routines are easier to listen to via higher bitrates.

Source quality matters — even on average audio reproduction systems. You may not realize why, but it does matter.

[Bimmer Frank]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Here's the thing about digital music: IMHO, one doesn't know what one is missing if one has never known that they were missing anything.

What do I mean by that? Well, if you've been raised on lossy digital music, run-of-the-recent-mill reproduction systems, wireless everything, streaming/storing for the masses, etc., then, by all means, stick with that if it tends to satisfy you. Or: If you don't feel that source quality makes that much of a difference in your enjoyment of audio content, then don't sweat it.

But most of us drive an M2 because of its overall performance and power, and our appreciation of BMW quality. For those of us who know that quality matters in audio programming, too, lossy digital music (and reproduction systems designed to deliver that type of source) is akin to driving (and being happy with) a Honda Civic.

Think about this: The typical bitrate of streamed digital music is 128 Kbps. Satellite services such as Sirius frequently go below 100 Kbps. Programming on CDs has a datastream nearly 10 times wider: well north of 1Mbps. What does that mean? Basically this: The recording at 128 Kbps is missing several times more data than thr CD track.

On an M2's H/K system — tuned to reproduce lossy digital music — I challenge everyone to perform this A/B test with the tone set flat, then with the bass and treble bumped up several notches:
- Choose a song that you have copies of at both 128 Kbps and at CD quality (i.e., 'lossless'), and load both onto a thumb drive.
- Play one, then the other, then the first one again.

Then, do the same on a DAP/DMP — those legacy iPods a poster mentioned will work fine — through any ol' headphones. Then, do the same through an analog aux input through your home system.

Even those of you who claim that you won't hear a difference will hear a difference. The higher quality track will, over time, be less fatiguing and more enjoyable, even if you don't or can't pinpoint exactly why — and the kicker? That doesn't just apply to music: Audiobooks, podcasts ... even comedy routines are easier to listen to via higher bitrates.

Source quality matters — even on average audio reproduction systems. You may not realize why, but it does matter.

128kbs is a bit low, but AAC at 256k for example is indistinguishable for 99% of listeners as compared to CD quality, particularly as we get older.

ABX comparison site:

https://abx.digitalfeed.net/

[SpaceGhost]

Interesting points. Looks like Spotify premium bitrate is 320k. Honestly, that is probably good enough for me.