[rotorwrench]

Agreed. With the advent of mp3 and iPods our judgment of quality audio has has really suffered. Originally due to the desire for portability and capacity, we have become accustomed to poor quality audio playback and discernment has become rare.

Fortunately we are seeing demand for lossless playback increasing now as more music enthusiasts are becoming exposed to it through their friends and family. More music sites are offering FLAC now and artist sites are joining in the offering as well.

Once you've heard the good stuff and your ears have been trained, it's hard to go back

Posted via CB10

[Deckard79]

Those who claim that lossless (flac, etc.) makes any clear difference over a high bitrate lossy codec encoded well is exaggerating

The differences are at most barely audible, and at best inaudible.

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again - our ears are highly imprecise, and there are no 'golden ears' that some audiophiles claim to possess.

Those who take part in blind tests fail to reliably differentiate expensive hardware from reasonably built/designed mid-rate hardware. That includes audiophiles.

The pursuit of the 'ultimate' sound quality is self defeating for this reason.

Good, but not overpriced hardware will serve you fine. Same applies with lossy codecs - if using a reasonable bitrate, your music will usually sound perfectly fine barring the most complex pieces (jazz for example). Ignore audiophiles - science does not back up their claims.

Posted via CB10

[rotorwrench]

Those who claim that lossless (flac, etc.) makes any clear difference over a high bitrate lossy codec encoded well is exaggerating

The differences are at most barely audible, and at best inaudible.

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again - our ears are highly imprecise, and there are no 'golden ears' that some audiophiles claim to possess.

Those who take part in blind tests fail to reliably differentiate expensive hardware from reasonably built/designed mid-rate hardware. That includes audiophiles.

The pursuit of the 'ultimate' sound quality is self defeating for this reason.

Good, but not overpriced hardware will serve you fine. Same applies with lossy codecs - if using a reasonable bitrate, your music will usually sound perfectly fine barring the most complex pieces (jazz for example). Ignore audiophiles - science does not back up their claims.

Posted via CB10

You're welcome to your opinion but this argument has gone on for a while and will continue, with experts on both sides. Blind tests are what convinced me and blind tests are what I've used to convince others, no specs or graphs needed.
I do agree that many if not most people can't tell the difference between 256VBR or 320 and lossless, but many can. If you can't it doesn't mean that others can't. Science out the window, some people have more sensitive or trained ears than others. Period. I don't try and convince people with argument though. I just have them do a blind test with good phones and player and let them decide for themselves. Many I've done that with are surprised and convinced.

What I have noticed is that musicians, especially classical and jazz, notice the most difference. Thats what I'm referring to as trained ears. The longer I have played the violin the more my ears have become attentive and sensitive to nuance and what sounds "right". If you can't tell a difference between lossy and lossless audio, thats fine. Whats important is that you enjoy your music.

Believe me, I wish I couldn't tell the difference. My life would be so much simpler and cheaper. Your dismissive attitude toward those that disagree with you based on their own experiences (which are just as valid as yours) and an attitude that your opinion is a universal truth makes it evident that you have a closed mind. BTW, common sense and science does back up the "claim". Ask any audiologist.

I know you'll dismiss my post as you have others, so I'll just say that I and others disagree with you based on OUR experiences and leave it at that. Sorry to have taken part in side tracking your post OP.

[anon(2325196)]

My Z30 speakers are great! My ears are painted gold.

Posted via CB10

[anon(2313227)]

So there is some Bruce Lee speakers out there that is better.

The Z30 speakers r the CHUCK NORRIS Of speakers enough said



Posted via CB10

[CBCListener]

I'm an 'audiophile' and they [the speakers in the PlayBook, to my comment, I've assumed] impress me. The reason being that they exceed what you could logically expect from a device of that size.

Posted via CB10

Good point. Yes, considering the speakers in most BlackBerry devices are smaller than what go in standard headphones, they [my 9900, Z10, PlayBook, from experience, and the others through assumption and the comments made here) do sound incredible. Those rare earth magnets have to be a large part of that, compared to what was used in the high fidelity speakers of the past.

[sa385]

So there is some Bruce Lee speakers out there that is better.

Mr.Lee is no longer

Posted via CB10

[markmall]

Not quite Playbook quality but really impressive for the size. I do think they are a little too treble - ey. This might help the volume level max, but I wish we could adjust this. Can we?

[Drenis]

Those who claim that lossless (flac, etc.) makes any clear difference over a high bitrate lossy codec encoded well is exaggerating

The differences are at most barely audible, and at best inaudible.

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again - our ears are highly imprecise, and there are no 'golden ears' that some audiophiles claim to possess.

Those who take part in blind tests fail to reliably differentiate expensive hardware from reasonably built/designed mid-rate hardware. That includes audiophiles.

The pursuit of the 'ultimate' sound quality is self defeating for this reason.

Good, but not overpriced hardware will serve you fine. Same applies with lossy codecs - if using a reasonable bitrate, your music will usually sound perfectly fine barring the most complex pieces (jazz for example). Ignore audiophiles - science does not back up their claims.

Posted via CB10

Once you have speakers that will let you hear the differences between mp3 and flac as well as some better gear, then come make that claim. It starts at the speakers.

Flac > Mp3 anyday on my home system. Some music sounds crappy once you've heard how bad the recording actually was.

Posted via CB10

[Deckard79]

Once you have speakers that will let you hear the differences between mp3 and flac as well as some better gear, then come make that claim. It starts at the speakers.

Flac > Mp3 anyday on my home system. Some music sounds crappy once you've heard how bad the recording actually was.

Posted via CB10

Already do - a Linn amp, self-constructed speakers with some of the best woofers/tweeters out there, HD650 headphones.

Some tracks, the difference between flac and a 320kbit file is audible. Others, it isn't.

In all instances the difference is minuscule, and if that affects someone's enjoyment of a piece of music then I suspect they are spending more time concentrating for source imperfections then they are actually listening to the music.

This is becoming a bit of a straw-man argument as I never claimed that there wasn't a difference in the first place.

What I am stating, again, is that any difference between a high bitrate, well-encoded lossy file and a lossless file is incredibly small to the point that it really shouldn't matter.

I also don't subscribe to the idea that the quality of playback equipment has deteriorated over the years. Quite the contrary - 60 pounds spent on a Sansa mp3 player and headphones will give you a hell of a lot more fidelity than the same amount spent in the 90s.

I think a lot of this boils down to myth, marketing and snobbery (again, not saying you are all snobs - just this is a factor in common audio misconceptions).

Posted via CB10

[Deckard79]

You're welcome to your opinion but this argument has gone on for a while and will continue, with experts on both sides. Blind tests are what convinced me and blind tests are what I've used to convince others, no specs or graphs needed.
I do agree that many if not most people can't tell the difference between 256VBR or 320 and lossless, but many can. If you can't it doesn't mean that others can't. Science out the window, some people have more sensitive or trained ears than others. Period. I don't try and convince people with argument though. I just have them do a blind test with good phones and player and let them decide for themselves. Many I've done that with are surprised and convinced.

What I have noticed is that musicians, especially classical and jazz, notice the most difference. Thats what I'm referring to as trained ears. The longer I have played the violin the more my ears have become attentive and sensitive to nuance and what sounds "right". If you can't tell a difference between lossy and lossless audio, thats fine. Whats important is that you enjoy your music.

Believe me, I wish I couldn't tell the difference. My life would be so much simpler and cheaper. Your dismissive attitude toward those that disagree with you based on their own experiences (which are just as valid as yours) and an attitude that your opinion is a universal truth makes it evident that you have a closed mind. BTW, common sense and science does back up the "claim". Ask any audiologist.

I know you'll dismiss my post as you have others, so I'll just say that I and others disagree with you based on OUR experiences and leave it at that. Sorry to have taken part in side tracking your post OP.

Have to respond to this too. I'm sorry, I don't mean to start an argument and do respect you for your opinion, but I think that some of what you have stated simply misrepresents my first post.

Will respond later.

Posted via CB10

[vanrickman]

We have an HTC One in the household, and I compared the two. The HTC is louder, but it sounds more tinier than the Z. The Z sound is much more rich and enjoyable.

Sent from the phone of the gods.....Z30

[Deckard79]

We have an HTC One in the household, and I compared the two. The HTC is louder, but it sounds more tinier than the Z. The Z sound is much more rich and enjoyable.

Sent from the phone of the gods.....Z30

Agreed - the Z30 sounds surprisingly musical.

Posted via CB10

[Cross]

Who needs a stereo when you got a Z30 haha!

Posted via CB10

[SkaterGuy2k]

I do really enjoy the quality of the Z30 speakers but I don't think they are the best.

[robincoops]

I do really enjoy the quality of the Z30 speakers but I don't think they are the best.

So which smartphone in your opinion has the best speakers. As having tested it with my other phones and that of my mates they all agreed my z30 had the best sound quality

Posted via CB10

[MikeLip]

Based on all the good reviews of the Z30, and now this thread, I just placed an order for the Z30. I am hoping it works out better than the Z10 did. As for speakers, those of us who grew up with AM transistor radios in the 60s are pretty forgiving of tinny sound. I find the sound of the HTC One to be OK. Not great, but OK. While I don't expect sound like my component stereo system, I do appreciate reasonable sound in a small package. So I have high hopes for the Z30.

[Deckard79]

Based on all the good reviews of the Z30, and now this thread, I just placed an order for the Z30. I am hoping it works out better than the Z10 did. As for speakers, those of us who grew up with AM transistor radios in the 60s are pretty forgiving of tinny sound. I find the sound of the HTC One to be OK. Not great, but OK. While I don't expect sound like my component stereo system, I do appreciate reasonable sound in a small package. So I have high hopes for the Z30.

Good for you - you will certainly enjoy its sound quality, both from speakers and headphone-out.

I agree - affordable sound hardware (particularly portable) has come a very long way over the years.

Posted via CB10

[ronfc]

Those who claim that lossless (flac, etc.) makes any clear difference over a high bitrate lossy codec encoded well is exaggerating

The differences are at most barely audible, and at best inaudible.

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again - our ears are highly imprecise, and there are no 'golden ears' that some audiophiles claim to possess.

Those who take part in blind tests fail to reliably differentiate expensive hardware from reasonably built/designed mid-rate hardware. That includes audiophiles.

The pursuit of the 'ultimate' sound quality is self defeating for this reason.

Good, but not overpriced hardware will serve you fine. Same applies with lossy codecs - if using a reasonable bitrate, your music will usually sound perfectly fine barring the most complex pieces (jazz for example). Ignore audiophiles - science does not back up their claims.

Posted via CB10

Most of the time it isn't noticeable but it is on high-end equipment. The use of lossless not only means having the best sound there is to offer, but for archiving purposes also. It is always best to convert from lossless than having a lossy file in the future. I agree about the part about double blind testing though. I can barely notice a lossless and a 190~ kbps MP3 but I still keep the lossless copy.

Z10STL100-1/10.2.1.1925

[Deckard79]

Most of the time it isn't noticeable but it is on high-end equipment. The use of lossless not only means having the best sound there is to offer, but for archiving purposes also. It is always best to convert from lossless than having a lossy file in the future. I agree about the part about double blind testing though. I can barely notice a lossless and a 190~ kbps MP3 but I still keep the lossless copy.

Z10STL100-1/10.2.1.1925

Thanks but I am not arguing over the fact that lossless is better. I myself keep physical cds / lossless copies of most of my music.

What I am saying is that the idea that the very minor differences in audio quality between a high bitrate lossy file and a lossless file should somehow affect one's ability to enjoy a piece of music is really a bit silly, especially since there are so many other factors which affect sound quality far, far more.

So much of this audiophile commandment stuff is just so outrageous. It's all a ploy to get people to spend more, plain and simple.

Posted via CB10

[poonsaloon]

Proud owner of a Z30 and I have to say the speakers are right up there with the original Bold 9000 for sound quality and loudness. Much better than my previous Z10.

However, I'm really disappointed that the loudness seems to be regulated when using the speakerphone for calls. It's nowhere near as loud as when playing media for some reason. I'll have it maxed out and it's still not to the level I know it's capable of.

Anyone know why that is or if there's a work around?

[raxamillion]

Fully agree, I have now switched to attempting to get everything I can as lossless. The difference to me is huge.

Posted via CB10 on my sexy white Z30 rocking 10.2.1.1925

[byrdbrained]

It's amazing what is now considered to be 'good' sound. Yes, the PlayBook sounds pretty good (I haven't heard the Z30, stereo though it may be, and overall I'm pretty happy with the monaural sound from my Z10). But it ain't quite what I'd accept as good enough to impress an audiophile...who are few and far between, thanks to the effects from ipods and all the other MP3 players we all use.

Definitely not audiophile quality. I think the comparisons here are mostly relative to other similar devices and users' experience with sound on said devices.

[robincoops]

Definitely not audiophile quality. I think the comparisons here are mostly relative to other similar devices and users' experience with sound on said devices.

I think u totally misunderstood this post. I'm not comparing it to a bose or b&w...etc top of the range speakers for ' audiophile quality' but with all the current phones speakers out there ie iPhone 5 s, c..samsungs, Sony mobile speakers.

In my opinion and that of many of my friends, family and colleagues they all agree that my z30 display far superior audio quality than there. Even got a few of the die hard apple fans to agree and are considering BlackBerry for there next upgrade.


Posted via CB10

[emkay47]

Do what I do sell the old device on Craigslist and get a new one u'll end up paying 100 more for your phone rather than the full price

Posted via CB10

Cosign.

Posted via CB10