However, its ubiquity is also its downfall. Traditional HiFi, still seen in specialist HiFi shops found in high streets up and down the land, specialises in the acoustic reproduction of sonic experiences such as those found when listening to live music in a club or hall.

The emphasis is very much on the production of an appropriate environment hence the requirement for single speaker set ups in appropriately quiet listening rooms. Large amplifiers with plenty of power handling capacity linked to high quality loudspeakers placed in a suitable setting with a reflective rear surface and sufficient furnishings to provide appropriate sound absorbance. A set up like this will demonstrate the need for a high quality source with minimal compression.

MP3s are a superb way to pass the time when walking the dog or running in the gym but lossless systems are required when the primary purpose is to actually listen to the the music.

The launch of SACD was a disaster as the discs and players were priced at too high a level to achieve a critical mass of users. Similarly, DVD-Audio has never taken off which leaves the original redbook CD still going despite its prehistoric age in digital terms.

Apparently FLAC may well be the answer but the current players from NAIM and Linn are extremely expensive. Hopefully time will lead to a reduction in cost and they will gain true acceptance by audiophiles.

In the meantime, if you want to see how CDs should sound, book a listening session with your local hi-fi dealer, take an afternoon off work and some of your favourite CDs and see what you are missing. Good hi-fi has come along way!

On another note, playing flac/alac on an ipod may not be the best idea. The files are substantially larger, meaning more read-writes to the hard drive, which has a subsequent drain on battery life. Its also arguable whether one can get the full value and tonal range of flac through earbuds, Mr.Fry’s excellent reviews notwithstanding.

I tend to compromise and use the LAME encoder at its high setting (known as V0) which creates files of variable bit rates. These are typically twice the quality of files purchased from the iTunes store. Files sizes are substantially smaller than flac, but the quality is almost as high. For most people the difference between the two would be transparent, and you will get the benefit of longer battery life on your iPod or mp3 player.

MP3 is as all know compressed, but even CD quality is a reduced version being at 44.1Khz 16bit where high end audio would have been recorded at 96Khz 24bit WAV or BWF (Broadcast WAV Format).
Even if originall recorded at 44.1Khz 16bit it isn’t what was performed as the limitation of the sampling leaves sound information out.

Radio severely compresses the signal middling out highs and lows, loud and soft to fit within a spectrum.

As mentioned earlier in the comments a trend of late has been to compress CD recordings to a stupid amount with all the punch and quite and loud sections ‘middled’ out where if you look at the recording graphically you will see a rather ’squared off’ image rather than a good range of peaks and lows. The idea I believe behind this has been driven by the Radio Broadcast compression with recording engineers now trying to provide a counstant ‘loud’ on a CD to make it stand out when broadcast.

Microphones, Pre Amps etc etc, Amps, CD Players, Speakers, Headphones all add their own colour to a recording on recording and playback.

True Audiophile systems are designed to add as little colour as possible, but to most ears the playback would be dissapointing as those rumbling lows coming out through the speakers are colouration from components and on a system that is a pure as possible it can all sound a little thin to some ears.

Hearing also plays a part, everyones hearing is a little different and as age advances we aren’t going to hear those little nuances anyway.

Being an ‘Audiophile’ for many years I realised that I have a liking for certain components that colour sound in a certain way and that the ‘purists’ components do not suit my tastes.

Recording podcasts as I do, I record at BWF but it is all compressed down and when saved out I save the mp3 out at a higher sample rate than is the accepted norm which obvously has its impact on file size. But even so as I record at 48Khz 24bit on my smaller recorders (Olympus LS-10 and Edirol R09-HR) and at 96Khz 24bit BWF on my Larger Fostex field recorder even at CD qulity a lot of information would have been lost – but – would you really hear much difference – probably not. Do I even know what it wil sound like for a listener? No again. As when I mix down I am listening either through my preffered choice of stuido grade closed back headphones or through the nearfield monitors next to my mixing desk which colour the sound as little as possible.

Audio perfection is rather like a dog chasing its own tail or chasing rainbows for the pot of gold at the end. It doesn’t exist, there is only what appeals to your ears (to the extent that your ears can still hear as time goes on) and for many people the difference between an MP3, a 44.1Khz 16Bit CD or a 96Khz 24Bit BWF or indeed the ultimate 1bit file which supposedly is the future of digital recording would be hardly noticable or important.

(quote)
# writeon Says:

The APE Monkey codec is the best digital audio codec. I like FLAC have a lot of music in it. But I find APE gives better sound than its competitor. It seems to hold more of the sound curve than FLAC, its just produces just lovely sound.
(endquote)
For the record, this is impossible. Lossless is lossless, and any two lossless codecs used on the same original CD (or any other audio source) are 100% absolutely identical no matter what, because they’re both absolutely identical to the original, which is what “lossless” means. Any differences you hear between the two are purely imaginary.

Great review though, thanks a lot.