Best Speakers for FLAC, Computer Speakers to appreciate FLAC Options

[Jp4ragon]

Hey everyone,

I have been wanting to appreciate the quality of FLAC files over mp3 while listening to them on my PC and have been looking into getting a new sound system. My wife surprised me for Christmas and got me a Logitech z-5500, but after doing some research, I am under the impression that this is not a good system for being able to appreciate FLAC (lack of clarity on z5500, made for gaming, etc). Is this true?

If so and if I return the logitech, my budget is between 300-600 dollars and i'm looking for a good recommendation on speakers I can hook up to my PC to listen to FLAC; 2.1 is preferred because the room I have isn't best for surround sound. Anyone have any good recommendations? I'd really appreciate any input here.

[Woodinville]

My observation is "um, not computer speakers". FLAC should be no worse than any other media from CD, ever, of course.

I will point to various MPEG tests that show while MP3 and AAC have very, very good results, they do not in fact manage, in the MPEG tests, to be indistinguishable from PCM.

But they are (*(*& good.

[db1989]

I will point to various MPEG tests that show while MP3 and AAC have very, very good results, they do not in fact manage, in the MPEG tests, to be indistinguishable from PCM.

Please do point to these tests, or at least clarify their conclusions and implications for lossy codecs. I’m not questioning your experience and knowledge, but this statement, out of context, seems too general and risks misleading people into thinking they will always be able to hear a difference in lossy audio (perhaps assuming they spend a load of money on snake oil first).

[krabapple]

I will point to various MPEG tests that show while MP3 and AAC have very, very good results, they do not in fact manage, in the MPEG tests, to be indistinguishable from PCM.

Please do point to these tests, or at least clarify their conclusions and implications for lossy codecs. I’m not questioning your experience and knowledge, but this statement, out of context, seems too general and risks misleading people into thinking they will always be able to hear a difference in lossy audio (perhaps assuming they spend a load of money on snake oil first).

Are yous suggesting that lossy audio at high enough bitrates *cannot ever* be distinguished from its PCM counterpart?

Even hear on HA we have seen credible reports of 320 kbps LAME mp3 encodes being ABX'd. It's rare and I'm not convinced anyone can routinely tell them apart (including self-professed 'audiophile' mp3-haters) -- but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It depends on who you are (e.g., a codec developer, trained to hear lossy artifacts?) and what you a have encoded, as well as the codec.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Jan 17 2013, 16:43

[db1989]

Are yous suggesting that lossy audio at high enough bitrates *cannot ever* be distinguished from its PCM counterpart?

Of course not. All I said was that the specific way in which Woodinville referred to the tests might be misleading. I assume they were highly thorough tests designed to catch out even the best codec. But other readers might read that, not think about its actual implications, and just take it to mean that MPEG-based codecs are never going to be transparent. I had to do a double-take, so I don’t think it’s impossible that somebody with (even) less technical knowledge and/or a latent bias against lossy codecs might misinterpret Woodinville’s intended meaning.