I've read about how the importance of the quality of the source varies with system and type of music, so I am going to try using different bitrates on different systems and with different types of music to see the effects.
The reason why I am doing it? I've only read about it, but never actually experienced it directly.
The results?
The CD sounded much more realistic than the 100kb/s copy. The copy was compressed and everything just came out as one sound. Cymbals were also quite harsh. Saxophones are way more realistic on the CD. It just sounds much better.
And the most important thing to me - the CD was not fatiguing while the copy was very fatiguing, indeed.
Andre, with 2800+ post, I'm rather surprised you're just discovering that higher bit rates results in better sonics, what have you been listening to all this time?
the process of reducing a file to a 128kbps MP3 or whichever lossy compressed scheme you wish to use is not simply one where certain entries int he file are removed. It's a sample rate system which introduces errors too. So it's not just a question of how much less there is in the reduced file, but what mistakes there are in there too.
For example, I was reading an article by a respected recording engineer, Tony Faulkner, recently in HIFICRITIC magazine. In there he was expounding about how he wanted to send some recordings to the artists to go over the finer points of the recording and ensure he had the right cuts. Instead of burning a disc, he decided to send compressed MP3 files in a very commonly used bitrate (although he didn't specify what).
The artists were horrified at the (lack of) quality of the files and complained about it. So Tony did some investigation and found he had pre-echo with the files, almost like hearing the leading edge of the notes before they actually happened. He got in touch with the Fraunhofer Institute (the inventors of MP3 and MP4) abotu this and they confirmed that when the MP3 encoder is sampling the original PCM file, the way it samples can introduce timing errors which we perceive as pre-echo. the sample is slightly (a few milliseconds) ahead of where the note should be. With the leading edge of a note, that sounds like pre-echo. Apparently it's worse at certain sample rates than others but one of the worst is 128kbps which is also the most highly used bitrate in the world!
Incidentally, AAC - the lossy compressed format favoured by Apple with the iPod - is actually MP4. This is a much improved version of MP3 which is why when you convert an MP3 to AAC, it sounds better even though the samples are similar.
Of course, if you decode the original PCM to AAC, you have less of the timing errors.
I ripped my CD collection FLAC, but I can still tell the difference listening to the same song ripped in FLAC vs CD. It's close, but not the same. I suppose a better quality DAC from my PC to system would help in this regard.
FLAC is a lossless format and should be no different to the uncompressed PCM. Of course, if the DAC section of the CD player differs substantially from the one you ripped the FLAC to, then the difference could be accounted for there. In essence you're saying that the connection to the DAC section and the DAC section itself is not as good as that in your CD player.
CM, I was already aware of how they affected the quality, but I had never listened to the same music at different bitrates to actually hear the differences directly.
I also chose 100kbps to make the results more extreme. Yes, that is true - the codec you're using has a large effect.
EAC is a very good and simple program. Once you do initial set up you just put cd in and press one button. It takes 3-5 minutes per cd. I have over 500 cd's ripped in wave format. Bit more space then flack (15-20%) but some say bit better quality and storage is cheap now -1 tera for about $200 canadian. With squeezebox - this is the best solution I could have done.