Mp3 versus FLAC - What equipment do you use to listen to music?

These audiophile viyl releases are amazingly free of surface noise. he reference for them isn't just me but many people whiich has to be why they're being issued.Sales of turntables are up in the hifi market. There has to be more to it than just warmth etc.I have often compared vinyl with the same track on CD and even downloads at 96/24. The frequency response doesn't change at all. All its down to air, staging and dynamics. One track that i've compared is Metallica 'Nothing Else Matters" vinyl versus 96/24 dowload (via Audirvana) and Genesis 'Its gonna get better' vinyl 12" 45rpm versus SACD. On the Metallica theres more detail on the download but less oomph and dynamics. The SACD doesn't compare as it lacks the impact of the vinyl. Surface noise is the enemy which is why ew vinyl issues are so quiet.

If I am correct people should hear no difference in a double blind test, i.e. have no preference.

Now there's a possibility for a blind listening test: add a bit of surface noise to a digital file, alter the frequency response to resemble that of vinyl and compare with the same music on vinyl. Then see which people prefer. If you're correct they should prefer the digital files, if Mrs Sherwin is correct they'll prefer the vinyl.

In all likelihood most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Like the old Pepsi challenge which claimed that "50% of people who say they prefer Coke, actually prefer Pepsi in a blind taste test". That suggests 100% of them can't tell the difference.

Utter and complete nonsense...
It is not an accepted fact - if it were a fact it could be measured, however ALL MEASUREMENTS will show that vinyl is INFERIOR to digital. (Just to point something out to you, you do realize that pretty much all tracks are retained as digital recordings nowadays and even when you have an old re-release there is the probability that an original analogue recording has been digitalized?).

YOU can claim that YOU prefer the distortion introduced in vinyl. Fine.
BUT do NOT claim that is is "an accepted fact" because it is not.
However this brings back something else - vinyl or records introduce distortion and potentially artifacts, first through the medium subject to physical wear and then the analogue equipment that wasn't designed to be accurate in the first place...
Well, if you like that "sound modulation" that much - why don't you add it in via digital signal processing? It would give you even better control.

mosfets in the right implementation sound valve like. edit the problem with valves is not many companies really make them anymore, pretty much all the decent ones are new old stock eventually they might dry up unless someone starts manufacturing them again. Some are still manufactured but not all.

It is an accepted fact that good vinyl sounds better than digital (or at least CD). there is so much now being released/re-issued on vinyl because its so good. These "audiophile " releases tend to be on 180gm virgin vinyl, spread over 4 sides and are aimed at the people who believe sound quality is important. Dust and scratches can get in the way on records but they don' t actually 'alter' the sound.

As for tube amps, they don't have the electronic edginess that takes away the realism of music that transistors/mosfets have. Thats basically why they are so popular among audiophiles.

Active/Aktiv definitely makes a difference to the sound of Linn speakers - whether it's 'flatter' or more neutral I have no idea (but I doubt it).

Minidisc is a digital format, and a compressed one at that (292kbit/s).

It probably wont make any difference wth Linn tbh. When I said active I was referring to studio monitors, as the amp and speaker are carefully matched for neutrality. Hi fi designers have a different set of priorities than studio equipment manufacturers, and they can get away with more frankly. Most hi fi gear tends to 'hype' the sound in one way or another, the only stuff that doesn't are products that come over from the studio market. I'm not sure if you've heard a set of active pmc's? They are 'flat'. Dynaudio and atc too, but they don't market their active speakers in the hi fi world.

With a sufficient sampling rate, does digital music really sound that bad compared to analogue? If you're talking about vinyl analogue, that medium of music storage is flawed as even the smallest specks of dust can alter the sound (i.e. distortion). Likewise for the reproduction of sound through tube amplifiers; the added distortion is why people say tube amps sound warmer and more "vinyl-like".

Yes your quite right in thinking that there are dedicated audio buffs out threre and if your serious about music forget about ipods and start listening to analogue try minidisc you will not change back to digital.

Of course if something is really flawed you cannot listen to it - I have some badly compressed tracks from Amazon - despite a high bitrate they contain artefacts and I cannot really stand listening to them.

However if there differences are more subtle, you won't notice them. Also, sometimes they can be good - the Beyerdynamic T50p can be quite piercing at a high volume, but then again they are loud enough at low volume settings, voilà you don't even notice the piercing heights any more.

"Two devices might sound different in an ABX test, however if you listed to both for any amount of time, both will sound fine."

Depends on your definition of 'fine'. I can get used to a poor/cheap system and accept its limitations (I have a budget system in my kitchen and a rubbish one in my car) but I've heard plenty of systems which just grate and annoy me; I inevitably find myself turning them down or off.

Whenever I put my living room hifi on I find myself turning the volume up and up because it sounds so great until someone else in the house complains. I find it unlikely that adding an equalizer to remove colouration or flatten the frequency response would do anything to improve my listening pleasure. It's entirely possible that a good one might do little or nothing to reduce my pleasure; but why would I want to spend money on that?

Listening is a very bad way of deciding what sounds best.
First of all, define best? One cannot as tastes vary and even one's own taste and perception are not continuous or unchangeable.
Secondly, you have no idea what your device is putting out - ultrasound, other intereference -strong distortion, or maybe it is perfectly neutral and audibly transparent? You cannot hear that. Never ever. Period.

The next issue is the testing methodology - the test needs to be at least blind at best double blind - how do you do that?
And finally: You are not going to perceive any difference after a few minutes anyway unless it is an actual audible flaw. Two devices might sound different in an ABX test, however if you listed to both for any amount of time, both will sound fine.
In fact, my Beyerdynamic T50p, DT 990 Pro and Sennheiser IE8 all sound very different when compared - however using them I do not notice a significant difference (clarity on the T50p is most noticeable).
Why? You get used to it.

Also, comparing what is why high probability bad against something that is bad too makes little sense. One should always compare with something good - and studio equipment is significantly more likely to have been tested rigorously and be provided with detailed data that characterizes its performance.
In fact, that latter part is where pretty much all "hi-fi" stuff is severely lacking - detailed measurements (not part specifications) of the device using scientifically accepted test methods.

What have you been taking again? "Purity"???

Either a piece of audio equipment is transparent - then it is good equipment or it is not. A good equalizer just like a good amplifier should be transparent - and then it does not matter whether you send your audio signal through one equalizer or twenty.
Of course if they have audible distortion, they have a negative impact - but good equipment won't have.

A good idea may be to listen to some studio monitors in a pro audio shop? They aren't that expensive anyway, in fact they tend to be cheaper than most hi-fi speaker/power amp combinations. I suppose it is subjective ultimately, customer satisfaction counts more than anything but it doesn't make hi-fi more accurate. I used to be a big hi-fi nut until I started djing, and bought some active monitors. They sound pretty dull on first listen but once you get used to it hi-fi generally just sounds 'wrong'. I never use my hi-fi equipment anymore as a result, and i'm probably going to sell it soon. I think all audiophiles should own a set of studio monitors for a while, just to compare. And there are many hi-fi brands that also make studio monitors, the pmc 'hi-fi' range for instance are just their passive studio series with wood veneer.

Most people who listen at home to music would use some sort of domestic HiFi or system, not studio equipment. They can only compare the difference between formats on their own systems and what pleases their own ears. Surely listening is the way to decide what sounds the best?

Totally agree, Graphic equalizers are a no no in any HiFi system. Like you say, the extra signal processing gets in the way of the purity. hence no self respecting HiFi amp comes with tone controls. They went out of the mix years ago.

I couldn't recommend one as I don't know which ones are any good, but the summit audio feq 50 is interesting because it has simultaneous valve out and solid state out so you could a warm valve sound or solid state..

That's a good question. Objectively one can most likely design one for a reasonable price in the same way that NwAvGuy designed a cheap but good amplifier.
However I highly doubt there is such a design - but I might be proven wrong.

A decent parametric one, they sit between the source and the amplifier like a pre-amp.

Fair point - but what would an audibly transparent equalizer cost me?

Then that is a problem of the equalizer's quality.

Good audio equipment is transparent - a good amplifier or a good equalizer. If you can hear the presence of an equalizer in a double blind (ABX) test then it is obviously not audibly transparent and therefore not a good equalizer.

Because I cannot write comfortable with cheap throwaway biros I don't conclude that all biros are bad - or all pens are bad. Do you? You just need to find the right one. While a pen is subjective, every stage of the audio circuit before the last one (speaker/headphones) should be evaluated objectively. (You can evaluate headphones or speakers objectively too, but that's where preference becomes dominant.)

I wouldn't touch behringer frankly. I had one of their mixers years ago, the crossfader died 3 times in as many months. And they sound bad anyway, these days I use an allen and heath.

Graphics equalisers used in studios are parametric ones behringer do some nice rack mounted ones with balanced left/right input/ouput, normal hi-fi ones introduce phase variations.