# Trying to hear the difference between 320 mp3 vs flac (16/24-bit, 44.1/88.2)



## matthewacbroad

I'm not sure how to hear the difference between mp3 / flac. If I plug my headphones directly to my PC onboard "Realtek HD" and enable 24-bit 192,000khz well I be able hear the difference?

 playing FLAC 24-bit / 88.2khz Daft punk files. Than play 320k mp3 version of it, all I hear is a volume difference and little bit less highs


----------



## Vladco

You can't do it in you system. Easyest way is to ask some body with good gear - you my find mate in you area- or attend good shop, meeting, show or some thing like this.
  Vlad


----------



## julian67

You can do it on that system easily enough. Find some samples that cause problems with lossy encoders. There is a quite short but informative discussion of the kind of sounds that are a problem at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64724

You can also search for some of the famous killer samples such as trumpets, eig_essence and castanets, and very easily hear how lossy compression can go wrong even at high or maximum bitrates.

No special playback hardware is required, A Realtek HD integrated audio card and a budget headphone is fine and will be good enough even if the PC has a noisy headphone out. The differences can be very gross. Very revealing equipment may be useful in revealing less obvious differences.

The easiest way to make a fair comparison is to use an abx plug in or app. In windows try foobar with abx plug in. In Linux you can use http://abx-comparator.berlios.de/ Not sure about Mac but there is surely something useful.

Of course it helps to know what to listen for and how, and to be good at it (because it's not exactly a relaxing and enjoyable task) . You can get a free listener training package from Harman Kardon at http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com


----------



## spaark

Lossy audio isn't supposed to sound noticeably different at such high bitrates, even with the best gear dare I say. There might be some instances where you can hear a difference (see julian67's post), but generally, it's supposed to be transparent. People who say they can easily hear a difference are probably suffering from the placebo effect. Double blind tests are necessary. You said the lossy MP3 had attenuated highs, but are you sure you're not imagining it?


----------



## julian67

Welcome to the world of supposition, probability and uncertainty, decorated with a dash of unqualified and uninvited psychological evaluation.

Warning: If you spend years trying to convince yourself your mp3s sound identical to the CD, without ever really being sure, then this can happen to you too.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

To those pretending being able to distinguish "easily"  320 kps to lossless, show me an abx test log, and I'll take your declarations more seriously (even with "killer samples").


----------



## julian67

To assert that people are pretending is a grosser expression of bias than anybody mistakenly thinking they heard a difference that actually arose from level difference or expectation. Their bias might be real but it is an honest mistake and easily mitigated. Your bias is one that assumes malice and dishonesty in others. This is much more difficult to remedy.

http://www.filefactory.com/file/55ii4976hfzh/n/eig_essence_flac

There is a killer sample for you. If you convert that to mp3 and cannot abx it at 320 CBR or -V 0 your next step is seeing a doctor to get your hearing checked out.

That is offered as an easy example and for illustration. You can easily find other samples for yourself if interested.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> http://www.filefactory.com/file/55ii4976hfzh/n/eig_essence_flac
> 
> There is a killer sample for you. If you convert that to mp3 and cannot abx it at 320 CBR or -V 0 your next step is seeing a doctor to get your hearing checked out.


 
   
  I already tried  to ABX this sample with encoded version before at vbr v0, without success.
  I find it dubious when someone claim it can abx  "easily", 
  If someone else want to do the the test, you are welcome. Show me  the abx log, I'm not interested  by 5 cent philosophy.
   
  Oh and if you download from this link , don't forget to uncheck "Download with FileFactory's download manager", my antivirus blocks it as suspicious.


----------



## julian67

Here is the lame -V 0 mp3

http://www.filefactory.com/file/3x32qc5ii44x/n/eig_essence_mp3

and some file info


```
General
Complete name : eig_essence.mp3
Format : MPEG Audio
File size : 147 KiB
Duration : 4s 153ms
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 289 Kbps
Writing library : LAME3.99r

Audio
Format : MPEG Audio
Format version : Version 1
Format profile : Layer 3
Mode : Joint stereo
Duration : 4s 153ms
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 289 Kbps
Minimum bit rate : 32.0 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 146 KiB (100%)
Writing library : LAME3.99r
Encoding settings : -m j -V 0 -q 0 -lowpass 22.1 --vbr-new -b 32
```

abx log, foobar2000 running under wine.


```
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.2.3
2013/06/01 00:13:38

File A: I:\mp3\problem_samples\eig_essence.flac
File B: I:\mp3\problem_samples\eig_essence.mp3

00:13:38 : Test started.
00:16:19 : 01/01 50.0%
00:16:39 : 02/02 25.0%
00:17:04 : 03/03 12.5%
00:17:43 : 04/04 6.3%
00:18:57 : 05/05 3.1%
00:19:22 : 06/06 1.6%
00:19:36 : 07/07 0.8%
00:19:59 : 08/08 0.4%
00:20:16 : 09/09 0.2%
00:20:29 : 10/10 0.1%
00:20:59 : 11/11 0.0%
00:21:11 : 12/12 0.0%
00:21:19 : 13/13 0.0%
00:21:32 : 14/14 0.0%
00:22:31 : 15/15 0.0%
00:23:20 : 16/16 0.0%
00:23:24 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 16/16 (0.0%)
```

This is probably one of the most easily abx'ed samples you could ever find.

If you genuinely can't abx it then here is what to listen out for:

The impacts are smeared, that is they have a thicker, less well defined sound. This is most apparent on the final few hits. If you're not sure what to listen for then a really good method is to make a lower bitrate encode where the fault is just too big to ignore. With eig a 128 CBR will do the trick. Then go back to the -V 0 or a 320 CBR and you'll easily notice the artefact is still there.

If you genuinely can't hear the difference even after "learning" the artefact with a lower bitrate version of this I think it is time to check your playback hardware and maybe get your hearing checked. I'm not being facetious; it does suggest a problem.

edit: the Harman Kardon training pack I linked in an earlier post is very helpful. One of the techniques is to start with very obvious differences and step by step make them less obvious until you can't tell. It's a great way to make doing abx easier and more reliable but imo it is still about as enjoyable as cutting myself shaving.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> This is most apparent on the final few hits. If you're not sure what to listen for then a really good method is to make a lower bitrate encode where the fault is just too big to ignore. With eig a 128 CBR will do the trick. Then go back to the -V 0 or a 320 CBR and you'll easily notice the artefact is still there.
> 
> If you genuinely can't hear the difference even after "learning" the artefact with a lower bitrate version of this I think it is time to check your playback hardware and maybe get your hearing checked. I'm not being facetious; it does suggest a problem.


 
   
  Well, I managed to ABX  lossless / vbr v0  after memorizing/learning  the artifact from the 128 kps version.
  However it's not trivial , I need repeated listen before I make choices on ABX test, and I made few mistakes.
  Took me twice your time, for 15 attempts (18 min vs 9 min):
   

```
[color=#2f4f4f]foo_abx 1.3.4 report foobar2000 v1.2.4 2013/06/01 01:47:36 File A: C:\Users\Mehdi\Desktop\eig_essence.flac File B: C:\Users\Mehdi\Desktop\eig_essence vbr 0.mp3 01:47:36 : Test started. 01:48:13 : 01/01 50.0% 01:49:38 : 02/02 25.0% 01:50:29 : 03/03 12.5% 01:51:23 : 04/04 6.3% 01:52:37 : 05/05 3.1% 01:53:39 : 05/06 10.9% 01:54:53 : 06/07 6.3% 01:55:40 : 06/08 14.5% 01:56:27 : 07/09 9.0% 01:59:32 : 08/10 5.5% 02:00:30 : 08/11 11.3% 02:01:34 : 09/12 7.3% 02:02:37 : 10/13 4.6% 02:03:44 : 11/14 2.9% 02:05:32 : 11/15 5.9% 02:05:43 : Test finished. ---------- Total: 11/15 (5.9%)[/color]
```
   
   
   
  From what I've understood , the "drums"  (for lack of better name) are echo-ed, and I must focus my attention on the echo only.
  The "echo" sound less tight in vbr v0 version, but the "main non-echoed impact" is just too distracting for me.
  Off course with 128kps bitrate, it's much easier to abx.
   
  Anyways I don't have "bionic ears", and when I listen to music, I focus my attention on melody not isolated sounds.
 I realized also that artist often use lossy samples in their compositions, and unfortunately some compilations such like buddha bar are using more and more lossy tracks.
  Nevertheless, I'm a kind a lossless freak myself , but  if someone doesn't have everything in lossless, it shouldn't ruin his enjoyment.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

Just for the  fun, stumbled once on this comic "the adventures of andrew the audiophile"  (large  version):


----------



## julian67

extrabigmehdi said:


> Well, I managed to ABX  lossless / vbr v0  after memorizing/learning  the artifact from the 128 kps version.
> However it's not trivial , I need repeated listen before I make choices on ABX test, and I made few mistakes.
> Took me twice your time, for 15 attempts (18 min vs 9 min):
> ...
> ...




Hi extrabigmehdi

Thats an informative and interesting test and description. Sounds like you enjoy abx about as much as I do 

I didn't focus on the echoes, I focused on the actual impacts becoming smeared. Assuming we're choosing our descriptive words fairly well then I think this shows there are at least two problems with the lossy version.

If you do a little listening training you will hit 15/15 or 20/20 on a sample like that every time. I hadn't done an abx for several months, and find it really boring and quite annoying, and also I don't like that kind of music at all. If I paid attention I suspect I could do that test with little or no repeat listening and that 9 minutes would go down to next to nothing. I'd be surprised if you couldn't do the same.

I don't have bionic ears. I'm 45 and my hearing is, as far as I can tell, in the normal range. I had a quite involved hearing test for employment about 10 years ago (in a job where a hearing defect is not allowed) and they didn't congratulate me or open any champagne, they just said "Your hearing is normal." and I went through to the interview stage.

This eig sample is quite interesting. It is unusually easy to abx at very high bitrate, at least in mp3 and ogg vorbis (and I think opus but not sure) because lossy encoders tend to have terrible trouble with transients, resulting in smearing and pre-echo. You had some trouble at first and hadn't noticed a quite severe error that you now know to be present and audible. You and I noticed different errors. It would hardly be a surprise if there were some difference neither of us noticed.

This is a very simple piece and there are no sounds which might mask the errors. Most music is _far_ more complex but does also contain plenty of transients (though not usually so well defined). I think you can see how likely it is that we listen to lots of lossy audio that _does_ differ audibly from source but which we assume is "transparent" or "non-different" but _is_ hard enough to abx that for many people an abx produces a null. Now you know what that artefact sounds like you can hear it every time in good old normal listening btw, try for yourself.

eig is also easy because the compression _adds_ obvious noises. You can easily hear "the problems". Now consider that other compression artefacts don't add noise or distortion, but do more subtle stuff like _reduce_ stereo separation or _shorten_ the decay of notes or very slightly change relative apparent loudness of different tones differently ("bass is less weighty" is something people say) and so on. How do you rate your chances of picking up on that in normal listening while believing your mp3 is as good as the original? If you know the music in lossless form you will probably occasionally notice things or more likely respond to things without quite being able to pin it down. It's easy to put it down to bias, especially if abx gives you nothing but a headache and stronge urge to do something else.

Imagine if that piece was something you really knew, that you had listened to the CD tens or hundreds of times. Then you listened to the "transparent" -V 0 mp3. Chances are that you would then notice it sounded like crap. But what if the only version you ever knew was the mp3? You might never realise how crappy it was.

btw a modern codec like aac does a much better job than lame or vorbis with a sample like eig. Last year I also tried the Fraunhofer mp3 encoder with eig and that stank as well. If you need lossy compression and your hardware supports it then aac is far less likely to fail quite so badly. Just don't expect perfection.

Uncomfortable parting thought:

Think about how being accustomed to compression affects your ability in the long term to even be able to tell what is good quality and what is bad, what is music, what is unwanted distortion, and what is missing.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





matthewacbroad said:


> I'm not sure how to hear the difference between mp3 / flac. If I plug my headphones directly to my PC onboard "Realtek HD" and enable 24-bit 192,000khz well I be able hear the difference?
> 
> playing FLAC 24-bit / 88.2khz Daft punk files. Than play 320k mp3 version of it, all I hear is a volume difference and little bit less highs


 
   
  @ OP - Julian left you some really good comments.
   
  For you to test yourself - if you follow this link (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding), it'll walk you through setting up a very basic test.  The software is all free - all it will cost you is time.
   
  The most important thing to realise when people make claims about what is audible and what is not (with different formats) - is that everyone's hearing is unique.  So the best thing you can do is find your threshold - then you can confidently choose the best codec/container that works for YOU.
   
  Personally - with my older ears - I know mine is aac ~ 200 kbps (vbr).  But that's come from a lot of testing.
   
  So far I have found very few people who can successfully and consistently abx aac256 from lossless in a completely blind level matched comparison - using same original source.  There may be some who can - but if you can't - don't worry about it - it just means your hearing is more comparable with the vast majority of us.


----------



## julian67

brooko said:


> So far I have found very few people who can successfully and consistently abx aac256 from lossless in a completely blind level matched comparison - using same original source.  There may be some who can - but if you can't - don't worry about it - it just means your hearing is more comparable with the vast majority of us.




There are other possible explanations.

Do you know/remember that challenge young children make to their friends? "Pat your head and at the same time rub your stomach". A few seconds later there are kids with rotating, swiveling arms and hands comically failing to do two completely simple things at the same time, shortly followed by some intensive practice so as not to look silly again and, much more importantly, so as to be able to fearlessly issue the same challenge to others. The point is that making a three way comparison is not a simple task. It is simple and easy to describe but that is not the same thing as simple and easy to perform. It is something you will probably never do outside the artificial construct of this test. You have no experience of it, no expertise, probably not even any prior life experience that offers a complete set of directly transferable skills. It feels difficult and unnatural because it is unnatural and difficult. It is so difficult that it requires coaching/training and practice to acquire any measurable ability or reliablity. Probably normal listening is anything but simple if one examines the way the ears react, the brain/mind responds and manages the ears and so on. But it feels simple in that it requires some attention but is something we do easily and contentedly. But making a three way comparison does not feel simple, does require complete attention and involves mental and possibly physical exertion. Hearing and listening are not a simple mechanical processes depending only on the physical response of the ear. If you give the brain two tasks which are strikingly different it is unreasonable to insist that they are the same, or to insist that the reactions and perceptions that arise must be equivalent and directly comparable, or even that they might be. Training can mitigate this to some extent but can't make the different experiences the same.

You can certainly say that any positive abx result is proof of a perceptible difference. What you absolutely cannot do is claim that a null is a proof of transparency. This is particularly true of untrained listeners performing personal listening tests. If they have been led to believe that nulls have meaning then they are just as much victims of bs and bias as people who have been persuaded that pebbles and green marker pens change the sound.

If you have trained listeners of sufficient and verified ability and reliablity then you can start to have a real interest in the nulls, but still can't guarantee that your testing process fully encompasses the normal every day human listening process. Your big benefit comes in identifying differences more quickly through enhanced ability and better description. There are no guarantees that you found all the differences people will legitimately notice in other circumstances.

I would suggest that if you don't detect a difference in abx testing but you think you do detect differences in normal listening then this cannot be reliably taken as an indication of bias and may well be exactly what it seems - a difference.


----------



## Brooko

That's where you an I differ Julian - but that's OK.
   
  If I can't hear the difference (after many, many tests) then what I can't hear, I don't worry about.  it actually makes life easier for me.
   
  If anyone still thinks they can  *reliably and consistently* tell the difference  despite consistently failing blind abx - then they are welcome to still claim  a difference.  It is their ears.  I personally will remain sceptical until I see proof - but that is my right to do so.   All I encourage others to do is simply do the tests.  It costs nothing but time.
   
  What they make of their own data after running the tests is up to them.  All I can apply (and only apply to me) is knowledge o*f my own hearing threshold*.  And I know for me - that properly encoded aac ~ 200 kbps is to all intents and purposes transparent to me.
   
  That's all that matters.


----------



## buzzy

Life is short.  Don't waste it on stuff like this.


----------



## spaark

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> I would suggest that if you don't detect a difference in abx testing but you think you do detect differences in normal listening then this cannot be reliably taken as an indication of bias and may well be exactly what it seems - a difference.


 
  What I would do is carry out a normal listening test first, memorising the bits that you think are different, and then do a blind listening test with the expectation that you'll find those differences again. Listening fatigue aside, if you can't find those differences with the blind test, then surely they weren't there in the first place. That's sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## peterBj

I just wrote a comment on a different blog,but I think it also goes for this discussion:


> There is a big difference.
> But the main advantage is gained in the recording process,recording and mixing.
> The smooth and warm sound that our recordings are famous for,is to a great deal thanks to 24/96.
> We have experimented with different formats at our studio and found that 24/96 was the best sounding format for our purposes.
> ...


 
  And if you compare the same recording in different rates/formats be sure to all ways listen from down to up,i.e. 128mp3 first and flac and Wav last.
  Your brain will accommodate the missing bits if you do it the other way around.


----------



## spaark

Quote: 





peterbj said:


> And if you compare the same recording in different rates/formats be sure to all ways listen from down to up,i.e. 128mp3 first and flac and Wav last.


 
  You're saying you can hear a difference between FLAC and WAV?


----------



## julian67

spaark said:


> What I would do is carry out a normal listening test first, memorising the bits that you think are different, and then do a blind listening test with the expectation that you'll find those differences again. Listening fatigue aside, if you can't find those differences with the blind test, then surely they weren't there in the first place. That's sounds reasonable to me.




Yes if you need to try to reassure yourself that lossy audio sounds just like lossless you can spend lots of time doing stuff like that. You go ahead if you like. I would only go to such trouble if the result would be something _better_ than the source. That's not possible so for me it would be time wasted. These days my music collection is almost entirely lossless and all my portables support lossless.

The preceding page shows my 16/16 abx of lame -V 0 vs lossless. And there is extrabigmehdi, someone absolutely _adamant_ that there could be no difference and even saying he had tried the exact sample before and found no difference. A quick explanation of a simple listening technique and shortly afterwards he abx's it. In a few minutes someone "objectivist" but without listening skills goes from "no difference" to having learning a basic ear training technique and producing an abx log demonstrating audible difference.

So I don't even care that some of the differences I perceived surely arose from my mind because plenty of them equally surely did not (as unambiguously demonstrated). I did the easiest and most logical thing for anyone who wants the best audio quality: I now simply listen to my lossless collection instead and have ceased caring about data rates, transparency, artefacts and so on.

I use lossy codecs for audio books because they can be really good for speech at low bitrates (HE-AAC is brilliant for this) and some books run to 12, 15 or even 20 CDs and sometimes I want all that on a portable such as my Rockboxed Sansa Clip+.

This isn't the year 2000 and I'm not running a PC with 20 GB hard disk or using a portable with 512 MB or 256 MB storage. I don't need to get an album down to 70-100 MB. 300 MB or 500 MB is perfectly fine. And ironically I saved myself some disk space when I dumped the lossy audio because now I only store a single music library, not two.

Save precious disk space, switch to lossless


----------



## spaark

Uhhh I think you took my comment the wrong way... you said "this cannot be reliably taken as an indication of bias" and I'm saying it can if you do it the way I suggested. For some reason you think I'm advocating that people stick to lossy audio.
   
Also


julian67 said:


> Welcome to the world of supposition, probability and uncertainty, decorated with a dash of unqualified and uninvited psychological evaluation.
> 
> Warning: If you spend years trying to convince yourself your mp3s sound identical to the CD, without ever really being sure, then this can happen to you too.


 

  I hope this wasn't an attack on me.


----------



## julian67

Yes if you take a snippet of my earlier statement, and then append an "if..." composed of some other conditions and circumstances, apparently ignoring or discarding everything that preceded it, then you can have a satisfying discussion, but probably not with me. 

I don't need to do as you suggest because _it offers me no worthwhile benefit_. If performing those tasks helps _you_ feel confident about _your_ lossy files then that's fine.

On the preceding page you can see that both me and someone else, who previously hadn't thought it even possible, both abx'd lame -V 0 vs lossless. It was even easy.

The single advantage lossy compression has is reduced size. But I do not need to save disk space even on my portables. My Sansa Clip+ with 32GB card has _eighteen times_ the storage space of my first PC. It can hold more than 100 lossless albums. If I want 100 different albums I can swap the cards. That's probably about about 80 hours of music per card and another 15 hours on the internal storage. The battery lasts between 10 and 15 hours per charge. I don't need more albums on it.

I already have a lossless collection derived from CD and I have several terabytes of storage. _I don't need any size reduction_. I know with 100% certainty that occasionally lossy compression fails badly enough that anyone who knows the original sound will easily notice the failure. So why would I want to use it? What benefit would I get? Why would I want to maintain two different music collections (actually three if you include the optical discs)? Alternatively why would I want to spend time transcoding for portable devices when they can play the untouched originals?

And why do other people want me to use and like lossy even after I clearly state why I prefer not to in plainly expressed, rational terms supported by unambiguous data?

Is it a cult or is it an imperfect compression technique?


----------



## spaark

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> Yes if you take a snippet of my earlier statement, and then append an "if..." composed of some other conditions and circumstances, apparently ignoring or discarding everything that preceded it, then you can have a satisfying discussion, but probably not with me.


 
  So I can't comment on one of your points -- I have to argue with everything? What?
   


> I don't need to do as you suggest because _it offers me no worthwhile benefit_. If performing those tasks helps _you_ feel confident about _your_ lossy files then that's fine.
> 
> On the preceding page you can see that both me and someone else, who previously hadn't thought it even possible, both abx'd lame -V 0 vs lossless. It was even easy.
> 
> ...


 
  Huh? I'm not suggesting you do it.
   
  Again, I'm not advocating lossy audio, so what are you telling me all this? It has nothing to do with the point I was addressing.


----------



## peterBj

No
  I am saying that we find,that there is a benefit with higher resolutions when we are recording a musical instrument.
  Afterwards,when we are ready with the mix you can compress it to various formats and it will sound great.
We are selling Wav files only,from the 4 albums we have made so far.The reason for that is,that we want our costumers to get the exact same file as the one we have labored so hard at in the studio.Then when a client has that file,he can compress to whatever he wants,but he knows that he has a one to one copy of the original file.
Several of the big download sites are selling so called master files of older recordings with bit and sampling rates going all the way up to 24/192,and that,in some cases, for recordings that was done in 16/44!
I doubt there is any benefit  to be gained by doing so.
I myself have a sony walkman,and most of the files on that is 256mp3,and I'm perfectly happy with that for that listening situation.  
   
And for the rest of the discussion,I think you all should trust your ears,if you can hear a difference good for you!
If not,good for your wallet.
   
  I am now going in to my 35th year as a full time musician,(recording/producing is not my main income)and have met and played with a great deal of musicians all with a very different level of hearing.Some with perfect pitch ,most with out.Some,like the pianist Atsuko Kohashi,on our label,has an extreme sense of color hearing,as we call it,she will only play a tune in a color that fits the tune!
  I can,t hear what she means,to me any key will do,but if it makes hear happy to play i.e."How Deep is the Ocean" in G instead of Eb,and it really does,I am happy to go along.
  so in short we are all, thank god, very different.


----------



## coryeeeee

My ears can't tell much of a difference. Maybe I burnt them out with too much high-volume music.


----------



## julian67

peterbj said:


> .....I myself have a sony walkman,and most of the files on that is 256mp3,and I'm perfectly happy with that for that listening situation.......
> 
> And for the rest of the discussion,I think you all should trust your ears,if you can hear a difference good for you!......If not,good for your wallet.




Suitability for one situation or another wasn't the issue. The issue is "can a difference be heard between 320 kbps mp3 and a lossless source?"

It has been demonstrated that a difference _can_ be heard easily with some music. Whether that difference is relevant or important to different people in different situations is entirely another discussion.

Also completely irrelevant is price. An audible difference does not become more or less audible as the purchase price changes.



coryeeeee said:


> My ears can't tell much of a difference. Maybe I burnt them out with too much high-volume music.




Are you speaking generally or referring to a particular sample? Even if your ability to hear high frequencies is seriously degraded you should still be able to detect obvious smearing and pre-echo as found in the sample I posted. You may be able to hear far more and with more discrimination than you realise. I'll repost this link from the first page of this thread: http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/ It's a very good listener training package for Windows PCs (it will also work in Linux with Wine).


----------



## peterBj

you are qouteing me out of context.
  this Qoute would more agree with you I believe.
   


> The smooth and warm sound that our recordings are famous for,is to a great deal thanks to 24/96.
> We have experimented with different formats at our studio and found that 24/96 was the best sounding format for our purposes.


----------



## Logistics

Sigh, everyone hears differently so it doesn't matter what another person concludes with an ABX test. If you do or don't hear a difference then that is your conclusion. You cant base it on the conclusions of others, especially when they also have different hardware.


----------



## julian67

Context:

This thread is *Trying to hear the difference between 320 mp3 vs flac*

It is not "can we please have a series of self promotional messages from a small label?"

Not price, or sound quality of 24/192 vs 16/44 or 24/96 or how much your company loves its customers, or how hi-res is great for recording or mastering.


----------



## Mambosenior

Most of my collection is classical. Even for my old ears, there is a enormous difference between 320 and lossless. This difference manifests itself by a shrunken sound field and unnatural instrumental timbres--most noticeably in the string instruments and high brass. This difference in sound has never been difficult to discern over either speaker or headphone. For my less-sizeable but still plentiful Rock/Pop/Jazz collection that I know well, my conclusions are the same, especially with multi-layered or acoustic-instrument recordings.

I am in agreement that everyone hears differently and that arguments about compression rates are relative only to individuals who can hear the difference, BUT:
considering that prices of storage media are very reasonable and most computer drives are significantly larger than were even a few short years ago, why not rip to a lossless format like FLAC and preserve the integrity of the original recording? What this protects against is a future where your ears may be able to detect more subtle differences in recorded music and/or acquiring a more revealing audio system that magnifies that difference.

(I am from the teen generation where those of us with limited means had portable AM radios with alligator clips for antennae...what most mp3s now sound like to me.)


----------



## Hi Rez

In my experience it really is equipment dependent.  On my home and transportable systems, the difference is pretty apparent.  But I have compared 320 mp3 with lossless using my iPhone as the source and couldn't tell them apart to save my life.


----------



## moriez

Guys, for anyone interested in doing some testing for himself -which it's all about-, how about this simpleness:
   
  Take one flac file and convert it to 320
  Put them on the playlist
  Hit previous/next track a few times so you don't know which one is playing
  Now listen and tell
   
  If you have a hard time not looking at what's playing then minimize your player and use keyboard for controls. Do this as many times as you want with different tracks. Quite fun!
   
  Edit: might be even more interesting to add a third and fourth file conversion/format. Here you could select shuffle-mode.
   
   
  If this method is flawed tell me.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

Quote: 





moriez said:


> If this method is flawed tell me.


 
   
  Just use the ABX comparator from foobar, easier.


----------



## moriez

Foobar only though :\


----------



## sterling1

This thread demonstrates, without ABX, that some folks have too much time. Here's my advice, since leisure time is a luxury, do something with it more compelling than indulging in this sort of back and forth exchange of gobbledygook  pseudo science.  Go out for an ice cream cone and tell me what flavor you like and why. That would be a more entertaining discussion than this one. BTW, I can't discern any difference in material presented to me from 256k to SACD. I now therefore get most of my music from iTunes using points I've earned at Speedway on junk food.


----------



## peterBj

hi Julian
  take it easy.
  I'm merely trying to get a cross,to you guys where the benefits  i.m.o. are to be gained.
  So in short,
  on well recorded material(Paul Berner Band"Road To Memphis")
  using my P.C.
  my RME. U.F.X interface ,
  Sound Devices Head Phone Amp,
  AKG 702 HP's,
  I can not tell a difference.
   
  Happy now?


----------



## julian67

Thank you for your advertorial.

Your post is finally, at least in part, on topic. Congrats. I'm not sure why you feel the need to "get a cross,to you guys where the benefits .... are to be gained" except as part of your apparently relentless self-promotion.

I have to say that if I was trying to sell 24-bit 96 KHz studio masters at premium prices I would probably not be going public in saying I can't tell them from mp3. So thank you for your frank revelation. Will you be stating the same on your music store's "Studio Showcase Series" section?


----------



## peterBj

Well well.....
  the reason for me listening to Paul Berner's ''Road to Memphis'' in 320mp3 and Flac for my little test, is of course that I know the sound of the album very well.
  16.50 euro for a full album is hardly premium prices.
  And the reason we sell Waw files only is,so that you know that you get a true one to one copy of the studio master and then  people can convert  them into any form they are happy with.
  And I am not afraid to admit having difficulties hearing the difference between ,320,mp3 or Flac but I can, as I said before, hear the difference between a well recorded 24/96 file and some obscure upsampled remaster,that so many of the big sites are selling,that being Flac or Mp3.
And yeah I think that, it might be a good subject for the blog on our site.
I even remember back in the day of minidisc,having some audiophiles believing they heard the CD while they were listening to a minidisc,but in their defense the minidisc I was playing to them was a great sounding album,Peter Erskine's ''As it Is''(Ecm)if I remember correctly.
And that about ''getting across ''is that not good English?,should I have used another term?English is not my 1th language,Danish is,so sometimes I might use a wrong phrase,and I do not want to offend or advocate in any way that I am ''the one '' with the right answers.
I just want to convey my opinions,and in doing so I talk about the things I know and have experience with.I do try to keep an open mind.
 I am learning all the time and a great deal of what I learn is from this forum.


----------



## peterBj

> I am in agreement that everyone hears differently and that arguments about compression rates are relative only to individuals who can hear the difference, BUT:
> considering that prices of storage media are very reasonable and most computer drives are significantly larger than were even a few short years ago, why not rip to a lossless format like FLAC and preserve the integrity of the original recording? What this protects against is a future where your ears may be able to detect more subtle differences in recorded music and/or acquiring a more revealing audio system that magnifies that difference.


 
   hey mambosenior, that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## julian67

I agree as well. I can't help thinking that it's a mistake to become more accustomed to greatly compressed audio than to uncompressed. How to assess quality or reliably identify difference if one is never or rarely exposed to the uncompressed original?

There is a very good blog by Dr. Sean Olive which I expect lots of people here read. One interesting article was Part 2 - Differences in Performances of Trained Versus Untrained Listener

He speculates after conducting a loudspeaker comparison: 





> .....The college students - the poorest performing group - were also the youngest and least experienced test subjects. They tended to give all four loudspeakers very similar and very high ratings indicating they were easily satisfied. While this is pure speculation, the students may have had lower sound quality expectations developed through hours of listening to low quality MP3 files reproduced through band-limited earbuds.




That is just a snippet and really the whole article should be read because the context and other factors are important. It is speculation but it's speculation coming from someone with a great deal of experience and credibility in conducting research using double blind listening tests.


----------



## peterBj

One thing that we musicians find gets better with age is our ability to hear chord changes and keys,that has probably to do with experience,I guess,and maybe that is the same in the above mentioned article and with discerning between mp3 and Flac.
  Experience.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> How to assess quality or reliably identify difference if one is never or rarely exposed to the uncompressed original?


 
  I think it's less an issue with  modern encoders. I remind a long time encoding an album with xing encoder,  and I was not understanding why suddenly an album I loved, provided a subpar experience. There was also "mp3 pro" also, but software support was limited.   Now it's ok for me with lame vbr 0, if I  want to put more stuff on my mp3 player, but I  keep everything lossless at home.


----------



## Limniscate

The recording matters as well when trying to distinguish between mp3/flac and different bitrates/sampling rates.  E.g., I can't tell the difference between 128kbps bit rate and FLAC on Dream Theater's Images and Words, but I could easily tell the difference between NIN's The Slip in 320kbps mp3 and 24 bit 96khz FLAC.  You can download The Slip for free online in different qualities.  I usually can't tell the difference between 224kbps VBR and FLAC though.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

Quote: 





limniscate said:


> , but I could easily tell the difference between NIN's The Slip in 320kbps mp3 and 24 bit 96khz FLAC.


 






 again that "easily" overstatement.  Would be interesting to see if you could make a distinction between the flac 16 bit 44.1 khz & 24 bit 96 khz. (willing to do some abx ?).
  The high def version takes too much place.
   
  edit: ideally resample the 44.1 version to 96 khz to ensure  you are not abx-ing any aliasing from your source.


----------



## Limniscate

Quote: 





extrabigmehdi said:


> again that "easily" overstatement.  Would be interesting to see if you could make a distinction between the flac 16 bit 44.1 khz & 24 bit 96 khz. (willing to do some abx ?).
> The high def version takes too much place.
> 
> edit: ideally resample the 44.1 version to 96 khz to ensure  you are not abx-ing any aliasing from your source.


 
  I haven't tried that yet.


----------



## christian u

Quote: 





limniscate said:


> The recording matters as well when trying to distinguish between mp3/flac and different bitrates/sampling rates.  E.g., I can't tell the difference between 128kbps bit rate and FLAC on Dream Theater's Images and Words, but I could easily tell the difference between NIN's The Slip in 320kbps mp3 and 24 bit 96khz FLAC.  You can download The Slip for free online in different qualities.  I usually can't tell the difference between 224kbps VBR and FLAC though.


 
  that's what PeterBj from Sound Liaison is saying too,the source recording is SO important.
   
  And Julian67 go check out those Sound Liaison recordings,you can listen to them on their site.They are truly remarkable recordings maybe the best
  in my audiophile collection.
  here is the link.http://www.soundliaison.com/
   
   
  I


----------



## julian67

christian u said:


> ...Julian67 go check out those Sound Liaison recordings,you can listen to them on their site.They are truly .....




I've already visited the site and listened a couple of days ago. I'm not sure how listening to the label's 24/96 content is supposed to be useful in discerning a difference between lossless and mp3 (already demonstrated on page 1 btw), which is what this thread was about before it became a boring advertisment for sound liason.

How about you do something? Do what extrabigmehdi and I both did and perform a credible listening test and then comment on the basis of that. Whatever the result it would at least be something relevant to the subject at hand.


----------



## WildStyle-R11

I am an average guy and I can tell a difference between flac / mp3...Not always flac sounds better may I say...Depends on how qualitative it is made...I got lossy jumping mp3 file of Camille Jones - Someday and it is gooooooood Sounding! And yet I have flac files that I doubt the quality of...

 So yeah depends on the audio file itself and the equipment your using...


----------



## christian u

I did perform  listening tests,and on well recorded material I do find that there is a difference.
  Just now I have been comparing wav to 320mp3,using, just for the fun of it. a SOUND LIAISON wav file [he,he,].
  And it is the same as with the other tests I did,after awhile I hear that the stereo image gets less wide,and that the reverb (echo) sounds a little bit more harsh,and that there is less depth with the 320mp3.
  But Julian why do you so quickly in your responses lose your top?
  Lets talk nice or go join the Good Sound club forum,they lose their top in that forum in an instant.


----------



## Dillan

http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3/345


----------



## XVampireX

As silly as I am but hearing difference between lossy and lossless is like comparing oranges to apples, both are fruit, but they are different.
   
  lossy means you lose a lot of the dynamics of the sound, for example the clearest of differences is the muddiness. Almost no instrument separation, you can also tell more of a difference as you go down the kbps (Take youtube for example) there are some tracks that are not all that great and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference but if you take dynamic music (Not pop), I'm talking about Jazz, Blues, Rock, Metal (Prog works best) you will not only swear you can hear the difference but even if you do an ABX test, you will definitely pass it on all 100% - Unless you're deaf.
   
  Muddiness is like, well go listen to a real acoustic instrument, then come back and hear that same instrument in a lossy format  Try to attend some more concerts and concentrate on the sound, how natural it sounds.
   
  Regarding todays onboard sound cards well they really are not all that bad as some people swear that they must be banned, they work well, just not for uhm, audiophile purposes (The need for perfection)
   
  Anyways just my 2 cents.


----------



## lisagorbin

kinda off topic but:
 Will I lose quality if i join two flac tracks into one using audacity (time shift tool)? thanks


----------



## Gamingmusiclove

I would like to participate on this thread. I didnt made a blind taste, but i made something similar
Source: Nexus 5
Headphones: adh700
Now there is the thing. I made a a/b comparison between 190 and 320, and believe it or not, i heard a difference. It is not a big difference, but its there. I felt that the 320 was more "alive". There were some tracks where The difference was minimal, but there were others where The difference was pretty spotable. For example, i compares sun araw - horse steppin un youtube quality vs 320 and i felt that The difference, While minimal, was there, i felt that The sound was bigger, clearer, and The soundstage was a had better, but The difference was so small i didn't pay attention to it. Now, when i compared crystals by M.O.O.N, i could easily differenciate them. I haven't made the blind test but in my opinion, there IS a difference, but it isn't as important as some say. Though i will still hear music in 320, i understand why most people can't hear The difference. About FLAC, i havent heard it yet but i judgibg by The file size, i think there might be a difference


----------



## extrabigmehdi

gamingmusiclove said:


> I haven't made the blind test but in my opinion, there IS a difference, but it isn't as important as some say.


 
 Underestimating the power of placebo is a common mistake. Either you perform the blind test properly, or you might just be misled.


----------



## Gamingmusiclove

extrabigmehdi said:


> Underestimating the power of placebo is a common mistake. Either you perform the blind test properly, or you might just be misled.


 
 Funny thing, i made a blind test today and im even more comfortable with my response
  
  
 FLAC, 320 and 128 do have a difference, but man, its so small
  
 i did this test http://www.head-fi.org/t/646411/lossless-vs-128kbps-mp3-vs-320kbps-mp3-blind-test
  
 and i guessed group 1 perfectly, its the easiest group, and semi guessed 3, i spotted the 128 track but exchanged the lossless and 320 track. i didnt try group 2 because i sneak peeked, so it lost all sense. after all of this, i firmly believe that the difference sound files make is about 5%, it will never be the difference everyone wants you to believe


----------



## NCSUZoSo

I'm sure it has been said, but you need to be using something like foobar2000 with the WASAPI (use WASAPI Push, instead of Event) and there are a few other plugins that help too. 
  
 Take a look here: http://www.foobar2000.org/components
  
 The other thing is if you really want to hear the difference you are going to need either a hell of a speaker setup (my setup can do it with the upgraded/modded ZXR but you are talking $1000+ in audio equipment, I have $350 or so in just the ZXR after opamps and mylars) with a good sound card or a nice set of headphones with a good outboard DAC/AMP.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

Use the abx comparator, that's the proper way to perform a blind test. Background noise has more impact for me than a $1000+ equipment. You'd see people succeeding hard blind test with cheap audio equipment. It's not obvious at all.


----------



## EdibleStereos

You are saying the difference between 128. 320, and FLAC is small? 128kbps sounds like pure trash. Instantly noticeable in almost any complex song. Between flac and 320, The difference is small to none depending on the song and equipment used.


----------



## Music Alchemist

ediblestereos said:


> You are saying the difference between 128. 320, and FLAC is small? 128kbps sounds like pure trash. Instantly noticeable in almost any complex song. Between flac and 320, The difference is small to none depending on the song and equipment used.


 
  
 At lower bit rates, AAC doesn't suffer from as many compression artifacts as MP3.
  
 Anyone who wants to do a proper test can follow this guide.


----------



## Gamingmusiclove

ediblestereos said:


> You are saying the difference between 128. 320, and FLAC is small? 128kbps sounds like pure trash. Instantly noticeable in almost any complex song. Between flac and 320, The difference is small to none depending on the song and equipment used.



Maybe it was the songs i listened or the headphones i have, but i didn't care that mucho about the changes. Y es, flac was more open and clear than the others, and yes, 128 distorts songs, but people should not expect the kinz of difference you get with a new pair of headphones


----------



## EdibleStereos

gamingmusiclove said:


> Maybe it was the songs i listened or the headphones i have, but i didn't care that mucho about the changes. Y es, flac was more open and clear than the others, and yes, 128 distorts songs, but people should not expect the kinz of difference you get with a new pair of headphones


 

 I've actually found replacing old 128, 160, and 192KBps songs with 320 or FLAC to be the easiest upgrade in sound quality.

 Also, something I've noticed, is that some sound tests people actually end up preferring lower quality files, as it seems to remove some slight details that can be perceived as unwanted. Extra noise and harshness people may think is being introduced by a low quality mp3, is actually on the original recording, and the higher quality mp3 doesn't mask it.

 People seem to like the sound of that comes from loss of details and distortion, just look at tube amps or "warm" and "smooth" gear. So asking "what sounds better" isn't really the question that should asked.

 The real question that should be asked, is "what sounds truest to the original recording?"

 Also, I feel the ABX test on here is flawed, instead of FLAC being a 3rd unknown, the FLAC file should be the reference, and the 128 and 320 file should be blind tested to see which one is closer to the lossless reference file.


----------



## Gamingmusiclove

ediblestereos said:


> I've actually found replacing old 128, 160, and 192KBps songs with 320 or FLAC to be the easiest upgrade in sound quality.
> 
> 
> Also, something I've noticed, is that some sound tests people actually end up preferring lower quality files, as it seems to remove some slight details that can be perceived as unwanted. Extra noise and harshness people may think is being introduced by a low quality mp3, is actually on the original recording, and the higher quality mp3 doesn't mask it.
> ...



Would you rec me a good abx test?


----------



## extrabigmehdi

ediblestereos said:


> You are saying the difference between 128. 320, and FLAC is small? 128kbps sounds like pure trash. Instantly noticeable in almost any complex song. Between flac and 320, The difference is small to none depending on the song and equipment used.


 
 Depending of the music , and also the encoder used ....   Lame encoder, is almost  the "reference" today. 
 Yeah 128 kps is not that bad, although I prefer to stick to a minimum of 192 kps. And actually I only use VBR now (when I need it).
 I think people won't notice difference  with some soppy smooth jazz at 128 kps .....


----------



## goodvibes

spaark said:


> Lossy audio isn't supposed to sound noticeably different at such high bitrates, even with the best gear dare I say. There might be some instances where you can hear a difference (see julian67's post), but generally, it's supposed to be transparent. People who say they can easily hear a difference are probably suffering from the placebo effect. Double blind tests are necessary. You said the lossy MP3 had attenuated highs, but are you sure you're not imagining it?


 
 I haven't found this to be the case but best kit is so relative. I recently heard a low required current, low noise Luman linux music only setup with an SSD, linear or battery supply into a Berkeley Alpha usb adapter and some top DACs using a preferred bit perfect player program. I know the DACs and suspect the Alpha is quite good so I'm assuming the linux PC was so limiting that it would make your assumptions correct. Prefered downsampled redbook on a streaming home audio setup to HiDef on this. System was built by a physics prof with help from his audiophile prof friends that can write code if needed. 
  
 It's no surprise to me that opinions can be this varied when using PCs as source.


----------



## EdibleStereos

gamingmusiclove said:


> Would you rec me a good abx test?


 
 There is one on this forum. Though it is the 3-way blind one I spoke of which I feel is flawed.

 I would create one, though I am not sure how to go about hosting it, converting files so they appear the same size.

 I would have three test clips. Ideally music recorded well, with low drum kicks, as well as many high notes like cymbals/crashes/horns. The music should also be fast and fairly layered. This will help draw out an loss of sound quality from compression.

 Then the FLAC sample will be the reference, or control sample. With the 128kbps and 320kbps samples being tested blind.

 I feel this will yield truly accurate information on whether or not there is actually a difference between bit rates. As the idea that is being questioned is "is there a difference between bit rates"?, but the question that is being asked with current tests is "which do you think sounds better?"

 So the wrong question is being asked, as many people prefer coloured (distorted) sound, therefor, some people may prefer the sound of lower bitrates.


----------



## Music Alchemist

ediblestereos said:


> Also, I feel the ABX test on here is flawed, instead of FLAC being a 3rd unknown, the FLAC file should be the reference, and the 128 and 320 file should be blind tested to see which one is closer to the lossless reference file.


 
  
 ABX tests compare only two things at a time, so you need to conduct two sets of ABX tests: 128 vs FLAC and 320 vs FLAC.
  


gamingmusiclove said:


> Would you rec me a good abx test?


 
  
 Follow this guide.
  
 ...Or are you asking about which source material to use?
  


extrabigmehdi said:


> Depending of the music , and also the encoder used ....   Lame encoder, is almost  the "reference" today.
> Yeah 128 kps is not that bad, although I prefer to stick to a minimum of 192 kps. And actually I only use VBR now (when I need it).
> I think people won't notice difference  with some soppy smooth jazz at 128 kps .....


 
  
 AAC is the successor to MP3 and is a superior format. I would not use the word "reference" in reference (*chuckle*) to MP3. (...Then again, the context of this thread _is_ MP3. Just sayin'.)
  
 I had someone create a custom command-line encoder for me to use tVBR QuickTime AAC with dBpoweramp.
  
 FWIW, before I explained to someone that it's impossible to hear the difference between lossless 16-bit files converted from 24-bit, he told me this:
  


> I can play a 88Khz audio files on my home system and I have used the dBpoweramp to down convert with to 256-355kbps range, and both my wife and I can absolutely hear a difference.  The sound stage falls apart, the resonance in the voice is gone, the overall imaging diminishes and the instruments lose their positions and it all sounds mushed together.


----------



## EdibleStereos

I don't think you understand the testing I am talking about.

 The test is to use FLAC as a reference, a known control sample, and then two blind samples, one 128, one 320.

 The goal of the test would be to pick the blind sample that is the closest match to the known reference FLAC sample.

 While not technically strictly an ABX test, it would be a variation that would be better suited to discerning differences between 128 and 320.

 This would be a better test, as it asks the question of "which sounds closest to a known lossless reference?" rather than asking "which do you prefer?"


----------



## Music Alchemist

ediblestereos said:


> I don't think you understand the testing I am talking about.
> 
> The test is to use FLAC as a reference, a known control sample, and then two blind samples, one 128, one 320.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes, that is a different type of test, so it's not an ABX. However, an ABX should be used to see if one can distinguish between 320 (or 128) and FLAC in the first place. Then again, assuming that there is an audible difference between 128 and 320, it's only natural that 320 is closer.


----------



## EdibleStereos

The current tests for ABX on here though ask which people prefer. Some people may prefer lower bitrate recording if it "smooths" out the sound. Just like how many people prefer coloured sounding gear and phones.

 So when you pose it as an ABX and ask which do people think sounds better, you may have more people choosing 128kbps since they prefer the colouration that the lower bitrate adds.

 What people are actually trying to figure out though is if there is a difference between 128, 320, and the lossless. So the comparison needs to be the 128 and 320 directly against a lossless file.

 That is why a reference lossless file must be used as a comparison point, and the question needs to be, which of these compressed files sounds closest to the lossless file.

 That is the only proper way to tell if there is an actual difference, since you are asking people to draw a comparison to a known value. When you only ask what sounds better across 3 unknown files, you are asking people what they prefer.

 The flaw in the current testing is the assumption that people will prefer a file which is the closest to the source material. An assumption which is likely incorrect, as many people prefer non-neutral gear.

 My method would remove this assumption, and would better control the variables.


----------



## Gamingmusiclove

GUYS, important question and something i thought about today . Is the music in spotify 128kbs? listen to this song on youtube (192kbs AAC)
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1032cn2DmQc
  
 and listen to it on spotify. In youtube its louder and bass souns fuller, with voices sounding better. Does this mean spotify uses 128kbs?
  
  
 Altough, i found something interesting. At first the youtube one sounded better, but then it became ear piercing. the spotify one is very quiet but still doesn´t sound as "detailed"
  
 Thoughts?
  
 Update: HOLY MOLY. i downloaded this song on flac and i have to rethink some stuff. The record DOES make the difference. I heard the song in flac and the drums became both detailed and powerful. Suddenly, everything became open and airy. It was truly awesome. To anyone who wants to check if there is a difference, listen to this track on FLAC and on 128kbs. You will be surprised. I conclude, for now, that the bitrate or file DOES matter, but it depends on the track. My recommendation? listen to everything in FLAC first, compare it to 320kbs/256kbs and decide if there is really a difference


----------



## Music Alchemist

ediblestereos said:


> Also, something I've noticed, is that some sound tests people actually end up preferring lower quality files, as it seems to remove some slight details that can be perceived as unwanted. Extra noise and harshness people may think is being introduced by a low quality mp3, is actually on the original recording, and the higher quality mp3 doesn't mask it.
> 
> People seem to like the sound of that comes from loss of details and distortion, just look at tube amps or "warm" and "smooth" gear. So asking "what sounds better" isn't really the question that should asked.
> 
> ...


 


ediblestereos said:


> There is one on this forum. Though it is the 3-way blind one I spoke of which I feel is flawed.
> 
> I would create one, though I am not sure how to go about hosting it, converting files so they appear the same size.
> 
> ...


 


ediblestereos said:


> I don't think you understand the testing I am talking about.
> 
> The test is to use FLAC as a reference, a known control sample, and then two blind samples, one 128, one 320.
> 
> ...


 


ediblestereos said:


> The current tests for ABX on here though ask which people prefer. Some people may prefer lower bitrate recording if it "smooths" out the sound. Just like how many people prefer coloured sounding gear and phones.
> 
> So when you pose it as an ABX and ask which do people think sounds better, you may have more people choosing 128kbps since they prefer the colouration that the lower bitrate adds.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Have you ever done an ABX test? It would appear that you haven't.
  
 From Wikipedia:
  


> An ABX test is a method of comparing two choices of sensory stimuli to identify detectable differences between them. A subject is presented with two known samples (sample A, the first reference, and sample B, the second reference) followed by one unknown sample X that is randomly selected from either A or B. The subject is then required to identify X as either A or B. If X cannot be identified reliably with a low p-value in a predetermined number of trials, then the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and it cannot be proven that there is a perceptible difference between A and B.
> 
> ABX tests can easily be performed as double-blind trials, eliminating any possible unconscious influence from the researcher or the test supervisor. Because samples A and B are provided just prior to sample X, the difference does not have to be discerned from assumption based on long-term memory or past experience. Thus, the ABX test answers whether or not, under ideal circumstances, a perceptual difference can be found.


 
  
 The purpose of ABX tests is to determine if you can distinguish between two sound samples with statistical significance, that is all.
  
 There is no "third unknown" in the sense that you are implying, and which one you prefer has nothing to do with it. You already know that (for example) A is FLAC and B is MP3. The only unknown variable is X, which is either A or B played randomly. You can press the buttons and listen to known and unknown samples as much as you like.
  
 In addition, you should have already listened to the samples beforehand in order to familiarize yourself with any perceived differences. (Testing out those perceptions is the only reason you would be taking the ABX test in the first place.) If the lossy file sounds more smooth and pleasant, this distinction should have been identified prior to the experiment, reducing the chances of mistaking the smoother sound of the lossy file as the lossless file. Doesn't matter anyway, because, like I mentioned, A and B are the known variables. During the test, you know whether A or B is playing, since you select it yourself; you just don't know whether X is A or B each time X is played.
  
 If you would like to do your own ABX test, I suggest reading the instructions in the guide that I have repeatedly linked to.
  
 As for your variation, what you are proposing is similar to a duo-trio AXY test:
  


> AXY – one known, two unknown (one equals A, other equals B), test is which unknown is the known: X = A (and Y = B), or Y = A (and X = B).


 
  
 ...Except you're not testing which unknown is the known, but instead testing which unknown is closer to the known.
  
 The benchmark of any scientific experiment is to have one control and test one variable at a time, not two. You're not controlling the variables; you're just introducing new ones.
  
 If you insist upon comparing both 128 and 320 to FLAC, you need to conduct two sets of ABX tests like I suggested...if you want to do it right, that is.
  
 It's a moot point, in the end. If there is an audible difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps MP3 (which can be verified in its own ABX), it's obvious that the latter will sound closer to lossless. Your method is misguided and unnecessary.


----------



## Music Alchemist

gamingmusiclove said:


> HOLY MOLY. i downloaded this song on flac and i have to rethink some stuff. The record DOES make the difference. I heard the song in flac and the drums became both detailed and powerful. Suddenly, everything became open and airy. It was truly awesome. To anyone who wants to check if there is a difference, listen to this track on FLAC and on 128kbs. You will be surprised. I conclude, for now, that the bitrate or file DOES matter, but it depends on the track. My recommendation? listen to everything in FLAC first, compare it to 320kbs/256kbs and decide if there is really a difference


 
  
 The first thing you need to do when comparing bit rates is to ensure you aren't comparing two different masters of the recording, which is often the case when listening to or downloading from different online sources.
  
 So just convert the FLAC file to whatever lossy format you need, then compare.


----------



## EdibleStereos

Music Alchemist, I've already said my proposed testing isn't an actual ABX testing. You seem to be so obsessed with the term ABX to realize there is other, often more accurate testing methods. You seem to act as if the ABX is the end all be all of testing.

 If you took 15 seconds to actually think about what is being said to you, maybe you would understand it.

 Keep going though. Maybe you should read that massive wall of text you quoted.


----------



## Music Alchemist

ediblestereos said:


> Music Alchemist, I've already said my proposed testing isn't an actual ABX testing. You seem to be so obsessed with the term ABX to realize there is other, often more accurate testing methods. You seem to act as if the ABX is the end all be all of testing.
> 
> If you took 15 seconds to actually think about what is being said to you, maybe you would understand it.
> 
> Keep going though. Maybe you should read that massive wall of text you quoted.


 
  
 I urge you to review your past statements and read my response again.
  
 While you are correct about the need to compare each lossy file to the lossless file, you made incorrect claims about ABX, which is the reason I elaborated.


----------



## extrabigmehdi

music alchemist said:


> AAC is the successor to MP3 and is a superior format. I would not use the word "reference" in reference (*chuckle*) to MP3. (...Then again, the context of this thread _is_ MP3. Just sayin'.)


 
 AAC shows some superiority only for low bitrates.  At the bitrate people usually use (above 128 kps), mp3 is as good , and has the big advantage to be compatible with most hardware.
 I also just want to pointed out, that there are different mp3 encoders; and regarding mp3 compression at least, Lame is considered as a reference .
  
  
 If you want to perform a proper blind test, there's a faq at hydrogenaudio :
 http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295
  
 It's a bit a a pain in the b** to read it plainly, but some easy , not so obvious rules:
 - Hide the results while you are performing the tests.
 - Off course, you can begin by showing results, to see if it works, but don't consider it as the final "validated" test.
 - Decide in advance the number of trials.
  
 Off course I recommend the ABX comparator component for foobar to perform the test.


----------

