# 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality



## JohnSantana

Hi All,
   
  using both as the source of the music in the laptop, can anyone actually differentiate between 320 KBps MP3 and normal audio CD ?
   
  I'm using Westone W4 (4x BA drivers) plug into my Fiio E11 played using Windows Media Player, and I wonder why some people actually prefer their music in FLAC or even WAV format ?
   
  please share your thoughts and comments here if you can notice the difference in between the audio source.


----------



## bigshot

People preder lossless mostly for "peace of mind", not actual sound. Some people worry that the compression might cause them to miss something they don't realize.


----------



## WindowsX

CD is better. You can't have 16/44.1 packed from 1411kbps to 320kbps without dynamic compression. 320kbps is OK for sake of space/battery/convenient. I listen to 256kbps M4A converted from flac on phone and still get good music though lossless sure will do better job but also consume more battery/storage. Some may disagree but that's his opinions.


----------



## JohnSantana

Cool, many thanks for the explanation man, I appreciate it very much.
  because nowadays, the choice for music is MP3 320 KBPs or FLAC in some of the sites out there


----------



## bigshot

320 LAME sounds basically the same as lossless.


----------



## RamblinE

Sometimes in a direct comparison between a 320mbps rip and regular redbook playback the redbook will sound a little fuller to me. 
   
  Otherwise the difference is scant, to hardly noticeable.


----------



## Dyaems

depends on how to song is recorded or mastered for me. if the recording or mastering is great, even the 320kbps mp3 sounds great.


----------



## El_Doug

That is just not true - you can maintain the full dynamic range with an mp3
   
  Quote: 





windowsx said:


> CD is better. You can't have 16/44.1 packed from 1411kbps to 320kbps without dynamic compression. 320kbps is OK for sake of space/battery/convenient. I listen to 256kbps M4A converted from flac on phone and still get good music though lossless sure will do better job but also consume more battery/storage. Some may disagree but that's his opinions.


----------



## tim3320070

I cannot tell a difference with my placebo-rich assortment of overpriced audiophile equipment.


----------



## gnarlsagan

el_doug said:


> That is just not true - you can maintain the full dynamic range with an mp3




Is this always true?


----------



## plantsman

There is a very wide range in the resolving power of different systems and I would argue that there also are significant differences in auditory acuity and processing.  I believe that the differences between 320kbit/s lossy MP3 and good 44.1/16 redbook reproduction (or lossless copies) are clearly audible in the right context.  Obviously, YMMV.  For those that want to argue theory, Hydrogen Audio beckons - run free with your own kind.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I think I can hear the difference from Mp3 to Lossless, but I may be crazy? Placebo is a super strong force to be reckoned with.
   
   
   
  So much of this is in our heads. Would be cool to see some scientific blindfolded group tests.


----------



## anetode

gnarlsagan said:


> Is this always true?




http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression/


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





anetode said:


> http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression/


 
   
  Awesome article. Thanks. 
   
  I didn't see anything in there directly addressing dynamic range though.


----------



## anetode

gnarlsagan said:


> Awesome article. Thanks.
> 
> I didn't see anything in there directly addressing dynamic range though.




Precisely :wink_face:

Although psychoacoustic-based compression may discard quieter information which is masked by immediately preceding louder information, that is not the same thing as dynamic range compression as it is known in audio engineering. WindowsX simply mixed up the terms.


----------



## bigshot

Bookmarked. That looks interesting.


----------



## arande2

Don't forget that distortion in the audio chain (non-flat response, imbalanced stereo image) can "unmask" differences that would otherwise be undetectable to us because they were correctly masked in the psychoacoustic model.
   
  As for 320 vs CD, I haven't tried to critically listen to see if I can hear the difference (mostly because I don't have equipment that could really resolve the differences right now). However, I have obviously noticed differences at sub-200 rates with complex music, enough so that I quit listening to them and got a higher-quality version (through the process of finding that the songs I ended up skipping the most were the ones below 200, a subconscious decision). Mentioned earlier, I mostly use lossless for peace-of-mind, at least when I am not out and about (since background noise masks st00f).
   
  Maybe next week I'll attempt to listen critically between my max-quality MP3 and 24/96 lossless track versions, once I get my system back and calibrated.
   
  Lastly, I find it silly to be worrying about small differences in files when much of the limitations and room for growth are in the use of stereo rather than a more flexible medium (which I think is becoming more and more relevant/cost-efficient to implement) that uses more channels/transducers to create a convincing wavefront.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





anetode said:


> Precisely
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Mind=blown
   
  Looks like case closed?


----------



## WindowsX

If you check average bitrate of lossless format, you'll mostly see 1411kbps being packed down to 500-800kbps depending on how bits are filled to reproduce dynamics. Some stated I mixed up terms...well I'm not sure about that. Even some links like http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10435038-47.html also stated that buying Amazon mp3 getting dynamically compressed, lossy compressed music. You have 16 bits for each sample to represents dynamic range. Some use 16 and some use even 0. Gap before reaching to 16 will leave room to make lossless compression.
   
  How will you convey 750kbps of lossless track down to 320kbps without lossy compression? Impossible unless you convert some lossless tracks that have constant bitrate below 320kbps but still hard to get chance to pass bit transparency check against converted lossy format. I tried converting 320kbps mp3 to flac and then mp3 again but they're not the same file still when compared with bit transparency check through foobar. You can't randomly cut parts that have data represents dynamic range stored so only solution found is to keep most noticeable parts of dynamic range. Get real ppl. If 320kbps is identical to CD, we don't need 24/192 and DSD format to keep digital mastering.
   
  Despite mp3 being inferior to lossless, it still has its use and I use it on my portable devices for non-audiophile purposes.


----------



## Brooko

windowsx said:


> If you check average bitrate of lossless format, you'll mostly see 1411kbps being packed down to 500-800kbps depending on how bits are filled to reproduce dynamics. Some stated I mixed up terms...well I'm not sure about that. Even some links like http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10435038-47.html also stated that buying Amazon mp3 getting dynamically compressed, lossy compressed music. You have 16 bits for each sample to represents dynamic range. Some use 16 and some use even 0. Gap before reaching to 16 will leave room to make lossless compression.
> 
> How will you convey 750kbps of lossless track down to 320kbps without lossy compression? Impossible unless you convert some lossless tracks that have constant bitrate below 320kbps but still hard to get chance to pass bit transparency check against converted lossy format. I tried converting 320kbps mp3 to flac and then mp3 again but they're not the same file still when compared with bit transparency check through foobar. You can't randomly cut parts that have data represents dynamic range stored so only solution found is to keep most noticeable parts of dynamic range. Get real ppl. If 320kbps is identical to CD, we don't need 24/192 and DSD format to keep digital mastering.
> 
> Despite mp3 being inferior to lossless, it still has its use and I use it on my portable devices for non-audiophile purposes.


 
   
  WindowsX - I read through your replies, and apart from your original post where you simply state "CD is better", I haven't seen you actually answer the OPs question - which was .....
   
   


> using both as the source of the music in the laptop, can anyone actually differentiate between 320 KBps MP3 and normal audio CD ?


 
   
  Have you actually conducted a true double blind test with the files volume matched - and if so can you discern the difference?
   
  I ask the question because I have - and unless there are audible artifacts from the transcode - I cannot reliably discern 320mp3 or aac256 from lossless.  So far - there does seem to be very few people that actually can ..... and most people who claim to either haven't, or won't, try a properly set-up abx test.
   
  Your answer addressed theory - but didn't actually answer the question.


----------



## WindowsX

I already said 'CD is better.'. Even from laptop, CD is still better whether you can perceive it yourself or not. Some people may perceive the difference and some may not. Personally, getting accustomed to very highend speakers system makes perception whole difference from when I could hardly perceive the difference between stock mini cable and some better made ones.
   
  We once made test comparing between ripped flac and original CD from common laptop using WMP as ripper and player (yeah non-audiophile app) plugged to musiland feeding $100K speakers system with about 10-20 audiophiles (Esoteric K-01/$10k DIY borbely preamp/Karan KA S 450/Rockport Aquila in well treated acoustic large room). The difference between flac and CD is clear like night and day to all 20 audiophiles, let alone mp3 comparing to CD. I hope this tests won't bring another placebo war though.
   
  To make long story short, I can clearly differentiate between mp3 and normal CD audio on laptop system using jrmc playing from built-in speakers directly (maybe mine is some pretty good altec speakers not cheap made ones). But that's for my opinion and my experiences. Not everyone will agree with result I found.


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> Some stated I mixed up terms...well I'm not sure about that.


 
   
  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's late and I'm not inclined to soften this up any, so: I don't think you understand how data compression works, whether lossless or lossy. Please check out the link from earlier, http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression/ for a quick and efficient overview. For a more expansive overview, there's an excellent text available here. As for Guttenberg, the devil's in the details he glosses over in generic audiophile polemic.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> I already said 'CD is better.'. Even from laptop, CD is still better whether you can perceive it yourself or not. Some people may perceive the difference and some may not. Personally, getting accustomed to very highend speakers system makes perception whole difference from when I could hardly perceive the difference between stock mini cable and some better made ones.
> 
> We once made test comparing between ripped flac and original CD from common laptop using WMP as ripper and player (yeah non-audiophile app) plugged to musiland feeding $100K speakers system with about 10-20 audiophiles (Esoteric K-01/$10k DIY borbely preamp/Karan KA S 450/Rockport Aquila in well treated acoustic large room). The difference between flac and CD is clear like night and day to all 20 audiophiles, let alone mp3 comparing to CD. I hope this tests won't bring another placebo war though.
> 
> To make long story short, I can clearly differentiate between mp3 and normal CD audio on laptop system using jrmc playing from built-in speakers directly (maybe mine is some pretty good altec speakers not cheap made ones). But that's for my opinion and my experiences. Not everyone will agree with result I found.


 
   
  And you still didn't answer my question 
   
  Did you perform a true double blind test where the volume was matched with an accurate spl meter?  I'm assuming not.  Lets just say that from my own experience, someone saying that they can discern CD (wav) from FLAC (also lossless) properly ripped and volume matched ..... and state that it's "night and day" ....... I'll be polite here, and say I'm massively sceptical.
   
  I also find your signature amusing under the circumstances


----------



## WindowsX

Sorry. I didn't catch your post while posting.
   
  For 1), I don't think you understand it well enough to distinguish between lossy and compression. Even from 1411kbps to 750kbps also comes with compression. Sorry that I made it too short as I'm more accustomed  to lossless vs uncompressed debate.
   
  For 2), I don't think you understand what guy in cnet talks about. Lossless is also compressed and also inferior to uncompressed LPCM. But MP3 is also lossy having some parts of dynamic range cut off like un-needed leftover while some are essentials to reproduce natural harmonics. You won't bother trying to believe in it though so I'll end here.
   
  For 3), seriously, I'm not talking about audiophiles. Many respected engineers from RME/Weiss/etc. also made tons of papers and tech info about bit-stream. Try spending more time reading/testing it.
   
  For 4), you're right about weasel word. I'm lazy as I know it'll turn out to be useless trying to change opposed opinions so I'll just say whatever I think OP can read and understand using his point of view.
   
  For those who think MP3 is as good as CD for whatever listening experiences, fine by all means. I just don't find it that way and I mostly listen to youtube nowadays from computer so I don't really care. I can throw tons of insane and sceptical ideas like calibrating water level like adjusting CNC machine to audio equipments can improve system performance like night and day too. And yeah, hiend is crazy and I stopped bothering about that then enjoy music with what I feel comfortable with.


----------



## anetode

(For those confused by WindowsX's numbering, I started off with 4 points and whittled down to a couple of sentences)

I provided a couple of links which explain why you are wrong. You're going to have to read them for yourself to understand why I think you are wrong. If you have any source of substance or personal research which explains your claim that "Lossless is ... also inferior to uncompressed LPCM" or how mp3 encoding involves dynamic range compression, then I'd appreciate it if you present this evidence.


----------



## chewy4

There was a blind test here at headfi for 320 vs lossless... about 2/3 of people got it right I think.
   
  But lossless is not inferior to uncompressed, that's silly. It's called lossless because once it's processed it comes out the exact same.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> There was a blind test here at headfi for 320 vs lossless... about 2/3 of people got it right I think.
> 
> But lossless is not inferior to uncompressed, that's silly. It's called lossless because once it's processed it comes out the exact same.


 
   
  Very few people actually submitted data from a true abx test though.  Of those who did, I think there were only two that actually reliably could tell the difference - and neither said it was 'night and day' ( a phrase I personally dislike - and one that seems to be thrown about readily among the misinformed IMO).  The test is easy to set-up as well > Foobar2000 + abx comparator plugin.  Two files - volume match using the automatic plugin tool,  Run the abx (minimum 15 iterations - 20 is better).  Produce the log.
   
  It's funny - but when people are asked to do this - they either ignore it, or claim they can pass the test (one listen), and then promptly ignore any requests for proof.  If you believe the 2/3 - then we have an awful lot of golden ears here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
   
  IMO - most people will fail a test if they do it honestly - they're actually supposed to.  The funny thing is that the ones that refuse to at least find out the truth are in effect living in denial.  A very few (usually with well trained ears) may be able to tell the difference - but the vast majority of us won't.  Knowing the truth is in a way liberating.
   
  Now I'm not advocating not using lossless, and converting all your files to lossy.  I use FLAC for everything at home - simply so that I have a copy of the original file (if I ever need to transcode, or if there are breakthroughs in compression standards).  But I know I personally can't tell the difference between AAC256 and lossless - so it makes decisions especially on formats for space limited portables really easy.
   
  What I am suggesting is that the constant stream of people who claim to "easily tell the difference" is sad.  It's time a large portion of us stopped lying to ourselves - and actually find out instead of guessing.  There is no shame in having 'normal' hearing


----------



## WindowsX

I didn't claim about lossless vs uncompressed. That's just one example I came up showing there's even more bizzare things like mp3 vs CD. Only thing I claimed was playing WMP's ripped lossless vs audio cd through highend system and I wasn't one conducting that. I witnessed in that event so I said what people concluded there.
   
  For evidences, I forgot most places posted years back. Just feeling nostalogic to make some posts in board I was once addicted during head-fi jorney. Try searching for lossless vs uncompressed and you should find people debating with some links and information. I knew too much to make it simple to understand. There're too many things related to digital domain making atomic clock sounds reasonable in some highend systems.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> I didn't claim about lossless vs uncompressed. That's just one example I came up showing there's even more bizzare things like mp3 vs CD. Only thing I claimed was playing WMP's ripped lossless vs audio cd through highend system and I wasn't one conducting that. I witnessed in that event so I said what people concluded there.


 
   
  Um - you did though .....
   
   


> We once made test comparing between ripped flac and original CD from common laptop using WMP as ripper and player <snip>. The difference between flac and CD is clear like night and day to all 20 audiophiles


 
   
  FLAC  = lossless.  CD = uncompressed wav.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





brooko said:


> Very few people actually submitted data from a true abx test though.  Of those who did, I think there were only two that actually reliably could tell the difference - and neither said it was 'night and day' ( a phrase I personally dislike - and one that seems to be thrown about readily among the misinformed IMO).  The test is easy to set-up as well > Foobar2000 + abx comparator plugin.  Two files - volume match using the automatic plugin tool,  Run the abx (minimum 15 iterations - 20 is better).  Produce the log.
> 
> It's funny - but when people are asked to do this - they either ignore it, or claim they can pass the test (one listen), and then promptly ignore any requests for proof.  If you believe the 2/3 - then we have an awful lot of golden ears here
> 
> ...


 
  I was unaware of that plugin, I'll have to check it out.
   
  While I got it right on the comparison of the two files provided by the test here(only one trial as I was unfamiliar with the plugin, so sue me), it was by no means easy. Had to listen back and forth 5 or 6 times. It does effect certain kinds of songs more though, I'm not sure what the bitrate was of the uncompressed file provided. I'm going to later tonight try with a file that gets compressed at 900+kbps vs a 320 mp3 and I'll share my results.
   
  But I think a much more accurate way to see if you can tell the difference would be an immediate switch though, rather than a test that relies on having good short term memory.


----------



## WindowsX

CD != uncompressed wav. Different storage, different media. Please don't mix up uncompressed file format with audio CD. They're from different storage and media. I said about event comparing lossless file vs CD uncompressed disc not lossless file vs uncompressed file.


----------



## chewy4

I mean sure they're different, as CD's are encoded in pits and landings and hard drives use magnetic polarities, but the output is identical.


----------



## anetode

windowsx said:


> For evidences, I forgot most places posted years back. Just feeling nostalogic to make some posts in board I was once addicted during head-fi jorney. Try searching for lossless vs uncompressed and you should find people debating with some links and information. I knew too much to make it simple to understand




Thanks, that reminds me of one of my favorite Einstein quotes: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

By the same token, allow me to explain why I think you are wrong:



windowsx said:


> If you check average bitrate of lossless format, you'll mostly see 1411kbps being packed down to 500-800kbps depending on how bits are filled to reproduce dynamics. ... You have 16 bits for each sample to represents dynamic range. Some use 16 and some use even 0. Gap before reaching to 16 will leave room to make lossless compression.




Lossless compression does not result in truncated bits: if 16 bits go in, 16 bits go out. Furthermore, few recordings ever even approach the ~98db dynamic range afforded by 16 bits.



windowsx said:


> I tried converting 320kbps mp3 to flac and then mp3 again but they're not the same file still when compared with bit transparency check through foobar. You can't randomly cut parts that have data represents dynamic range stored so only solution found is to keep most noticeable parts of dynamic range. Get real ppl. If 320kbps is identical to CD, we don't need 24/192 and DSD format to keep digital mastering.




That's not how mp3 encoding works either. The signal is broken down by frequency bands and analyzed, differences in dynamics are only discarded to account for psychoacoustic modelling of auditory masking. With a good psychoacoustic model at a high bitrate it's not a matter of "most noticeable" but "even barely detectable by ABX". The overall dynamic range does not suffer, which is why your original statement,



windowsx said:


> CD is better. You can't have 16/44.1 packed from 1411kbps to 320kbps without dynamic compression.




...was flat-out wrong regardless of whether Guttenberg prefers to conflate dynamic compression and lossy data compression in his rhetoric.


----------



## WindowsX

Output data might be identical assuming both have zero errors but I don't think time domain will be the same having different seek time, different layers, different latency, different jitter.


----------



## anetode

Say what? What seek times, what layers? How in the world does lossless encoding add jitter? You're just grasping at straws now.


----------



## chewy4

So does that mean that audio data stored in a SSD or loaded on a RAM disk is superior?
   





   
  In audio playback latency makes no difference. It doesn't matter if the data is stored in pits and landings, magnets, or alternating pictures of squirrels; the data is the same and the quality will still be the same.


----------



## WindowsX

Same data at different time domain doesn't produce the same result for real time application. dCS paper can make it simpler to understand. Go read it here.
   
http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/assets/dCS_Guide_to_Computer_Audio.pdf


----------



## chewy4

A computer is fully capable of reading data off of a hard drive in perfectly timed intervals...that's not really an issue with most modern technology.
   
  Might as well say CD's are faulty since simple mechanical hiccups can cause timing issues.


----------



## WindowsX

Not true. It's fallacy believing consumer's modern tech can do anything while dedicated companies like Emm Labs/dCS requiring to buy transport mechanism from Esoteric for their own hiend CD player/transport. Read dCS paper carefully and try to understand how digital plays with time domain. Why linking external masterclock can make changes to transport/dac. How time domain affect digital signal transmission. It's audiophile placebo? This is pure science from digital audio engineering.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> I was unaware of that plugin, I'll have to check it out.
> 
> While I got it right on the comparison of the two files provided by the test here(only one trial as I was unfamiliar with the plugin, so sue me), it was by no means easy. Had to listen back and forth 5 or 6 times. It does effect certain kinds of songs more though, I'm not sure what the bitrate was of the uncompressed file provided. I'm going to later tonight try with a file that gets compressed at 900+kbps vs a 320 mp3 and I'll share my results.
> 
> But I think a much more accurate way to see if you can tell the difference would be an immediate switch though, rather than a test that relies on having good short term memory.


 
   
  OK, so I just tested this. And I noticed that the ABX plugin _does_ do a near instant switch, which is awesome.
   
  I used "Happy to See You" by Yppah. 1mbps when in FLAC.
   
  Only problem in my test is that even though I set EAC to rip at 320kbps, it ripped at 192. I only ran about 7 trials. I know that is not enough to be scientifically accurate, but I figure after getting 0/5 it was enough proof that I couldn't tell a difference. I might try this more extensively later with more files, or perhaps try listening for longer and more carefully(really only listened to 10 second parts at a time) since I don't have a lot of time now.


----------



## bigshot

Jitter and time facts and figures are completely meaningless until you relate them to the thresholds of human perception. Once you do that, you realize that all the scientific hand waving is about something that is as much as a hundred times too small to be heard with human ears.


----------



## WindowsX

Another fallacy of 'good enough'. Trying to throw up something to avoid opposing inconvincible facts that MP3 != CD. There's another interesting topic from computer audio here.
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/631863/why-on-earth-do-people-still-listen-to-mp3
   
  This topic should also clear a lot of things for OP as well.


----------



## anetode

windowsx said:


> Not true. It's fallacy believing consumer's modern tech can do anything while dedicated companies like Emm Labs/dCS requiring to buy transport mechanism from Esoteric for their own hiend CD player/transport. Read dCS paper carefully and try to understand how digital plays with time domain. Why linking external masterclock can make changes to transport/dac. How time domain affect digital signal transmission.


 


  I tried reading the dCS paper carefully, but as I already know both how to use a computer and how a DAC works I'm not really feeling like the target audience. However some previous readings have enlightened me to two fascinating protips: 1. in every modern audio application and OS there's a series of buffers; 2. in every modern DAC there's a PLL. At the time that computer I/O and DACs were thought up we were fortunate enough to have engineers who were aware of the existence of a time domain so they came up with these two nifty little gadgets to maintain a steady stream of data and correct for inbound jitter, respectively.
   
  Now I have nothing against the engineering in dCS's 10-20,000$ DACs, nor their 10,000$ clocks, nor their suggestion to devote 4+ gigs of RAM for an audio buffer and not even their advice to spend 200$ on an iTunes plug-in. On the contrary, I am rather impressed by their business acumen. But I'm nonetheless aware from theory, tests, measurements and personal experience, that a modest buffer of a few seconds of data and a stock PLL/stock oscillator will result in the same exact ultimate result: jitter at a negligible level. And while the threshold of the audibility of jitter and novel clock locking or regeneration methods are themselves fascinating topics, I'm also aware of the plain and simple fact that neither lossless nor lossy compression make any difference whatsoever to jitter in modern computers. Now you might experience laggy system response, underrun or an OS memory error or some such, but the result will be an audio drop-out or an audible pop, not a persistent difference in dynamic range. (Unfortunately there's no special setting and no expensive audio equipment which will lead to a guaranteed crash-free Windows or Mac OS experience, nor is any mechanical disc transport free from eventual failure)
   



> Originally Posted by *WindowsX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> This is pure science from digital audio engineering.


 


   
  No, that is a user manual. This and this have to do with the science of digital audio engineering.


----------



## WindowsX

FYI: dCS is the first company who wrote digital audio upsampling algorithm for mastering use. I know a few more for reading but dCS is quick catch with google search and pretty much good enough for basic explanation. Engineers there know a lot better than a few learning books where specialized experiments and patented information are not shown. I experienced a few masterclocks myself from cheap ones to highest available ones like Esoteric's rubidium clock and I know what I'm talking about and how that affect changes in system.
   
  Maybe I shouldn't mix highend stuff in this topic. My bad.....I should stay silent now as mp3 vs cd is already over.


----------



## bigshot

Recording and playback are two completely different contexts. Playback is much more straightforward.
   
  I'm not sure what you were referring to in the link to the MP3 thread.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> FYI: dCS is the first company who wrote digital audio upsampling algorithm for mastering use. I know a few more for reading but dCS is quick catch with google search and pretty much good enough for basic explanation. Engineers there know a lot better than a few learning books where specialized experiments and patented information are not shown. I experienced a few masterclocks myself from cheap ones to highest available ones like Esoteric's rubidium clock and I know what I'm talking about and how that affect changes in system.
> 
> Maybe I shouldn't mix highend stuff in this topic. My bad.....I should stay silent now as mp3 vs cd is already over.


 
   
  It's very interesting. What are the perceptual differences between a rubidium clock and a cheaper one? How did all those audiophiles describe the differences?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> FYI: dCS is the first company who wrote digital audio upsampling algorithm for mastering use. I know a few more for reading but dCS is quick catch with google search and pretty much good enough for basic explanation. Engineers there know a lot better than a few learning books where specialized experiments and patented information are not shown. I experienced a few masterclocks myself from cheap ones to highest available ones like Esoteric's rubidium clock and I know what I'm talking about and how that affect changes in system.
> 
> Maybe I shouldn't mix highend stuff in this topic. My bad.....I should stay silent now as mp3 vs cd is already over.


 
   
  The peer research done to date indicates that jitter is normally just not a problem and no amount of hand-waving , ultra-high-end clocks or sighted anecdotes will really alter that. If you have access to better empirical data that suggests otherwise we would all be (certainly I would be) interested to read it. To date jitter below absurd levels is just not a problem. You should look up Benjamin and Gannon, 1998 who are Dolby labs researchers and Ashihara et al 2005 (NHK researchers) for the best empirical data to date. One lot did it with sinusoidal jitter the other with random jitter, in no cases did peak-to-peak jitter below 20ns cause any issues in musical listening. 10ns was just audible in single frequency 11Khz test tones.
   
  For theoretical information chaps like Julian Dunn and Malcolm Hawksford are better sources (no axe to grind) but they do not do empirical listening tests only provide mathematical models and often these models are based on very pessimistic assumptions such as listening to music 120db above the noise threshold. For all intents and purposes any $200 DAC competently engineered will give you sufficiently low jittter so as not to lose any sleep. For pathological cases the McIntosh music server is the poster child but that is a real outlier. 
   
  If you want to worry about jitter be my guest but it is a largely wasted effort and no number of sighted anecdotes, obsessional Stereophile reviewers ( the sort who who will allow 1% speed variation in turntables through without batting an eyelid and tut-tut about 500ps jitter)  and industry dog and pony shows will alter that...Now if dCS had some level matched blind tests properly proctored that contradicted what we know so far that would be very interesting but another manufacturer white paper with no empirical backup is insufficient evidence to be taken seriously round these parts.


----------



## xnor

WindowsX, have you tried the
   

   
  It also works with CDs and improves the sound to beyond what you can imagine. 20 audiophiles approve this message.


----------



## MrMateoHead

I'll chime in.
   
  I can tell the difference between Mp3 and lossless / CD Source when flipping back and forth, but in only ONE way. It sounds tarded' but CDs are definitely "louder". As in, you can detect the improvement in dynamic range. Other than that, the recording doesn't matter, everything else sounds the same to me. I would probably flunk a blind test on a CD I wasn't familiar with.
   
  Its a little easier to detect low bit-rate Mp3s (like 128) to a 320 / lossless. I did it a couple times today for fun. But it wasn't anything too distinct. There was some echo in the recording which was rendered more smoothly in the higher bit-rate recording. All around, high bit-rate sounded a little smoother, but it wasn't easy given the few instruments in the recording. The complexity of the recording doesn't seem to matter either, since I think a bad speaker will tend to render complex music badly no matter the bit-rate.
   
  The only way to really start screwing things up is with sampling rate. The higher it goes, the better I think things sound, the lower, the worse.


----------



## bigshot

I'm not sure, but I think encoders knock the volume level down to prevent clipping with hot mastered tracks. My AAC files are always a hair quieter, but if I boost the volume, they sound the same.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





mrmateohead said:


> I'll chime in.
> 
> I can tell the difference between Mp3 and lossless / CD Source when flipping back and forth, but in only ONE way. It sounds tarded' but CDs are definitely "louder". As in, you can detect the improvement in dynamic range. Other than that, the recording doesn't matter, everything else sounds the same to me. I would probably flunk a blind test on a CD I wasn't familiar with.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Do the test on any CD you are familiar with using Foobar 2000's abx comparator (ie completely blind) - make sure you use the volume matching setting.  Use a lossy encode of either 256aac or 320mp3, and compare it to the original lossless rip from the CD.  Use a CD you are completely familiar with.  Perform 15-20 abx iterations.  Post the log.
   
  I'd be 99.99% sure you won't be able to tell the difference if you set up correctly.
   
  In what you said above - you described the difference to be 'loudness'.  So you weren't using same source?  And it definitely wasn't volume matched.  This has nothing to do with dynamic range - and most humans will immediately spot differences in volume.  That's why for a valid comparison, the two comparative tracks have to be volume matched.
   
  Try it under correct conditions - if you're game 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - it really is enlightening.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Quote: 





brooko said:


> Do the test on any CD you are familiar with using Foobar 2000's abx comparator (ie completely blind) - make sure you use the volume matching setting.  Use a lossy encode of either 256aac or 320mp3, and compare it to the original lossless rip from the CD.  Use a CD you are completely familiar with.  Perform 15-20 abx iterations.  Post the log.
> 
> I'd be 99.99% sure you won't be able to tell the difference if you set up correctly.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Lol. Under those kinds of controlled conditions, I am sure I would DEFINATELY flunk.
   
  But this sort of goes to show that, under my "real world' flip back from CD to Mp3 and so on, there is some influence over the sound coming from somewhere. Is that the "compression" effect generating the slight volume difference?
   
  I just tried the test 15 times. I scored 8/15. How do I find the log?


----------



## ianmedium

I can. I rip my CD's to Wav and much prefer the sound, for my ears it is more organic and able to express the emotions of the artist. In comparison 320k or less feels flat and lifeless to my ears. More importantly It does not engage my interest. I get fed up quickly with compressed music, it seems to irritate me where as uncompressed leaves me feeling more relaxed.

I don't really care that the flat earthers will bang on that there is no difference, I simply don't think they know how to listen to music!


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





mrmateohead said:


> But this sort of goes to show that, under my "real world' flip back from CD to Mp3 and so on, there is some influence over the sound coming from somewhere. Is that the "compression" effect generating the slight volume difference?


 
   
  It won't have anything to do with compression - its more likely to be the volume set via the transcoding tool.  It'll be volume that's influencing you - nothing else.
   
   


mrmateohead said:


> I just tried the test 15 times. I scored 8/15. How do I find the log?


 
   
  8/15 = purely guessing (ie half the time you got it right).  When you hit the exit button to finish the test, you'll get the option of saving a text file.  That has the log.
   
  It's actually quite liberating to really find out your limitations isn't it?  Will also be amusing for you when the next "can you tell the difference" thread appears - to see all the people who've never conducted a proper test talking about night and day differences, or perceived flaws


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> I can. I rip my CD's to Wav and much prefer the sound, for my ears it is more organic and able to express the emotions of the artist. In comparison 320k or less feels flat and lifeless to my ears. More importantly It does not engage my interest. I get fed up quickly with compressed music, it seems to irritate me where as uncompressed leaves me feeling more relaxed.
> I don't really care that the flat earthers will bang on that there is no difference, I simply don't think they know how to listen to music!


 
   
  Or perhaps we're just open enough to actually run a blind test (which is pretty easy to set up) and truly find out for ourselves 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.  Placebo can be a hugely powerful influence.  A blind test mitigates that.  Then all that is left is the truth.  Whether you want to find out that truth or not is up to the individual.


----------



## bigshot

The difference between compressed and uncompressed isn't an overall thing like "flat and lifeless". It's artifacting at specific points in the file. If you are detecting a "veil" over the sound or some sort of overall lack of energy, you can pretty much bet it's all in your head and would instantly dissappear with a fair test.


----------



## ianmedium

See, this is what i mean, pointless even going on as you guys just refuse to go beyond what you perceive, I think this is where I exit and hope you enjoy the music in the way you do, I will continue to enjoy it the way I do, after all, music is an art, not a science


----------



## bigshot

Offer a clue, then comes the grand exit.


----------



## streetdragon

imo the difference between 320 and uncompressed/lossless is that the flac one sounds a little smoother and full bodied, while the 320 sounds little edgy
 but then again these differences are so extremely small i confuse some tracks, i cannot hear the differences, i only can feel them


----------



## bigshot

Smoothness and full bodiedness are not what the difference between compressed and uncompressed sounds like. Listen to extremely low bitrate compressed and then listen to a little higher and a little higher. The artifacting at the point where it crosses over into transparency is smaller and more infrequent, but it's exactly like low bitrate artifacting.

At some point the artifacting becomes so it's only in isolated spots. When there is suficient bitrate to render the sound, it's transparent. You only get artifacts in the complex areas that are harder to render. It isn't an overall thing.

Your description of only being able to "feel" the difference and not hear it is a classic description of sighted expectation bias.


----------



## ianmedium

No grand exit, it is just pointless to try to explain to black and white thought processes, no matter what you will regard it proof that your right, it is a bit like that idiot James randi offering a million dollars. The way he has it setup is that no one can disprove him, same with the sound science set here, I forgot briefly the futility of it all. I will just go on "fooling" myself but enjoy the music I guess.


----------



## bigshot

Welcome back! Would you like another handy audio tip?


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> No grand exit, it is just pointless to try to explain to black and white thought processes, no matter what you will regard it proof that your right, it is a bit like that idiot James randi offering a million dollars. The way he has it setup is that no one can disprove him, same with the sound science set here, I forgot briefly the futility of it all. I will just go on "fooling" myself but enjoy the music I guess.


 
   
  It would be really cool if what you say is true. Try out the Foobar abx comparator and post the log here. It should only take a few minutes really, and once everyone see's the log we will be convinced that you were right.


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Smoothness and full bodiedness are not what the difference between compressed and uncompressed sounds like. Listen to extremely low bitrate compressed and then listen to a little higher and a little higher. The artifacting at the point where it crosses over into transparency is smaller and more infrequent, but it's exactly like low bitrate artifacting.
> At some point the artifacting becomes so it's only in isolated spots. When there is suficient bitrate to render the sound, it's transparent. You only get artifacts in the complex areas that are harder to render. It isn't an overall thing.
> Your description of only being able to "feel" the difference and not hear it is a classic description of sighted expectation bias.


 
  but i was blind testing.


----------



## JohnSantana

Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> I can. I rip my CD's to Wav and much prefer the sound, for my ears it is more organic and able to express the emotions of the artist. In comparison 320k or less feels flat and lifeless to my ears. More importantly It does not engage my interest. I get fed up quickly with compressed music, it seems to irritate me where as uncompressed leaves me feeling more relaxed.
> I don't really care that the flat earthers will bang on that there is no difference, I simply don't think they know how to listen to music!


 
  What's your source device and your listening gear ?
  can you please share it here ?


----------



## ianmedium

johnsantana said:


> What's your source device and your listening gear ?
> can you please share it here ?




Check my signature, it list all that I use.


----------



## xnor

ianmedium, if you do not know how to or don't want to create a 320 mp3 feel free to upload a 30 sec or longer, whatever you like, lossless/WAV track to a free file hosting site. We will create a 320 kbps mp3 and then you can do a simple abx test, for example using foobar2000, so we can see if you can really hear what you say you can hear.
   
  It's not impossible to hear differences, on same tracks the artifacts are audible, but those are rare exceptions.


----------



## ianmedium

I have done extensive listening to 320/ALAC/AIFF/WAV. On poorly produced or already heavily compressed music I hear no difference but on good quality recordings there is even a difference between AIFF and Wav. The tests I have done have been over the past couple of years and that is why I have ended up ripping everything to wav as to my ears there is a difference and it is in feeling and emotion. There are as many details in 320 as in wav but it is not that I am on about and I think there lay the problem with this whole debate.

Emotion is not quantifiable, it is an individual experience and I am more than happy enough if someone does not hear what I do, I won't try to disprove them. However, what are they listening to? I think that is the more important question. Is their music largely modern pop which with a few exceptions is generally poorly recorded and heavily compressed, especially if downloading from iTunes which now actually has music mastered so as to hide the inadequacies of the format they use. This I know as I spend a fair amount of time in mastering studio's as well as recording studios.

Now. If everyone here owned say, a meeting by the river by Ry Cooder and VM Bhatt on waterlily acoustics which is an immaculate recording (I know, I was there when it was recorded), ripped that in the various formats and listened and did not hear a difference then I think the issue is the quality of your hearing as there is definite differences, subtle between ALAC/AIFF/WAV agreed but hand on heart night and day between 320 and wav. 

I have done blind listening between them and it is there. Of course having heard the masters of this particular recording and live so to speak wav is a poor substitute in comparison but until I get a hi rez player (unlikely until someone comes out with a fully functioning one as opposed to all the beta ones being pumped out by iBasso and Hifiman which people are paying to be beta testers for!) it is a suitable substitute I feel.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> I have done extensive listening to 320/ALAC/AIFF/WAV. On poorly produced or already heavily compressed music I hear no difference but on good quality recordings there is even a difference between AIFF and Wav.


 
  It is claims like this we'd like to see you prove doing an ABX test because anyone can say "I can hear a difference between A and B".
   
   
  Quote: 





> The tests I have done have been over the past couple of years and that is why I have ended up ripping everything to wav as to my ears there is a difference and it is in feeling and emotion.


 
  So if you can feel a difference you should be able to do an ABX test, right?
   
   
  Quote: 





> Emotion is not quantifiable, it is an individual experience and I am more than happy enough if someone does not hear what I do, I won't try to disprove them.


 
  We don't need to quantify emotion, we just want to see if you can distinguish two files. Also, no need to disprove anything, just prove your own claims. That's all we ask for.


----------



## skamp

ianmedium said:


> on good quality recordings there is even a difference between AIFF and Wav




You're imagining it, and it shows a gross ignorance of what those formats are. They share the exact same PCM data, bit for bit.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Here is the result of the Foobar ABX Test:
   
  foo_abx 1.3.4 report
 foobar2000 v1.1.15
 2012/10/24 23:24:51

 File A: C:\Danger Mouse & Daniele Luppi\Rome FLAC\10 Black.flac
 File B: C:\Danger Mouse & Daniele Luppi\Rome\10 Black.mp3

 23:24:51 : Test started.
 23:25:43 : 01/01  50.0%
 23:26:24 : 01/02  75.0%
 23:27:28 : 01/03  87.5%
 23:28:12 : 01/04  93.8%
 23:28:50 : 02/05  81.3%
 23:29:55 : 02/06  89.1%
 23:30:37 : 03/07  77.3%
 23:31:05 : 03/08  85.5%
 23:32:00 : 04/09  74.6%
 23:32:47 : 05/10  62.3%
 23:33:44 : 06/11  50.0%
 23:34:21 : 06/12  61.3%
 23:34:56 : 07/13  50.0%
 23:35:44 : 07/14  60.5%
 23:36:45 : 08/15  50.0%
 11:13:39 : Test finished.

  ----------
 Total: 8/15 (50.0%)
   
  My "guessing" probability peaked at 90% - and indeed it felt like guessing toward the end mostly. I am going to run this again sometime later with a different track. With this one, my best guessing occurred during a vocal session by Norah Jones, in which there was some obvious echo reaching the left channel that was not always present. Emboldened, I focused on a section of male hummers recessed in the background, behind a string section. Like some claim, I was convinced that the music was "fuller" or that I was hearing the slightest bit of artifact in the sound. I didn't even bother listening to the bassline, which seemed identical between recordings. Shouldn't lossless be "cleaner"? My ears weren't sure.
   
  I think it is correct that before the only thing I was really hearing, was a difference in "volume". But I stand by my assertion that, in "real world" listening, I am unlikely to normalize volume between source material and/or my devices. In my car, for example, CD, USB, and AUX sources all create a problem in terms of setting amp gain properly and EQ tuning. AUX sources are typically 3.5mm connections to phones or iPods, and sound crappier for reasons you probably know. They also need more gain, since their output is weaker. USB distorts sooner in my car (and now I know why, probably because I should apply replay gain to the tracks), but sounds good, and CDs tend to sound the best, and play the "loudest" before the scary scratching noise start in my car. That scratching noise, by the way, could be the 10 year-old interconnects I rely on, or something else. Maybe crossovers, maybe the pre-outs on my deck distorting, I am not sure.
   
  Anyway. New tracks next time!


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





skamp said:


> You're imagining it, and it shows a gross ignorance of what those formats are. They share the exact same PCM data, bit for bit.


 
  Word.
   
  Even in lossless compressed formats any difference is going to be imagined, given that the compression was completed without errors. To state you hear differences is only proving how easy it is to imagine differences.


----------



## ianmedium

See, the whole point why I don't bother with these threads is the comments about my post above, there is no room for thinking outside their tight and safe boxes, they are right by the confines of their narrow thinking and minds. As for scamp, so your now capable of reading my inner most thoughts eh! Wow, such arrogance!

That is the problem with people who's whole lives need to be neatly contained within pre existing parameters you will never be able to feel or see that which cannot be proved by someone else's invented hypothesis.

All I can say is there is a difference, can I explain in in numbers or theorys, no, I can't but I trust my hearing a great deal more than I would ever trust your judgements as your very narrow in observation of things that are outside scientific proof. 

I really now am gone, it is not my intention to prove anything as I know that there is more to something than the sum of its parts, I feel really sorry for those who think that all there is exists only if it can be proven on paper, your missing out on such a huge part of life in thinking that way. Thank God that the worlds greates mastering engineers, record producers and artists don't think the way you do, if they did all we would have to listen to are records like Adel's!


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> See, the whole point why I don't bother with these threads is the comments about my post above, there is no room for thinking outside their tight and safe boxes, they are right by the confines of their narrow thinking and minds. As for scamp, so your now capable of reading my inner most thoughts eh! Wow, such arrogance!





> *Well, it's more that he's capable of comprehending the science behind different audio formats. You might as well be saying that you can hear differences between files named differently if you're going to claim there is a difference between AIFF and WAV.*





> That is the problem with people who's whole lives need to be neatly contained within pre existing parameters you will never be able to feel or see that which cannot be proved by someone else's invented hypothesis.
> All I can say is there is a difference, can I explain in in numbers or theorys, no, I can't but I trust my hearing a great deal more than I would ever trust your judgements as your very narrow in observation of things that are outside scientific proof.





> *It appears that you actually can't truly trust your own hearing given your unwillingness to perform an ABX test. ABX tests have nothing to do with "numbers or theories", so I'm not sure what you're going on about here.*





> I really now am gone, it is not my intention to prove anything as I know that there is more to something than the sum of its parts, I feel really sorry for those who think that all there is exists only if it can be proven on paper, your missing out on such a huge part of life in thinking that way. Thank God that the worlds greates mastering engineers, record producers and artists don't think the way you do, if they did all we would have to listen to are records like Adel's!





> *You've made it quite clear that you have no intention to prove anything, as you are completely unwilling to perform any blind tests. I believe you are just here for the sake of arguing.*


----------



## bigshot

streetdragon said:


> but i was blind testing.




That's fine. I'm not one of the guys who insists on that. Maybe you were hearing a line level difference. What you describe doesn't sound at all like compression artifacting. So it must be something else.


----------



## ianmedium

One last thing, me here for the sake or arguing!!!! Who is doing all the arguing! I stated something I can here, I have not set out to convince anyone, just give what I hear, it is you lot that never stop arguing due to your egoic need to be proven your right and anyone who dares not to play your game is wrong! That is narrow minded, I have not said what you hear is wrong have I? You hear what you want to hear so blind tests are pointless, you will never hear a difference because you don't want to, you want to prove there is no difference so if anyone is being influenced I would say it is those who approach this from a scientific and analytical one as you simply do not enter into it with an open mind.

You all prove that by your attacks on anyone who states an opinion outside of your narrow and closed thought fields, this is why it is an act of futility to argue with you lot, you always have carefully constructed answers for everything and are completely closed to anything outside of a box because you simply do not want to see it of it!

This is why that Randi fellow has never given he million dollars away, it is impossible to convince him of anything as he has the support of other people who refuse to use their other senses!

Now I am done as it is pointless trying to convince sheep to go anywhere where other sheep won't go!


----------



## bigshot

ianmedium said:


> I have done extensive listening to 320/ALAC/AIFF/WAV.




You should try AAC. That's the codec I use. It's mpeg-4 which is much better than mp3. I did line level matched direct A/B comparisons against the original CD using a variety of well recorded jazz, popular and classical. At 256 and above, it achieved total transparency. No difference at all.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> One last thing, me here for the sake or arguing!!!! Who is doing all the arguing! I stated something I can here, I have not set out to convince anyone, just give what I hear, it is you lot that never stop arguing due to your egoic need to be proven your right and anyone who dares not to play your game is wrong! That is narrow minded, I have not said what you hear is wrong have I? You hear what you want to hear so blind tests are pointless, you will never hear a difference because you don't want to, you want to prove there is no difference so if anyone is being influenced I would say it is those who approach this from a scientific and analytical one as you simply do not enter into it with an open mind.





> *Huh? Nobody is stating that because they failed a blind test, everyone else is going to.  It's not possible for us to prove that there is no difference, but it IS possible for you to prove that you can hear one.  And by the way, I did want to hear the difference between 320 and FLAC, as I have a large number of FLAC files, but I didn't.*





> You all prove that by your attacks on anyone who states an opinion outside of your narrow and closed thought fields, this is why it is an act of futility to argue with you lot, you always have carefully constructed answers for everything and are completely closed to anything outside of a box because you simply do not want to see it of it!
> This is why that Randi fellow has never given he million dollars away, it is impossible to convince him of anything as he has the support of other people who refuse to use their other senses!





> *I don't really care either way if different lossless/uncompressed formats sound the same. I'm not sure what I would have to gain there. It would certainly be an interesting revealation if that were to be proven wrong as it goes against the science behind the formats.*





> *Nobody is attacking you here, just asking for evidence of your claims as they contradict computer science. Not sure where your hostility is coming from*





>


----------



## bigshot

ianmedium said:


> See, the whole point why I don't bother with these threads is the comments about my post above, there is no room for thinking outside their tight and safe boxes, they are right by the confines of their narrow thinking and minds.




As far as I know, AIFF and WAV are just wrappers around the file. The PCM audio inside the wrapper is identical. If you are saying you can hear a difference between them, that's a bit more than thinking outside the box. If you really are hearing a difference, there is something wrong with your equipment.


----------



## bigshot

ianmedium said:


> I really now am gone




Goodbye. It was nice chatting with you.


----------



## bigshot

ianmedium said:


> One last thing




Welcome back!


----------



## xnor

ianmedium, why are you so unwilling to do a simple test that only takes a few minutes?
   
  And you call others narrow minded and arrogant despite you do not seem to know anything about the formats mentioned? Ohhh the irony.
   
  A WAV and AIFF file containing uncompressed PCM contains exactly the same audio data.
   
  Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> See, the whole point why I don't bother with these threads is the comments about my post above, there is no room for thinking outside their tight and safe boxes, they are right by the confines of their narrow thinking and minds. As for scamp, so your now capable of reading my inner most thoughts eh! Wow, such arrogance!





> That is the problem with people who's whole lives need to be neatly contained within pre existing parameters you will never be able to feel or see that which cannot be proved by someone else's invented hypothesis.





> All I can say is there is a difference, can I explain in in numbers or theorys, no, I can't but I trust my hearing a great deal more than I would ever trust your judgements as your very narrow in observation of things that are outside scientific proof.





> I really now am gone, it is not my intention to prove anything as I know that there is more to something than the sum of its parts, I feel really sorry for those who think that all there is exists only if it can be proven on paper, your missing out on such a huge part of life in thinking that way. Thank God that the worlds greates mastering engineers, record producers and artists don't think the way you do, if they did all we would have to listen to are records like Adel's!


 
  You and your ridiculous claims won't be missed.
   
  Thank God that there are not many people that "think" the way you do.
   
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> As far as I know, AIFF and WAV are just wrappers around the file. The PCM audio inside the wrapper is identical. If you are saying you can hear a difference between them, that's a bit more than thinking outside the box. If you really are hearing a difference, there is something wrong with your equipment.


 
  Or with his brain?


----------



## tehwalris

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> So much of this is in our heads. Would be cool to see some scientific blindfolded group tests.


 
  You could probably set up an online survey where the same part of a song is played in mp3 then flac in a random order and then people could say if the first or second sounded better. Just an idea


----------



## MrMateoHead

I should add that I don't care if I can't detect a difference - I STILL prefer to buy CDs! Hows that for rational?
   
  It doesn't make sense to me to pay for an inferior audio format which is always vulnerable to the "delete" key. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  One thing I would like to know, is if anyone has conducted any tests on the sampling side. I assume hearing differences would be very apparent.


----------



## xnor

What do you mean with tests on the sampling side?


----------



## Brooko

I found these bits particularly interesting ....... especially as I'd gone back through the previous posts, and I couldn't see where anyone was personally attacking Ian personally .....
  Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> *I don't really care that the flat earthers will bang on that there is no difference, I simply don't think they know how to listen to music!*


 
   
  Interesting that the above quote was in his fiorst post, and immediately set the tone .......
   
  Quote: 





ianmedium said:


> <snip>I have not set out to convince anyone, just give what I hear, it is you lot that never stop arguing due to *your egoic need to be proven your right* and anyone who dares not to play your game is wrong! *That is narrow minded*, I have not said what you hear is wrong have I? You hear what you want to hear so blind tests are pointless, you will never hear a difference because you don't want to, you want to prove there is no difference so if anyone is being influenced I would say it is those who approach this from a scientific and analytical one as you simply do not enter into it with an open mind.
> You all prove that by your attacks on anyone who states an opinion outside of your *narrow and closed* thought fields, this is why it is an act of futility to argue with you lot, you always have carefully constructed answers for everything and are completely closed to anything outside of a box because you simply do not want to see it of it!
> This is why that Randi fellow has never given he million dollars away, it is impossible to convince him of anything as he has the support of other people who refuse to use their other senses!
> *Now I am done as it is pointless trying to convince sheep to go anywhere where other sheep won't go!*


 
   
  As far as I can see, a lot of people here (sound science) do have an open mind, but it is the one place on Head-Fi where the burden of proof is expected to be shown.  Considering how easy it is to run simple tests (foobar volume matched abx etc), and produce reports, it amazes me how often we see someone putting forward their ideas on subjectively hearing a difference - but when requested to show evidence, immediately resort to veiled insults.  Then the objectivists are accused of not being open etc - yet the subjectivists are the ones that always refuse to actually run the tests.  It continually amazes me .....
   
  Makes the quote in my sig really quite apt to certain situations really.


----------



## gnarlsagan

A few minutes to run a test is not an impossible request to fulfill. I hope ianmedium comes back and tries it out. I have an open mind about it. I don't understand what a person hopes to accomplish by making a claim and then refusing to take the test, and not even acknowledging that a test would be a valid way to prove their claim. It's borderline trolling.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Quote: 





xnor said:


> What do you mean with tests on the sampling side?


 

 I mean, use a high quality, 24-bit, 96 Khz source sample, and re-rip it (always lossless), to a 44.1, and 22.5 khz sampling rate. Then listen for differences. I suspect it would be easier to detect than compression between CD and MP3, which preserves the sampling rate at 44.1 khz.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





mrmateohead said:


> I mean, use a high quality, 24-bit, 96 Khz source sample, and re-rip it (always lossless), to a 44.1, and 22.5 khz sampling rate. Then listen for differences. I suspect it would be easier to detect than compression between CD and MP3, which preserves the sampling rate at 44.1 khz.


 
   
  Why don't you try it 
   
  I have actually tested the very same thing - and I couldn't detect any differences there either (I did 24/96 resampled to 24/48 and to aac256).  I do acknowledge though that my hearing (at the advanced age of almost 46) may not be as good as some of our younger members though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Quote: 





brooko said:


> Why don't you try it
> 
> I have actually tested the very same thing - and I couldn't detect any differences there either (I did 24/96 resampled to 24/48 and to aac256).  I do acknowledge though that my hearing (at the advanced age of almost 46) may not be as good as some of our younger members though
> 
> ...


 

 I'll try it if I can find a 24-96 khz music DVD somewhere. I had a great porcupine disc but can't remember where I left it. I really want to start from a very high resolution and work down the chain!
   
  And please, Brooko, you are starting to make me want to return my headphones for an AIWA tapedeck.


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





mrmateohead said:


> I mean, use a high quality, 24-bit, 96 Khz source sample, and re-rip it (always lossless), to a 44.1, and 22.5 khz sampling rate. Then listen for differences. I suspect it would be easier to detect than compression between CD and MP3, which preserves the sampling rate at 44.1 khz.


 
  but at that sampling of 22.5 rate the cut off point is 11.25khz and that is well within the human hearing range


----------



## skamp

What soundcard supports 22.5 kHz though? Some support 32 kHz, you could try that.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





skamp said:


> What soundcard supports 22.5 kHz though? Some support 32 kHz, you could try that.


 
   
  It can be tested by converting the downsampled audio back to 96/24 format, which is recommended anyway to ensure that the DAC/sound card always sees the same rate and format (it normally should not make a difference with any reasonable device, but it is best to minimize the variables in the test). It may also be a good idea to attenuate the high resolution source file by ~1-2 dB to exclude the possibility of clipping in the sample rate conversions.
   
  In any case, I would expect the degradation from downsampling to 22.05 kHz to be plainly audible to most people. 32 kHz is more interesting, some (young people with good high frequency hearing) would hear it, but not others. 44.1 kHz is likely only audible in very rare cases at best (it was not to anyone from 50+ subjects in the infamous Meyer&Moran tests). The quantization noise of 16 bit resolution at 44.1 kHz can be audible in quiet passages at unusually high volume levels, but normally not. 16 bits at 96 kHz actually reduce the noise in the audio band, since the total RMS noise remains the same, but it is partly moved into the ultrasonic range (especially with a simple shaped dither).


----------



## maspadaro

[size=10pt]Oh boy were to start this discussion.[/size]
  [size=10pt]This always turns out to be an emotional discussion instead of a technical one.[/size]
  [size=10pt]So I will try to separate both.[/size]
  [size=10pt]The emotional side is the simplest one. The perfect sound is the one you like and it will have nothing to do with how the sound source was made. So philosophically speaking the perfect sound is always the one you like. Your perfect sound wil not be my perfect sound.[/size]
   
  [size=10pt]The technical part of it is more complicated due to how much it has been studied in the last half a century.[/size]
  [size=10pt]It will have to take into account the model used to convert sound into 1010101.[/size]
  [size=10pt]Now these models are hard to comprehend. I can’t fully grasp them, but being in the analytical field I understand modeling.[/size]
  [size=10pt]Most models will grab the information given, source, and straighten the curve to make it easier to store it in less data, saving space and effort. MP3 being the most compressed. Now are these models cutting the sound or mixing it in the upper and lower levels to flatten the curve? the same way we use an EQ? because its essentially the same thing.[/size]
  [size=10pt]I am into quads and much has been talked about the modeling use to separate these channels L/R F/B. The idea doesn’t differ that much.[/size]
  [size=10pt]So the most information that can be recorded from the original master the better. So CD's are great as long as the source and the technical recordings were good and what you play them on are also, but is it better than records, some say no, but then again you need a good set up to play them. [/size]
  [size=10pt]So which of the 3 discussed models are better? Keeping the source the same and the models used are good, the bigger format which is a CD is the best, Does it make a difference to most of us humans, probably not.[/size]
  [size=10pt]But for us humans its all in the way its perceived by each individual. so at the end of the day the perfect sound is the one you like.[/size]


----------



## bigshot

Compression doesn't use EQ to cut frequencies or flatten out curves. It's much more sophisticated than that.


----------



## maspadaro

[size=10pt]Of course compression is more sophisticated, its a model algorithm used across all types of music. [/size]
  [size=10pt]The outcome is the same when you use an EQ for recording except the reason why you are using it might be different now a days.[/size]
  [size=10pt]In a compression you are getting rid of info that is not required and probably compressing the sound or information. On an EQ you are using to get rid if artifacts in the recording or sound distortion that are due to the source (that’s was one of the usage for EQ or switches for high or low). Now the sources are clean and its use to enhance a specific style of music. But go to early systems of amplifiers/preamps and you will see this was used to get rid of artifact sound being from radio/cassette/turntables. Dolby(C) is an example of this.[/size]
  [size=10pt]The ideas are the same the goal are different.[/size]


----------



## bigshot

I really don't see the relationships you're making at all. EQ and preemphasis in Dolby are nothing like mpeg compression.


----------



## anetode

...


----------



## streetdragon

this feels like a debate about audiophile religon now. science vs personal experience
 so but then FLAC reverts back to WAV because of a FLAC plugin that the player has right? so it means it is a exact copy of the WAV when it comes back out, so it should be the exact same, only way to prove this is with a blind test (and computer algoritm... or maths... or physics)


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





streetdragon said:


> this feels like a debate about audiophile religon now. science vs personal experience
> so but then FLAC reverts back to WAV because of a FLAC plugin that the player has right? so it means it is a exact copy of the WAV when it comes back out, so it should be the exact same, only way to prove this is with a blind test (and computer algoritm... or maths... or physics)


 
  I'm not sure if it's converted to WAV or just raw PCM, but the way it is compressed the output will be the same as a WAV file. Lossless compression isn't that complicated of a thing really; it's just shorthand code. It still contains the same meaning to it if the program knows how to read it. I'm not sure why people are still convinced that the makers of these lossless formats were lying. I mean you don't see people going around saying you shouldn't throw your music or documents in a zip file.


----------



## eric0531

mrmateohead said:


> I should add that I don't care if I can't detect a difference - I STILL prefer to buy CDs! Hows that for rational?




I too prefer to buy the CDs for archival reasons, but I rip to AAC (with a target rate of 300K) for listening (iPhone or my old iPod Classic) because to me it is totally transparent. Doesn't seem irrational at all!

In fact my iPod -> FiiO E11 has become pretty much my de facto music source, even when I'm sitting at my computer that has my lossless files on an external drive.


----------



## ChipnDalebowl

Most can probably rip at far lower than 320kbps in any lossy format and not tell the difference from the cd when they're on the road with ipods or iphones.


----------



## jvandyk

I recently downloaded Donald Fagens new album(Sunken Condos) from itunes (256k) and immediately noticed inferior sound compared to his last album (Morph the Cat from a 16 bit CD rip). Wondering if Morph was just done better (I doubt it), I next downloaded the 24 bit version(Sunken Condos) from HD Tracks. The difference in sound is not subtle. The 256k version is harsh, brittle, distorted on the low end.
   
  But hey, it still sounded good enough for the car at 256k. Moral of the story- whatever suits you.
   
  PS- Good new Album (Sunken Condos)


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> I recently downloaded Donald Fagens new album(Sunken Condos) from itunes (256k) and immediately noticed inferior sound compared to his last album (Morph the Cat from a 16 bit CD rip). Wondering if Morph was just done better (I doubt it), I next downloaded the 24 bit version(Sunken Condos) from HD Tracks. The difference in sound is not subtle. The 256k version is harsh, brittle, distorted on the low end.
> 
> But hey, it still sounded good enough for the car at 256k. Moral of the story- whatever suits you.
> 
> PS- Good new Album (Sunken Condos)


 
   
  A Double Blind Test is calling for you - FooBar has a built-in ABX. A minimum of 15 trials is suggested.


----------



## stv014

Also, try converting the 24 bit version to high bitrate MP3, Vorbis, or AAC yourself using a good encoder. It could easily be the case that the iTunes version has more "loudness war" dynamic compression and clipping, and sounds worse mainly because of that, rather than the format.


----------



## Lateness

Is there a similar test done on here with 128kbps vorbis or 160kbps MP3?


----------



## jvandyk

nick_charles said:


> A Double Blind Test is calling for you - FooBar has a built-in ABX. A minimum of 15 trials is suggested.



Piece of cake Nick. I use JRiver. WASAPI event style. Yeah, 24 bit native sounds better than 256k AAC.
Don't be shocked.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Piece of cake Nick. I use JRiver. WASAPI event style. Yeah, 24 bit native sounds better than 256k AAC.
> Don't be shocked.


 
  Did you re-convert the 24 bit to AAC or just use the itunes version for the test?
   
  And can you post the results if that's the case? I'd be quite impressed if you got 15/15.


----------



## bigshot

How loud did you have to get to hear the difference between 24 bit and 16?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Piece of cake Nick. I use JRiver. WASAPI event style. Yeah, 24 bit native sounds better than 256k AAC.
> Don't be shocked.


 
   
  I teach undergraduates, I'm seldom shocked anymore. Can you post a couple of 20 second segments of the files you compared, I'll run them through Cool Edit pro and see where the differences are.
  Thanks in advance.


----------



## TrollDragon

I have Sunken Condos ripped as ALAC if you need any samples of that to compare as well.


----------



## JohnSantana

Yes please and then do a comparison screenshot in here, that'll be awesome


----------



## MrMateoHead

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Also, try converting the 24 bit version to high bitrate MP3, Vorbis, or AAC yourself using a good encoder. It could easily be the case that the iTunes version has more "loudness war" dynamic compression and clipping, and sounds worse mainly because of that, rather than the format.


 

 I think AAC has a better noise floor than Mp3 based on an old test you can find online. AAC exacts a lot of its memory savings from the high frequency range, which I find interesting.
   
  Has anyone looked at the impact of LAME 3.9x on music rips? I have been wondering how much better that codec might be now. All my rips sound pretty awesome.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





trolldragon said:


> I have Sunken Condos ripped as ALAC if you need any samples of that to compare as well.


 
  Did you RIP it from the 16 bit CD? I have the 24 bit files. I did convert them to 24 bit ALAC for library purposes in itunes.
   
  FLAC files get played back in JRiver though, uncompressed to WAV with Traders Little Helper.
   
  Getting back to the question on the 256k itunes version, I can't explain why it sounds like crap. Ask itunes.


----------



## TrollDragon

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Did you RIP it from the 16 bit CD? I have the 24 bit files. I did convert them to 24 bit ALAC for library purposes in itunes.


 
   
  Just the 16's here off of the CD.
   
"Traders Little Helper" I'll have to pull that down tonight looks very useful.


----------



## bigshot

The CD is very likely a different mastering than your 24 bit files.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The CD is very likely a different mastering than your 24 bit files.


 
  The master tapes were done in 24 bit. I'm sure the 16 bit CD also sounds nice. It's a good album too, if you are a Steely Dan fan.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





trolldragon said:


> Just the 16's here off of the CD.
> 
> "Traders Little Helper" I'll have to pull that down tonight looks very useful.


 
  TLC is a handy free program. For those that need to get their FLAC's turned into ALAC, it still requires 3 steps. TLC convert FLAC's to wave, import WAV's into itunes..then create ALACs. Will retain all resolution doing this. Sometimes, I wonder if the full bitrate WAV's sound better than the FLAC or ALAC's. Being in "Sound Science", I'm sure it's not possible!


----------



## chewy4

I like dbpoweramp for converting because it actually takes advantage of multi-processing to its fullest. It's extremely fast.
   
  And you are correct on that not being possible. If it sounded better that means there were errors in compression/decompression.


----------



## bigshot

jvandyk said:


> The master tapes were done in 24 bit. I'm sure the 16 bit CD also sounds nice. It's a good album too, if you are a Steely Dan fan.




There's no surprise that you can hear a difference between 24 bit and 16 bit if the mastering is different. When I was comparing SACD to redbook, I had a very difficult time finding a disk with the same mastering on both layers.

If you want to do a comparison test, you need to control the variables so you're hearing what you're testing for, not something completely different.


----------



## jvandyk

chewy4 said:


> I like dbpoweramp for converting because it actually takes advantage of multi-processing to its fullest. It's extremely fast.
> 
> And you are correct on that not being possible. If it sounded better that means there were errors in compression/decompression.




Nice avatar chewy. I have about 1000 hours of soundboards. Cheers!


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Nice avatar chewy. I have about 1000 hours of soundboards. Cheers!


 
  Thanks. Where did you get the soundboards?


----------



## jvandyk

chewy4 said:


> Thanks. Where did you get the soundboards?




Just over many years. Started off as a DAT collection then expanded with archive.org...until they pulled em off. If there's something you want, let me know. Stuff from each era and about 40 Ratdog shows too. Not much Furthur.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Just over many years. Started off as a DAT collection then expanded with archive.org...until they pulled em off. If there's something you want, let me know. Stuff from each era and about 40 Ratdog shows too. Not much Furthur.


 
  Ah I was wondering if it was archive.org related, didn't think they had soundboards.
   
  Nothing specific I'm looking for unless you happen to have the soundboard of the Dead show in Rothbury '09. I've got So Many Roads which is a good compilation of soundboard recordings, not a greatest hits type album like you would think but actually good jams.


----------



## jvandyk

chewy4 said:


> Ah I was wondering if it was archive.org related, didn't think they had soundboards.
> 
> Nothing specific I'm looking for unless you happen to have the soundboard of the Dead show in Rothbury '09. I've got So Many Roads which is a good compilation of soundboard recordings, not a greatest hits type album like you would think but actually good jams.




The archive used to allow sbd downloads until about 2006 or so. My favorite stuff right now is the Europe 72 complete recordings collection. At any rate, I always share the gold...don't have that 09 show.(Furthur 09 right?) I don't have so many roads. I have many of the shows included in it though. PM me if you'd like something!


----------



## chewy4

The '09 show was the Dead. It had all the remaining members plus Warren Hayes on guitar. 
   
  But yeah I'll send you a PM if I see anything else I'm looking for, thanks man.


----------



## JohnSantana

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> The master tapes were done in 24 bit. I'm sure the 16 bit CD also sounds nice. It's a good album too, if you are a Steely Dan fan.


 
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The CD is very likely a different mastering than your 24 bit files.


 
   
  so doesthis means that the best magnetic tape for mastering is 24 track = 24 bit in CD ?


----------



## bigshot

24 track is 24 separate channels. 24 bit is a measure of the file size. Totally different.


----------



## JohnSantana

thanks man !


----------



## conkerman

I can't tell the difference at 320kbps mp3, so that's what I use. It's compatible with absolutely everything!
   
  I still prefer vinyl from a good turntable though. 
   
  I was looking forward to someone else flouncing out!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





conkerman said:


> I can't tell the difference at 320kbps mp3, so that's what I use. It's compatible with absolutely everything!
> 
> I still prefer vinyl from a good turntable though.
> 
> I was looking forward to someone else flouncing out!


 
   
  Lots of people do prefer vinyl.
   
  However, vinyl is verifiably and markedly technically inferior to digital audio on almost every important audio parameter. Vinyl has so many limitations due to its physical properties and actual operation which is basically dragging a rock through a canyon while it careens wildly from side to side that it is actually better sounding than it has any right to be, but if it is really high fidelity you want it falls short in a number of key areas not least of which is noise, especially on headphone listening and especially with music with quiet passages...by all means prefer vinyl but please do not argue for its being technically superior etc.


----------



## conkerman

Where did I say it was technically better? 
   
  I really like the way vinyl (and a good cassette) sounds. Probably the nostalgia factor though.
   
  I wonder if ther is some confusion between dynamic range compression and VBR (dynamic bitrate)?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





conkerman said:


> Where did I say it was technically better?
> 
> I really like the way vinyl (and a good cassette) sounds. Probably the nostalgia factor though.
> 
> I wonder if ther is some confusion between dynamic range compression and VBR (dynamic bitrate)?


 
   
   
  Sorry, but you would be surprised how many vinyl fans do maintain vinyl is technically superior, to the point where I expect it coming next, my apologies.
   
  I grew up with vinyl, cassette and 8-track. There is something initially attractive about vinyl that I cannot rationally explain but the noise aaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhh !
   
  back in the rec-audio.opinion days one of the prominent objectivists (possibly Arny Kreuger or Stewart Pinkerton) challenged a vinylist to post a 30 second digital rip of any LP without any audible LP related noise, suggesting that this was not possible - afaik the challenge was never successfully completed...with rock and pop noise is no big deal but with a lot of classical music noise on quiet passages is unbearable especially on headphones


----------



## JohnSantana

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Sorry, but you would be surprised how many vinyl fans do maintain vinyl is technically superior, to the point where I expect it coming next, my apologies.
> 
> I grew up with vinyl, cassette and 8-track. There is something initially attractive about vinyl that I cannot rationally explain but the noise aaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhh !
> 
> back in the rec-audio.opinion days one of the prominent objectivists (possibly Arny Kreuger or Stewart Pinkerton) challenged a vinylist to post a 30 second digital rip of any LP without any audible LP related noise, suggesting that this was not possible - afaik the challenge was never successfully completed...with rock and pop noise is no big deal but with a lot of classical music noise on quiet passages is unbearable especially on headphones


 
  Nick,
   
  DO you mean the "hiss-ing" noise when you listen to Vinyl recording ?


----------



## anetode

I've witnessed times where vinyl playback is nigh on transparent with a properly set up table and fresh vinyl. No noise, hissing, pops, etc. There's a much greater investment in configuring transparent vinyl playback but I have no doubts that one could arrange an inconclusive DBT between well setup vinyl and CD rigs.
   
  Granted at RMAF I've also heard six-figure vinyl playback systems that sounded no better than a turn-of-last century handwound record player.


----------



## spickerish

I'm quite interested in this debate.
   
  From what I've read in this thread most people cant tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 320kbps.
  Is it possible to tell the difference between 320kbps and 256kbps?
  Or 256kbps and 224kbps?
  Or 224kbps and 192kbps?
  Or 192kbps and 160kbps?
  Or 160kbps and 128kbps?
  Probably not, since the differences are so small.
   
  I think everybody will agree they can hear a difference between FLAC and 128kbps, but according to the above (if you can't hear a difference) it would mean FLAC = 128kbps ('=' means 'sounds the same as' in this post), which we no is not true.
   
   
  Maybe it is something like this:
  Lets say we have a scale from 1 to 10 for sound quality, with 10 being the best. Lets you there needs to be a difference of atleast 2 in the scale to be able to hear the difference. Lets say every step down (FLAC-320, 320-256, 256-224 enz) equels 1 step in the scale. So you won't hear any difference, but it is stil there, It only becomes audioble with when bigger steps are taken.
   
  I must admit that I am no expert on the subject by any means. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## jvandyk

I think it's important to realize that the discussion is about "analog" versus digital here. The vinyl format is an analog format. If it's noisy, clean your records! And also for the record, digital does not mean superior sound simply because it is digital. That's like saying Steely Dan's Aja, recorded and mastered in analog, is inferior to The Nightfly, recorded and mastered in digital. Aja is the far superior sounding recording. On top of that, I have never heard a digital version of Aja that sounds as good as the Mobile Fidelity Vinyl..including Mobile Fidelity's own CD! It wasn't even close.
   
  Cheers to Vinyl!


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





spickerish said:


> I'm quite interested in this debate.
> 
> From what I've read in this thread most people cant tell the difference between FLAC and mp3 320kbps.
> Is it possible to tell the difference between 320kbps and 256kbps?
> ...


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jvandyk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> And also for the record, digital does not mean superior sound simply because it is digital.


 
  Yes it does. It does not mean superior records though. But:
   
   
  Quote: 





> That's like saying Steely Dan's Aja, recorded and mastered in analog, is inferior to The Nightfly, recorded and mastered in digital. Aja is the far superior sounding recording.


 
  Different recordings, mixes, masters ... have nothing to do with the sound quality of the format.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Yes it does. It does not mean superior records though. But:
> 
> 
> Different recordings, mixes, masters ... have nothing to do with the sound quality of the format.


 
  Actually yes it does. Even Fagen himself later mentioned he wished he had used the analog tracks. He thought the digital sounded cold and sterile. Of course, digital has come a long way since then. Summary- The music recorded to digital tape sounded worse than analog tape..in the opinion of Mr. Fagen. So maybe not a technical issue, but rather a sound quality issue.


----------



## xnor

You're talking about an album that was published '77. Yes, digital has come a long way since then. There was not even redbook at that time. Anyway, what a format can contain doesn't change. After 30 years redbook still is 2 channel, 16-bit sampled at 44.1 kHz audio.
   
  You can digitize this album and it will sound exactly the same. Actually, the digital format could contain more dynamic range, less linear and non-linear distortion etc. so it _could _even sound better. And an opinion of some keyboarder or vocalist doesn't change that.


----------



## bigshot

Well, I'm a person who thinks The Nightfly sounds better than Aja.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





johnsantana said:


> Nick,
> 
> DO you mean the "hiss-ing" noise when you listen to Vinyl recording ?


 
   
  There are many sources of noise from vinyl. remember that the signal from a cartridge is both uneven and very low voltage. It has to be both bumped up and RIAA equalized this adds noise, there is tracking noise where the needle swooshes from side to side, motor noise, bearing noise, surface noise hiss crackle pops - good vinyl can manage an SNR of about 75db on a perfect;y set up TT when it is a good pressing and pristine - TTs themselves seldom manage better than this - back in the 70s Julian Hirsch and fellow writers considered 50db good for a TT. As I say for rock/pop with overall high volume levels noise is no big deal but for music with a wide dynamic range it is an issue
   
  Quote: 





anetode said:


> I've witnessed times where vinyl playback is nigh on transparent with a properly set up table and fresh vinyl. No noise, hissing, pops, etc. There's a much greater investment in configuring transparent vinyl playback but I have no doubts that one could arrange an inconclusive DBT between well setup vinyl and CD rigs.
> 
> Granted at RMAF I've also heard six-figure vinyl playback systems that sounded no better than a turn-of-last century handwound record player.


 
   
  DBting a commercial vinyl and a commercial CD may be quite easy, if the noise does not give it away the differences in mastering may. However when vinyl is digitized and a level matched DBT test between the vinyl and the recording is done the resukt is in much more doubt (matrixhifi have done this test) 
   
   
  Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> I think it's important to realize that the discussion is about "analog" versus digital here. The vinyl format is an analog format. If it's noisy, clean your records! And also for the record, digital does not mean superior sound simply because it is digital.


 
   
  Simply cleaning LPs does not get rid of the other sources of noise. Digital assuming red book standard is technically superior in almost all meaningful audio parameters.
   
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> Yes it does. It does not mean superior records though. But:
> 
> 
> Different recordings, mixes, masters ... have nothing to do with the sound quality of the format.


 
   
  Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Actually yes it does. Even Fagen himself later mentioned he wished he had used the analog tracks. He thought the digital sounded cold and sterile. Of course, digital has come a long way since then. Summary- The music recorded to digital tape sounded worse than analog tape..in the opinion of Mr. Fagen. So maybe not a technical issue, but rather a sound quality issue.


 
   
  No simply a matter of preference.
   
   
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> You're talking about an album that was published '77. Yes, digital has come a long way since then. There was not even redbook at that time. Anyway, what a format can contain doesn't change. After 30 years redbook still is 2 channel, 16-bit sampled at 44.1 kHz audio.
> 
> You can digitize this album and it will sound exactly the same. Actually, the digital format could contain more dynamic range, less linear and non-linear distortion etc. so it _could _even sound better. And an opinion of some keyboarder or vocalist doesn't change that.


 
   
  Nightfly  was released in 1982 digital recording was well established by then. When recording the album Roger Nichols states
   
  "We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine. We ran a Studer A-80 24-track 
analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital 
machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band. 
The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear 
winner"


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Originally Posted by *spickerish*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  personally i think it is true, since our frame of reference is only concerned about 2 files that have similar quality (not same) but if we add the top (FLAC) and bottom (128) into the frame of reference, and the listener has good memory with hearing (and equipment) he can tell which file is which


----------



## bigshot

You don't compare lossy to lossy. You compare lossy to lossless and determine the point where the line is where you can't tell any more.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> You're talking about an album that was published '77. Yes, digital has come a long way since then. There was not even redbook at that time. Anyway, what a format can contain doesn't change. After 30 years redbook still is 2 channel, 16-bit sampled at 44.1 kHz audio.
> 
> You can digitize this album and it will sound exactly the same. Actually, the digital format could contain more dynamic range, less linear and non-linear distortion etc. so it _could _even sound better. And an opinion of some keyboarder or vocalist doesn't change that.


 
  Hmmm... Fagen is perhaps the most respected rock recording artist of the 20th century..not some keyboarder or vocalist.
  Next-  The Nightfly was recorded in all digital in the 80's..not the 70's. But you are right here in that it was in the early days of digital...but he even used 20 bit processing back then for the masters.
   
  Finally- The fact that Fagen's opinion that the analog masters sounded better than the digital masters is an opinion of a guy with about 7 grammy awards in this exact area of discussion. He uses his ears..not Sonys Redbook handbook of "perfect sound forever".
   
  PS- Surely you are aware of the majority of CD releases over the past 30 years that sound like pure crap compared to their vinyl counterparts.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Well, I'm a person who thinks The Nightfly sounds better than Aja.


 
  Well, it does sound good. I remember buying the vinyl version way back then. I thought at the time that the album was thin sounding and mechanical compared to anything they had done before. When I bought the CD, it sounded pretty much the same..
  But it didn't keep me from enjoying it certainly.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You don't compare lossy to lossy. You compare lossy to lossless and determine the point where the line is where you can't tell any more.


 
  Where is that line for you BS?


----------



## bigshot

I did line level comparison tests, and for 90% of the music I tested 192 AAC VBR was transparent. But I did find one odd track that still artifacted at 192, so I bumped it up to 256 AAC VBR. That's what I use to encode everything in my iTunes library and it's perfect.


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I did line level comparison tests, and for 90% of the music I tested 192 AAC VBR was transparent. But I did find one odd track that still artifacted at 192, so I bumped it up to 256 AAC VBR. That's what I use to encode everything in my iTunes library and it's perfect.


 
  but that was kind of missing the point of the earlier question....


----------



## bigshot

I ripped from 96 up to 320. Maybe I don't understand the point.


----------



## jvandyk

bigshot said:


> [rule]I did line level comparison tests, and for 90% of the music I tested 192 AAC VBR was transparent. But I did find one odd track that still artifacted at 192, so I bumped it up to 256 AAC VBR. That's what I use to encode everything in my iTunes library and it's perfect.




OK then. So you think 160 or 128 is not transparent?


----------



## bigshot

The thing about compressed audio is it's all about artifacting. It isn't about muffled sound overall. In testing a lot of different kinds of music I found that 128 often artifacted multiple times in a song. 160 a couple of times at most. 192 artifacting was rare. 256 AAC, never.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The thing about compressed audio is it's all about artifacting. It isn't about muffled sound overall. In testing a lot of different kinds of music I found that 128 often artifacted multiple times in a song. 160 a couple of times at most. 192 artifacting was rare. 256 AAC, never.


 
  Are you positive about that?
   
  I've got some 90kbps stuff that I don't really hear any artifacts in, but the overall sound quality is clearly lacking. I'm sure the recording quality isn't top notch or anything but I still don't notice any artifacts.


----------



## bigshot

90kBs is fine for mono. Is it a mono recording?


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> 90kBs is fine for mono. Is it a mono recording?


 
  Nope, stereo.
   
  The files I'm talking about(from the studio album): http://www.goodgravygrass.com/musicmerch.cfm
   
  Perhaps there are artifacts I missed when I listened, but nothing severe. I'll have to actually compare well-recorded lossless converted to 90kbps and see if the same sort of muffled effect is present....
   
  EDIT: Yeah just converted a FLAC file to 96kbps and tried some ABX testing in foobar. Extremely easy, the 96kbps file sounded a lot more muffled while I didn't notice any pops or anything that weren't there.

 And to clarify, I was able to get 15/15 by only testing for a couple seconds each... and I didn't notice any artifacts.


----------



## bigshot

It depends on the kind of music. The hardest to compress is complex orchestral massed strings. If it doesn't artifact, it should be fine.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *chewy4* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> EDIT: Yeah just converted a FLAC file to 96kbps and tried some ABX testing in foobar. Extremely easy, the 96kbps file sounded a lot more muffled while I didn't notice any pops or anything that weren't there.


 
   
  Very low bitrate lossy compression will often apply an audible lowpass filter. 128 kbps MP3 usually cuts off at 16 kHz, but it could be less at 96 kbps.


----------



## bigshot

I think AAC might work different at low bitrates. It generally sounds better than MP3 at low settings.


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think AAC might work different at low bitrates. It generally sounds better than MP3 at low settings.


 
  40kbps AAC sounds like 96kbps mp3 (low quality free digital import stream)


----------



## Destroysall

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think AAC might work different at low bitrates. It generally sounds better than MP3 at low settings.


 
  I recall reading somewhere a discussion where someone said that 256kbps AAC is actually higher in quality than 320kbps MP3, so you might actually be correct on that statement.
   
  Destroysall.


----------



## rsbrsvp

I know technically what I am about to say makes no sense-  but to my ears- I know it to be true.  I have been doing this a long time and what I hear is what really matters.
   
   
  AIFF and WAV are supposed to be the same- and maybe they are on paper.  However- I have tested cd after cd, song after song over and over again and WAV sounds better.  It is slightly more transparent and more emotionally involving. I hear and feel the difference.
   
  MP3 320 kPBS is also clearer and more transparent than AIFF- but it is missing a degree of fullness.  That aside, there is NO information missing to my ears on MP3.  Many may actually enjoy the superior clarity of MP3 over AIFF at the cost of some fullness.
   
   
  Bottom line,- WAV when burned from a disk is sonically superior to my ears to anything else.   MP3 is best left alone when downloaded as such because any converting slightly harms the sonics to my ears.
   
  AIFF is the fullest sound- but to my ears it is a more muffled sound.  I prefer the clarity and convincing sound of WAV.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> I know technically what I am about to say makes no sense-  but to my ears- I know it to be true.  I have been doing this a long time and what I hear is what really matters.
> 
> 
> AIFF and WAV are supposed to be the same- and maybe they are on paper.  However- I have tested cd after cd, song after song over and over again and WAV sounds better.  It is slightly more transparent and more emotionally involving. I hear and feel the difference.
> ...


 
   
  What you perceive can be different, even if its exactly the same technically. Ever seen those optical illusions? Whatever works.


----------



## Flognuts

Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> I know technically what I am about to say makes no sense-  but to my ears- I know it to be true.  I have been doing this a long time and what I hear is what really matters.
> 
> 
> AIFF and WAV are supposed to be the same- and maybe they are on paper.  However- I have tested cd after cd, song after song over and over again and WAV sounds better.  It is slightly more transparent and more emotionally involving. I hear and feel the difference.
> ...


 
   
  LOL Anyone claiming they can hear the difference between wav, flac and a properly encoded 320kbps/v0 
   
  please prove with ABX testing results.
   
  all these claims, even with $40,000 worth of headphone equipment you'll still be guessing between wav and properly encoded Lame 320kbps/V0.


----------



## gikigill

I can hear a clear difference between mp3 and FLAC. Both ripped from the same CD on the same PC and played using the same software.
   
  I use a decent HE-6/MDR-F1/Stax SR-5 and SR-001 rig and the difference is there,
   
  The sound is more fuller and the low end seems intact in lossless whereas in the mp3 the low end seemed to lose its punch.
   
  This was repeated on all the above.
   
  Just my 0.02 cents.


----------



## rsbrsvp

Quote: 





flognuts said:


> LOL Anyone claiming they can hear the difference between wav, flac and a properly encoded 320kbps/v0
> 
> please prove with ABX testing results.
> 
> all these claims, even with $40,000 worth of headphone equipment you'll still be guessing between wav and properly encoded Lame 320kbps/V0.


 
  I have done blind testing- and I always chose WAV over AIFF.  I am not saying the difference is enormous, but it is there in audiophile terms. These claims are through a BHSE with Stax SR-009.
   
  I do not know if I would know the difference in another system.
   
  By the way- MP3 sounds DIFFERENT than AIFF or wave to my ears- NOT worse, and certainly no loss of detail.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *gikigill* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The sound is more fuller and the low end seems intact in lossless whereas in the mp3 the low end seemed to lose its punch.


 
   
  While telling lossless apart from MP3 is obviously not impossible, or even difficult at low bit rate, the "low end losing its punch" sounds rather like lack of accurate level matching (many encoders attenuate the signal slightly to avoid clipping on decoding). Lossy compression usually has more trouble with high frequencies.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> I have done blind testing- and I always chose WAV over AIFF.  I am not saying the difference is enormous, but it is there in audiophile terms. These claims are through a BHSE with Stax SR-009.


 
   
  Assuming that this is not just trolling, how did you do the blind testing exactly ? Did you use the foobar2000 ABX comparator, or similar software (as opposed to, for example, playing the AIFF file on a PC, but the WAV on a CD player, and comparing them without even matching the levels) ? Does the AIFF file contain the same PCM data as the WAV (i.e. if you convert it back to WAV, you get binary identical files with the same MD5 sum) ? Is there possibly some software problem that affects only AIFF files ?


----------



## rsbrsvp

I burned all my CD's using AIFF via Itunes.  Using itunes I then made WAV files from the AIFF files.
   
  I kept both the AIFF files made direct from the CD burn and the WAV files made as a conversion from the AIFF files.
   
  In Itunes, I then see two files of every song- the AIFF and the WAVE- but I don't know which is which unless I click "get info".  They look identical when listed in I tunes.
   
  Then, I randomly play both songs which look identical in terms of their listing in itunes and I decide which I like better.  Afterwards, using the "get info" option in itunes- I see if I chose the AIFF or WAV version.
   
  I have done this on multiple songs and albums and at different times (in case mood is a factor) and I ALWAYS chose WAV over AIFF.  And the Irony is that my AIFF files are a direct copy from the original CD while the WAV is a conversion from the AIFF.


----------



## stv014

Did you try the ABX comparator I suggested ? It could be a problem in iTunes, or somehow you could subconsciously find out which file is which (e.g. one type of file may have a statistical tendency to be listed first, but there may be other possible cues, too). If you still hear the difference in a real ABX test, you could try converting the WAV back to AIFF, and check if the result is an identical copy of the original AIFF file. Or just upload a short (< 30 seconds) sample in both AIFF and WAV format that you find to sound different.


----------



## rsbrsvp

I do not have foobar.
   
  If I reconvert the WAV to AIFF the AIFF using itunes it still sounds like the original AIFF- ie. not as good as WAV.
   
  Listen,   maybe I am crazy- but WAV and AIFF are NOT the same thing in terms of sonic results, even though maybe technically they are.
   
  And again, the SR-009 is a like a microscope.  Maybe other headphones or speakers would not allow one to hear these differences.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> I do not have foobar.


 
   
  Well, you could try other software with similar functionality, but so far it is not proven that the difference is not an iTunes specific problem, or even that it is not imaginary.
   
  Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> And again, the SR-009 is a like a microscope.  Maybe other headphones or speakers would not allow one to hear these differences.


 
   
  The differences need to exist in the first place to be audible. Also, a microscope and high quality audio equipment are different things. The first one magnifies by a large factor, making otherwise invisibly small details visible to humans; on the other hand, the latter is just meant to be transparent, but not magically enhance the sensory abilities of humans (assuming no signal processing or unrealistically high volume), which have limits. If you record sound with a microphone and play it back on the SR-009 at the same volume, you will not suddenly hear much more details than if you experienced the original sound live.


----------



## rsbrsvp

The problem could indeed be itunes specific however- the problem with that theory is that Apple invented AIFF and itunes, and WAV which was invented by Microsoft sounds better on a Apple computer, with Apple software than Apple encoded AIFF files.
   
  Listen; - even if Itunes is the problem, or my ear--   for those using an Apple computer and itunes to do their burning and file conversions, I would recommend trying WAV and comparing it to AIFF before just accepting AIFF as I did for many years before I even thought of doing a comparison .
   
  Obviously, other software, computers, and media players may have different results.
   
  My comments refer only to my setup.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> The problem could indeed be itunes specific however- the problem with that theory is that Apple invented AIFF and itunes, and WAV which was invented by Microsoft sounds better on a Apple computer, with Apple software than Apple encoded AIFF files.


 
    
  The fact that AIFF is originally an Apple format does not by any means guarantee that its implementation cannot be buggy in Apple software (just like Microsoft software does not always have perfectly reliable support for Microsoft formats). The people who wrote iTunes are most likely not even the same as those who created the AIFF format a long time ago.
   
  Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rsbrsvp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Listen; - even if Itunes is the problem, or my ear--   for those using an Apple computer and itunes to do their burning and file conversions, I would recommend trying WAV and comparing it to AIFF before just accepting AIFF as I did for many years before I even thought of doing a comparison .


 
   
  Maybe they would still like to know what the problem really is, or if it even exists at all ?


----------



## anetode

Quote:  





> If you record sound with a microphone and play it back on the SR-009 at the same volume, you will not suddenly hear much more details than if you experienced the original sound live.


 
   
  Well, actually, you might. Not to overthink this example too much, but the recording method and mastering could easily affect perceived details. One of the audiophile draws of neutral low-distortion headphones like the 009 is that they'll let you hear way more than otherwise practically possible live due to the abundance of close miking in modern recordings. Alternately, a grossly colored phone like a Grado might lead you to think you're hearing more detail because of the bump in the presence range.
   
   
  Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> Listen,   maybe I am crazy


 
   
  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and bet on lazy rather than crazy. You seem quite content in your choice, which is fine, but this is the science forum so be prepared to have to go the extra mile.


----------



## rsbrsvp

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Maybe they would still like to know what the problem really is, or if it even exists at all ?


 
  I don't think there is a problem.   I saw another person in this thread a few pages back say the same thing as me:  That to his ears WAV is better than AIFF.  The sound is crisper and cleaner to my ears.
   
  I do have another program "Pro Audio Converter".  I think I will try converting my AIFF itunes files to AIFF "Pro Audio Files" and see if there is a difference.


----------



## bigshot

The WAV files and AIFF files would have been alternating in the iTunes window. The last file converted would have been second, I believe. If he had actually done the test he's describing, he would have known that.

WAV and AIFF are just file wrappers enclosing the exact same PCM audio. If someone thinks he's hearing a difference, he's wrong.


----------



## rsbrsvp

I am not very technically knowledgeable; however allow me to share the following:
   
   
  Just a few years back everyone was convinced that a USB cable should not make any difference in sonic output- as zero's and ones are zero's and one's.
   
  Today, everyone in computer audio who has tested different high end cables USB cables knows they sound different even though I am not sure there is a technical explanation.
   
  My point is- we don't know everything.   Maybe that wrapper and the way it is devised or programmed can effect the way the information is stored and transmitted.
   
  I have no proof- I am just opening up the possibility.  I think it is reasonable.
   
  Regardless, i am happy to be wrong- but I will continue to listen to WAV over AIFF as long as my ears deceive me into thinking what I am hearing is better.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> I am not very technically knowledgeable; however allow me to share the following:
> 
> 
> Just a few years back everyone was convinced that a USB cable should not make any difference in sonic output- as zero's and ones are zero's and one's.
> ...


 
  From what I can tell you seem to be unreasonable.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





rsbrsvp said:


> Just a few years back everyone was convinced that a USB cable should not make any difference in sonic output- as zero's and ones are zero's and one's.
> 
> Today, everyone in computer audio who has tested different high end cables USB cables knows they sound different even though I am not sure there is a technical explanation.


 
   
  Please provide links to relevant research / examples / proof where DBT tests show there are differences.  Even if you could find just one test where an actual DBT was held which shows there are any audible differences at all.
   
  I think you'll find that there are no published tests which categorically prove any difference - and that all you have is people _claiming they can hear a difference_ - yet same people will not submit to an abx test.
   
  The reason there is no technical explanation is because there is no audible difference.


----------



## chewy4

More WAV vs AIFF nonsense? No offense, but it really isn't reasonable to say that the two sound different.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





anetode said:


> Well, actually, you might. Not to overthink this example too much, but the recording method and mastering could easily affect perceived details. One of the audiophile draws of neutral low-distortion headphones like the 009 is that they'll let you hear way more than otherwise practically possible live due to the abundance of close miking in modern recordings. Alternately, a grossly colored phone like a Grado might lead you to think you're hearing more detail because of the bump in the presence range.


 
   
  I specifically referred to a system that is designed to be as transparent (= flat frequency response etc., even realistic volume levels) as possible, as if the listener's ears were in the place of the microphone. A grossly colored phone obviously does not meet those criteria. I also intentionally wrote "not much more details" to account for the possibility some imperfections in the frequency response.
  Anyway, my point was that "high end" headphones do not have magical detail-enhancing abilities that make the golden ears of an audiophile listener infinitely resolving.


----------



## jvandyk

Yes, it is unreasonable to hear differences in the science forum


----------



## jvandyk

Btw, wav files are not user friendly. Why not convert them to ALAC in iTunes?


----------



## Achmedisdead




----------



## stv014

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *rsbrsvp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Just a few years back everyone was convinced that a USB cable should not make any difference in sonic output- as zero's and ones are zero's and one's.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Putting aside the pointless debates about the sound quality effects of USB cables, cables and software are different things. Software has very limited ways to change the sound on competent playback hardware if it is bit perfect and can supply the data to the DAC fast enough that the hardware buffer does not underrun. Some will probably bring up the idea of timing irregularities in the playback, but it is hardware buffered, and the software has no direct control over the timing of individual samples: it can either send the data in time, and then the sound is fine, or not, resulting in obvious skips and break-ups. It is possible for software to have audible sound quality effects through interference (e.g. noises heard on badly implemented onboard audio outputs while moving the mouse or other activity), but not on something that qualifies as competent audio hardware.


----------



## jvandyk

I think it is instructive to remember that wav resolution at 1411 has no more data than flac or ALAC at 500-950 or so. The empty spaces of non information are removed. At 320 or less, musical information/data is removed. 320 sounds pretty decent but experience comparing usually results in the most powerful passages becoming distorted or losing definition with the lossy formats. Not as obvious at 320 but I hear a big step down at 256. And using the highest quality level of lossy VBR is the same quality as 320.


----------



## bigshot

rsbrsvp said:


> I am not very technically knowledgeable; however allow me to share the following: Just a few years back everyone was convinced that a USB cable should not make any difference in sonic output- as zero's and ones are zero's and one's. Today, everyone in computer audio who has tested different high end cables USB cables knows they sound different even though I am not sure there is a technical explanation.




Well, all I can say is that you are listening to the wrong people. Properly functioning cables *do* all sound the same, whether you paid $700 for them at a boutique audio dealer or $3 for them at Monoprice.

High end cables have a hefty markup over cost, while electronics generally is marked up very little. Can you think of a reason why high end audio dealers would e motivated to sell you expensive wires to go with the amp you just bought from them?


----------



## jvandyk

bigshot said:


> Well, all I can say is that you are listening to the wrong people. Properly functioning cables *do* all sound the same, whether you paid $700 for them at a boutique audio dealer or $3 for them at Monoprice.
> High end cables have a hefty markup over cost, while electronics generally is marked up very little. Can you think of a reason why high end audio dealers would e motivated to sell you expensive wires to go with the amp you just bought from them?




You know BS, the high end dealers have a nice markup on the hardware too. Usually at least 50%. True, the Internet is next to nothing, but the high end gear is usually protected by MAP pricing. If a manufacturer ends up losing their margin and not protecting their brick and mortar dealers, they end up getting dropped. As for cables, a good dealer will recommend a reasonably priced set that works well with the associated gear.


----------



## xnor

@#187 jvandyk, you're talking about bitrate. For lossless compression the bitrate doesn't really matter. With improved algorithms and more computing power we could compress some tracks to below 320 kbps without any loss of information.
   
  320 kbps mp3 is acoustically transparent for most tracks, i.e. people cannot reliably tell the mp3 and original apart.


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> I specifically referred to a system that is designed to be as transparent (= flat frequency response etc., even realistic volume levels) as possible, as if the listener's ears were in the place of the microphone. A grossly colored phone obviously does not meet those criteria. I also intentionally wrote "not much more details" to account for the possibility some imperfections in the frequency response.
> Anyway, my point was that "high end" headphones do not have magical detail-enhancing abilities that make the golden ears of an audiophile listener infinitely resolving.


 
   
  I understood what you meant, my comment came because of a set of observations I've been pondering for a while going through various types of recordings and headphones/speakers. I've heard a recording on a flat speaker properly set up and played through a room-compensation DSP gloss over details I've heard in the 009. Also I've been uncomfortably close to acoustic musicians at live shows and heard more cacophony than detail. To be fair, after a long search at RMAF I did find a speaker system that managed to keep up with the 009's detail level. Suffice to say that due to the lack of room acoustics and the smooth fr, quick decay and low-distortion of some high end headphones I would sometimes choose to listen to them based on the criterion of detail over a set of speakers or a live performance. Again I mainly agree with you, it's just that it isn't so cut and dry as transparent in/transparent out.


----------



## jvandyk

Bitrate is a pretty good marker for how these formats perform. It is an indicator of resolution. There is no 320 format that is not labeled lossy. 24 bit, of course, is well above 4000kbps native and ends up in the mid 2000's after flac or ALAC transcoding. All the data is there. So there is a direct correlation between bit rate and sound quality.


----------



## bigshot

jvandyk said:


> As for cables, a good dealer will recommend a reasonably priced set that works well with the associated gear.




I have yet to see any storefront audio dealer who carries reasonably priced cables. Even Radio Shack marks theirs up to $8-$15 or so.

Sound quality and bitrate are only related in lower bitrate lossy. Once a codec achieves transparency, you can pack as many styrofoam peanuts into the file size you want, but for purposes of listening to music, it isn't going to sound any better.


----------



## jvandyk

bigshot said:


> I have yet to see any storefront audio dealer who carries reasonably priced cables. Even Radio Shack marks theirs up to $8-$15 or so.



To each his own BS. I go to a high end shop to hear the difference before I buy. And I value the existence of the high end dealer and don't blame them for making a profit. As for cables, There are outstanding choices in the 60-80 range. They may be marked up 50% , but I wouldn't go listen to them and then hit the web after walking out. Even The Shack needs to make a profit or they go under.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Bitrate is a pretty good marker for how these formats perform. It is an indicator of resolution. There is no 320 format that is not labeled lossy. 24 bit, of course, is well above 4000kbps native and ends up in the mid 2000's after flac or ALAC transcoding. All the data is there. So there is a direct correlation between bit rate and sound quality.


 
  Bitrate is nothing more than a ratio of file size and time.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Bitrate is a pretty good marker for how these formats perform. It is an indicator of resolution. There is no 320 format that is not labeled lossy. 24 bit, of course, is well above 4000kbps native and ends up in the mid 2000's after flac or ALAC transcoding. All the data is there. So there is a direct correlation between bit rate and sound quality.


 
  But I have 44.1/16 flac tracks with < 400 kbps, only one has a longer pause in it and the resulting bitrate is ~180 kpbs. I also have a couple of classical 24 bit flacs with < 1500 kbps.
   
  CBR (320 kbps mp3) is not comparable to that.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> But I have 44.1/16 flac tracks with < 400 kbps, only one has a longer pause in it and the resulting bitrate is ~180 kpbs. I also have a couple of classical 24 bit flacs with < 1500 kbps.
> 
> CBR (320 kbps mp3) is not comparable to that.


 
  I suppose FLAC does get a little smaller than ALAC sometimes. I have never seen any lossless bitrate go below 500 myself (maybe 490). Very quiet classical movement do seem to have less info.
   
  But back to the RIPS, any lossy 320 RIP/transcode is compressed and lossy in nature. A good comparison is to see the actual lossy VBR RIP of a track vs CBR 320. The VBR might very well be in the 100's like your example and good sound quality compared to the 320 rip.
   
  But my point is, 24 bit tracks sound better than 16 bit (same track), side by side. And the amount of data is evident in the actual bitrate...
   
  I am sold on 24 bit for sure. Not only is the dynamic performance superior, but the tonal performance is better.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Bitrate is nothing more than a ratio of file size and time.


 
  Yes and file size is a direct indicator of data contained. And in our world of digital audio, short changing data is not such a good thing. If we already know that a lossless version of a 16 bit track contains 850kbps on average after being transcoded into FLAC or ALAC, then purposely removing 520Kbps worth of data seems like a non-starter. Granted, the 320k result is better than one would expect. But why even do it in the first place?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jvandyk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> But my point is, 24 bit tracks sound better than 16 bit (same track), side by side. And the amount of data is evident in the actual bitrate...
> 
> I am sold on 24 bit for sure. Not only is the dynamic performance superior, but the tonal performance is better.


 
  Have you seen this thread?


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Yes and file size is a direct indicator of data contained. And in our world of digital audio, short changing data is not such a good thing. If we already know that a lossless version of a 16 bit track contains 850kbps on average after being transcoded into FLAC or ALAC, then purposely removing 520Kbps worth of data seems like a non-starter. Granted, the 320k result is better than one would expect. But why even do it in the first place?


 
  Why do you not believe the makers of FLAC and ALAC when they say their codecs are lossless? Are you also paranoid about putting anything in a .zip archive because since the file size shrinks, the data is apparently lost?
   
  Nothing is removed. It's just written in a shorthand way. As long as you have a decoder to translate this shorthand data, you're good to go.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Why do you not believe the makers of FLAC and ALAC when they say their codecs are lossless? Are you also paranoid about putting anything in a .zip archive because since the file size shrinks, the data is apparently lost?
> 
> Nothing is removed. It's just written in a shorthand way. As long as you have a decoder to translate this shorthand data, you're good to go.


 
  I agree. Nothing is removed in FLAC or ALAC or a zip file. In 320 lame encoders, alot is removed.This is why they call it a lossy format vs lossless.


----------



## jvandyk

"Have you seen this thread?"
   
  I kind of pity the fellow for not hearing any difference between 24 bit audio and 16 bit. Maybe he has the wrong hobby (if his hobby is audio). In the meantime, his article would seem to be "rubbish" considering every major recording studio disagrees with him.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> But my point is, 24 bit tracks sound better than 16 bit (same track), side by side. And the amount of data is evident in the actual bitrate...
> 
> I am sold on 24 bit for sure. Not only is the dynamic performance superior, but the tonal performance is better.


 
   
  The difference between 24bit and 16bit is just the dynamic noise floor - which for playback you'll notice no difference between 16 and 24bit.  Take any 24bit recording - then resample (using a good resampler like Sox) down to 16bit.  ABX the two of them.  You won't be able to tell them apart in a blind test.
   
  If you are hearing a difference between 16bit and 24bit then it's likely:
 [a] It's from a different mastering
* They're not volume matched in your comparisons
*


----------



## MrHeuristic

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> "Have you seen this thread?"
> 
> I kind of pity the fellow for not hearing any difference between 24 bit audio and 16 bit. Maybe he has the wrong hobby (if his hobby is audio). In the meantime, his article would seem to be "rubbish" considering every major recording studio disagrees with him.


 
   
  Or, maybe you're under the influence of placebo and expectation bias, and that fellow is the sensible one. I certainly don't pity him for being honest about the failures of human perception.

 Blind test yourself. It's fairly easy to set up an ABX test on your computer with two different music files. You probably can't actually tell the difference.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





brooko said:


> The difference between 24bit and 16bit is just the dynamic noise floor - which for playback you'll notice no difference between 16 and 24bit.  Take any 24bit recording - then resample (using a good resampler like Sox) down to 16bit.  ABX the two of them.  You won't be able to tell them apart in a blind test.
> 
> If you are hearing a difference between 16bit and 24bit then it's likely:
> [a] It's from a different mastering
> ...


*

  Would you say the same if we just use 8 bits of info? And no, the mastering is not different always (they didn't remaster Gaucho for HD Tracks). One should wonder- Why, in the advent of digital audio way back when, did the recording engineers strive for superior resolution in their recordings? Why didn't they just forget everything and record in 8 bit audio? But in reality, using 20 bit masters was the first step for recording engineers, followed by 24 bit. According to your argument, this was all for nothing.
*


----------



## xnor

To get back on topic:
   Quote:


jvandyk said:


> In 320 lame encoders, alot is removed.


 
  Think about it this way: as long as the result is transparent, the more data is removed, the smaller the resulting file, the better the lossy compression.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





mrheuristic said:


> Or, maybe you're under the influence of placebo and expectation bias, and that fellow is the sensible one. I certainly don't pity him for being honest about the failures of human perception.
> 
> Blind test yourself. It's fairly easy to set up an ABX test on your computer with two different music files. You probably can't actually tell the difference.


 
  Don't use me as an example, use the worldwide recording industry.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> To get back on topic:
> Think about it this way: as long as the result is transparent, the more data is removed, the smaller the resulting file, the better the lossy compression.


 
  I agree. I hear a drop off at 256 bigtime on very good recordings. vs lossless. 320 is better. It does not take a kilobuck system to hear it...car stereo will do. Earlier, I was debating this somewhere else and using the new Fagen album (Sunken Condos) as an example. I have the 256k version and 24 bit version. And no, it was not mastered differently. The 256k is a mess. no definition in the bass lines..compressed sounding peaks, blary sounding midrange. Same exact playback devices. Granted comparing 24 bit to 256k is a stretch...but proves my point anyway.


----------



## MrHeuristic

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Would you say the same if we just use 8 bits of info? And no, the mastering is not different always (they didn't remaster Gaucho for HD Tracks). One should wonder- Why, in the advent of digital audio way back when, did the recording engineers strive for superior resolution in their recordings? Why didn't they just forget everything and record in 8 bit audio? But in reality, using 20 bit masters was the first step for recording engineers, followed by 24 bit. According to your argument, this was all for nothing.


 
   
  Photographers often shoot pictures in RAW format. This allows them more room for correction in post-production. However, photos are definitely NOT shared in RAW when uploaded to the internet. Why? Because, there are no visible differences between a RAW file and a lossless image file. While RAW contains more data and a higher bit-depth, this is only advantageous when color-correcting the photo. The extra data is non-visible.
   
   
  Similarly, that audio engineers record in 24-bit is irrelevant for _*playback*_. We're talking about playback here. Blind test yourself. Seriously, do it. I'd love to hear your results.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





mrheuristic said:


> Photographers often shoot pictures in RAW format. This allows them more room for correction in post-production. However, photos are definitely NOT shared in RAW when uploaded to the internet. Why? Because, there are no visible differences between a RAW file and a lossless image file. While RAW contains more data and a higher bit-depth, this is only advantageous when color-correcting the photo. The extra data is non-visible.
> 
> 
> Similarly, that audio engineers record in 24-bit is irrelevant for _*playback*_. We're talking about playback here. Blind test yourself. Seriously, do it. I'd love to hear your results.


 
  Of course the compressed file size pictures are lower quality. Just use the zoom control. And a file size too small in any photo will result in poor quality professional prints. The only reason for compressing the image file sizes is to use them as lower quality proofs and to not crash their servers with data. A 4x5 negative is of higher quality than a 35mm negative to relate to analog.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Would you say the same if we just use 8 bits of info? And no, the mastering is not different always (they didn't remaster Gaucho for HD Tracks). One should wonder- Why, in the advent of digital audio way back when, did the recording engineers strive for superior resolution in their recordings? Why didn't they just forget everything and record in 8 bit audio? But in reality, using 20 bit masters was the first step for recording engineers, followed by 24 bit. According to your argument, this was all for nothing.


 
   
  I wasn't talking about recording - there are obvious benefits to recording 24bit when you're recording individual tracks (namely again - noise floor).  
   
  However - after the combining and mastering is complete, there is absolutely no audible benefit using 24bit over 16bit for playback if:
   - both originated from the same mastering
   - both are volume matched
   
  You are the one claiming an audible difference.  So please provide proof.  It's easy to do.  Take your best 24bit source.  Resample using Sox down to 16bit.  Using Foobar2000's built-in abx tool (Foobar is free), abx the two tracks (after using replay gain to ensure the volume is matched).  Make sure the blind test box is checked.  Run 15 iterations (more if you want).  Post the log.
   
  All this takes is time.  Everything else (all the software) is free.  Please note - I'm not trying to be difficult, or put you down, or anything like that.  As long as your resampling didn't introduce any audible artifacts, you really won't be able to tell the difference.  The great thing about learning this for yourself is that then you can make informed choices buying your music.
   
  HD Tracks currently holds 16/44.1, 24/96 and 24/192 releases of Amber Rubarth's latest binaural album.  All appear to have come from the original master.  The 16/44.1 is the cheapest, smallest file size, and yet is still lossless.  Once you realise that you can't actually tell the difference via true blind test, you can then make an informed decision about future purchases.  All I'm suggesting is rather than sticking to your guns that you can tell the difference, and making suggestions that anyone who can't has inferior ears/gear - actually do the test yourself.
   
  I think you will be very surprised at the results.


----------



## MrHeuristic

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Of course the compressed file size pictures are lower quality. Just use the zoom control. And a file size too small in any photo will result in poor quality professional prints. The only reason for compressing the image file sizes is to use them as lower quality proofs and to not crash their servers with data. A 4x5 negative is of higher quality than a 35mm negative to relate to analog.


 
  I'm not sure you understood my analogy, or how digital photography works.
   
  There is no discernible difference between a RAW image and a .png (*lossless*) image of the same resolution. None. The only difference is that the RAW image contains extra data (outside the visible range) that allows the exposure to be modified more accurately and the color to be corrected.
   
  This is exactly like how a 24-bit audio recording cannot be discerned from 16-bit during playback, though there still is the advantage of a lower noise floor — and that's why audio engineers still record at that level. Your argument that 24-bit recording has benefits to audio engineers is sound (and nobody's challenging that). Your argument falls apart when you make the unfounded jump to the conclusion that those benefits extend into listening scenarios.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





mrheuristic said:


> I'm not sure you understood my analogy, or how digital photography works.
> 
> There is no discernible difference between a RAW image and a .png (*lossless*) image of the same resolution. None. The only difference is that the RAW image contains extra data (outside the visible range) that allows the exposure to be modified more accurately and the color to be corrected.
> 
> This is exactly like how a 24-bit audio recording cannot be discerned from 16-bit during playback, though there still is the advantage of a lower noise floor — and that's why audio engineers still record at that level.


 
  Understood. But it also proves my point that compressing a file size(not using a lossless program) lowers quality (using the internet pic example).I know alot of professional photographers (I went to school at RIT in Rochester). Many use digital only for convenience and cost. Many feel the finest quality( for producing a professional print) still comes from 4x5 analog technology. But alas, large format photography is now a relic anyway. Just like using an offset 4 color press vs a digital press in printing. Every printer knows the analog offset technology beats the crap out of digital. But it also is a relic.
   
  Perhaps your example(png) pertains to comparing a lossless algorithm for audio to an RAW or WAV file. There I agree.
   
  Finally, doing a blind test is not needed when the differences are so obvious. I recommend checking out some 24 bit audio.


----------



## MrHeuristic

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Understood. But it also proves my point that compressing a file size(not using a lossless program) lowers quality (using the internet pic example).


 
  Right, obviously _lossy_ algorithms result in _loss_. You don't have to tell me that, I'm well aware. How does this relate to 24-bit vs 16-bit? 
   
  If you're trying to say that going from 24-bit to 16-bit is a loss in quality, well, we have to define what quality means in this context. Are we talking about loss of quality beyond the discernible range? A raised noise floor that is irrelevant for any actual playback (and is beyond the actual range of the music)? With that definition, yes, I'd agree with you that there's a loss, but the loss doesn't matter as you can't discern it, and the loss is transparent to the actual music you're hearing. 
   
  If by 'lowers quality' you mean a discernible and measurable loss in _audible_ quality that actually affects the music you're hearing, I absolutely do not agree, and I'd ask that you back up your statements with an objective test. ABX. 
   
   
   


> Finally, doing a blind test is not needed when the differences are so obvious.


 
   
  You are vastly underestimating the power of placebo and expectation bias. You also seem to be under the influence of both.


----------



## mikeaj

Lots of "obvious" differences seem to vanish when the advantage of knowing which is which gets removed...
   
  Anyway, you _will_ hear the difference in 24 bits under the right circumstances (e.g. very quiet room, crank up the volume to ridiculous levels to make the noise floor apparent on the 16-bit playback); people aren't denying that. It's just for most any practical playback scenario and usage that the benefit doesn't seem like it should be audible when looking at the numbers, and doesn't seem to be audible based on actual testing.  Details that people actually notice don't appear in the 17th, 18th, etc. least significant bits.


----------



## Achmedisdead




----------



## jvandyk

It is amazing..the state of denial of the obvious that occurs in Sound Science. Especially with a bunch of people using a free media player proving wrong 30 years of recording technology. As King Stahlman (bail bondsman in San Diego) would say, "whatever you did in the past, have a nice life"!


----------



## jvandyk

mrheuristic said:


> Right, obviously _lossy_ algorithms result in _loss_. You don't have to tell me that, I'm well aware. How does this relate to 24-bit vs 16-bit?
> 
> If you're trying to say that going from 24-bit to 16-bit is a loss in quality, well, we have to define what quality means in this context. Are we talking about loss of quality beyond the discernible range? A raised noise floor that is irrelevant for any actual playback (and is beyond the actual range of the music)? With that definition, yes, I'd agree with you that there's a loss, but the loss doesn't matter as you can't discern it, and the loss is transparent to the actual music you're hearing.
> 
> ...



Your vastly underestimating the power of actually listening to the results.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Isn't that what an ABX test is, actually listening to the results?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> It is amazing..the *state of denial* of the obvious that occurs in Sound Science.


 
  That state appears to be populated only by you today.....


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> Isn't that what an ABX test is, actually listening to the results?


 
  Why yes, I believe it is!


----------



## jvandyk

achmedisdead said:


> Why yes, I believe it is!



Go ahead then. Talk about some a/b you've done with 24 bit masters vs 16 bit or 320k? I'm going to guess that, like the other posters, you will change the subject as fast as you can put the blindfold on for your foobar test.


----------



## jvandyk

sonitus mirus said:


> Isn't that what an ABX test is, actually listening to the results?



No it isn't. If you trust foobar over 30 years of recording technology, then I guess it is for you. In the meantime, maybe talk about something you've actually listened to. And no links please with pie charts.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Go ahead then. Talk about some a/b you've done with 24 bit masters vs 16 bit or 320k? I'm going to guess that, like the other posters, you will change the subject as fast as you can put the blindfold on for your foobar test.


 
  I won't even waste my time with 24 bit files. I find transparency with LAME V2 mp3 files, compared to 16/44.1 FLAC.....so why would I waste money and disk space buying 24 bit music? I'm living in the real world.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> No it isn't. If you trust foobar over 30 years of recording technology, then I guess it is for you. In the meantime, maybe talk about something you've actually listened to. And no links please with pie charts.


 
  I think you're afraid to take the ABX challenge and be proven wrong......


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Go ahead then. Talk about some a/b you've done with 24 bit masters vs 16 bit or 320k? I'm going to guess that, like the other posters, you will change the subject as fast as you can put the blindfold on for your foobar test.


 
   
  Last time I tried it, I failed to distinguish the two, but that's not an interesting result because anyone can claim that I have stone ears or wasn't taking the test seriously or maybe wasn't listening loudly enough or with crappy gear?
   
   
  In an important sense, some kind of blinded testing is much more "listening to the results" than sighted comparisons because knowledge of which is which isn't biasing the listening results.


----------



## jvandyk

achmedisdead said:


> I won't even waste my time with 24 bit files. I find transparency with LAME V2 mp3 files, compared to 16/44.1 FLAC.....so why would I waste money and disk space buying 24 bit music? I'm living in the real world.



It's OK to be good with mp3. More power to you. Glad you like lossy with a quarter the resolution of a CD. Now back to today's technology- 24 bit with 16 times the resolution of what you like!


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> It's OK to be good with mp3. More power to you. Glad you like lossy with a quarter the resolution of a CD. Now back to today's technology- 24 bit with 16 times the resolution of what you like!


 
   
  16 times meaning 16 times higher file size or so?
   
  How about comparing 128 kbps early mp3 encoder to 128 kbps recent LAME?  Same file size, vastly different quality.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





achmedisdead said:


> I won't even waste my time with 24 bit files. I find transparency with LAME V2 mp3 files, compared to 16/44.1 FLAC.....so why would I waste money and disk space buying 24 bit music? I'm living in the real world.


 
   
  Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> It's OK to be good with mp3. More power to you. Glad you like lossy with a quarter the resolution of a CD. Now back to today's technology- 24 bit with 16 times the resolution of what you like!


 
  It's not a matter of whether I like it or not....it is what I am capable of actually hearing. I can't hear any difference between that and redbook-quality FLAC. 
   
  Maybe you'd discover the same thing if you actually took the test.....ABX redbook FLAC against the 24-bit you claim is superior. Go on....I dare you


----------



## bigshot

jvandyk said:


> But my point is, 24 bit tracks sound better than 16 bit (same track), side by side.




I've done a side by side comparison on a ProTools workstation, and once the file was properly dithered and bounced down to 16, there was absolutely no audible difference between it and the 24 bit master.

I've done the A/B because it was my job to edit sound and supervise sound mixes. I worked with 24 bit files every day. I know exactly what the difference is. It's noise floor, not resolution in normal listening levels.

You want first hand experience comparing with my own ears, not pie charts? Here it is.


----------



## jvandyk

mikeaj said:


> 16 times meaning 16 times higher file size or so?
> 
> How about comparing 128 kbps early mp3 encoder to 128 kbps recent LAME?  Same file size, vastly different quality.



It's all good with me. I'm obviously not a member of the SS club here. But I do like to chime in to see if anybody is actually listening instead of posting pie charts. Glad the music sounds good for all of you! Cheers and happy new year to the SS peeps!


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> No it isn't. If you trust foobar over 30 years of recording technology, then I guess it is for you. In the meantime, maybe talk about something you've actually listened to. And no links please with pie charts.


 
  I have recently proven to myself that I am unable to hear a difference when playing back a 24-bit 96kHz ALAC file at ~2600 kbps and a 16-bit 44.1kHz mp3 file at 320 kbps. (no pie charts, I promise)
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3/240#post_8901557
   
  No illusions for me.  I know what I hear.


----------



## bigshot

I've done A/B listening tests with SACD, MP3 and AAC as well. Are you interested in hearing about that, jvandyk?


----------



## jvandyk

sonitus mirus said:


> I have recently proven to myself that I am unable to hear a difference when playing back a 24-bit 96kHz ALAC file at ~2600 kbps and a 16-bit 44.1kHz mp3 file at 320 kbps. (no pie charts, I promise)
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3/240#post_8901557
> 
> No illusions for me.  I know what I hear.


Proving to yourself is a good thing! Cheers!


----------



## jvandyk

bigshot said:


> I've done A/B listening tests with SACD, MP3 and AAC as well. Are you interested in hearing about that, jvandyk?



It's all good BS. Sorry to be a bother. Cheers!


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> It is amazing..the state of denial of the obvious that occurs in Sound Science. Especially with a bunch of people using a free media player proving wrong 30 years of recording technology. As King Stahlman (bail bondsman in San Diego) would say, "whatever you did in the past, have a nice life"!


 
   
  Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Your vastly underestimating the power of actually listening to the results.


 
   
  Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Go ahead then. Talk about some a/b you've done with 24 bit masters vs 16 bit or 320k? I'm going to guess that, like the other posters, you will change the subject as fast as you can put the blindfold on for your foobar test.


 
   
  Here's the funny thing - those of us that have actually already performed the tests are quite happy to admit that there is no sonic difference between 16/44 and 24/96 if they're from the same mastering, volume matched, and resampled properly.  We have talked about actual tests - I can even give you examples - but ultimately you ignore what we've said.  The last quote (in red above) is the funny bit - as you're the one who keeps avoiding doing a proper blind test.  Your refusal to perform one simply confirms that you're avoiding reality (to me at least).
   
  As you seem to be fond of quotes - I'll leave you with the one in my signature - it seems apt in this case.  From a very wise Chinese gentlemen .......
   
*[size=11.199999809265137px]Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance[/size]*


----------



## jvandyk

brooko said:


> Here's the funny thing - those of us that have actually already performed the tests are quite happy to admit that there is no sonic difference between 16/44 and 24/96 if they're from the same mastering, volume matched, and resampled properly.  We have talked about actual tests - I can even give you examples - but ultimately you ignore what we've said.  The last quote (in red above) is the funny bit - as you're the one who keeps avoiding doing a proper blind test.  Your refusal to perform one simply confirms that you're avoiding reality (to me at least).
> 
> As you seem to be fond of quotes - I'll leave you with the one in my signature - it seems apt in this case.  From a very wise Chinese gentlemen .......
> 
> *[size=11.199999809265137px]Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance[/size]*


Flame away Brooko. Happy new year.


----------



## jvandyk

Just to link something from my end of the universe and be done-
http://www.stereophile.com/content/road-analog-sounding-digital-are-we-there-yet

No need to flame. Nighty nite.


----------



## MrHeuristic

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Flame away Brooko. Happy new year.


 
   
  Do you even know what the word flame means?
  Pointing out flaws in your logic is _not_ flaming.
   
  He was pointing out that you shifted the burden of proof to us, the skeptics (which in itself was a fallacious maneuver, since you're making the claims that you can discern a difference) and when your burden of proof was actually met, you ignored the issue, moved the goalposts, and attempted to exit the discussion.
   
_Then_, rather than admit to your failing logic, you descended into tu quoque. Cool.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Flame away Brooko. Happy new year.


 
  No flame - haven't so far in this thread - nor do I intend to ...... despite the troll-bait you've been putting out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Think you've had enough fun yet?
   
  You and those "perfect ears" of yours have a good New Year too.


----------



## jvandyk

mrheuristic said:


> Do you even know what the word flame means?
> Pointing out flaws in your logic is _not_ flaming.
> 
> He was pointing out that you shifted the burden of proof to us, the skeptics (which in itself was a fallacious maneuver, since you're making the claims that you can discern a difference) and when your burden of proof was actually met, you ignored the issue, moved the goalposts, and attempted to exit the discussion.
> ...


Nah. He called me ignorant for not agreeing with him. You guys retorted that you could not hear any difference. That's about it. But getting flamed on the SS forum is nothing new. I didn't flame or troll, just declined to agree with you.


----------



## Achmedisdead

> Heck, CDs can't even compete with ripped CDs.


----------



## jvandyk

brooko said:


> No flame - haven't so far in this thread - nor do I intend to ...... despite the troll-bait you've been putting out
> 
> Think you've had enough fun yet?
> 
> You and those "perfect ears" of yours have a good New Year too.




So you have the perfect ears instead and I'm "ignorant"for disagreeing? SS guys..someone who jumps in and debates is not a troll. A large majority of the audiophile community thinks 24 bit sounds dang good.


----------



## jvandyk

achmedisdead said:


> :blink:



I agree!


----------



## MrHeuristic

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> So you have the perfect ears instead and I'm "ignorant"for disagreeing? SS guys..someone who jumps in and debates is not a troll. *A large majority of the audiophile community thinks 24 bit sounds dang good.*


 
   
  There was a time when the majority of the population believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Should we always accept the opinion of the majority, or should we test those opinions to determine their validity?
   
   
  Your fallacy this time is an appeal to popularity.


----------



## MrHeuristic

Also, if you stopped playing the victim for ten minutes, performed a blind test, and posted the log here, you could very easily prove yourself correct, and put an end to the "flaming". Why not?


----------



## jvandyk

mrheuristic said:


> Also, if you stopped playing the victim for ten minutes, performed a blind test, and posted the log here, you could very easily prove yourself correct, and put an end to the "flaming". Why not?


 
C'mon Mr H. Already posted about how horrible the 256k version of Sunken Condos sounded vs the 24 bit version. Do I need to go back and check myself on that one? Or should I goon about how badly the HD tracks 24 bit Damn The Torpedoes trashes the Mobile Fidelity CD? And I already mentioned Gaucho. Btw, the analog vinyl sounds better than any of them. Ready to go on that one?
I suggest glancing at my link from earlier and maybe considering some subjective opinions. A/b blind testing exposes the obvious but is truly subjective because the listener is focused on only the obvious. Listening over time reveals the finer things in life. Just my opinion. If I hear a click or a pop on a record, it biases any possible blind test....but the vinyl still sounds better in the long run. Same with 24 bit vs 16 bit. And vs lossy mp3.... The obvious.


----------



## jvandyk

And this business of dithering 24 bit to 16 bit is nonsense. It is failed from the start. The only true comparison is to listen to a completely untouched 16 bit versus a 24 bit from the same mastering. No dithering...no resampling. And you must, in the case of the limited foobar program, change the settings on each track as it will not play bitperfect in those two modes back to back in WASAPI. A/b blind testing of 24 bit vs 16 bit is impossible in foobar without altering the source or using resampling.


----------



## mikeaj

Well, if you think distortion from quantization error is better than a little bit of noise, then... maybe you can listen to both to confirm and pick out which you like better?
   
  Anyway, how about 24-bit vs. 16-bit dithered, and then 24-bit vs. 16-bit undithered (rounding or truncation?  your choice I guess) in a separate test?


----------



## Brooko

Nvm - followed my own advice and stepping out of this one.


----------



## MrHeuristic

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Do I need to go back and check myself on that one? ... And I already mentioned Gaucho. Btw, the analog vinyl sounds better than any of them. Ready to go on that one?


 
   


jvandyk said:


> I suggest glancing at my link from earlier and maybe considering some subjective opinions.


   

  I don't have to 'consider' your subjective opinion. I already have. I'm well aware of it. I'm absolutely positive that you _believe_ you can hear a difference between a 16-bit and 24-bit audio file. 
   
  However, until you prove otherwise, I'm going to remain of the opinion that this perceived difference is not due to any audible difference in the tracks, but is a result of your expectation that the 24-bit file will sound better (and, extending that logic to vinyl, an expectation that vinyl will sound best). From what I know about human perception and the human mind, I find it more likely that you are under a misapprehension than that there is any difference in those two digital files.


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> So you have the perfect ears instead and I'm "ignorant"for disagreeing? SS guys..someone who jumps in and debates is not a troll. A large majority of the audiophile community thinks 24 bit sounds dang good.


 
   
  No one has claimed to have perfect ears or that your hearing was flawed. However by misunderstanding the science behind bitrates it is fair to say that you are holding on to a level of ignorance. Sorry, in this case it's about weighing evidence according to tools prescribed by the scientific method and your anecdotal evidence neither stands up to scrutiny nor poses a serious challenge to previously established theory. FWIW I don't think you're a troll and it's rather healthy to have your assumptions challenged, I wish this wasn't a factionalist SS ghetto thing but it's easier for people to make a caricature of opposing opinions than take them as is.
   
  If you'd like to learn more about why it is thought that you are wrong I can provide you with some information but it doesn't seem like you care at all. It's only once one completely closes off one's mind that they veer off into trolling.


----------



## Nirvana Woman

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
   
  In short: 24 bit isn't actually able to make a difference with modern hifi equipment


----------



## bigshot

That's a bingo NirvWo.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Well, if you think distortion from quantization error is better than a little bit of noise, then... maybe you can listen to both to confirm and pick out which you like better?
> 
> Anyway, how about 24-bit vs. 16-bit dithered, and then 24-bit vs. 16-bit undithered (rounding or truncation?  your choice I guess) in a separate test?


 
  Im just curious, as most of you suggest using foobar to do blind testing. Foobar cannot play 16 bit and 24 bit back to back in a bitperfect fashion period. Everybody keeps asking me to do this, but I would assume everybody is first manipulating the 16 bit tracks first with dither/ software before their tests. And this would also require upsamling to work in foobar.
   
  Sounds like a crappy test.
   
  In WASAPI mode, Foobar must be set to the proper bit depth for each format before playing. And I hope the folks here are not using DS for their tests..as the 24 bit would be truncated to 16 bit automatically in foobar.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


jvandyk said:


> C'mon Mr H. Already posted about how horrible the 256k version of Sunken Condos sounded vs the 24 bit version. Do I need to go back and check myself on that one? Or should I goon about how badly the HD tracks 24 bit Damn The Torpedoes trashes the Mobile Fidelity CD? And I already mentioned Gaucho.





> *I cannot comment on those examples but I'll offer something else.  Way back in the late 1980s masters and Clark did a very interesting set of tests in an article called "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?" They assembled several audio enthusiasts and tested their ability to detect the differences between pairs of amplifiers ranging from $230 Pioneer receivers up to $12,000 Monoblocks. In the sighted test part several listeners opined that they could easily tell pairs of amps apart and described in great detail the differences. When the tests were repeated blind the listeners could no longer tell them apart. The certainty that many of the sighted listeners had did not mean they could hear differences without knowing what they were listening to. Yet nothing had changed between the two sessions apart from the blinding. Look on the web and you will find many many such examples where utter certainty under sighted conditions vanishes away when the awareness of what you are listening to is removed. *





> *We need blind tests to keep us honest. Sometimes we just imagine differences that are not there. My favorite example of such self-deception is the guy comparing his beloved Bryston amp to an Onkyo. He described the merits of the Bryston and all the failings of the Onkyo in great detail (thin, grainy, distorted)  then his pal turned off the Onkyo and the music kept on playing, he was still listening to his Bryston. There are accounts of cable swaps which were not swaps yet differences were still heard. When we think a change has been made we tend to hear it regardless of how real the change is. With a short search you can find loads of similar examples. Blind tests help us to face reality and are very sensitive. In this forum we have members who can hear differences (sometimes and with some tracks) between lossy and lossless and have used DBTs to prove it. I can (blind) hear the differences between my CD players (one is 0.7db louder than the other)  or the effect of low pass filters (at some frequencies) .*





>


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Im just curious, as most of you suggest using foobar to do blind testing. Foobar cannot play 16 bit and 24 bit back to back in a bitperfect fashion period. Everybody keeps asking me to do this, but I would assume everybody is first manipulating the 16 bit tracks first with dither/ software before their tests. And this would also require upsamling to work in foobar.


 
   
  What is wrong with converting the 16 bit sample back to 24 bit (which is a simple lossless operation of padding the sample with zero bits), and resampling as well from 44.1 kHz back to the original higher sample rate, if necessary ? Once a high resolution sample is converted to 44.1/16 format, the loss of information is irreversible, and converting it to 96/24 (or whatever else it originally was) again will not magically restore it. So, you cannot use that as an excuse when you fail to hear a difference.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





nirvana woman said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
> 
> In short: 24 bit isn't actually able to make a difference with modern hifi equipment


 
  You might want to let the manufacturers of 24 bit DACS know that! And while you're at it, let the software manufacturers know too..those misled folks who provide upsampling and such.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> You might want to let the manufacturers of 24 bit DACS know that! And while you're at it, let the software manufacturers know too..those misled folks who provide upsampling and such.


 
  You can read, right? The extra bits can be used e.g. for digital volume control, and upsampling = processing and processing <> playback.
   
  Btw, for vinyl recordings you wouldn't need more than 13 bits.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> What is wrong with converting the 16 bit sample back to 24 bit (which is a simple lossless operation of padding the sample with zero bits), and resampling as well from 44.1 kHz back to the original higher sample rate, if necessary ? Once a high resolution sample is converted to 44.1/16 format, the loss of information is irreversible, and converting it to 96/24 (or whatever else it originally was) again will not magically restore it. So, you cannot use that as an excuse when you fail to hear a difference.


 
  Because then you're not using the original file. Upsampling 16 bit tracks often results in a different sound ( I know, not in this forum it doesn't). But in the rest of the audiphile world, upsampling is often desired to improve the sound of 16 bit collections. It has been reviewed by every major audio mag as a way to improve quality.
   
  But I don't expect the SS thread to give that any credence.
   
  BTW, this all started when I was comparing the 256k version of the Fagen to the 24 bit. I suggested the 24 bit material sounded very good...What I wasn't trying to say was that 16 bit lossless was easily differentiated from 24 bit. I will admit right now that comparing the uncompressed 16 bit CD to the 24 bit version would be a much smaller difference indeed. But I also don't need a blind test to tell you the 256k version is inferior in multiple ways.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> You can read, right? The extra bits can be used e.g. for digital volume control, and upsampling = processing and processing <> playback.
> 
> Btw, for vinyl recordings you wouldn't need more than 13 bits.


 
  Patronizing again. it's so common in this forum. But I guess, based on your response, that you admit 24 bit can sound alot better than 16 bit using your example of digital volume control or EQ without losing resolution. In fact, the better software available uses 64 bit floating processors and can effectively provide digital volume control without loss of resolution. Digital EQ can also be done with larger bit depths with loss of resolution. All of this, controllable by the end user in playback.
   
  BTW, Foobar cannot do the above. You'll need at least JRiver or better.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> jvandyk said:
> ...


----------



## jvandyk

As long as we're having so much fun, here is a good link from one of the most respected DAC Enginneers in the industry. It backs up the debate against me and also my own points.
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm
   
  Interestingly, all this business about decay and noise floor is pretty relevant. If one listener thinks the 24 bit audio sounds more natural, but they cannot put their finger on it, it is because they are hearing the finest details of decay and the audible sound spectrum. And todays audio equipment does reproduce all of this.
   
  24 bit audio is superior technically during playback..at least in the very fine details.


----------



## bigshot

Are you kidding?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> As long as we're having so much fun, here is a good link from one of the most respected DAC Enginneers in the industry. It backs up the debate against me and also my own points.
> http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm


 
   
  That is one of the most dishonest audio-related web pages I have ever seen !
  The guy deliberately chooses one of the worst DACs ever tested by Stereophile and presents it as a typical example of 16 bit linearity !


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> That is one of the most dishonest audio-related web pages I have ever seen !
> The guy deliberately chooses one of the worst DACs ever tested by Stereophile and presents it as a typical example of 16 bit linearity !


 
  Nah, not really. In fact, he is one of the engineers for DCS (regarded as one of the finest DAC ranges in the world).


----------



## jcx

try closer reading, which points out that 24 bits is not necessary for the headroom - post processing
   
  and he fails to credit psychoacoustic noise shaped dither of 16 bits with delivering perceived noise floor and linearity below 16-bit's lsb - linearity basically to your DAC's limit
   
  and today PC sound software can recognize, use a 24 bit DAC to "preserve the bits" of a 16 bit source stream with applied local EQ, digital volume calculations giving "more bits", sending the top 24 to the DAC
   
  redithering (while pointless at 24 bits, Johnson noise in your electronics is higher) can be done too in most of today's digital audio hardware
   
  even low power 16 bit uC in DAP can redither after digital volume, EQ - see RockBox code - but many now have 24bit DAC


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Interestingly, all this business about decay and noise floor is pretty relevant.


 
   
  Do you have any idea how loud your stereo would have to be to be to be able to hear sound below -96dB? We're talking threshold of pain and hearing damage. No one listens to music like that.
   
  I'll spare you the pie chart, but keep in mind that when you paraphrase from websites, it helps if you know what those numbers mean. It also helps to paraphrase from sites of people who know what they're talking about. That guy isn't a DAC engineer. He is an internet equipment reviewer on a web forum. He might as well be a chimp with those credentials.
   
  Edit: I just found why you think he works for DCS. There is a footnote at the bottom of one of his pages that links to a sales pamphlet on digital audio by DCS. That is a footnote. He isn't an engineer for them.
   
  Honestly, if you ever hope to know anything about digital audio, you are going to have to open your mind and ears a bit and work on understanding the principles involved here. It isn't that hard. It's actually kind of fun, and armed with that information, you can sort out the chimps with a website from the folks like Nick who actually know a great deal about the subject.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





jcx said:


> try closer reading, which points out that 24 bits is not necessary for the headroom - post processing
> 
> and he fails to credit psychoacoustic noise shaped dither of 16 bits with delivering perceived noise floor and linearity below -96 dB - basically to your DAC's limit
> 
> ...


 
  Like I said, it points out both areas of the debate. I also read this closely-
   
  "Can we expect the same when moving from 16 bit (CD audio) to 24 bit?
 If we look at the numbers, the answer is yes.
 16 bit integer allows for 2^16= 65536 different values
 24 bit integer has 2^24= 16777216 different values, a 256 times better resolution!
 No doubt, this must be a substantial audible difference."
   
  And this-
 "Playback  The headroom argument is no longer valid, one knows the maximum level when producing the final master.
   
  Noise floor: your gear must have an S/N better than 96 dB otherwise the extra bits 24 offers will be drowned in the noise. But most gear does.
   
  DSP: if you use digital volume control or any other kind of DSP e.g. re-sampling, you can profit by using 24 bits.
 In case of 16 bits the result must be dithered otherwise the artifacts of the DSP become audible.
 Again 24 bits has the advantage because of the quantization error.
 If you have hardware supporting 24 bit words, padding 16 bits audio with 8 bits does the job too."
   
  Ok guys, don't mean to "try to exit the conversation" as another poster mentioned...but it's Millertime in So Cal.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Do you have any idea how loud your stereo would have to be to be to be able to hear sound below -96dB? We're talking threshold of pain and hearing damage. No one listens to music like that.
> 
> I'll spare you the pie chart, but keep in mind that when you paraphrase from websites, it helps if you know what those numbers mean. It also helps to paraphrase from sites of people who know what they're talking about. That guy isn't a DAC engineer. He is an internet equipment reviewer on a web forum. He might as well be a chimp with those credentials.
> 
> ...


 
  Uhm. Wrong. He works for DCS. But that's OK...cheers.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Uhm. Wrong. He works for DCS. But that's OK...cheers.


 
   
  It's unusual that a google search on him pulls up absolutely no reference to that. In fact, there's a linked in page and a facebook page for him that say otherwise.  He's worked as a "data manager" at the Institute for Safety Research in the Netherlands and he had a job at a movie theater once. He graduated from college two years ago.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Patronizing again. it's so common in this forum. But I guess, based on your response, that you admit 24 bit can sound alot better than 16 bit using your example of digital volume control or EQ without losing resolution.


 
  I guess not in the way you think. I was talking about playing 16-bit tracks through a 24-bit DAC.
   
  Quote: 





> In fact, the better software available uses 64 bit floating processors and can effectively provide digital volume control without loss of resolution. Digital EQ can also be done with larger bit depths with loss of resolution. All of this, controllable by the end user in playback.
> 
> BTW, Foobar cannot do the above. You'll need at least JRiver or better.


 
  You're mixing up processing and playback formats and you're also wrong about foobar2000. I have developed fb2k plugins that use 64-bit floats for processing. But that's just a detail compared to the more basic things like dynamic range and quantization.


----------



## jcx

modern digital audio playback of 16 bit source can effectively use 24 bit DACs, which are pretty universal now
   
  modern software will take 16 bit source, calculating any local digital EQ, volume at least with 32 bit intermediates, and the top 24 sent to the 24 bit DAC
   
  people really should at least poke through Lukin's dither site for the 8-bit examples to understand "correlated quantization noise" and hear fades below the noise floor with truncation, rounding and dither - dither really works - extends linearity, noise shaping can even improve weighted noise floor
http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/dither/index.html
   
  practical music listening doesn't reach human noise floor thresholds - it takes many minutes of accommodation in a anechoic chamber to hear at the lowest SPL threshold 
   
  and just wearing headphones increases our hearing noise threshold - through microphonics - by ~10 dB
   
  but few have even NC20 listening rooms - and most audiophile phones are open back with negligible attenuation
   
  and of course there is the noise floor of the recording
   
  there's not a very good case for even the 93 dB of flat tpdf 16-bit being a music listening limitation


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Because then you're not using the original file.


 
   
  The original high resolution file is not changed at all. Processing the low resolution file will not restore the high frequency and low level information that was lost in the downsampling and quantization, that is mathematically impossible. The purpose of the test is to find out whether the 44.1/16 format inherently limits sound quality in an audible way. After the audio signal is passed through a 96/24 -> 44.1/16 -> 96/24 loop, it suffers from all the inherent bandwidth and dynamic range limitations of the low resolution format, but the chance of a false positive result solely because of the flaws of the playback equipment is minimized (it is still not zero, but nothing more can be done on the software side). If you think the upsampling unfairly "improves" the sound and makes the test too difficult, remember that we are only interested in the limitations of the _format_, not the equipment, and it is easily possible to upsample 44.1/16 playback in software anyway if doing so is of any practical advantage.
   
  Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Because then you're not using the original file. Upsampling 16 bit tracks often results in a different sound ( I know, not in this forum it doesn't). But in the rest of the audiphile world, upsampling is often desired to improve the sound of 16 bit collections. It has been reviewed by every major audio mag as a way to improve quality.


 
   
  Most subjective reviews of electronics in "major audio mags" are nonsense. But upsampling can indeed be useful to work around the flaws of bad quality (e.g. NOS) DACs. Some of the most pathetically poor measured DAC performance is found in expensive boutique audiophile products. It should not be necessary or useful with a good oversampling DAC that has a high quality digital reconstruction filter, though. There is no upsampling, however, that can recover the high frequency content that was lost while sampling the signal at a low sample rate, just like you cannot resize a 2048x1536 pixel picture to 320x240 resolution, and then resize it again to 2048x1536 and get back the original amount of details.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> As long as we're having so much fun, here is a good link from one of the most respected DAC Enginneers in the industry. It backs up the debate against me and also my own points.
> http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm
> 
> Interestingly, all this business about decay and noise floor is pretty relevant. If one listener thinks the 24 bit audio sounds more natural, but they cannot put their finger on it, it is because they are hearing the finest details of decay and the audible sound spectrum. And todays audio equipment does reproduce all of this.
> ...


 
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


----------



## sonitus mirus

Very nice read!  
   
  Thank you!
   
  A very pertinent quote from the link.
   
  "No peer-reviewed paper that has stood the test of time disagrees substantially with these results. Controversy exists only within the consumer and enthusiast audiophile communities."


----------



## jvandyk

Hi guys,
Everybody that thinks 256 (or 320k) sounds as good as 24 bit, please reply! Then we'll have a list of the pie charts vs the listeners!


----------



## bigshot

HA! TROLL! Good try. Move on to another forum now.


----------



## El_Doug

I dont understand how you can ask if we think various sample rates will sound as good as a bit depth...  that's a meaningless question
   
  Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Hi guys,
> Everybody that thinks 256 (or 320k) sounds as good as 24 bit, please reply! Then we'll have a list of the pie charts vs the listeners!


----------



## jvandyk

el_doug said:


> I dont understand how you can ask if we think various sample rates will sound as good as a bit depth...  that's a meaningless question




Let me rephrase then, how about 4600kbps vs 320kbps. Why is it so hard for the SS forum to answer this without calling me a troll?


----------



## jvandyk

bigshot said:


> HA! TROLL! Good try. Move on to another forum now.




Coming from a member who thinks 90kbps sounds just fine, your answer is expected.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> As long as we're having so much fun, here is a good link from one of the most respected DAC Enginneers in the industry. It backs up the debate against me and also my own points.
> http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm
> 
> Interestingly, all this business about decay and noise floor is pretty relevant. If one listener thinks the 24 bit audio sounds more natural, but they cannot put their finger on it, it is because they are hearing the finest details of decay and the audible sound spectrum. And todays audio equipment does reproduce all of this.
> ...


 

 Funny the article you mention is using pictures as an example of using bit depth. Thing is, the human eye can distinguish about 10 million colors, and 24bit gives us 16 million colors, hence the use of 24bit color.
   
  So here's what I'm getting at. Its the limit of human perception that defines the resolution of any medium. Not the other way round. If we cannot hear better than 16 bits of audio, it doesn't really matter whether we use 24 or 96bits. In the digital processing domain it may matter because audio equipment *can* distinguish between these bit depths, but not once its produced for listening.
   
  The same can be said for resolution in terms of number of pixels per unit length, or sampling rate in terms of audio. If you've seen the high resolution displays you'll notice a 5" 1280x720 px makes it almost impossible to see the pixels, and truly impossible for a 4" screen with the same resolution, or higher PPI. The fact that we can cram in 1920x1080 px in the same size doesn't mean its better, because we can't notice it.


----------



## hoshiyomi

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Let me rephrase then, how about 4600kbps vs 320kbps. Why is it so hard for the SS forum to answer this without calling me a troll?


 
   

 4600kbps contains more data, whether this extra data is all meaningful or not is another question.
  320kpbs MP3 compressed by a good encoder like LAME has gotten really quite good over the years.
  It is compressed "cherry-picked" audio data, and it does the picking well.
   
  Oh, I shouldn't forget that subjective bias and placebo WILL make something that is considered better really perceived as being better by those who believe.
  So if you believe 4600kbps (of what?) is better than CBR 320kbps MP3, it will likely sound better in your ears.
  Doctors can prescribe placebo medications to patients upon informing that what they are receiving is placebo, and it helps with symptoms to some degree...
   
  [SARCASM]I enjoy my 32-bit float, 192khz of silence generated in Audacity every bit as much its 96kbps lossy compressed counterpart, I REALLY DO![/SARCASM]


----------



## MrMateoHead

I believe that, so long as storage media is getting more abundant and cheaper, we should have 800-bit 400 kHz audio. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Considering that I can't hear vast differences between many mediums (I think I notice HDR more than increased quality), I don't see the need to do battle over Mp3s vs. CD for the rest of my life. I can say that, between mp4, DVD, and Blu-Ray editions, I would rather watch the Blu-Ray for maximum impact. For music, I am noticing that I mainly like CDs because, in my car environment, they do sound the best - my USB input is a little noisier. At home, bring on the Mp3s all day.
   
  You can't distinguish in an A-B test so, why not relax and enjoy?


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Let me rephrase then, how about 4600kbps vs 320kbps. Why is it so hard for the SS forum to answer this without calling me a troll?


 
   
  I haven't found a FLAC that I can reliably differentiate from v0 mp3 yet, so it stands to reason that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between v0 and some higher lossless bitrate either. But I might try this today just to see what happens.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Let me rephrase then, how about 4600kbps vs 320kbps. Why is it so hard for the SS forum to answer this without calling me a troll?


 
   
   
   
  Can my 4600kbps file be my own lossy format that encodes several pictures of cats in the data in order to bump up the kbps?


----------



## mikeaj

Jokes aside, "4600 kbps" is probably just a roundabout, stupid way of referring to (uncompressed PCM) stereo 24-bit @ 96 kHz sampling rate, just in case somebody hasn't noticed yet.
   
  2 * 24 * 96 = 4608.
   
  I'm also not sure why anybody would want to refer to the bitrate rather than the format itself, seeing as any extra data may or may not be meaningless based on compression or lack thereof, or issues relating to audibility.


----------



## Brooko

As jvandyk refuses to actually perform an abx (Foobar 15-20 iterations) and post the results - there is little point in pursuing.  Sound Science is the only forum where we can request a dbt as proof.  While he clings to this "my ears are better" attitude - there is little point debating.  Onus of proof is on him.  If his ears are indeed better than all of us - then he should have no issues actually proving it ........
   
  FWIW - 256aac is completely transparent to me (in an abx).


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





brooko said:


> As jvandyk refuses to actually perform an abx (Foobar 15-20 iterations) and post the results - there is little point in pursuing.  Sound Science is the only forum where we can request a dbt as proof.  While he clings to this "my ears are better" attitude - there is little point debating.  Onus of proof is on him.  If his ears are indeed better than all of us - then he should have no issues actually proving it ........
> 
> FWIW - 256aac is completely transparent to me (in an abx).


 
  I believe we'll see pigs fly before he does a proper ABX and is honest about the results.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





achmedisdead said:


> I believe we'll see pigs fly before he does a proper ABX and is honest about the results.


 

 No!!!! 1 Gbps is still better!


----------



## bigshot

I can hear the difference between 1GBps and 1TBps!


----------



## streetdragon

if i remember from the previous few pages he mentioned 256kbps vs 24 bit. 
 that doesn't make any sense. it is not even the same unit of measurement
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (correct me if i'm wrong)

 also imo bit rate isn't everything. as long as it's lossless it should be identical in information, and better formats allows it to be done with less resources.

 can't say much about the bit depth though as i'm not so knowlagable in that topic


----------



## k4klcc

CD is better


----------



## jvandyk

For the folks who replied and didn't flame, atta boy! In the meantime, put down the articles and listen to the crap 256k stuff out there and compare to whatever lossless source you prefer if you care to. Whether 16 bit or 24 bit, strive for good sound, not saving hard drive space. That'll rap it for me for now.


----------



## bigshot

"Wrap", not "rap". Say goodnight, Gracie.


----------



## jvandyk

bigshot said:


> "Wrap", not "rap". Say goodnight, Gracie.




Flamer.


----------



## bigshot

Tag! You're it!


----------



## WindowsX

I guess 320kbps believers are fine with watching movies in 1024x768 screen as they're 'cherry picked' and doesn't make such noticeable difference comparing to Full HD or 4K. Don't forget that people can have placebo effects seeing higher resolution believing it'll bring them more and convince themselves to see it. It should be good enough as long as you don't see 'the real thing' like you don't listen to real instruments so 1024x768 is good enough for human's sense of perception, right?
   
  If you don't, let me enlighten you with some sad facts. You're just jealous of people who can appreciate things better than you and want to stabilize your moral with logic 'no one is hearing better than me' and throw baseless theories from childish experiments to convince yourself from your inferiority complex. Graphical motion has infinity frequency sound has infinity harmonics so there's no earthling way to make enough of small fraction of human's audible range to justify it.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> I guess 320kbps believers are fine with watching movies in 1024x768 screen as they're 'cherry picked' and doesn't make such noticeable difference comparing to Full HD or 4K. Don't forget that people can have placebo effects seeing higher resolution believing it'll bring them more and convince themselves to see it. It should be good enough as long as you don't see 'the real thing' like you don't listen to real instruments so 1024x768 is good enough for human's sense of perception, right?
> 
> If you don't, let me enlighten you with some sad facts. You're just jealous of people who can appreciate things better than you and want to stabilize your moral with logic 'no one is hearing better than me' and throw baseless theories from childish experiments to convince yourself from your inferiority complex. Graphical motion has infinity frequency sound has infinity harmonics so there's no earthling way to make enough of small fraction of human's audible range to justify it.


 
   
  I was going to post a different response, but then you edited in some more juicy details which I think speak for themselves...
   
   
   
  By the way, if you're going to make comparisons with images and you're specifying visual resolution, you may also want to specify screen size and viewing distance.  (not like the auditory system really works the same way, with respect to frequencies etc.)
   
   
  Also, is it just me, or (old post, emphasis added):
   


windowsx said:


> I already said 'CD is better.'. Even from laptop, CD is still better whether you can perceive it yourself or not. Some people may perceive the difference and some may not. Personally, getting accustomed to very highend speakers system makes perception whole difference from when I could hardly perceive the difference between stock mini cable and some better made ones.
> 
> We once made test comparing between ripped flac and original CD from common laptop using WMP as ripper and player (yeah non-audiophile app) plugged to musiland feeding $100K speakers system with about 10-20 audiophiles (Esoteric K-01/$10k DIY borbely preamp/Karan KA S 450/Rockport Aquila in well treated acoustic large room). *The difference between flac and CD is clear like night and day to all 20 audiophiles*, let alone mp3 comparing to CD. I hope this tests won't bring another placebo war though.
> 
> To make long story short, I can clearly differentiate between mp3 and normal CD audio on laptop system using jrmc playing from built-in speakers directly (maybe mine is some pretty good altec speakers not cheap made ones). But that's for my opinion and my experiences. Not everyone will agree with result I found.


 
   
  anybody might be concerned at the false-positive rate of such a setup where 20 out of 20 listeners can "identify" FLAC vs. CD?  etc.?


----------



## WindowsX

Well, at first I don't intend to put juicy parts but reading after posting made me felt an urge to put ones. If you're seeing movies on TV at close enough view distance, you'd still prefer 1024x768 as being good enough, right? I can hear vinyl > SACD > CD > DSD > hires > wav > flac > mp3 and you can't tell my ears to replace mp3 in place of all those from reading here.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> Well, at first I don't intend to put juicy parts but reading after posting made me felt an urge to put ones. If you're seeing movies on TV at close enough view distance, you'd still prefer 1024x768 as being good enough, right? I can hear vinyl > SACD > CD > DSD > hires > wav > flac > mp3 and you can't tell my ears to replace mp3 in place of all those from reading here.


 

 I already countered this fact before. Let me repost it here:
   
  Its the limit of human perception that defines the resolution of any medium. Not the other way round. If we cannot hear better than 16 bits of audio, it doesn't really matter whether we use 24 or 96bits. In the digital processing domain it may matter because audio equipment *can* distinguish between these bit depths, but not once its produced for listening.

 The same can be said for resolution in terms of number of pixels per unit length, or sampling rate in terms of audio. If you've seen the high resolution displays you'll notice a 5" 1280x720 px makes it almost impossible to see the pixels, and truly impossible for a 4" screen with the same resolution, or higher PPI. The fact that we can cram in 1920x1080 px in the same size doesn't mean its better, because we can't notice it.


----------



## WindowsX

LoL. You said 'IF' and that works only 'IF' what you said was true. Sadly it wasn't and hires format wasn't made on whim just to please and make scam in pro audio market.
   
  You must be using really small earbud from cheap system to justify your reasoning saying I'm seeing 5 inch screen movie from mobile instead of 55 from blueray player. Quite an analogy you put there. Too bad my reference system wasn't small earbud from phone jack.


----------



## stv014

You can test it yourself if you can hear a difference between 96/24 and CD quality. Use whatever gear you have, but for valid results, do test with an ABX comparator, and do not listen at unusually high volume levels. If you do not like the sample, upload your choice of <30s "high resolution" music, and that can be degraded to CD quality, too, to see if you can tell it apart from the original.


----------



## WindowsX

CD is 16/44.1 and inferior format comparing to 24/96 file I know it but disc transport is still better than file player for real audiophiles.
   
  Ah. You should use wav instead of flac.


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> CD is 16/44.1 and inferior format comparing to 24/96 file I know it but disc transport is still better than file player for real audiophiles.


 
   
  Right, because those 1s and 0s on a piece of plastic is superior to the 1s and 0s on a piece of silicon.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> CD is 16/44.1 and inferior format comparing to 24/96 file I know it but disc transport is still better than file player for real audiophiles.


 
   
  Not that it should make any difference, but you are free to convert both FLAC files to WAV. If you are sure that 44.1/16 is clearly worse, why not take the test and prove it easily ?


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> If you don't, let me enlighten you with some sad facts. You're just jealous of people who can appreciate things better than you and want to stabilize your moral with logic 'no one is hearing better than me' and throw baseless theories from childish experiments to convince yourself from your inferiority complex. Graphical motion has infinity frequency sound has infinity harmonics so there's no earthling way to make enough of small fraction of human's audible range to justify it.


 
  Oh my.
   
  Most people here encourage others to use their own hearing as the judge, just in a proper ABX testing scenario. The vast majority fail on 320kbps vs. lossless. Everyone fails with lossless vs. any higher resolution. But I guess that taking psychological factors into account is childish.
   
  I'm not really sure what makes you think the entire human range of hearing is a small fraction of human's audible range though. Care to elaborate?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> CD is 16/44.1 and inferior format comparing to 24/96 file I know it but *disc transport is still better than file player for real audiophiles.*
> 
> Ah. *You should use wav instead of flac.*


 
   
  Clearly you have access to some powerful drugs. Maybe you should share....


----------



## WindowsX

Why not? Go get some loans of Esoteric K-01 or Emm Labs XDS1 player (Or P-02/D-02 if you have balls to pull off one from the store) and compare it with computer from USB input. Works like wonder 
   
   
  For 16/44.1 VS 24/96 as file VS file, I said hires is better than redbook format but as that guy above said that those 1s and 0s on a piece of plastic is superior to the 1s and 0s on a piece of silicon (with his sarcasm but surprisingly true). I learnt from data communications class that optical media is more reliable than persistent storage and laser scanning yields generally less jitter issue (without anti-jitter crap).


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> For 16/44.1 VS 24/96 as file VS file, I said hires is better than redbook format but as that guy above said that those 1s and 0s on a piece of plastic is superior to the 1s and 0s on a piece of silicon (with his sarcasm but surprisingly true). I learnt from data communications class that optical media is more reliable than persistent storage and laser scanning yields generally less jitter issue (without anti-jitter crap).


 
   
  In a perfectly working piece of equipment the two medium makes zero differences - the 0s and 1s are extracted, transferred and error checked for correct transmission.  So tell me how often do you listen to faulty pieces of audio equipment where the different medium makes a difference?  And while you are at it please tell us what a non-successful transfer of a digital signal sounds like?  You claim to have take data communications class I'm sure you can tell us what it is.


----------



## TrollDragon

And I bet you can hear a difference in Fuses too right?
  Isoclean's or HiFi Tuning?
   
  One day I hope my hearing extends into the MHz range as well...


----------



## proton007

Quote:  





> I learnt from data communications class that optical media is more reliable than persistent storage and laser scanning yields generally less jitter issue (without anti-jitter crap).


 
   
  Oh man...here we go again.
  The alleged jitter comes at the DAC stage. Whether you use a CD or a hard disk or an SSD has nothing to do with it. Thats if the CD has been seeked properly in the first place.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> For 16/44.1 VS 24/96 as file VS file, I said hires is better than redbook format but as that guy above said that those 1s and 0s on a piece of plastic is superior to the 1s and 0s on a piece of silicon (with his sarcasm but surprisingly true). I learnt from data communications class that optical media is more reliable than persistent storage and laser scanning yields generally less jitter issue (without anti-jitter crap).


 
  You really seem to be resistant to the idea of buffer memory, which every CD player contains, and also the differences between software- (OS) and hardware-related latency  (as proven in your now locked thread and fidelizer site).


----------



## MrMateoHead

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> Well, at first I don't intend to put juicy parts but reading after posting made me felt an urge to put ones. If you're seeing movies on TV at close enough view distance, you'd still prefer 1024x768 as being good enough, right? I can hear vinyl > SACD > CD > DSD > hires > wav > flac > mp3 and you can't tell my ears to replace mp3 in place of all those from reading here.


 

 You sound like a rich person trying to justify your conspiscious consumption habits. I "settle" for lower quality video and audio all the time. At the right rip quality, I am more than pleased. End of story. Better formats and technology are appreciated, and innovation will continue, but your ears and eyes cannot be upgraded.
   
  The Human "experience" of sound and vision is by definition biologically limited. Our technology is not. Our electronics are more sensitive, utterly objective, and unemotional in their approach to all things in life. Human beings are irrational, emotional, and forget that we observe only a tiny slice of the visible spectrum, and can detect a tiny slice of the audible spectrum.
   
  The robots are coming - and they don't like people who, in disagreeing with others, don't recognize themselves also being judgemental by refusing a person the right to hold an opinion that disagrees with theirs.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





mrmateohead said:


> You sound like a rich person trying to justify your conspiscious consumption habits. I "settle" for lower quality video and audio all the time. At the right rip quality, I am more than pleased. End of story. Better formats and technology are appreciated, and innovation will continue, but your ears and eyes cannot be upgraded.
> 
> The Human "experience" of sound and vision is by definition biologically limited. Our technology is not. Our electronics are more sensitive, utterly objective, and unemotional in their approach to all things in life. Human beings are irrational, emotional, and forget that we observe only a tiny slice of the visible spectrum, and can detect a tiny slice of the audible spectrum.
> 
> The robots are coming - and they don't like people who, in disagreeing with others, don't recognize themselves also being judgemental by refusing a person the right to hold an opinion that disagrees with theirs.


 
  I disagree with this for a couple reasons:
   
  1. When the robots come, they will provide us with upgrades for all of our sensory organs. They will then use these newly perceived segments of the visible and audible spectrum to communicate with us and weed out the non-conformists who will then either be forced to upgrade or be eliminated.
   
  2. Robots can't comprehend judgemental behavior, nor do they like or dislike anything; like you said electronics are unemotional. They wouldn't care about that.
   
  I don't know about you guys, but I've been collecting music that _only _uses frequencies above 22kHz. I don't know what it sounds like yet, but once I get my upgrades it's probably going to sound _awesome_.


----------



## bigshot

None of these guys actually own the equipment they talk about. They're just armchair theorists who enjoy memorizing manufacturers tear sheets.


----------



## WindowsX

And I enjoy your post bigshot. Your post never made me bored 
   
  Did I smell any wealth bias here? I said go loan not buying in respect that you don't need to be rich to try it out yourself. Some shops are nice enough to lend me some highend equipments when I was university student doing self-support education.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> I disagree with this for a couple reasons:
> 
> 1. When the robots come, they will provide us with upgrades for all of our sensory organs. They will then use these newly perceived segments of the visible and audible spectrum to communicate with us and weed out the non-conformists who will then either be forced to upgrade or be eliminated.
> 
> ...


 

 LOL. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Man, I forgot all about the robot upgrades. If you need me I'll be crying to the emotional power of infrasound bass created by my 37 inch subwoofer - the only speaker I listen to whether music, TV, or movies.


----------



## bigshot

windowsx said:


> And I enjoy your post bigshot. Your post never made me bored
> 
> Did I smell any wealth bias here? I said go loan not buying in respect that you don't need to be rich to try it out yourself. Some shops are nice enough to lend me some highend equipments when I was university student doing self-support education.




Thanks!

The thing is, getting great sound shouldn't be expensive. If it takes a stack of cash to put a stereo together, you're not thinking. I feel that it's very important to define goals and identify problems. Whenever you make a change it should be in a specific direction. It also helps to take the time to figure out what matters and what doesn't. None of my equipment is what you'd call "high end". It just sounds that way.


----------



## skamp

"High end" is a rather subjective term to begin with. Most people would call my €300 headphones and my €250 DAC/amp combo, "high end". And they wouldn't be wrong, IMO: like bigshot says, it sounds "high end", and it costs substancially more than most people are willing to spend on such gear.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





windowsx said:


> Did I smell any wealth bias here?


----------



## bigshot

skamp said:


> "High end" is a rather subjective term to begin with. Most people would call my €300 headphones and my €250 DAC/amp combo, "high end". And they wouldn't be wrong, IMO: like bigshot says, it sounds "high end", and it costs substancially more than most people are willing to spend on such gear.




I'm sure your headphones give plenty of bang for the buck, but I really don't think DACs are really needed in most cases.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I'm sure your headphones give plenty of bang for the buck, but* I really don't think DACs are really needed in most cases.*


 
  I think there are a lot of people that browse here and  buy E7 and E17 here that would be served just fine by an E11 or E6 (assuming they need an amp at all), but they see "DAC" everywhere around the forum and think they have to have one even for their portable rigs.
   
  I have no need of a portable DAC....my iPods and Sansas have perfectly acceptable ones onboard.....but at some point I do plan on getting an E10 or something of the sort for my computer.....the desktop's onboard sound is quite noisy.


----------



## chewy4

Sometimes external DACs are needed. Most of the time onboard is alright, but it can get really bad for a number of reasons.
   
  My amp and DAC(soundcard) are likely overkill costing a total of $360 but I'm willing to admit that. I could probably manage a setup that sounds just as good to me at regular listening volumes for around a hundred bucks, maybe less. It's more of an OCD thing than anything though. That noise floor that's at double the volume of what I normally listen to music at has got to go.


----------



## rockposer

Quote: 





dyaems said:


> depends on how to song is recorded or mastered for me. if the recording or mastering is great, even the 320kbps mp3 sounds great.


 

 You've hit the nail on the head there.


----------



## bigshot

The thing is, if folks took that couple hundred dollars they overspend on DACs and put it into better headphones, they'd actually get better sound for their money.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The thing is, if folks took that couple hundred dollars they overspend on DACs and put it into better headphones, they'd actually get better sound for their money.


 
  For the most part yeah, absolutely.
   
  I didn't really see any headphone's that interested me more than the one's I have that were within $400 though. Although I regret not getting the D7000's just because they were discontinued shortly after and are already selling used for several hundred dollars above retail price.


----------



## AUDIOBREEDER

There is a high level of clarity with CDs compared to 320kbps MP3 to my ears. I am able to hear this through a 'minimalistic' setup via Sony Vaio FW270 paired with a Sony MDR V6. It is there but for portability sake MP3 works fine with me.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





audiobreeder said:


> There is a high level of clarity with CDs compared to 320kbps MP3 to my ears. I am able to hear this through a 'minimalistic' setup via Sony Vaio FW270 paired with a Sony MDR V6. It is there but for portability sake MP3 works fine with me.


 
   
  Did you try a foobar abx?


----------



## peanuthead

...


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





peanuthead said:


> I can't tell the difference between 320 and lossless/CD in my setup...I still rip all my CD's lossless though.


 
  No point in ripping them any other way! I just make lossy conversions of the FLAC rips for my portable players.


----------



## AUDIOBREEDER

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> Did you try a foobar abx?


 

 Nope.
   
  I loaded the cd using basic winamp and placed an mp3 (ripped 320 using itunes) of the same track in the playlist. The song used was 'Kyau vs Albert - Velvet Morning' (which has a nice bass line & pitched vocals)
   
  Using MDR V6, I could clearly hear a difference in quality in terms of clarity. The cd format felt clean & crisp. Where as the mp3 version sounded bloated.
   
  Then I ripped the track with Foobar to Flac and it sounded even better!
   
  Pretty 'neolithic' setup (no heavy duty audio equipment) but I presume the Sony vaio has a good dac built-in to hear this detail.
   
  I did the same tests using tracks like 'Bee Gees - Stayin Alive', Def Leppard - Rock On' etc and felt the same!


----------



## sonitus mirus

I rip all of my CDs to 320 -v0 using Lame.  I do this because this appears to be the highest quality I can upload to Google Music without the file being transcoded.   This is the only sure method that I have found to be able to stream my music collection on any computer, iOS, or Android device exactly as it was initially ripped. (provided that the allowable network bandwidth is available)  I can play both my Stereo and Mono Beatles collections through Google Music, but I could not do this with iTunes.
   
  I keep my CDs, which are my lossless formats, for whenever I may need them.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





audiobreeder said:


> Nope.
> 
> I loaded the cd using basic winamp and placed an mp3 (ripped 320 using itunes) of the same track in the playlist. The song used was 'Kyau vs Albert - Velvet Morning' (which has a nice bass line & pitched vocals)
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  The iTunes mp3 encoder is not as good as the LAME encoder.


----------



## AUDIOBREEDER

Quote: 





achmedisdead said:


> The iTunes mp3 encoder is not as good as the LAME encoder.


 
  Are you serious? I have converted all my cds in the past infinite years using itunes (thinking all mp3 ripping software rip to 320 equally through different brands)
   
  Now will try to use LAME encoder and see if there is any difference. You're making me pull my hair


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





audiobreeder said:


> Nope.
> 
> I loaded the cd using basic winamp and placed an mp3 (ripped 320 using itunes) of the same track in the playlist. The song used was 'Kyau vs Albert - Velvet Morning' (which has a nice bass line & pitched vocals)
> 
> ...


 
   
  So essentially what you did was compare once - sighted - and can spot the difference ........
   
  If you make it a controlled abx - I pretty much guarantee the apparent differences you hear now will all disappear.
   
  As you already have Foobar 2000 - you just need the abx plugin, and you need to apply replay gain to the tags to volume match them.  So take your CD, rip once to lossless, and transcode that rip to MP3 320 (again - ideally use latest LAME encoder).  Use the abx comparator - tick the blind box during the test so you can't see the results real-time - and make sure you run at least 15 iterations on the same track.  Post the results.
   
  It's an exercise that is worth doing - as it is actually enlightening to really know what we can actually distinguish.  For me - it also makes listening from my iPod Touch G4 more enjoyable.  I know the tracks are AAC 256, I know the iPT4 is essentially flat and transparent (a really good dap actually), and I know that I cannot distinguish AAC256 from lossless.  So placebo can't get in the way at all - and I am never left wondering if I can squeeze any more quality out - ergo ..... I enjoy the music more.


----------



## hoshiyomi

Quote: 





audiobreeder said:


> Are you serious? I have converted all my cds in the past infinite years using itunes (thinking all mp3 ripping software rip to 320 equally through different brands)
> 
> Now will try to use LAME encoder and see if there is any difference. You're making me pull my hair


 
  The latest versions of LAME tends to be a better MP3 encoder than what used by iTunes (is it Fraunhofer?) due to continuous development, but the difference at 320kbps should not be anything dramatic.  It's at lower bitrates that a good mp3 encoder starts to better others.  In short, don't worry about it too much.


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I'm sure your headphones give plenty of bang for the buck, but I really don't think DACs are really needed in most cases.


 
   
  You do need DACs bigshot 
   
  The digital signal does need to be converted into analogue.
   
  Whether you need to go and buy an expensive DAC alternative to the one that is in your Computer or CD player already, that is a good question.


----------



## bigshot

If you are using iTunes, you should use AAC. It's a little better than LAME and much better than plain vanilla MP3.

An iPod through line out sounds the same as a good standalone CD player or playing through an external DAC. And most CD players, even ones that you get at WalMart for $50 have audibly perfect specs. I don't know about PC sound cards, but the built in audio on Macs is as good as you'd ever need. My Yamaha amp does a fine job of converting digital to analogue too.

It seems to me te best solution is whatever is cheapest and uses the fewest components to do te job. For home, a cheap CD or bluray player. For te road, some sort of iPod.


----------



## p a t r i c k

Quote: 





peanuthead said:


> I can't tell the difference between 320 and lossless/CD in my setup...I still rip all my CD's lossless though.


 
   
  I haven't tried the comparison, but I'd be surprised if I could tell the difference.
   
  I do rip all CDs lossless because I like to think I am listening in highest quality, it is psychological. Also hard drives are so huge these days.
   
  I have iTunes compress all the stuff that is synced to my iPod Touch to 256. It is a good thing with iTunes (and I bet other music organisers/players) that you can do this imho.


----------



## bigshot

I spent a couple of days doing a careful comparison test and my upper midrange SACD player playing the original CD and an iPod through line out playing AAC 256 VBR and the iPod playing 320 MP3 LAME were all identical on all music. 98% of music was fine a full notch below those settings. I had one CD that had some stubborn artifacting that needed a little extra.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I can only speak for myself, but the purpose of the ABX testing that I did was precisely to shatter any psychological misconceptions about sound quality.  I could not be happier with my mp3 collection.


----------



## Mani ATH 87

You may not notice a difference between 320k MP3's and Flac or WAV, or you might notice a difference. But the fact remains - 320k MP3's *are* compressed.

 So it goes back to the first comment in this thread, it's mostly for piece of mind - Why not rip it to a lossless format if you are listening on the computer? It takes about a minute to copy tracks from Flac to MP3 if you are moving them to a mobile device or MP3 player.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





mani ath 87 said:


> You may not notice a difference between 320k MP3's and Flac or WAV, or you might notice a difference. But the fact remains - 320k MP3's *are* compressed.
> 
> So it goes back to the first comment in this thread, it's mostly for piece of mind - Why not rip it to a lossless format if you are listening on the computer? It takes about a minute to copy tracks from Flac to MP3 if you are moving them to a mobile device or MP3 player.


 

 This.
   
  I've tried an abx test before, and I could get around 8/10, but the amount of repeat listening and careful analysis that needs to be done totally defeats the purpose. Its never going to happen in the real world, so doesn't really matter.
   
  Not to mention these abx tests need a perfectly quiet surrounding.
  Not everyone has an anechoic chamber at home. 
   
  Still, storage is cheap nowadays, so keeping a FLAC rip is a good idea.


----------



## bigshot

mani ath 87 said:


> it's mostly for piece of mind




My dog serves that purpose. All I require of my sound files is that they sound great.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> My dog serves that purpose. All I require of my sound files is that they sound great.


 
   
  But your dog could probably successfully abx mp3 vs 192kHz lossless!!1


----------



## sonitus mirus

mani ath 87 said:


> You may not notice a difference between 320k MP3's and Flac or WAV, or you might notice a difference. But the fact remains - 320k MP3's *are* compressed.
> 
> 
> So it goes back to the first comment in this thread, it's mostly for piece of mind - Why not rip it to a lossless format if you are listening on the computer? It takes about a minute to copy tracks from Flac to MP3 if you are moving them to a mobile device or MP3 player.


I listen to music almost exclusively from MOG or Spotify. For anything that is not available that I enjoy, I have purchased a CD, ripped it to mp3, and lately have been uploading these to Google Music. With my 4G LTE phone with a 22GB data limit working as a hotspot, I am able to use my iPod or iPad to play the entire catalog on MOG or Spotify, all of my ripped CDs through a Google Music app, and anything I may have purchased through iTunes using an LOD to an amp. I have access to millions of songs practically anywhere I go.

I do have thousands of songs on my computer in FLAC format, but now that Google Music works perfectly fine for backing up my collection, I honesly just don't bother to rip to FLAC anymore. I have playlists with days worth of music that can be made available for offline listening, but I haven't found this to be necessary in a very long time.

So, I guess I'm just being a bit lazy. But this goes back to my initial premise, I'm extremely confident that I will not hear any noticeable difference in sound quality between 320 mp3 and FLAC. I swore that I could at one time, then I felt certain I should, but test after test first amazed and ultimately assured me that I'm wasting my time and energy with lossless files.


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





mani ath 87 said:


> You may not notice a difference between 320k MP3's and Flac or WAV, or you might notice a difference. But the fact remains - 320k MP3's *are* compressed.


 
   
  I think you mean mp3s are lossy.  FLAC and other lossless codecs are ALSO compressed, the difference is whether the codecs are considered lossy or lossless.
   
  Going back on track - I've done ABX of my favourite tracks which I've listened to over hundreds of time and got less than 50% correct (ie no better than guessing statistically speaking), so I just rip to 320kbps mp3s for best compatibility between all my devices.


----------



## JohnSantana

Quote: 





hoshiyomi said:


> The latest versions of LAME tends to be a better MP3 encoder than what used by iTunes (is it Fraunhofer?) due to continuous development, but the difference at 320kbps should not be anything dramatic.  It's at lower bitrates that a good mp3 encoder starts to better others.  In short, don't worry about it too much.


 
  Thanks for the response and explanation Hoshiyomi,
   
  I feel that between 320 kbps MP3 and the CD-Audio there is no different at all. I feels that it is a placebo effect only.


----------



## kn19h7

Quote: 





peanuthead said:


> I can't tell the difference between 320 and lossless/CD in my setup...I still rip all my CD's lossless though.


 

 Completely opposite case here.. I do have some successful 320k vs lossless ABX experience, but still I am collecting music mainly in mp3.
   
  Even having total storage of about 40TB, I never felt harddisks to be cheap orz.. (well, music is not my main usage of storage though)


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





kn19h7 said:


> Completely opposite case here.. I do have some successful 320k vs lossless ABX experience, but still I am collecting music mainly in mp3.
> 
> Even having total storage of about 40TB, I never felt harddisks to be cheap orz.. (well, music is not my main usage of storage though)


 
  thats..... huge.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 even with space getting cheaper, having that much disc space is STILL going to be expensive


----------



## AUDIOBREEDER

Quote: 





brooko said:


> So essentially what you did was compare once - sighted - and can spot the difference ........
> 
> If you make it a controlled abx - I pretty much guarantee the apparent differences you hear now will all disappear.
> 
> ...


 
  I havent done abx yet, since I had the daunting task of locating the lame encoder within foobar 2000. I googled for the lame encoder, downloaded it and unzipped it into a folder. When I opened Foobar I could not locate the 'converter' tab. Some sites posted screen shots of how to locate it, but my version of foobar (latest version) had it so complicated that I spent close to 1.5hrs wondering if the initial install up was right.
   
  Anyways, I took my CD, ripped a track to MP3 320kps using LAME in foobar and listened closely with the original CD and my observation was.... There was NO noticeable difference in either formats.
   
  Then I took the same track in FLAC & compared it to the new 320 LAME and still there was NO difference.
   
  Result was original CD = FLAC  = 320 lame
   
  I Thank You for your time and post and this little exercise in helping me to understand the difference
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote: 





hoshiyomi said:


> The latest versions of LAME tends to be a better MP3 encoder than what used by iTunes (is it Fraunhofer?) due to continuous development, but the difference at 320kbps should not be anything dramatic.  It's at lower bitrates that a good mp3 encoder starts to better others.  In short, don't worry about it too much.


 
  I thought this was the case until now, that ALL mp3 software that encoded to 320kbps would sound the same. But its not the case for iTunes. There is a huge difference in sound to an mp3 encoder vs lame
  Quote: 





achmedisdead said:


> The iTunes mp3 encoder is not as good as the LAME encoder.


 
  You are absolutely right about this! Thanks also to you for your time & post for letting me know about this!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
   
  Now I have 15+ years of CD collection re-ripping to be done and all this time I thought I was listening to the best 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(before I joined Head-Fi)


----------



## ukon16

IMO....are some types of music better suited to mp3 compression than others?
   
  Especially poorly recorded/mastered files where any compression is just asking for more issues.
   
  I noticed some songs sound perfect as FLAC files on spotify while others sound completely flat/dull(loudness war victims?).


----------



## Strangelove424

Quote: 





ukon16 said:


> IMO....are some types of music better suited to mp3 compression than others?
> 
> Especially poorly recorded/mastered files where any compression is just asking for more issues.
> 
> I noticed some songs sound perfect as FLAC files on spotify while others sound completely flat/dull*(loudness war victims?)*.


 
  I think you'll find this really interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhA7Vy3OPbc
   
  Your perception is right on. It's a combination of two trends in music production that when taken together form a sort of deadly cocktail - lossy codec compression + dynamic range compression. The worst example of this is when notoriously loud pop music becomes truly painful and torture-like on radio or mp3. It is a travesty that we have allowed commercialism to raze, ravage, and plunder an art form that has been around as long as human beings lived in social groups. Watching Lund's discussion on it, however, reminds me there are still people who care and perhaps there may be hope for a solution in the future.


----------



## jvandyk

I recently downloaded the new 24 bit Donald Fagen "The Nightfly" from HD tracks. I compared it to the 16 Bit CD version (which I've never been happy with). For fans of this album, the difference is night and day. All of the punch, dynamic range, treble detail, vocal transparency from the old vinyl sound I remember finally returns.
   
  Say what you will about it being a different mastering (I highly doubt this since it was originally recorded on digital masters), but I am a happy 24 bit consumer once again.


----------



## bigshot

It's a totally different master. You don't understand the difference between format and mastering.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It's a totally different master. You don't understand the difference between format and mastering.


 
  There is absolutely no evidence for what you said here BS. I have researched it a fair amount.
   
  But if you can come up with some evidence, it would be an interesting read.
   
  One things for sure, it blows away the CD.
   
  Here are a couple of interesting links on The Nightlfy-
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2334122
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/nightfly-24-44-1-hd-tracks-8974/
   
  Interesting that many feel the 2002 DVD-A 24 bit release was the best version until now. All that can be found out is that it might be the stereo version fro  2002 used for the 24/44.1 (although that is a misprint and it actually is 48k as one finds out on their DAC). But that also doesn't make sense as the DVDA was 96k and this is 48k.


----------



## mikeaj

Open both versions up in an audio editor and see.  What kind of other research is there?


----------



## jvandyk

From what I've read, the 2002 DVD-A contained a 5.1 version and a stereo version. But it was sampled at 96k They would have no reason to downsample it to 48?.
   
  If in fact it was remastered for the DVD-A or this recording, there is no info released about it. They both certainly came from the original 3m 16 bit master tapes no matter what however. So even if they were upsampled, it proves the point that much improvement can be done to 16 bit with higher resolution formats......
   
  There is also a recent SACD.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> I recently downloaded the new 24 bit Donald Fagen "The Nightfly" from HD tracks. I compared it to the 16 Bit CD version (which I've never been happy with). For fans of this album, the difference is night and day. All of the punch, dynamic range, treble detail, vocal transparency from the old vinyl sound I remember finally returns.
> 
> Say what you will about it being a different mastering (I highly doubt this since it was originally recorded on digital masters), but I am a happy 24 bit consumer once again.


 
   
   
   


bigshot said:


> It's a totally different master. You don't understand the difference between format and mastering.


   

   
   
  Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Open both versions up in an audio editor and see.  What kind of other research is there?


 
   
   
   
  Why in the name of reason are you arguing with this wassock - he steadfastly refuses to do any kind of DBT and will go on doing so forever


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jvandyk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> So even if they were upsampled, it proves the point that much improvement can be done to 16 bit with higher resolution formats......


 
  Absolutely not. Why don't you just do what mikeaj said?
   
  The hdtracks format is 44.1/24. It could be a downmix of the 5.1 dvd-audio, an lp rip or some other master................ ..... .....


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Why in the name of reason are you arguing with this wassock - he steadfastly refuses to do any kind of DBT and will go on doing so forever


 
  Well said!


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Absolutely not. Why don't you just do what mikeaj said?
> 
> The hdtracks format is 44.1/24. It could be a downmix of the 5.1 dvd-audio, an lp rip or some other master................ ..... .....


 
  Actually, it is not. The format is actually 24/48k, if you had read the links. And it clearly is not a LP rip. But that's kinda of funny to suggest anyway. But alas, none of you have heard it or care to, unles of course I downsample it with Foobar ABX. (you all do realize there is no true 24/16 ABX test in Foobar right?).


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Why in the name of reason are you arguing with this wassock - he steadfastly refuses to do any kind of DBT and will go on doing so forever


 
  Sure Nick. With Foobar right? Lol..(PS you cannot ABX 24 bit with 16 bit in Foobar, have any other suggestions?)


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Absolutely not. Why don't you just do what mikeaj said?
> 
> The hdtracks format is 44.1/24. It could be a downmix of the 5.1 dvd-audio, an lp rip or some other master................ ..... .....


 
  So you suggest that this recording would be identical in 16/44.1? If that's the case, why wouldn't it be released in the far more commerically viable 16 bit format?


----------



## chewy4

Yeah this is just gonna keep going in circles...


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> So you suggest that this recording would be identical in 16/44.1? If that's the case, why wouldn't it be released in the far more commerically viable 16 bit format?


 
  Because they can charge more for a supposedly higher-grade file?


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Yeah this is just gonna keep going in circles...


 
  Hey Chewy,
   
  It sounds good if you like The Nightfly. I recommend it. Was my only point to begin with until abhoms predictably began. I do think there's some head scratching going on with Foobar ABX around these parts. Especially when it is impossible to do in Foobar (compare 24 bit blind with 16 bit in WASAPI mode).


----------



## bigshot

I think this has progressed beyond electronics to a biological problem.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





achmedisdead said:


> Because they can charge more for a supposedly higher-grade file?


 
  Oh really? So selling only to the audiphile community results in larger units sales than 256k or even 16 bit ALAC (now available on HD Tracks).
   
  Of course, the truth is that the 24 bit recording was indeed upsampled from 16 bit....and blows away the 16 bit CD. Must get back to the truth....remastered or not.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think this has progressed beyond electronics to a biological problem.


 
  Any possible way you can create a single post without the abhoms? Nah. But you know what they same about name callers in a debate....


----------



## jvandyk

PS- I have asked once again about the flawed ABX test in Foobar (impossible to blind test 24 bit vs 16 bit). The predicted crickets have returned.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Oh really? So selling only to the audiphile community results in larger units sales than 256k or even 16 bit ALAC (now available on HD Tracks).
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the 24 bit recording was indeed upsampled from 16 bit....and blows away the 16 bit CD. Must get back to the truth....remastered or not.


 
  When the regular music sales market is completely and totally saturated, hell yeah it does.
   
  If you wanna ABX the two then just convert the file to 16 bit and then back to 24 bit. Then you've got two files you can ABX, one is a 24 bit without the 24 bit data, the other is the 24 bit with that extra data.


----------



## bigshot

If you want answers, you have to listen.


----------



## mikeaj

There are a variety of other ways to do an ABX or other blind test, anyway.
   
  e.g. to compare file1 with file2, randomly create a bunch of copies of both (e.g. 10 copies of file1 and 10 copies of file2), label them a / b / c / d / e etc.  Keep a log of which letter is a copy of which file, but set it up such that you don't know which is which.  You could do this with a simple script or maybe just have somebody else rename files for you and keep the list without letting you know.  Then listen to a and compare it to file1 and file2, guess which one it is.  Do the same for b, then c, etc.  Don't even need to use the dreaded foobar...
   
   
  As for confirming masters, I'm not sure what kind of detective work, looking up sources of releases -> guesswork is superior to actually looking at the files in an audio editor, seriously.


----------



## skamp

Better use foobar's ABX component or any other proper ABX software, if you want to conduct a proper test.

Like chewy4 said, in order to ABX 16 bit vs. 24 bit, just take a 24 bit file, downconvert it to 16 bit and upconvert it back to 24 bit.

You want to set a number of trials beforehand (12 is good, 16 if you like) and stick to it. Hide the results until you're done. Save the log, look at the score: a statistically significant result (i.e. successful) is inferior to a 5% probality that you're just guessing.


----------



## stv014

I think it should be clear enough by now that *jvandyk* will never do any kind of proper blind listening test, and will just keep repeating the claim that 24-bit sounds clearly better as a fact.


----------



## skamp

stv014 said:


> I think it should be clear enough by now that *jvandyk* will never do any kind of proper blind listening test




Audiophiles almost _never_ do, and they're always too far gone to ever acknowledge their delusions even in the face of scientific facts, proper testing and common sense. They'd rather keep their blind faith, discredit ABX methodology with fallacies and claim without a shred of evidence that science still cannot, to this day, explain or measure what they're hearing (which btw is produced by electronics that couldn't have seen the light of day without proper science), systematically ignoring and rejecting the sad reality of how easily their perception can be fooled and manipulated.

I don't know why I keep arguing with them. We're worlds apart and neither party's requirements are ever met. I guess I wouldn't mind as much if they didn't grossly misinform newbies and poison their minds with voodoo nonsense. They don't even try to educate themselves and understand what they're talking about, they just keep on making up "facts" out of thin air while disregarding all and any objective clues with the greatest zeal.

There is no worse kind of ignorance than that which is willfully and permanently resistant to any sort of teachings or experiments that offend one's beliefs. And before some audiophile accuses me of just that: what you think you know isn't knowledge, but strictly your perception of what you think you hear, _nothing more_. You have no proper science to back up your claims and one can never meet you on any sort of objective ground (which is the only common ground that makes any sense if you want the truth and not just fairy tales, since anything and everything can come out of subjective experiments, without any conclusions that _everyone_ can systematically rely on and consider acquired knowledge).

:rolleyes:


----------



## streetdragon

putting a few files in a playlist that only shows the song title (not file name) and randomly shoving and moving the playlist entries up and down should also provide a good level experiment. i've done it before when i was testing 128 vs 320 vs flac. and yes i failed the 320 and flac part
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 (not sure if better gear would help me hear the differences next time though)


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





streetdragon said:


> putting a few files in a playlist that only shows the song title (not file name) and randomly shoving and moving the playlist entries up and down should also provide a good level experiment. i've done it before when i was testing 128 vs 320 vs flac. and yes i failed the 320 and flac part
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Right, that's more or less a slightly less structured version of what I was suggesting.
   
  Some words have become stigmatized like "ABX", "blind".  Maybe "foobar"?  It's like we need to reinvent a new vocabulary or rename equivalent methods.  Sometimes I just say "controlled testing" because that implies blinding, level-matching, and everything else required, at least to anybody realistic about these things (unfortunately not really the target audience with the claims).  Then again, the real problem is a lot deeper than the issue of branding.


----------



## bigshot

skamp said:


> There is no worse kind of ignorance than that which is willfully and permanently resistant to any sort of teachings or experiments that offend one's beliefs.




There's a word for willful ignorance. It's stupidity. As long as someone listens and thinks, I have no problem with them. But when they cross over that line, I have no patience with them. I've got more important things to do than waste my breath on people who aren't interested in hearing what I have to say.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Some words have become stigmatized like "ABX", "blind".  Maybe "foobar"?


 
  I think it's "test".


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> Right, that's more or less a slightly less structured version of what I was suggesting.
> 
> Some words have become stigmatized like "ABX", "blind".  Maybe "foobar"?  It's like we need to reinvent a new vocabulary or rename equivalent methods.  Sometimes I just say "controlled testing" because that implies blinding, level-matching, and everything else required, at least to anybody realistic about these things (unfortunately not really the target audience with the claims).  Then again, the real problem is a lot deeper than the issue of branding.


 

 I think the general impression of a 'test' or 'experiment' seems to be rather fearsome. People in lab coats, probing with who knows what instruments and where.


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> I think the general impression of a 'test' or 'experiment' seems to be rather fearsome. People in lab coats, probing with who knows what instruments and where.


 
  Whenever I hear about random differences attributed to lossless types, 16+ bit depths, cables, etc., I get the sudden impression that I'd like to put on a lab coat and start probing around with a baseball bat.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





anetode said:


> Whenever I hear about random differences attributed to lossless types, 16+ bit depths, cables, etc., I get the sudden impression that I'd like to put on a lab coat and start probing around with a baseball bat.


 

 A silver/gold baseball bat would work better.


----------



## Teddy Tc

tim3320070 said:


> I cannot tell a difference with my placebo-rich assortment of overpriced audiophile equipment.


+1


----------



## Nirvana Woman

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> A silver/gold baseball bat would work better.


 

 It depends. If you want the air to vibrate properly between each hit and have that typical sizzle on striking, you can only go with the silver. Ofcourse if you want a more lush hit go with the gold bat. Just depends on preference really, and ofcourse YMMV.


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





nirvana woman said:


> It depends. If you want the air to vibrate properly between each hit and have that typical sizzle on striking, you can only go with the silver. Ofcourse if you want a more lush hit go with the gold bat. Just depends on preference really, and ofcourse YMMV.


 
  either one is probably too heavy to carry anyway assuming its 100% pure solid


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





streetdragon said:


> either one is probably too heavy to carry anyway assuming its 100% pure solid


 

 No no...you see, the core can be made of a different material, to absorb all the impact, and remove any vibrations.


----------



## Teddy Tc

Batophiles, if you just tweak the coating on the grip. Like night and day, I'm tellin ya.


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





skamp said:


> Better use foobar's ABX component or any other proper ABX software, if you want to conduct a proper test.
> 
> Like chewy4 said, in order to ABX 16 bit vs. 24 bit, just take a 24 bit file, downconvert it to 16 bit and upconvert it back to 24 bit.
> 
> You want to set a number of trials beforehand (12 is good, 16 if you like) and stick to it. Hide the results until you're done. Save the log, look at the score: a statistically significant result (i.e. successful) is inferior to a 5% probality that you're just guessing.


 
  But you cannot playback 16 bit and 24 bit in Foobar using WASAPI without changing the settings between tracks.. So you are suggesting truncating the 24 bit files to 16 bit to do the test?


----------



## kn19h7

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> But you cannot playback 16 bit and 24 bit in Foobar using WASAPI without changing the settings between tracks.. So you are suggesting truncating the 24 bit files to 16 bit to do the test?


 

 hmm I think he was expecting that its common sense to set output mode to 24bit... what the post saying is on how to produce the 16bit test sample from the 24bit counterpart


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> But you cannot playback 16 bit and 24 bit in Foobar using WASAPI without changing the settings between tracks.. So you are suggesting truncating the 24 bit files to 16 bit to do the test?


 
   
  He's saying compare two 24 bit files, one of which is actually a 16 bit file that has been upconverted back to 24 bit. Because they're both recognized as 24 bit (even though one only has 16 bit information in it) you won't have to change  the settings and should be able to do a proper abx test.


----------



## Willx

my mind is blown


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





gnarlsagan said:


> He's saying compare two 24 bit files, one of which is actually a 16 bit file that has been upconverted back to 24 bit. Because they're both recognized as 24 bit (even though one only has 16 bit information in it) you won't have to change  the settings and should be able to do a proper abx test.


 
  So downsample one 24 bit file and reconvert back to 24 bit using the Foobar processing versus playing back in 16 bit and 24 bit native.  This would rely on Foobars ability to downsample and upsample..from a program that is already limited.
   
  I would like to compare WASAPI (bit perfect) files played back at 16 bits and 24 bits in their native formats. No Foobar downsampling and upsampling.
   
  Has anybody ever actually done this here? If so, where are the results?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> So downsample one 24 bit file and reconvert back to 24 bit using the Foobar processing versus playing back in 16 bit and 24 bit native.  This would rely on Foobars ability to downsample and upsample..from a program that is already limited.


 
  Adding 8 zeros is a trivial operation. This has nothing to do with down/up-sampling, the sampling rate doesn't change if you pad 16 bit to 24 bit samples.
  16 bit -> 24 bit -> 16 bit is a lossless operation.
   
  I do not know what you mean with limited. All I see is your limited understanding of what's going on.


----------



## jvandyk

Here is a nice read from Robert Harley on the subject.
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial


----------



## jvandyk

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Adding 8 zeros is an very simple operation. This has nothing to do with down/up-sampling, the sampling rate doesn't change if you pad 16 bit to 24 bit samples.
> 16 bit -> 24 bit -> 16 bit is a lossless operation.
> 
> I do not know what you mean with limited. All I see is your limited understanding of what's going on.


 
  I guess you forgot about the first step- truncating the file. Got the second part right though!
   
  And really, does every reply to me have to have another abhom?


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Here is a nice read from Robert Harley on the subject.
> http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial


 
  Quite funny how examples of a few flawed tests lead this guy to concluding that all blind listening tests are flawed. By the same "logic" math must be flawed because a lot of students make calculation errors.
   
  Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> I guess you forgot about the first step- truncating the file. Got the second part right though!
> 
> And really, does every reply to me have to have another abhom?


 
  Why would you truncate anything? I thought you wanted to compare 16 to 24 bit files.
   
  I guess you meant ad hom with "abhom".


----------



## kn19h7

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> So downsample one 24 bit file and reconvert back to 24 bit using the Foobar processing versus playing back in 16 bit and 24 bit native.  This would rely on Foobars ability to downsample and upsample..from a program that is already limited.
> 
> I would like to compare WASAPI (bit perfect) files played back at 16 bits and 24 bits in their native formats. No Foobar downsampling and upsampling.
> 
> Has anybody ever actually done this here? If so, where are the results?


 
  24bit to 16bit conversion is very simple, either direct cut-down or with dither enabled (which I think should be better).
  16bit to 24bit is even more simple, no conversion is involved, just a process of filling in 0's.
   
  The conversion can be done in foobar, just "right click the song > convert to..."


----------



## bigshot

You aren't listening to what people are saying to you.


----------



## jvandyk

kn19h7 said:


> 24bit to 16bit conversion is very simple, either direct cut-down or with dither enabled (which I think should be better).
> 16bit to 24bit is even more simple, no conversion is involved, just a process of filling in 0's.
> 
> The conversion can be done in foobar, just "right click the song > convert to..."




Yes, you suggest truncating one file and leaving the other alone with foobar. I understand that and reject that is the same as playing native 16 bit on a 16 bit dac versus native 24 bit on a 24 bit dac.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Yes, you suggest truncating one file and leaving the other alone with foobar. I understand that and reject that is the same as playing native 16 bit on a 16 bit dac versus native 24 bit on a 24 bit dac.


 
  Are you worried that the conversion of the 16 bit file is going to cause problems in the file? It's not, but if it did wouldn't that make it even easier to tell the difference?


----------



## jvandyk

xnor said:


> Quite funny how examples of a few flawed tests lead this guy to concluding that all blind listening tests are flawed. By the same "logic" math must be flawed because a lot of students.
> 
> Yes, I do think blind test listeners are more interested in math!


----------



## jvandyk

chewy4 said:


> Are you worried that the conversion of the 16 bit file is going to cause problems in the file? It's not, but if it did wouldn't that make it even easier to tell the difference?




Yes. Altering 8 bits of information from the 24 bit file in order to do a so called blind test is a flawed test IMO. One has to assume all 8 bits of that truncated info is not audible for it to be a valid test. Not going to waste my time with that. In the Harley article I linked earlier, Bob Stuart from Meridian said comparing 16 bit masters to 24 bit was like turning on a light switch. Not different mastering, just different bits. Most subjective writers agree with Stuart. Of course, this thread is really about comparing low bit rate 320 to 16 bit. Again, one has to assume the roughly 75% of data removed from the 320 is not audible to honestly say they are the same.

But like I said earlier, I do think 320 sounds surprisingly good considering. 256k is clearly audibly worse than lossless in my opinion.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> Yes. Altering 8 bits of information from the 24 bit file in order to do a so called blind test is a flawed test IMO. One has to assume all 8 bits of that truncated info is not audible for it to be a valid test. Not going to waste my time with that. In the Harley article I linked earlier, Bob Stuart from Meridian said comparing 16 bit masters to 24 bit was like turning on a light switch. Not different mastering, just different bits. Most subjective writers agree with Stuart. Of course, this thread is really about comparing low bit rate 320 to 16 bit. Again, one has to assume the roughly 75% of data removed from the 320 is not audible to honestly say they are the same.
> 
> But like I said earlier, I do think 320 sounds surprisingly good considering. 256k is clearly audibly worse than lossless in my opinion.


 
  You're not changing anything in one of the files.
   
  You're just making a copy of the 24 bit, converting it to 16 bit, and then converting it back to 24. Compare that to the unconverted one.
   
  The removal of the bits on one of the files is the entire point... that's how you get it to be a 16 bit file... I really don't know what the problem is here.


----------



## bigshot

I know what the problem is.


----------



## jvandyk

jvandyk said:


> Yes. Altering 8 bits of information from the 24 bit file in order to do a so called blind test is a flawed test IMO. One has to assume all 8 bits of that truncated info is not audible for it to be a valid test. Not going to waste my time with that. In the Harley article I linked earlier, Bob Stuart from Meridian said comparing 16 bit masters to 24 bit was like turning on a light switch. Not different mastering, just different bits. Most subjective writers agree with Stuart. Of course, this thread is really about comparing low bit rate 320 to 16 bit. Again, one has to assume the roughly 75% of data removed from the 320 is not audible to honestly say they are the same.
> 
> But like I said earlier, I do think 320 sounds surprisingly good considering. 256k is clearly audibly worse than lossless in my opinion.







chewy4 said:


> You're not changing anything in one of the files.
> 
> You're just making a copy of the 24 bit, converting it to 16 bit, and then converting it back to 24. Compare that to the unconverted one.
> 
> The removal of the bits on one of the files is the entire point... that's how you get it to be a 16 bit file... I really don't know what the problem is here.



The problem is nothing is native. And your relying on a free program to truncate and re convert one of the files. If the test did indeed result in sonic differences, I wouldn't trust foobar to have not done damage to that file. The proper way to do this test, if you believe in blind tests, would be to feed a 24 bit capable dac an unaltered 16 bit file, played back at 44.1 from the same master tape and a 24 bit file, played back at 96k or higher from the same source while switching digital inputs. And if was played back via PC, to use the same program in WASAPI exclusive mode with no dsp.


----------



## chewy4

If you're worried about it being free you can send me the file and some money and I'll do it for you.
   
  The file isn't going to be mangled though. Just try it and see for yourself.


----------



## jvandyk

bigshot said:


> I know what the problem is.




Over priced $16 radio shack speaker cable?


----------



## jvandyk

chewy4 said:


> If you're worried about it being free you can send me the file and some money and I'll do it for you.
> 
> The file isn't going to be mangled though. Just try it and see for yourself.




So you like to play back the 16 bit file(converted to 24/96) at 24/96? That test has nothing in common with a proper comparison of 16 bit playback to 24 bit. Have you done this Chewy? . What files if you did?


----------



## xnor

The problem is that either jvandyk has absolutely no clue what he's talking about (basic concepts of digital audio) or he's just trolling.
   
  Either way, stop it. Btw, all of this nonsense is completely off-topic.


----------



## chewy4

Yeah, I don't know why I didn't listen to myself two weeks ago when I said this was going to just keep going in circles. I'm gonna get out of here now.


----------



## jvandyk

Something else that is interesting to think about. Any believer in blind testing must assume every single subjective listener in history has been under the placebo effect 100% of the time if they ever heard a difference beyond science. Since a large majority of the audio industry and media are subjective reviewers, each of them (including Bob Stuart of Meridian) must be wrong 100% of the time. I can see why the folks here in SS have such a dislike of subjective opinions.

Xnor . Subjective opinions are trolls I guess. I will not bother you any longer.


----------



## xnor

Oh man, even a triple facepalm wouldn't be adequate.
  Yeah, when we're dealing with facts your wrong subjective opinion is trolling.
   
  Outta here as well, the ignorance meter's clipping led is bright red.


----------



## bigshot

This guy is trolling. Even if he isn't, he's proven that he is incapable of listening to anything anyone tells him, much less understand it. There really isn't much point to engaging with him. The signal to noise factor is dipping dangerously low.
   
  Quote: 





> I can see why the folks here in SS have such a dislike of subjective opinions.


 
   
  Boy you can say that again! But please don't.


----------



## mikeaj

This has gone way beyond audio, where somebody with no opinions and prior knowledge about audio would be baffled as well.  Even if you don't really know about statistics or experimental design, this amount should be common sense.
   
  hm I think the quote got borked, so spacing it out below manually with the *s
  **********
  Quote:
   


jvandyk said:


> Yes. Altering 8 bits of information from the 24 bit file in order to do a so called blind test is a flawed test IMO. One has to assume all 8 bits of that truncated info is not audible for it to be a valid test. Not going to waste my time with that.


 
  **********
   
  Regardless of whether or not you can hear the difference there, the mechanics of the test are the same.  If those 8 bits make an audible difference (to you, in the testing), then with high probability the test results should indicate that you showed a statistically-significant ability to identify them correctly.  
   
  If you pass there, that is a valid result from a valid test, and you can shut up all the naysayers for whatever little that's worth and probably even get some to apologize to you.  Even if it doesn't seem like a valid test to you, it is.  Even if you're not convinced, do it anyway, as it obviously means something to at least some people.
   
  For the record, you have it backwards.  It's a more meaningful, stronger (valid?  a weird choice of words, but sure) result if the "truncated" (technically, truncation is not the proper method) bits are audible.  It is less meaningful if they are not audible.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





jvandyk said:


> The problem is nothing is native. And your relying on a free program to truncate and re convert one of the files. If the test did indeed result in sonic differences, I wouldn't trust foobar to have not done damage to that file. The proper way to do this test, if you believe in blind tests, would be to feed a 24 bit capable dac an unaltered 16 bit file, played back at 44.1 from the same master tape and a 24 bit file, played back at 96k or higher from the same source while switching digital inputs. And if was played back via PC, to use the same program in WASAPI exclusive mode with no dsp.


 
   
  How do studios convert 24 bit files to 16 bit files to put on CD? Is that process better somehow than what foobar or another consumer software program could do? Is there is difference in 16 bit-ness? Since audio in the digital domain is zeros and ones, it seems to me to be a simple math calculation. Would you prefer if a recording engineer did the conversion? Or let's find out what software they use and then just use that software. Then we can proceed with the comparison.
   
  Also I don't understand how you could not believe in comparing two things without seeing them. I'm reading your argument thusly: people can only hear the difference between things if they see what they are listening to; if they can't see what they're listening to then they can't hear any differences; and so therefore there must be differences in what they're hearing? In other words, people can only hear differences when they see what they're listening to? That makes no sense so clearly that it's hard to believe you're genuine about your stance here. Or maybe I'm missing a step in your argument.


----------



## jcx

studio digital mastering is done at higher sample rate and bit depth, since the producer in in control they can vary their choices of filter type for the decimation, dither algorithm for the depth reduction, and excuse any result as "artistic license"
   
  for stand alone SW you only want "transparency" - and with no prior knowledge of the music so generic choices are used, such as simple additive dither, which actually isn't usually bad only applied once or twice in your playback system
   
  but there are different dither algorithms -  much better noise shaped dither can be used on a DAW


----------



## Ragncajn

As a long time guitar gear head, it's easy for me to tell digital vs. analog. the problem is the industry has made everything smaller and easier by killing quality. So unless you are ready to give up space, cash, and go see some live music, settle for the thin processed digital sounds. Mp3 vs cd???? Both are sharp, tiny, distorted pieces of the original, but you can't fit a full analog band in your car or pocket. Think I'm gonna put on the Red Hot Chiili Peppers latest 24 bit xrcd remaster. It sounds great, dare I say better than mp3 but not analog.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





ragncajn said:


> As a long time guitar gear head, it's easy for me to tell digital vs. analog. the problem is the industry has made everything smaller and easier by killing quality. So unless you are ready to give up space, cash, and go see some live music, settle for the thin processed digital sounds. Mp3 vs cd???? Both are sharp, tiny, distorted pieces of the original, but you can't fit a full analog band in your car or pocket. Think I'm gonna put on the Red Hot Chiili Peppers latest 24 bit xrcd remaster. It sounds great, dare I say better than mp3 but not analog.


 

 I don't think anyone argues on the point of a real guitar vs a recorded one. The rest (digital vs analog, 24 bit vs 16 bit) are well covered debates everywhere, and there's plenty of stuff to go through in order to make up your mind.
   
  But you can always use your ears, they're probably the most reliable human sensory organ.


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





ragncajn said:


> As a long time guitar gear head, it's easy for me to tell digital vs. analog.


 
   
  Either that or you are fooling yourself. The history of blind tests suggests the later.
   
   


> the problem is the industry has made everything smaller and easier by killing quality. So unless you are ready to give up space, cash, and go see some live music, settle for the thin processed digital sounds. Mp3 vs cd???? Both are sharp, tiny, distorted pieces of the original, but you can't fit a full analog band in your car or pocket.


 
   
  You seem to be implying that analog recording is inherently better than digital. It's easy to see why you might think that - but there is a lot of non-easy to understand evidence that says this is bs.
   
   


> give up space, cash, and go see some live music, settle for the thin processed digital sounds. Mp3 vs cd???? Both are sharp, tiny, distorted pieces of the original, but you can't fit a full analog band in your car or pocket. Think I'm gonna put on the Red Hot Chiili Peppers latest 24 bit xrcd remaster.


 
   
  That reminds me - I have a CD I have to make an ogg of. It's by Placebo...


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





ragncajn said:


> Think I'm gonna put on the Red Hot Chiili Peppers latest 24 bit xrcd remaster. It sounds great, dare I say better than mp3 but not analog.


 
   
  When you talk about Red Hot Chili Peppers and sound quality, I'm afraid you totally lose me.


----------



## skamp

Blood Sugar Sex Magik sounds pretty good (DR14).


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





skamp said:


> Blood Sugar Sex Magik sounds pretty good (DR14).


 
  I think it is the last album of theirs that does.....
   

   
  obviously this one was not "loudness war" mangled like the later albums were.


----------



## bigshot

Mediocre is the new good.


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> When you talk about Red Hot Chili Peppers and sound quality, I'm afraid you totally lose me.


 
   
  Be fair: he said "sound", not "music."


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Mediocre is the new good.


 
   
  Red is the new blue!


----------



## bigshot

I think people who just listen to current rock music don't know what good sound sounds like. It's like bologna... Sure, there's salami which is undeniably better than regular old Oscar Meyer Bologna. But it still isn't a T Bone Steak.


----------



## chewy4

At times I prefer the taste of a good Lebanon balogna to that of steak. Especially if it's like a Waffle House T bone we're talking about here.
   
  Same with low dynamic range recordings. They have their place.


----------



## bigshot

Folks are free to like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but even at their best, they aren't really examples of "great sound".


----------



## skamp

Listen to "The Empyrean" by John Frusciante, their guitarist. Excellent mastering.


----------



## gnarlsagan

Quote: 





skamp said:


> Listen to "The Empyrean" by John Frusciante, their guitarist. Excellent mastering.


 
   
  +1 John Frusciante's most recent album is excellently mastered imo. RHCP not so much.


----------



## SunshineReggae

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think people who just listen to current rock music don't know what good sound sounds like. It's like bologna... Sure, there's salami which is undeniably better than regular old Oscar Meyer Bologna. But it still isn't a T Bone Steak.


 

 Would like an example of what you think sounds great. Would like to compare it with BSSM (which I also think sounds great) for reference, if you'd be willing to do that.


----------



## bigshot

Try Arthur Fiedler's Gaietie Parisienne...
   
  http://www.amazon.com/Offenbach-parisienne-Rossini-Respighi-boutique-fantasque/dp/B0006PV5VW/
   
  It was one of the very first stereo recordings, made in June, 1954 and it sounds light years better than anything today. No lie. Check it out yourself, my man!


----------



## twg1996

ok...wher can you get 320kbps music other than from a cd directly to my android?? Ive tried to reaseach on google but i could find a solid website.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Both MOG and Spotify subscription music services offer a premium streaming bitrate that is 320kbps.  Also, Google Music will allow you to upload your own songs up to 320kbps which you can play back via the Android Google Music app.


----------



## twg1996

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> Both MOG and Spotify subscription music services offer a premium streaming bitrate that is 320kbps.  Also, Google Music will allow you to upload your own songs up to 320kbps which you can play back via the Android Google Music app.


 
   i live in canada, mog and spotify dont work in canada
  on the other hand how the the google music work? do you need data when you use it? and can you download music from it?


----------



## streetdragon

uhh.... i just plug my android into the com and transfer it that way.
 or use a sync app and transfer from com to android through wifi.


----------



## V-Moda M80

brooko said:


> Very few people actually submitted data from a true abx test though.  Of those who did, I think there were only two that actually reliably could tell the difference - and neither said it was 'night and day' ( a phrase I personally dislike - and one that seems to be thrown about readily among the misinformed IMO).  The test is easy to set-up as well > Foobar2000 + abx comparator plugin.  Two files - volume match using the automatic plugin tool,  Run the abx (minimum 15 iterations - 20 is better).  Produce the log.
> 
> It's funny - but when people are asked to do this - they either ignore it, or claim they can pass the test (one listen), and then promptly ignore any requests for proof.  If you believe the 2/3 - then we have an awful lot of golden ears here
> 
> ...


 
 What's a good result for this test?
  
 I was rather dismayed to score 10/20 using an Askman 24-96 FLAC copy of Outlandos D'Amour vs a 320 MP3 LAME taken from the FLAC.
  
 However I was at 9/15 at one point and it really did seem like I could tell the difference. The way I did it was by listening to my heart really. One version excited me the other didn't. I got 3 wrong in a row before that point but that was when I wasn't listening to both x and y, just one or the other, I plan to repeat the test at some point.
  
 But the thing is I don't know if I was really listening to bits of the song that were good to compare and my short term memory is a  bit pants.
  
 As the test went on I was feeling really bored and my ears were getting tired, that could be why my results dropped off towards the end. Listening to the same bit of track 30 times in a row....jeez your hearts really not in it by then.


----------



## esldude

v-moda m80 said:


> What's a good result for this test?
> 
> I was rather dismayed to score 10/20 using an Askman 24-96 FLAC copy of Outlandos D'Amour vs a 320 MP3 LAME taken from the FLAC.
> 
> ...


 

 Well 12 of 15 would be a 95% confidence level of not guessing though only 15 trials is a bit sketchy.  Your talking about not caring by then is a part of the problem.  Doing 10 trials over 3 sessions would make more sense though it isn't convenient.  21 of 30 would also meet the 95% confidence level.  As you increase the number of trials it takes less to show you are not just guessing. If over time you did 100 trials you need only score 60 of 100 to meet the 95% confidence bar.
  
 But just randomly streaks among 12 to 15 trials is not as uncommon as you would think.  They always leave you thinking, "hey I was almost there, must be something to it, I know I was really hearing something".  Most likely not the case, but if you string together several short sessions over time you can either regress toward the 50/50 level or show that you can hear something going on different.


----------



## Brooko

To get a statistically relevant result - you'd need to be running at least 15 trials, and scoring 95% +.  Anything below that, and really you're guessing.  10/20 or 9/15 both show same result - you can't tell the difference.  Don't worry - it just means you are normal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Best way to do it is try and run 10-15 at a time, with a rest between, and accumulate results.
  
 EDIT : esldude's reply (above) nails it.


----------



## V-Moda M80

Thanks for the replies esldude and Brooko. Do either of you have any recommendations for songs that are good for this test? Or perhaps parts of songs that are markedly different in 320kbps MP3 LAME compared to FLAC but could only be detected by someone able to tell the difference? I do plan on repeating this test again.
  
  


esldude said:


> Your talking about not caring by then is a part of the problem.


 
  
 It wasn't that I was not caring, just that by then it was getting a bit tedious. I like to cycle my songs so that they stay fresh, doing the same thing time and time again is against my nature at least without a break in between.
  
 For my next test I'll likely compile my results from doing sessions of 10 or perhaps 15 at a time.
  
 I'm really interested by this, I thought I had really good hearing but I don't want to be lying to myself!


----------



## esldude

v-moda m80 said:


> Thanks for the replies esldude and Brooko. Do either of you have any recommendations for songs that are good for this test? Or perhaps parts of songs that are markedly different in 320kbps MP3 LAME compared to FLAC but could only be detected by someone able to tell the difference? I do plan on repeating this test again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 By problem I meant the tedium of it.  Not that you didn't actually care, just music gets stale.  Completely normal reaction to such a test.  Which is why real research usually involves lots of people with each doing a handful of trials.  I have suggested it elsewhere, and it isn't the same with music.  Pink noise is easier to hear differences on than music.  More discerning if you will.


----------



## Brooko

v-moda m80 said:


> Thanks for the replies esldude and Brooko. Do either of you have any recommendations for songs that are good for this test? Or perhaps parts of songs that are markedly different in 320kbps MP3 LAME compared to FLAC but could only be detected by someone able to tell the difference? I do plan on repeating this test again.
> 
> It wasn't that I was not caring, just that by then it was getting a bit tedious. I like to cycle my songs so that they stay fresh, doing the same thing time and time again is against my nature at least without a break in between.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hydrogen Audio has some threads with references to the very few "killer tracks" that LAME has trouble with encoding correctly - http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=83905
  
 As far as your testing goes - here's what I'd recommend you do next.
  

Start with music you know really well.  Limit yourself to less than 10 tracks total.  Cover a wide range of genres, styles. etc.
If possible start with something relatively high-res (say 24/96).  Compare to redbook. MP3 320, mp3 V0, aac256.  The whole aim of this is discovering your own thresh-hold for what is discernible.  Mine is ~ AAC 200, so I simply use aac256 for all my portable listening now.
Once you know your thresh-hold, forget about what everyone else says - and simply encode your music for your own (now known) limits.  Celebrate your ability, rather than lamenting the ability not to be a "golden-eared listener".  Remember - you're actually normal in your limitations.  I use FLAC at home simply because there is no reason not to.  I rip my CD's to redbook.  It means I have a completely lossless copy for archiving - and I use the same archive for listening.  For my portable, I mostly use aac256 - simply because I know I can't tell the difference, and it allows me to carry as much music with me as possible - without having to buy an uber-expensive DAP. 
  
 Once you know your own limits - then you can safely relax and not worry about music formats - but instead just enjoy the music itself.  And that is the whole key to the exercise IMO - enjoying the music.


----------



## Hapster

I honestly preferred Flac (CD) to 320kbps with headphones, I did actually feel I heard new things, and the bass and highs really seemed to hit harder.
  
 Although, for lower-end systems, I think 320kbps is actually superior due to the compression. Low end speakers & headphones don't really pick up the highs and lows, so when it's compressed, they're more audible. Now, for the simple fact flac take up 350% more space...it's not really worth it unless you've somehow got 500gb+ storage on your Mp3 player.
  
 Although I'm not allowed to post links...
  
 I listened to "Burn the Sky Down" by Emma Hewitt to compare.


----------



## cjl

Have you done a level matched double blind test? Your description of the differences between the 320 and FLAC don't sound like any compression artifacts or compression loss that I've ever heard, but it does sound a lot like either a slight volume mismatch (with the FLAC a bit louder) or a simple expectation bias. That having been said, it is theoretically possible to hear a difference (though an extremely subtle one) between 320 and lossless on some tracks, so it is possible that you are hearing a real difference.


----------



## bigshot

hapster said:


> I honestly preferred Flac (CD) to 320kbps with headphones, I did actually feel I heard new things, and the bass and highs really seemed to hit harder.


 
  
 It depends on what kind of codec you used. I believe there might be a slight edge for lossless over 320 Frauenhofer. But 320 LAME and 320 AAC should be totally indistinguishable.


----------



## Hapster

Well, I wasn't the one who converted it  so unfortunately I don't know what kind of codec was used.


----------



## Brooko

hapster said:


> I honestly preferred Flac (CD) to 320kbps with headphones, I did actually* feel *I heard new things, and the bass and highs really *seemed to* hit harder.
> 
> Although, for lower-end systems, I think 320kbps is actually superior due to the compression. Low end speakers & headphones don't really pick up the highs and lows, so when it's compressed, they're more audible. Now, for the simple fact flac take up 350% more space...it's not really worth it unless you've somehow got 500gb+ storage on your Mp3 player.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hi Hapster.  Thanks for your post.  I underlined a couple of things above, because the way you've worded them suggests that you haven't abx'd the two formats properly (level matched and blind).
  
 It's entirely up to you if you want to spend the time doing it - and all it will help is your own personal knowledge.  I do think it's worth it.  Most of the people who invest the time to test themselves admit to it being an "eye opener".  If anything it lets you know your own limitations.  It'll probably also show that you are one of us (ie normal human beings).
  
 Here's a link on how to do it.  The software is free.  All you need is access to a PC, the internet, and a CD.
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding
  
 Important things are using the same source file for comparison, volume matching, and making it blind (eliminating placebo).


----------



## Hapster

brooko said:


> Hi Hapster.  Thanks for your post.  I underlined a couple of things above, because the way you've worded them suggests that you haven't abx'd the two formats properly (level matched and blind).
> 
> It's entirely up to you if you want to spend the time doing it - and all it will help is your own personal knowledge.  I do think it's worth it.  Most of the people who invest the time to test themselves admit to it being an "eye opener".  If anything it lets you know your own limitations.  It'll probably also show that you are one of us (ie normal human beings).
> 
> ...


 

 So I wasn't completely wrong.
  
 The bad news: There were no "revelations" in the song, it appears that the 320kbps was a "digital version" if you will, and the FLAC came right from the CD, so transitions were different, which is basically the "new sounds" that I was hearing.
  
 The "Good" news: I was correct 18/20 times when deciding which was higher quality, now my theory is if there is no distinguishable difference between 320kbbps and FLAC then it could be entirely up to the fact that the CD IS different. Maybe it does have deeper bass, and more prominent highs. It's hard to say.


----------



## bigshot

hapster said:


> Well, I wasn't the one who converted it  so unfortunately I don't know what kind of codec was used.


 
  
 Some codecs are designed for low bit rates and some for high. I guarantee you that if you do a proper comparison of lossless and 320 AAC, you won't hear any difference at all.


----------



## Brooko

hapster said:


> So I wasn't completely wrong.
> 
> The bad news: There were no "revelations" in the song, it appears that the 320kbps was a "digital version" if you will, and the FLAC came right from the CD, so transitions were different, which is basically the "new sounds" that I was hearing.
> 
> The "Good" news: I was correct 18/20 times when deciding which was higher quality, now my theory is if there is no distinguishable difference between 320kbbps and FLAC then it could be entirely up to the fact that the CD IS different. Maybe it does have deeper bass, and more prominent highs. It's hard to say.


 
  
 Nope - it sounds like you were comparing two completely different masters, and probably you weren't volume matched either.
  
 Now (if you're game) follow that link I left you - take a track from your own CD that you know well, transcode it to a lossy format, and then compare properly with the tools in the link.
  
 It's worth doing .......


----------



## cjl

hapster said:


> Well, I wasn't the one who converted it  so unfortunately I don't know what kind of codec was used.


 
 In that case, it's entirely possible that they came from 2 different masters, which would cause all kinds of audible differences completely unrelated to the codec or format used. The best way to compare 2 formats (FLAC vs 256 lossy, for example) is to start with the high-quality lossless format, and encode the lower quality version yourself from the high quality one (so you know for sure they both come from the same master). Then do the test, making sure that the two are level matched properly (many encoders drop the volume a couple dB when encoding to prevent clipping).


----------



## Don Hills

brooko said:


> ... Important things are using the same source file for comparison, volume matching, and making it blind (eliminating placebo).


 
  
 ... and don't look at your results until you've finished a run. Blind means blind. No peeking at your results during a run, V-Moda M80...


----------



## Kneel2Galvatron

I find it very difficult to notice the difference between high quality mp3 and Flac. I would still rather own the Flac version though.


----------



## bigshot

Can't deny the psychological benefits for those who care about those things.


----------



## Kneel2Galvatron

everything is available in 16 bit, why settle for less?


----------



## cjl

kneel2galvatron said:


> everything is available in 16 bit, why settle for less?


 
 I agree, but that's a bit of a non-sequitur relative to the topic - an MP3 is also usually 16 bit (or, more accurately, the mp3 itself has no "bit depth" per se, but it won't have a problem encoding the full dynamic range available with 16 bit audio).


----------



## anetode

kneel2galvatron said:


> everything is available in 16 bit, why settle for less?


 

 Never settle. In fact, go for 32 bit mp3s.


----------



## cjl

anetode said:


> Never settle. In fact, go for 32 bit mp3s.


 
 That's not nearly enough. If my processor in my computer is 64 bit, my music should be too. Also, the sample rate should be at least a few hundred MHz. We have fast computers now - why not use them?


----------



## elmoe

cjl said:


> That's not nearly enough. If my processor in my computer is 64 bit, my music should be too. Also, the sample rate should be at least a few hundred MHz. We have fast computers now - why not use them?


 
  
 We also have hard drives (and soon enough solid state drives) with TBs of space on them. Why settle for mp3s when you can have a perfect copy of your albums?


----------



## bigshot

If a compressed file is audibly transparent it is for all intents and purposes perfect.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> If a compressed file is audibly transparent it is for all intents and purposes perfect.


 
  
 That's besides the point. I want a music library that's future-proof, and lossless encoding provides that. When I have the choice between mp3 and FLAC when ripping a CD, why would I bother going with mp3? The only thing it's got going is filesize, and I have over 4TB of free space, so it's a non-issue. If I need to convert my FLAC to any format - for whatever purpose - I can. Transcoding (encoding one lossy format to another) usually results in loss of quality, and that's something I'd rather avoid. Lossless encoding is the only way to ensure that no matter what, I can do whatever I want with my music library.
  
 On my phone, which I use as a portable music player, I only have VBR V0 mp3s, because space is an issue. But I don't need to settle for less on my desktop.


----------



## ToddTheMetalGod

elmoe said:


> That's besides the point. I want a music library that's future-proof, and lossless encoding provides that. When I have the choice between mp3 and FLAC when ripping a CD, why would I bother going with mp3? The only thing it's got going is filesize, and I have over 4TB of free space, so it's a non-issue. If I need to convert my FLAC to any format - for whatever purpose - I can. Transcoding (encoding one lossy format to another) usually results in loss of quality, and that's something I'd rather avoid. Lossless encoding is the only way to ensure that no matter what, I can do whatever I want with my music library.
> 
> On my phone, which I use as a portable music player, I only have VBR V0 mp3s, because space is an issue. But I don't need to settle for less on my desktop.


 
 This, right here. If MP3 finally gets replaced by a far superior codec such as AAC, I don't want to be the one left with a terrible codec and badly supported playback. As long as I have lossless copies of my audio, I can just convert to a different lossy format without a problem. Probably 80% of my music is FLAC and 20% is 320 MP3.


----------



## cjl

elmoe said:


> We also have hard drives (and soon enough solid state drives) with TBs of space on them. Why settle for mp3s when you can have a perfect copy of your albums?


 
 Actually, I do agree with this - all of my music archive is either in FLAC or WMA lossless (I used to rip in WMA, recent albums are FLAC). I also have a lot of it in MP3 for my portable players, but for archival purposes, lossless makes perfect sense in my opinion (given how cheap storage is now - you can get 6TB for $300). My prior post was facetious though, and certainly anything over 44.1/16 or 48/16 is useless for playback.


----------



## elmoe

cjl said:


> My prior post was facetious though, and certainly anything over 44.1/16 or 48/16 is useless for playback.


 
  
 Completely agree with you there.


----------



## bigshot

toddthemetalgod said:


> This, right here. If MP3 finally gets replaced by a far superior codec such as AAC, I don't want to be the one left with a terrible codec and badly supported playback. As long as I have lossless copies of my audio, I can just convert to a different lossy format without a problem. Probably 80% of my music is FLAC and 20% is 320 MP3.


 
  
 I rip to AAC 256 VBR and it's totally transparent. The only difference to me between it and lossless is file size. I always have the CDs themselves as backup, but I'm sure the AAC files will do for me forever.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> I rip to AAC 256 VBR and it's totally transparent. The only difference to me between it and lossless is file size. I always have the CDs themselves as backup, but I'm sure the AAC files will do for me forever.


 
 I'm ripping to LAME mp3, but I also keep the CDs as a backup.  I read about people always saying that space is cheap and there is no excuse not to archive in lossless, but in my experience it is a pain in the ass.   If a solution comes up that is clearly obvious that my quality is suffering, I'll be the first to admit that I probably should have made arrangement to save everything in a lossless format.  However, a one time event to re-rip everything in the future will probably be much less effort than it would have been to keep a backup over the last decade or more.  At this point, I'm way ahead now in both money and time saved just by ripping directly to mp3, which is the format that works with everything I use to play my music.
  
 I suppose that if when I initially started out that today's storage solutions were available, I'd think differently.  It wasn't always cheap, fast, and reliable.  Until I am confident there is any benefit, I'm holding out on the re-rip party.


----------



## bigshot

My music libraries contain over a year and a half's worth of music. Maintaining and backing up two libraries... lossless and compressed would be a royal pain. I want control over how my music is ripped. For instance, I always rip mono tracks to real mono, not two channel because it reduces noise and fake stereo effects in some CD reissues. I couldn't do that with lossless. My music server runs 24/7 streaming music all over the house. Saddling it with music that is ten times bigger for no reason is more wear and tear on hard drives that just isn't needed.


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> My music libraries contain over a year and a half's worth of music. Maintaining and backing up two libraries... lossless and compressed would be a royal pain. I want control over how my music is ripped. For instance, I always rip mono tracks to real mono, not two channel because it reduces noise and fake stereo effects in some CD reissues. I couldn't do that with lossless. My music server runs 24/7 streaming music all over the house. Saddling it with music that is ten times bigger for no reason is more wear and tear on hard drives that just isn't needed.


 
  
 You definitely can do lossless mono, and you're talking about a file size difference of 2-4x, not 10x. Still, if you're happy with your music collection, that's all that really matters.


----------



## bigshot

You can't do mono with Apple Lossless using iTunes. It's all automatic.


----------



## elmoe

Using iTunes - that's your problem right there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 And personally I don't maintain 2 libraries. I have my FLACs, and whenever I need an album in mp3 format, it takes 2 clicks and 10 seconds to encode it. No big deal really. Soon enough though, I will drop mp3s altogether. We're pretty close from having portable sources with 500gb/1tb+ storage space, when that happens, I'll just use FLACs for everything.


----------



## bigshot

My server plays 24/7 and my library is over a year and a half. It would be encoding constantly for years. My entire library fits on a 2TB partition. If it was lossless, it would take more than a Drobo all to itself.


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> You can't do mono with Apple Lossless using iTunes. It's all automatic.


 
 Who says you have to use iTunes - there are other programs available that are much better. Also, why would you use ALAC rather than FLAC? Finally, iTunes used to have a pretty significant problem with sample rate conversion, but they may have fixed it by now.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> My server plays 24/7 and my library is over a year and a half. It would be encoding constantly for years. My entire library fits on a 2TB partition. If it was lossless, it would take more than a Drobo all to itself.


 
  
 Actually you could encode it all in under a week or so. That being said, why would you need to encode the whole library?


----------



## bigshot

No need to have two copies at all. I own all the CDs. The server is just the playing and portable copy for my iPhone, iPad and iPods. AAC is perfect for that. It sounds the same and more fits.


----------



## bigshot

cjl said:


> Who says you have to use iTunes - there are other programs available that are much better. Also, why would you use ALAC rather than FLAC? Finally, iTunes used to have a pretty significant problem with sample rate conversion, but they may have fixed it by now.


 
  
 My media server is a Mac mini. iTunes is the slickest. It integrates perfectly with my iDevices and Airport network and has incredibly powerful smart play listing features. My iPhone can control everything from anywhere in the house. AAC is compressed and sounds as good as lossless. The mini runs my projection video system too. I've never owned anything better suited for its purpose. I have my cake and I eat it too.


----------



## elmoe

Sure, but the day you need to copy any of that on a device that doesn't support AAC playback, you'll get subpar quality. Of course you're free to stick with Apple products, but personally I don't like to waste my money on inferior products, and my FLAC library enables me to encode to any format with no audible quality loss, whether it's for an apple product or anything else.
  


bigshot said:


> My media server is a Mac mini. iTunes is the slickest. It integrates perfectly with my iDevices and Airport network and has incredibly powerful smart play listing features. My iPhone can control everything from anywhere in the house. AAC is compressed and sounds as good as lossless. The mini runs my projection video system too. I've never owned anything better suited for its purpose. I have my cake and I eat it too.


 
  
 All of which can be done from a PC, more easily, slicker, with more choices. Oh and did I mention for a fraction of the price?


----------



## bigshot

Most everything supports AAC doesn't it? Since the bitrate I'm ripping at is audibly transparent, if I ever need to, I can transcode it to lossless and it will still be audibly transparent, just several times as big. I've never had a reason to transcode anything yet though. AAC 256 VBR nails everything I want it to do perfectly.
  
 I don't want to waste my time making different products and apps from different companies all play nice together. I bought a Mac mini, plugged it in and everything I needed was already there and working. And it worked with all my portable devices the same way. And with my wifi network... and with my 1080p projector... and every stereo in the house... Plug and play. I could go straight to watching movies and listening to music. With the hundreds of thousands of dollars I spent on media over the years, I'm not going to worry that I paid $700 for my media server instead of $600. I just want it to do its job out of the box. The only thing it doesn't do is play blu-rays. I got a $120 Sony blu-ray player and solved that problem. It's a swiss army knife for optical formats.


----------



## elmoe

256kbps is not really audibly transparent, I can pick it out everytime in foobar abx tests. Transcoding lossy encodes isn't as simple as you make it sound. Depending on how it's done it can sound pretty terrible (and almost always does). As for AAC support, I don't know, I don't use it.
  
 Personally I like to know what I'm working with and how it works, and I like to be able to configure it to my liking, all of this without overspending. I also want choices in which apps I want to use. Also you don't really have to spend much time making sure products/apps play nice, depending on the level of freedom you want. A PC can integrate perfectly with any device, android, windows phone, whatever. You can use any remote control app such as VNC for instant access through your phone (or any tablet, laptop, etc) to your complete server. You have literally hundreds of choices for music player, even more so for playlist control, video playback, etc etc. It's just a matter of picking the one you like best, rather than going with whatever you're given without being able to configure it extensively the way you want it. And all this without wasting thousands of dollars on a pretty design and inferior/slower hardware.
  
 I have my TV plugged into my PC, which itself is remote controlled via VNC by my android phone. Not only can I access it anywhere in my house (neighborhood, in fact), I can also access it from across the planet if I need to, and control absolutely everything


----------



## bigshot

AAC 256 VBR is generally accepted to be audibly transparent. I would love to see someone pick it out every time in ABX tests. Me thinks you exaggerate a bit. Codecs matter. Frauenhofer MP3 at 256 isn't the same as AAC at 256.
  
 Using your Android phone, can you turn on the components in your stereo without getting up, do a search for a specific song by keyword, play it in your bedroom, then drop a screen and watch broadcast TV in your living room, switching channels and finding channel listings for shows being broadcast? I do that with my mac mini and iPhone with an IR to wifi remote converter. Pretty slick.


----------



## sonitus mirus

My IR is built right into my Android LG G2.  I can control practically any device with the Quick Remote app. (sports bars hate me)  I can just speak into my mic and tell Google to start playing any song, album, artist, or radio genre and it does it.  I can cast to my media server or to any of my Chromecast devices connected to my TVs.  It seems like we are both on the same page, just using different equipment to get the same job done.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> AAC 256 VBR is generally accepted to be audibly transparent. I would love to see someone pick it out every time in ABX tests. Me thinks you exaggerate a bit. Codecs matter. Frauenhofer MP3 at 256 isn't the same as AAC at 256.
> 
> Using your Android phone, can you turn on the components in your stereo without getting up, do a search for a specific song by keyword, play it in your bedroom, then drop a screen and watch broadcast TV in your living room, switching channels and finding channel listings for shows being broadcast? I do that with my mac mini and iPhone with an IR to wifi remote converter. Pretty slick.




Like I said, I don't know about AAC, I only compared with LAME 256kbps mp3s.

Yes, I can do all that with my android phone and more. I can also pick which app I like best to do it with out of dozens of free options.


----------



## Brooko

elmoe said:


> Like I said, I don't know about AAC, I only compared with LAME 256kbps mp3s.


 
  
 Elmoe - if you get the time, and can be bothered doing it, you should try an abx (volume matched) between lossless and aac256 (transcoded from same source file).  The results were pretty surprising for me.  I concur with what bigshot is saying about being audibly transparent.  A group of us did some tests a couple of years ago, and no-one (not even a guy with a Stax O2 set-up) could differentiate.
  
 Saying that though - I'd imagine people with a library like bigshot's will be few and far between.  I also archive to flac - and just use aac on my portables.


----------



## elmoe

I'll give it a shot!


----------



## bigshot

One thing I learned when I did my tests is that AAC drops the volume level a hair, presumably to avoid clipping. I had to line level match to compare to CD quality or MP3


----------



## Brooko

bigshot said:


> One thing I learned when I did my tests is that AAC drops the volume level a hair, presumably to avoid clipping. I had to line level match to compare to CD quality or MP3


 
  
 Agree.  For anyone wanting to try (and is Windows based) Foobar's ABX tool combined with replay gain and your good to go.
  
 Tools are free - here's a (basic) how-to
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding


----------



## elmoe

Yep that's what I planned on using.


----------



## jonbernard

bigshot said:


> I always have the CDs themselves as backup


 
  
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/05/14/1459235/your-old-cd-collection-is-dying


----------



## bigshot

Tens of thousands of CDs dating back 25 years in my collection, and I haven't lost one yet.


----------



## Agharta

How would you know?


----------



## bigshot

I've been going through my collection ripping them to my media server


----------



## Agharta

Cool. A fun and interesting adventure no doubt that - come across many forgotten gems?


----------



## bigshot

Tons! My media server surprises me all the time.


----------



## Claritas

I listen to CDs at home and AAC 256 VBR from an iPod at work when I can. I can tell the difference, but the quality is quite good.
  
 The only reason I had thoughts of upgrading to flac/wav/alac/whatever is clipping on 2-3 tracks (out of thousands and thousands). I asked bigshot about it and he suspected rightly that the clipping was in the original disc. The rip actually sounds better in those cases because the clipping is less audible.
  
 We're not collectively at a point where storage allows for the highest grade formats for anyone with a large collection. Moreover, DAPs and phones haven't become sufficiently bigger in that regard--smaller actually--and I don't intend to futz around with microSD.


----------



## elmoe

claritas said:


> We're not collectively at a point where storage allows for the highest grade formats for anyone with a large collection. Moreover, DAPs and phones haven't become sufficiently bigger in that regard--smaller actually--and I don't intend to futz around with microSD.


 
 I beg to differ. Getting a few TBs of hard drive space has never been so cheap. As mentioned previously, you only need 300usd for about 6TB (3x2TB hard drives), that's probably cheaper than the furniture you'd need to store that many CDs.
  
 As for DAPs I never really understood why people would need their whole collection on them at all times. I have about 30GB of mp3s on my phone and I already spend too much time figuring out what I'm going to listen to next


----------



## Claritas

elmoe said:


> I beg to differ. Getting a few TBs of hard drive space has never been so cheap. As mentioned previously, you only need 300usd for about 6TB (3x2TB hard drives), that's probably cheaper than the furniture you'd need to store that many CDs.
> 
> As for DAPs I never really understood why people would need their whole collection on them at all times. I have about 30GB of mp3s on my phone and I already spend too much time figuring out what I'm going to listen to next


 
  
 Almost everything I listen to has to be bought on CD and ripped. It's simply not available otherwise. It's a lot of trouble to rip twice and it's not worth it to me as I have the CDs to listen to at home and AAC 256 VBR is good enough for work. I often have to delete from my 80 GB iPod to make room for new material. I guess it's depends on what you listen to, how, where, &c.
  
 I'm not sure how much more space I'd need on a DAP for lossless. What would 80 GB in AAC 256 VBR be in an uncompressed loseless format?
  
 It seems to me that DAPs are getting worse in this regard. The most common higher amount of storage currently available if you don't want use microSD is 64 GB (e.g., iPod Touch, Sony F series), less than my old iPod. That's probably enough space for pop songs, but not for classical where most pieces are half an hour and I generally want to have more than one performance of a piece with me. Guess I'll have to delete some Bach to make room for other Bach.


----------



## elmoe

You dont have to rip twice. You rip once to lossless, and then you can encode from the lossless files to whatever you need, quickly and easily. I usually just open up the software, select all albums folders I want to convert, select the filetype/bitrate, the destination folder on my phone, then click convert and that's that. It keeps my folder structure, copies over any album art, and converts all my FLAC albums to mp3s straight to my phone.
  
 I agree that DAPs are getting worse. There are 2 things of interest from a DAP: sound quality and space. I would love a 500GB small sized DAP that's energy efficient and can be rockboxed. Unfortunately it seems that DAP makers have another agenda, which is why I just stick to my smartphone. I guess I could buy an old 3g/4g iPod and mod it, but it's a pain to have to go that far to get what I want. Plus I don't want to carry 50 different devices on me.


----------



## bigshot

elmoe said:


> As for DAPs I never really understood why people would need their whole collection on them at all times. I have about 30GB of mp3s on my phone and I already spend too much time figuring out what I'm going to listen to next


 
  
 If you're like me, you've got a bunch of different kinds of music... jazz, country, classical, opera, bluegrass, rock n roll, easy listening, ethnic, pop vocals, etc... I used to carry five iPods with me. Now I can get by with the biggest classic. But even there it's a pinch. And that's with compressed files.
  
 The big problem though is transcoding. It takes long enough to sync my iPod. Adding transcoding as I load it would take forever.


----------



## elmoe

Well, genres I listen to may vary from your list but there's just as many for sure 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Right now like I said I just settle for a few albums in mp3 format, taking pickings from each genre. It's true that having the possibility to have everything on one device would be nice though.


----------



## cjl

elmoe said:


> I beg to differ. Getting a few TBs of hard drive space has never been so cheap. As mentioned previously, you only need 300usd for about 6TB (3x2TB hard drives), that's probably cheaper than the furniture you'd need to store that many CDs.


 
 Actually, when I made that comment, I was thinking of this drive:  http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Desktop-3-5-Inch-Internal-STBD6000100/dp/B00JBJ34WC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400361218&sr=8-1&keywords=6tb


claritas said:


> Almost everything I listen to has to be bought on CD and ripped. It's simply not available otherwise. It's a lot of trouble to rip twice and it's not worth it to me as I have the CDs to listen to at home and AAC 256 VBR is good enough for work. I often have to delete from my 80 GB iPod to make room for new material. I guess it's depends on what you listen to, how, where, &c.
> 
> I'm not sure how much more space I'd need on a DAP for lossless. What would 80 GB in AAC 256 VBR be in an uncompressed loseless format?


 
 Between 2 and 4x the size. Depending on the compressability of the file, lossless ends up somewhere between 500 and 1000kbps for me most of the time. Also, as mentioned before, you don't need to rip twice - you rip once, then transcode once (which doesn't take nearly as long)
  


bigshot said:


> If you're like me, you've got a bunch of different kinds of music... jazz, country, classical, opera, bluegrass, rock n roll, easy listening, ethnic, pop vocals, etc... I used to carry five iPods with me. Now I can get by with the biggest classic. But even there it's a pinch. And that's with compressed files.
> 
> The big problem though is transcoding. It takes long enough to sync my iPod. Adding transcoding as I load it would take forever.


 
 Why would you transcode as you load? I keep a lossless set of files on a network drive as an archive/backup, and a lossy copy (transcoded just after I ripped the files) on my computer for listening/syncing, so any syncing that needs to be done is between the lossy and the portable device.


----------



## bigshot

My iPod Classic is the biggest they make and it still isn't enough to hold everything I want with me on the road. With lossless it would be even worse. I'd be back to carrying 5 iPods again. I have done extensive testing and I flat out can't hear the difference between my iPod playing AAC 256 VBR and my CD player on my best system. I seriously doubt even golden ears folks can. If it sounds the same, it is the same. I really don't see any point to lossless. I own the CD. Why do I need another copy? It's just more to back up and keep synchronized and worry about. My whole library fits on one 2TB drive. Simple to keep organized.


----------



## bigshot

There is a threshold beyond which improvements in sound quality aren't audible. I've done listening tests of all kinds with compressed audio of varying bit rates, redbook CD, SACD and so called hi res formats. All things being equal, I found the threshold to be AAC 256 / MP3 LAME 320. Anything beyond that sounded exactly the same to me.


----------



## cdvsmp3

claritas said:


> I listen to CDs at home and AAC 256 VBR from an iPod at work when I can. I can tell the difference, but the quality is quite good.
> 
> The only reason I had thoughts of upgrading to flac/wav/alac/whatever is clipping on 2-3 tracks (out of thousands and thousands). I asked bigshot about it and he suspected rightly that the clipping was in the original disc. The rip actually sounds better in those cases because the clipping is less audible.
> 
> We're not collectively at a point where storage allows for the highest grade formats for anyone with a large collection. Moreover, DAPs and phones haven't become sufficiently bigger in that regard--smaller actually--and I don't intend to futz around with microSD.


 
  
 Would you mind taking this blind test (http://goo.gl/Xin6xt) to prove it? I am conducting a survey on the matter.
 Thanks!


----------



## bigshot

I'm sorry... all of your ABs and XYs are totally confusing. I have no idea what you are asking.


----------



## cdvsmp3

> I'm sorry... all of your ABs and XYs are totally confusing. I have no idea what you are asking.


 
 Thanks for trying! Sorry the instructions are not sufficiently clear for you. I'll see what I can do to improve them.
 You are just listening to clips that have two sections in two different encoding formats. Some of them are CD-AAC, some are AAC-CD (I just change the order). You are supposed to identify them.  XY are the variables meaning the clip could be either AB or BA. Would you still be willing to give it a try? I hope so.


----------



## Neuromance

cdvsmp3,
  
 So I took your survey.  One, it's a bummer that you don't actually get the results immediately   Also, I know you need x amount of data points to be statistically significant, but 16 different combinations is VERY time consuming.  Maybe you could have an option to trim it to 8 or something, especially as you do not take partial samples.  
  
 For what it's worth, I'm really curious what I got - I generally can claim to distinguish between 128 vs. 320 but not 320 vs. lossless.  I thought I heard a difference here, but that might have all been placebo


----------



## cdvsmp3

neuromance said:


> cdvsmp3,
> 
> So I took your survey.  One, it's a bummer that you don't actually get the results immediately   Also, I know you need x amount of data points to be statistically significant, but 16 different combinations is VERY time consuming.  Maybe you could have an option to trim it to 8 or something, especially as you do not take partial samples.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm really curious what I got - I generally can claim to distinguish between 128 vs. 320 but not 320 vs. lossless.  I thought I heard a difference here, but that might have all been placebo


 
 Great feedback! I'll give it a thougtt and see what I can do. I'll send you the score by mail in moment. Thanks for participating! Adobe forms service does not allow me to do any calculations in my automated response, and I don't want to send the solution key to encourage people to try it more than once.


----------



## bigshot

cdvsmp3 said:


> XY are the variables meaning the clip could be either AB or BA.


 
  
 That is precisely the part that makes no sense right there. Ask me AAC/Redbook or Redbook/AAC and I will understand. Jettison variable letters.


----------



## cdvsmp3

> That is precisely the part that makes no sense right there. Ask me AAC/Redbook or Redbook/AAC and I will understand. Jettison variable letters.


 
 You may be right. The two-letter code is shorter, but I understand what you say. I'll give it a thought. Thanks!


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> That is precisely the part that makes no sense right there. Ask me AAC/Redbook or Redbook/AAC and I will understand. Jettison variable letters.


 
 But you aren't supposed to know - the point is that it is blind and you don't know which is which.


----------



## bigshot

This test is designed for people who design tests I think. When I'm given two sets of letters x/y and a/b and I'm told to make a choice without defining what x/y or a/b are, how am I supposed to know what to pick?


----------



## cjl

I agree that it could be done a little more clearly (I like how Foobar ABX does it, with the two reference clips A and B both playable separately, and the two test clips X and Y also playable separately), but it seems understandable to me. AB is the reference clip, which consists of a higher quality and lower quality sample in some order (A being the first sample in the reference, and B being the second sample in the reference). You have to determine if the test clip, designated as XY, has the two samples in the same order as the original reference (A first, then B, designated as AB), or if the order is reversed (B first, then A, designated as BA). At the end, the final question then asks whether A (the first clip in the reference sample) or B (the second clip in the reference sample) is the higher quality clip. This does seem like a reasonable test to me, since it looks for both the ability of the listener to distinguish between the two clips, and the ability of the listener to audibly determine which clip contains the higher resolution sample.
  
 That all having been said, I don't think I could tell apart any two well-encoded files with that test. Because the reference clip has the two samples back to back, instead of having two separate reference samples (A and B), it makes it very difficult to jump back and forth between a small subsection of A vs a small subsection of B, which is the only way anyone has a hope of hearing a small, subtle difference. Foobar ABX allows you to jump back and forth between two clips while preserving your location in the clip (so when you go to clip B from ten seconds into clip A, it automatically starts clip B at 10 seconds in so there's almost no gap in the music). That kind of switching allows for the perception of very subtle audible differences that you normally wouldn't remember well enough to find.


----------



## bigshot

It seems to me that trying to compare two separate files is an exercise in futility. Auditory memory isn't that long. Give me a file with two samples in it and ask me if they are the same or different. That I might be able to do. I know without even trying that I can't compare two separate files that are so similar.


----------



## cdvsmp3

I am conducting a survey on the topic of lossy vs lossless files. It may interest you guys. I recommend the last version of my blind test (the shortest and easiest), but there are also previous tests comparing HD vs ACC 256 and CD vs AAC 256. Please have a look and help me in my personal research! Visit cdvsmp3.wordpress.com


----------



## AudioBob1

windowsx said:


> I already said 'CD is better.'. Even from laptop, CD is still better whether you can perceive it yourself or not. Some people may perceive the difference and some may not. Personally, getting accustomed to very highend speakers system makes perception whole difference from when I could hardly perceive the difference between stock mini cable and some better made ones.
> 
> We once made test comparing between ripped flac and original CD from common laptop using WMP as ripper and player (yeah non-audiophile app) plugged to musiland feeding $100K speakers system with about 10-20 audiophiles (Esoteric K-01/$10k DIY borbely preamp/Karan KA S 450/Rockport Aquila in well treated acoustic large room). The difference between flac and CD is clear like night and day to all 20 audiophiles, let alone mp3 comparing to CD. I hope this tests won't bring another placebo war though.
> 
> To make long story short, I can clearly differentiate between mp3 and normal CD audio on laptop system using jrmc playing from built-in speakers directly (maybe mine is some pretty good altec speakers not cheap made ones). But that's for my opinion and my experiences. Not everyone will agree with result I found.


 
 WindowsX is either a fruitcake or imagines things.   A flac and wave are the same in quality both lossless both the same as a CD.    If you thought they sounded different it was all in your head.
  
 A flac made from a CD is the same as the wave except it has extra features in the metadata that has nothing to do with sound but has to do with labeling.


----------



## WindowsX

Blue coast records once compared between flac and wav. They encouraged to use wav for better sound quality format. Some player that decode flac to wav and store into memory before loading may minimize the difference.

Well, some people can choose to not believe in this but something like rewrite data can improve audio performance from rewriting data for specific machine optimization. Believing in bits are bits is for people who can't be appreciated in finer quality that high end CD transport can bring.

Regards,
Windows X


----------



## AudioBob1

Well BLue records are selling snake oil.    Flac = Wave.    I believe you could compress a flac but then it would not be a lossless flac.    The flac is the same as the source file.   If its wave it will be = to the wave.  Same information nothing is different but the extender.    Flac is the best you can get.  So they must have messed with the flac in some way to make it worse.  
  
 A wave or flac is only as good as the source.   If you do something stupid like turn a mp3 into a flac the flac will only be as good as the mp3.  so if it were a 128mb mp3 thats all the flac would be.  Same with a wave too.    Flacs are just a wave with ability to store more meta information.   Meta is words or photos, not sounds.   
  
 So much misinformation out there.   
  
 As far as compression that is done at the studio before its even put on the CD.   They do that to make it sound LOUDER.    But that has nothing to do with wave or flac, they can choose not to compress the dynamic range.  That is why vinyl sounds different, it does not have the large dynamic range of a CD so they can't compress it much.


----------



## Pootis

I can often tell the difference in blind tests. I prefer FLAC over lossy because it sounds better. I don't like it when people pretend that no one can tell the difference.


----------



## castleofargh

there is always a slim possibility that the extraction would mess up something(but why? if a computer can't "unzip" a music file without error it must crash every 30seconds), or simply that the extra processing would generate some little extra noise in a crap computer/device. I wouldn't lose sleep over it, in fact I couldn't seem to measure it on my laptop. but then again I can only measure as low as a little under -90db for most specs with my ADC. ^_^ maybe people hear differences below that? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 anyway things aren't always black or white, exaggeration in being right is just as bad a being wrong. people sure are free to do anything they like with their music if it makes their life more fulfilled for some psychological reasons. but IMO flac is great.


----------



## WindowsX

audiobob1 said:


> Well BLue records are selling snake oil.    Flac = Wave.    I believe you could compress a flac but then it would not be a lossless flac.    The flac is the same as the source file.   If its wave it will be = to the wave.  Same information nothing is different but the extender.    Flac is the best you can get.  So they must have messed with the flac in some way to make it worse.
> 
> A wave or flac is only as good as the source.   If you do something stupid like turn a mp3 into a flac the flac will only be as good as the mp3.  so if it were a 128mb mp3 thats all the flac would be.  Same with a wave too.    Flacs are just a wave with ability to store more meta information.   Meta is words or photos, not sounds.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Congratulations. You have become a god of the internet. HURRAY!
  
 Regards,
 Windows X


----------



## cjl

windowsx said:


> Congratulations. You have become a god of the internet. HURRAY!
> 
> Regards,
> Windows X


 

 It is a simple fact that FLAC is a losslessly compressed WAV, and when played, the bits sent to your DAC are identical. As such, they cannot sound different unless your computer is incapable of decompressing the FLAC (in which case your computer is horrendously broken). Claiming otherwise would be like claiming a word document was different if I sent it to you zipped.
  
 Sighted evaluations are not evidence to the contrary either. This is the Sound Science forum. We need data.


----------



## AudioBob1

You have just admitted that you are deluded then.   It would be like saying When I play two identical wave files I can easily tell the difference in listening tests.   Its that insane.


----------



## gregorio

cjl said:


> Claiming otherwise would be like claiming a word document was different if I sent it to you zipped.


 
  
 Personally, I hate zipped Word documents; the letters aren't as black, there is less air between the words and the width of the pages is less well defined. BTW, I'm just about to release some software which will not only make your zipped Word documents look better but even unzipped ones. The difference is night and day, even when viewing a full page on an iWatch, honestly, you won't need an ABX test! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 G


----------



## AudioBob1

cjl said:


> It is a simple fact that FLAC is a losslessly compressed WAV, and


 
 It is NOT "Compressed" it is the same independent of how the wave was made.


----------



## cjl

audiobob1 said:


> It is NOT "Compressed" it is the same independent of how the wave was made.


 

 FLAC is definitely compressed. Compare the filesize between FLAC and WAV and you'll see that the FLAC is something like 60% of the size.


----------



## AudioBob1

pootis said:


> I can often tell the difference in blind tests. I prefer FLAC over lossy because it sounds better. I don't like it when people pretend that no one can tell the difference.


 

 A flac compared to 128MP3 people can tell.   A Flac/wave compared to a 320MP3 is much more difficult,  its not a WOW there is a huge difference type of experience.  If playing on full range speakers and you have 20 year old hearing then why not using a wave or flac as the source?   320mp3 is good enough for most applications.    A person past age 50 is going to have a much harder time to differentiate as their hearing has dropped vs age 20.


----------



## AudioBob1

audiobob1 said:


> It is NOT "Compressed" it is the same independent of how the wave was made.


 
 It can't be compressed if its a LOSSLESS Flac.   
  
 You can take a 128mp3 and turn it in to a Flac, that would be flac compressed.    So flacs can be lossy in that case.
  
 But if you use a LOSSLESS Flac there will be ZERO difference.    Look up the word Lossless before you reply.


----------



## AudioBob1

We are talking about two different things here.  Audio signal compression and zip compression.   I am talking about Lossless in which you loose no information.   In zip files are you not loosing any information like you would with a jpeg file.
  
 As long as the file is properly decompressed (same as the original) it will be read the same or heard the same as there is no missing information.
  
 The zip example is lossless.
  
 Mp3 is not lossless.
  
 And yes a flac file can be compressed digitally but that should not result in any difference when played back.   When it is decompressed the final form is the same as the original.
  
 Really the discussion should be about lossy vs lossless and leave the word compression out of it.
  
 Lossless = should sound the same as the original source as no information is lost.
  
 Lossy = might sound different as there is information missing.  If it is done well it will be very difficult to hear that difference.
  
 The word compression confuses things as it has different meanings.  can have lossy and lossless compression.   Can compress dynamic range etc.


----------



## castleofargh

seems like only you got confused.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 but yes there can be all sorts of compressions and not all are lossless/can be undone.


----------



## AudioBob1

castleofargh said:


> seems like only you got confused.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 If the lossless can't be undone then its not Lossless its lossy.
  
 No I think you and the rest were getting confused mixing up terms.   Very common, don't worry about it.


----------



## cjl

audiobob1 said:


> It can't be compressed if its a LOSSLESS Flac.


 
 Sure it can. That's why it's called lossless compression. It's compressed because the filesize/bitrate is reduced. It's lossless because you can perfectly reconstruct the original signal. You seem to be incorrectly using the word "compression" to mean "lossy compression", when compression can be either lossless or lossy.


----------



## watchnerd

cjl said:


> Sure it can. That's why it's called lossless compression. It's compressed because the filesize/bitrate is reduced. It's lossless because you can perfectly reconstruct the original signal. You seem to be incorrectly using the word "compression" to mean "lossy compression", when compression can be either lossless or lossy.


 
  
 On top of that, FLAC even offers different levels of compression.  See screenshot:


----------



## AudioBob1

You are a little late to the party, already addressed this.  Its like you glossed over these things in attempt to find one thing where you could look right.
 I get it.


----------



## watchnerd

audiobob1 said:


> You are a little late to the party, already addressed this.  Its like you glossed over these things in attempt to find one thing where you could look right.
> I get it.


 
  
 Look right?
  
 It doesn't "look right", it is right.
  
 Lossless audio comes in varying degrees of *file* compression.
  
 Anyone who has made FLACs knows this.


----------



## AudioBob1

You are beating a dead horse.   I already addressed this yet you continue to ramble on.


----------



## watchnerd

audiobob1 said:


> You are beating a dead horse.   I already addressed this yet you continue to ramble on.


 
  
 I find that funny given I didn't even reply to you in my first post to this thread.  I replied to cjl.


----------



## AudioBob1

You could be a comedian man.   That is funny.


----------



## watchnerd

audiobob1 said:


> continue to ramble on.


 
  
 oh the irony


----------



## AudioBob1

You are still rambling on.


----------



## castleofargh

we all won, it's internet, who cares. may we try to go back on topic please.


----------



## cjl

audiobob1 said:


> You are a little late to the party, already addressed this.


 
 Where did you address this, out of curiosity?


----------



## AudioBob1

You will have read through the posts.


----------



## cjl

All I see is you refusing to acknowledge that FLACs are compressed, and trying to redefine compression to fit your notions. That having been said, this isn't really a productive line of discussion, so in deference to CastleOfArgh, I won't mention this any further...


----------



## Jet Black

Can we re-start all of these all over again? It's getting boring again, (i blame it on the pandemic) 😅🤣😂


----------



## bigshot

I honestly don't know how this even merited 37 pages myself.


----------

