# FLAC vs. 320 Mp3



## IcedUP

My friend tried to tell me yesterday that flac is no better than a 320k mp3 quality-wise. He said it had to do with the fact that everything is recorded digitally now rather than in analog. They record at the rate of 320 kpbs so you're not getting better sound quality by ripping into flac unless the music had been recorded in analog originally. Was I misinformed or is this untrue? I've been ripping my music into flac, but I don't want to continue to do so if it's not giving me better quality.


----------



## Elysian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
   
  FLAC = Lossless
  MP3 = Lossy
  Quote: 





> *Lossless data compression* is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. The term _lossless_ is in contrast to lossy data compression, which only allows an approximation of the original data to be reconstructed, in exchange for better compression rates.


 
   
  Most people will not be able to tell the difference between 320cbr vs lossless, particularly given what normally passes for audio gear, like bundled iPod earbuds.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





icedup said:


> My friend tried to tell me yesterday that flac is no better than a 320k mp3 quality-wise. He said it had to do with the fact that everything is recorded digitally now rather than in analog. They record at the rate of 320 kpbs so you're not getting better sound quality by ripping into flac unless the music had been recorded in analog originally. Was I misinformed or is this untrue? I've been ripping my music into flac, but I don't want to continue to do so if it's not giving me better quality.


 

 Your friend is wrong. Even if the recording on the CD is really only a 320kbps file in a lossless package (CDs you buy are always lossless), you would be damaging the file further by ripping to lossless again. Lossless formats preserve exactly what data they're fed. Lossy formats always take some away. Feed a lossless format with a 320kbps file, it will sound like that 320kbps file. Feed a lossy format a 320kbps file, you're getting something worse than 320kbps.
   
  Quote: 





elysian said:


> Most people will not be able to tell the difference between 320cbr vs lossless, particularly given what normally passes for audio gear, like bundled iPod earbuds.


 

 And every other headphone too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  If you hear the difference with your gear, it's not because of your gear. It's because you're blessed with good hearing, or you know what to listen for. And, of course, there's placebo if it's a sighted test.


----------



## firev1

There are times last time when i did not managed my audio files properly and constantly mix up my lossless and lossy files for playback on ASIO while surfing. Safe to say, there is an audible difference between 320k and lossless playback because of possible artifacts introduced but how different really depends on the source and encode library your using. There are some songs I heard where there is absolutely no difference at all between lossy and lossless but that may just be my hearing :3


----------



## TMRaven

Unless it's a cd with an unusually high dynamic range, then I doubt it would be very easy to tell the difference.  One of the biggest things lower bitrate takes away is the bit depth, which in turn effects the dynamic range of the music, but the reality of it is that most albums have no greater than 50-60db of dynamic range.  That leaves to having heavily trained ears to notice very subtle differences in treble decay.


----------



## Astrozombie

Question is can we tell the difference between 192/256 and 256/320? I want to try this now...........


----------



## FalconerHUN

For example I cannot make a difference between 320 and flac at all.
 I am using an SGS with Voodoo sound, tried it with an Ortofon EQ5 and Brainwavz B2 as well. The B2 is far more detailed compared to the Ortofon, and yet I cant tell the difference. I tried it listening to various music, I find symphonic orchestra to be the best for this.
  On the other hand, I can absolutely tell the difference between 256 and 320k. So viva mp3 320!


----------



## xnor

Think of ripping into flac as a backup of your CDs. You might not be able (and are not supposed) to hear a difference between flac and 320 kbps mp3s but if you do any kind of processing or transcoding you really should use lossless compressed files as source. As lossy codecs improve you might want to re-encode your files or even change the codec altogether to save some space on your portable player. If you take an mp3 as source you'll only further decrease quality.


----------



## bowei006

Technically Lossless CD ripped format like FLAC is superior to MP3 and the difference is technically there and immense as MP3 cuts down so much data. In reality, MP3 and AAC have specific algorythmns that cut away noise and frequency and mainly parts that the human ear can not hear(there are problems sometimes) many people can't tell the difference between MP3 320kbps and FLAC and that is fine, i have only done one test myself and got a very nice score to show that i can but i won't admit or deny my ability yet as i have only done it once.


----------



## ImperialX

I have a HD800 and I can't accurately tell between 320kps and FLAC with most of my recordings. True statement.


----------



## bowei006

I found that with time on head-fi..i personally was able to. most don't. and didn't but i learned what to listen to and with my equipment and stuff. again i've done the ABX once. ill try it again in a few days


----------



## snoopy007

Short answer to your question. keep as flac on the computer for optimum quality and for the future. Plus you can generate the mp3 for your portables anytime via foobar2k
   
  Flac - lossless - same as the original CD
  mp3 - lossy - can sound nearly the same as the original CD. Basically a lot of "irrelvant" sound data have been thrown away. whether or not these "irrelavnt" data is actually important is another matter.
   
   
   
  As for a comparision, this is what I found. I mainly listern to more vocal stuff and using pretty decent iem.
   
   
  flac vs lame 3.98.4  cbr 320
   
   
  If you Abxing  them when the volume has be equated (very important). There is usually a very small subtle difference. you will notice that one of the track on the vocal with have more "air" and slightly  more resonance. Vibration on string instruments seems to last just a tiny bit longer as well.   From experience, that is usually the flac.
   
   
  However, if you just give me one track and ask me if it is flac or mp3. It would be like more like near 55:45 guess for me.
   
  Basically, the better your setup, the easier it is for you to notice the difference.  Personally, I think the main reason why some people can tell so easily besides having a very good ear, is because the volume of the flac and the mp3 have not been equated when abxing. Unless of course the encoder have created "artefacts" when encoding. yes this can happen, whether you will notice these artefacts during normal listerning is a different matter. But you are certainly more likely to notice these artefacts during ABxing.
   
   
   
  Personally, I prefer to use lame 3.98.4 vbr0 instead of cbr 320 for portable use. Which of course will usually generate a far smaller size size. And I listern to the flac files while I am at the computer.
   
  The real reason for me to use vbr0 instead of cbr 320 is as follows.
   
  1- not every second will require 320kb.
   
  2- vbr 0 can go up to 320kbps if required.
   
  3- Perople often forget that  vbr is joint-stereo and cbr default setting is stereo. Which means that instead of just 160kbps per a channel for cbr. more kbps can be allocated to one of the channel as required. ( not sure how much more since I can't find any documentation on this.)
   
  4- LAME vbr pyschoacoustic algorithm has been constantly worked on. Yes, all lossy format depends on how good its pyscho acoustic algorithm is.  This why mp3 made over 15 years ago can sound so different to the the mp3 being generated by a more modern encoder. even if using cbr 320. But usually the difference is more obvious for the lower settings.


----------



## flight567

the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.


----------



## ImperialX

Quote: 





flight567 said:


> the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.


 
   
  LOL


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





flight567 said:


> the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.


 

 Do us all a favor and slap the guy over the head who told you this.
   
  Pro tip: the file doesn't get saved over, EVER, during playback.


----------



## ImperialX

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> Do us all a favor and slap the guy over the head who told you this.


 

 I have a feeling I've heard this stupidity here on Head-Fi before. Is this some sort of old "rumor" that people new to audio develop?


----------



## telecaster

There is no relation between recording bit rate and playback bitrate!
  For example, an album studio is recorded in world class studio with amazing gear, even back in the day, the analogue for recording was amazin!
  Then after everything is mixed and mastered, the resulting downmix is printed on CD.
   
  Then this CD is downgrade even to 128kps MP3 and will sound better than a home made mix with FLAC bitrate!
   
  In audio all the chain is important and a single crappy link will be your uplifting limit.
   
  Better to listen to MP3 from a pro world class studio, than a FLAC lossless file from a crappy home studio!


----------



## ImperialX

Quote: 





telecaster said:


> Better to listen to MP3 from a pro world class studio, than a FLAC lossless file from a crappy home studio!


 
   
  Can't be truer. I can't tell the difference between 320kps MP3 and FLAC with my HD800, but I _can_ hear the noises and imperfections of cheap tracks recorded in a lackluster studio! I've heard many pieces of music that are 192kps on my HD800 that sound better than FLACs recorded in a bad studio!


----------



## Bleether

Quote: 





flight567 said:


> the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.


 


  Troll harder please.


----------



## rui-no-onna

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> Pro tip: the file doesn't get saved over, EVER, during playback.


 
   
  It does if you edit metadata while listening. 'Course, doing that has no effect on quality. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Tried running the test on my PC with onboard Realtek soundcard and Sennheiser HD 202 (yeah, not a good set-up at all). Can't hear the difference so after 5 tries with foobar ABX testing, I stopped.
   
  I still rip to FLAC, though. While I may not be able to hear the difference, I do conversions to OGG, AAC and MP3 so it's better to have a lossless source to convert from. Hard drive space is cheap. Well not as cheap as before the flood in Thailand but they're still inexpensive enough given you can store ~3,000 albums losslessly on a 1TB drive (~$110).


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





rui-no-onna said:


> I still rip to FLAC, though. While I may not be able to hear the difference, I do conversions to OGG, AAC and MP3 so it's better to have a lossless source to convert from. Hard drive space is cheap. Well not as cheap as before the flood in Thailand but they're still inexpensive enough given you can store ~3,000 albums losslessly on a 1TB drive (~$110).


 
   
  Agree. Also, while there are music players around that have large storage (160 GB), I think lossless is viable. Once apple stops making the iPod Classic, we'll have to think of something else.


----------



## youngngray

Quote: 





flight567 said:


> the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.


 
   
  C'mon guys, don't you all know about digital dust and Rotational velocidensity? Of couse the files degrade over time!


----------



## rui-no-onna

Quote: 





youngngray said:


> Of couse the files degrade over time!


 
   
  To be strictly technical, this can happen. A lot of times, it can go undetected. That's why RAID controllers periodically scrub arrays to check for errors. There's actually a lot of error correction going on in hard drives.


----------



## proton007

Actually more than the hard-drive I consider the possibility of this happening in the RAM, since that's where a digital file is buffered.
  File systems maintain a CRC check for each file in order to check integrity at every write/cut/copy operation, so chances of this going undetected on a HDD are small.
  RAMs can suffer from bit flipping. ECC RAMs that have error checking are available but cost more and are used mostly in servers/databases.
   
  Coming back to point. Sometimes I feel the mainstream music is being made with the objective of being used as MP3/AAC files, since thats how its sold digitally. So everything is recorded in bits and pieces and then joined together. Its hard to tell how many takes have been fused together to create a song, and how much of it is autotuned.
  IMO this defeats the purpose of lossless audio entirely. If a sound is created digitally, as opposed to digitizing live sound, it does not matter even if its compressed by MP3.


----------



## kore

so is the size between flac and 320 still worth?
  knowing that slightly little difference between them...


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

You can probably get the exact % online, but roughly from my own collection, per album:
  -> Actual CD (~600-700MB)
  -> lossless about 1/2 of that (~250-300MB) (all in the same ballpark (ALAC, FLAC etc.))
  -> MP3 highest quality under 1/2 of that (~90-120MB) (CB 320 takes a bit more space than VBR 0)
   
  Of course it varies based on the length of the album and the complexity of the music... I have some lossless compressed album that are still over 420MB for example.
   
  Personally, if I use lossy compression at all, I prefer VBR 0 since it delivers the same quality as CB 320 but cuts out the filler so to speak. Which is not an exact definition, but the real-world benefit is for portable use: I can fit a larger selection of albums. And without wanting to go down another codec debate, if CB320 vs. lossless can be tough depending on the music, I think an honest ABX of CB320 vs. VBR0 for the same track would be close to impossible to discern in any genre, at least when encoded with the most up-to-date version of LAME. I have certainly tried my hardest on a pretty decent setup, and really couldn't for the life of me even with tracks I'm very familiar with, so it does the trick for me at least.


----------



## Maverickmonk

Quote: 





youngngray said:


> C'mon guys, don't you all know about digital dust and Rotational velocidensity? Of couse the files degrade over time!


 

 Wait...is this real? even the term "velocidensity" seems like a BS unit of measure.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *telecaster* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Then this CD is downgrade even to 128kps MP3 and will sound better than a home made mix with FLAC bitrate!
> In audio all the chain is important and a single crappy link will be your uplifting limit.
> Better to listen to MP3 from a pro world class studio, than a FLAC lossless file from a crappy home studio!


 
   
  Unfortunately, at least for more popular music styles, mixes made in world class pro studios can easily sound worse than something that was created in a crappy home studio, but without trying to squeeze out the last dB of loudness at any cost in distortion.


----------



## BrownBear

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Unfortunately, at least for more popular music styles, mixes made in world class pro studios can easily sound worse than something that was created in a crappy home studio, but without trying to squeeze out the last dB of loudness at any cost in distortion.


 

 Yes.
   
  It's a shame really, and it gets on my nerves if I think about it. Such a waste of resources and music.


----------



## spierdolony

Quote: 





flight567 said:


> the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.


 
  You may be getting confused with image formats. I believe .JPG's behave like this if you keep editing, that's why other picture formats exists such as tiff.


----------



## codeninja

Quote: 





imperialx said:


> Can't be truer. I can't tell the difference between 320kps MP3 and FLAC with my HD800, but I _can_ hear the noises and imperfections of cheap tracks recorded in a lackluster studio! I've heard many pieces of music that are 192kps on my HD800 that sound better than FLACs recorded in a bad studio!


 
  This is so true to me, too.  I actually, downgraded my DAC because too much detail got me more noise and imperfection from recordings.  If I have to choose between "true to original intention" and "something sounds awesome", I'll choose the later any day of the week because I listen to music to enjoy not to analyze.


----------



## proton007

A lot of it also comes down to mastering. The recent album by RHCP was really badly mastered, everything is loud, everything is flat. Totally annoying to listen more than a couple of songs.


----------



## bigshot

codeninja said:


> This is so true to me, too.  I actually, downgraded my DAC because too much detail got me more noise and imperfection from recordings.  If I have to choose between "true to original intention" and "something sounds awesome", I'll choose the later any day of the week because I listen to music to enjoy not to analyze.




Good luck trying to turn a crappy recording into an awesome one... Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## El_Doug

not quite:  garbage in, garbage * gain out  
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Good luck trying to turn a crappy recording into an awesome one... Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Good luck trying to turn a crappy recording into an awesome one... Garbage in, garbage out.


 

 I agree. "Downgrading" a DAC is silly, especially considering most DACs are absolutely transparent. Nothing makes a bad recording sound awesome.


----------



## deadlylover

Quote: 





ojneg said:


> Nothing makes a bad recording sound awesome.


 
   
  A great headphone, does.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





deadlylover said:


> A great headphone, does.


 
   
  I strongly disagree. It's all about the source material. Most important part of the chain, even over loudspeakers/headphones.


----------



## deadlylover

Quote: 





ojneg said:


> I strongly disagree. It's all about the source material. Most important part of the chain, even over loudspeakers/headphones.


 
   
  I meant, it makes bad recordings bearable, the flaws disappear, and you get engulfed in the music.
   
  I think that sounds awesome.


----------



## bigshot

Bad recordings generally sound worse to me in headphones, however, sometimes with speakers, a bad recording can become listenable because the noise isn't shooting directly into your ears.


----------



## codeninja

What I meant by downgrading my DAC was that with less precise DAC, I don't get to here as much detail, which often comes in the form of imperfection.  Yeah, it's still there, but it's masked, and it won't be as obvious.  Sort of like when I watch some bluray movies, I see skins of actors, not the actor or the movie itself.  Sometimes, the less is more.


----------



## bigshot

I doubt your DAC made any difference at all.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I doubt your DAC made any difference at all.


 

 Way too truthful and BS free for Head-Fi. Look up internet audio forums in an encyclopedia, and it will say, "But I KNOW what I heard!" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Actual thread title on High-end Audio Forum, "If you had $5000 to spend on a DAC what would you buy?" 121 replies. Wonder no more why audiophiles have a reputation of cluelessness with the general public.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





codeninja said:


> What I meant by downgrading my DAC was that with less precise DAC, I don't get to here as much detail, which often comes in the form of imperfection.  Yeah, it's still there, but it's masked, and it won't be as obvious.  Sort of like when I watch some bluray movies, I see skins of actors, not the actor or the movie itself.  Sometimes, the less is more.


 
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I doubt your DAC made any difference at all.


 
   
  Read up a bit on DACs and you'll find that just about every well-designed DAC is completely transparent. In short, you can't really have a "less precise" DAC that gives you "less detail". That's not how it works.


----------



## rahzim

Quote: 





flight567 said:


> the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.


 
  Maybe he's right.  There could be some virus that unleashed a fidelity troll that resides on the sandy bridge chip in his pc.  It eats a little bit of the mp3 every time he plays the file.


----------



## codeninja

Quote: 





ojneg said:


> Read up a bit on DACs and you'll find that just about every well-designed DAC is completely transparent. In short, you can't really have a "less precise" DAC that gives you "less detail". That's not how it works.


 
  Sure. Every DAC that I've listened to sounded all the same.


----------



## Clarkmc2

codeninja said:


> Sure. Every DAC that I've listened to sounded all the same.


I believe you when you say you hear diferences. The question is why. I see no sense in rehashing all the reasons why we might hear differences when there might not be any. I can bypass that discussion for now.

When there are differences between the sound of DACS, it could only be in the analogue section. I have, for instance, a CD player with a tube analogue section, and it certainly does sound colored. That is what to look for if one can actualy, for the sake of argument, hear differences between DACS. There should be a lot that sound the same and a few that don't.

The ones that sound the same are OK. The others are not transparent; they are colored. That is something a DAC should never be, so avoid them. These would be either dreadfully designed cheap models or high end models that suffer from attempts to improve - or over improve to be precise - the basic, already perfect DAC. That is, perfect in that its distortions are inaudible, easy to achieve. It brings to mind the individuals (and companies) who look at a good design and decide the op amps are not good enough in a piece of gear. They substitute better thought of op amps and mess everything up, yielding a worse sounding unit.

In their arrogance, they forget that the designers of integrated circuits know better than anyone else how to use them. Op amps in particular are *very* application specific, even more than most ICs. Audio history is full of very over priced electronics that are great sounding designs right out of the manufacture's application books. I guess the fancy casework was worth the extra zero or two on the price tag. But not for me. I'm buying sound, not furniture, but that is another topic in sound science.

Another thing about op amps. Other than varying in noise level - from inaudible to even less I might add - they tend to be nearly perfect. This is partially because of ideally integrated layout and partially because they are so compact. It is highly unlikely that their audio performance will ever be equalled by discrete, non chip op amps. It is an uninformed prejudice that ICs can't sound as good or better than discrete component circuits. A visually clued observation that the little chip could not possibly be as good as all those big, expensive parts. A dual jfet input op amp is thing of wonder; do not underestimate it.

Bear in mind that I am not immune from liking my particular taste in distortion. I use a FirstWatt F2Jfet that is single ended, single stage, feedback free and class A. Nelson Pass, the designer, gladly reveals where and how much it strays from distortion free. But both he and I love the way it plays music. A similar situation, some tube amp users love the sound of their transformers. The point is, none of this thinking belongs in a DAC. If it is not transparent the benchmark for your system is lost. Get everything to be transparent and flat, then alter to taste. To not do so will indeed result in a never ending quest all right. Never knowing where you are or exactly where you have been.


----------



## ktm

I normally go from CD to FLAC. Us old geezers can find our music at garage sales for 50 cents a CD. I don't have any music at lower bit rates.
  I find that most new releases are so poorly mastered they are hard to listen to. Thanks loudness wars.
  There are some artists that take pride in their work and they seem to avoid the trap of recording for for top 40 style sound. .
  As far as DACs go, the DAC chip isn't as important as the analog stuff after is. Most modern DAC chips are more than up to the task.
  I am amused by DACs with tubes in them. Better a good set of opamps than the cheap tube designs.


----------



## bigshot

My iTunes libraries are divided up by genre... Country, classical, r&b, rock, etc. if I feel like a particular type of music, I can random shuffle it all by itself. I have recordings going back nearly a century in some of the libraries, but the music I have the biggest problem with sound quality is 60s and 70s rock. The frequency response is often muffled and dull. The music is hyper compressed, and there's boatloads of tape hiss. I don't often put that library on shuffle because I keep getting mad. 1940s Ernest Tubb countery 78s sound better than some of that stuff.


----------



## Clarkmc2

ktm said:


> I normally go from CD to FLAC. Us old geezers can find our music at garage sales for 50 cents a CD. I don't have any music at lower bit rates.
> I find that most new releases are so poorly mastered they are hard to listen to. Thanks loudness wars.
> There are some artists that take pride in their work and they seem to avoid the trap of recording for for top 40 style sound. .
> As far as DACs go, the DAC chip isn't as important as the analog stuff after is. Most modern DAC chips are more than up to the task.
> I am amused by DACs with tubes in them. Better a good set of opamps than the cheap tube designs.




Ditto everything, another geezer here, standing up for old school. I am actually bypassing the tube output of the CD player. The headphone jack out (1/4 inch) has a volume control and seems very hifi, so I made an adapter to RCA and go direct to the power amp. That jack is fed by a lowly  op amp, which of course is better than the expensive tube analogue section. This poor guy has to offer whatever sells. As good a designer as he is, he was not aware of the specs for the headphone op amps and had to ask the manufacturers!

Op amps are the Rodney Dangerfield of the electronics World. No respect!

The reason I bought this CD player - JoLida - was because its build and design quality is outstanding. The Phillips pro transport may outlast me. The dual triodes run at twelve volts and should go twenty years, whether I use them or not.


----------



## bigshot

I used to have an expensive CD player. But it balked at CD-Rs. So I got a fancy DVD /SACD player, which eventually did the same with DVD-Rs. I got mad and replaced it with a $40 Coby DVD player which served me flawlessly playing everything I threw at it until I went bluray. Now I have a $150 Sony bluray and it does great.

I swear by inexpensive CD players. They sound the same and I won't cry if technology leaves them behind and I have to replace them.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Bigshot, despite the great reputation Mercury had for classical music vinyl a late 1960s rock disk I have sounds like it was recorded underwater. Red Weather by Leigh Stevens.

I still like newer compressed discs and early "direct from RIAA compensated tapes" CDs even less. A new field for endless, useless debate. Bad recording vs butchered post production.

I know that "home" studios can be very good - Cowboy Junkies sound great, better than when they were with RCA or Geffin - so the real problem is egomanical stars who are hamfisted, clueless, drug addled or all the above. Need I add tasteless?

As far as I can tell, Sony Blu-ray players are the best sources on the planet. Now if only Neil Young's initiative will catch on.


----------



## ktm

When cd's first came out, there was a rush to get music out in the new format. There was a big push resulting
  in a lot of very crappy remasters. Take a 10+ year old tape master, and either just put it to cd, or worse yet, roll off
  the highs and lows to get rid of noise. This is why so many bailed on cd's and stuck with vinyl. I was at a quiet small
  Stereo shop in Milwaukee about 8 years ago. A guy came in with cd's and vinyl of some of his favorite artists.
  The shop owner set up and volume matched the cdp and turntable. In every case but one, we preferred vinyl.
  There was on of the eight that did sound better on cd. IT wasn't that the cd wasn't up to the task. It was a case
  of the people putting the 60's and 70's rock on cd did a lousy job. I have since heard some of the same albums
  done correctly on cd or sacd and was pleased with the sound.


----------



## bigshot

The funny thing is, it seems to be just 60s-70s rock. I have country music CDs from the same era and they sound fantastic. The same for Jazz, Classical, Soul... it's just that AOR stuff that sounds like it's packed in mothballs. It's probably like with records... when a record was in the catalog for decades, they would replace the master with a submaster to avoid wearing out the master, or use dubbed metal parts, or worn ones. First pressings usually sound much better than ten years down the road.
   
  When something has been out of the catalog for a while, like country or jazz albums, they might be more likely to pull the original master and work from that rather than the old beat dupes.
   
  Thankfully, the pickin's in the 70s was getting pretty slim what with all the mutton chops and stupids, so I'm not missing out on a lot.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The funny thing is, it seems to be just 60s-70s rock. I have country music CDs from the same era and they sound fantastic. The same for Jazz, Classical, Soul... it's just that AOR stuff that sounds like it's packed in mothballs. It's probably like with records... when a record was in the catalog for decades, they would replace the master with a submaster to avoid wearing out the master, or use dubbed metal parts, or worn ones. First pressings usually sound much better than ten years down the road.
> 
> When something has been out of the catalog for a while, like country or jazz albums, they might be more likely to pull the original master and work from that rather than the old beat dupes.
> 
> Thankfully, the pickin's in the 70s was getting pretty slim what with all the mutton chops and stupids, so I'm not missing out on a lot.


 
   
  Blasphemy! 60s and 70s rock sounds great on vinyl! Maybe not audiophile in terms of dynamic range, but still above and beyond modern brickwalled stuff. You must be listening to some dirty grooves bigshot


----------



## bigshot

I'm talking about CDs. I have CDs of 40s stuff that sounds better than some 70s remasters.

But a lot of stuff sounded crappy on vinyl too (Bowie)


----------



## codeninja

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I used to have an expensive CD player. But it balked at CD-Rs. So I got a fancy DVD /SACD player, which eventually did the same with DVD-Rs. I got mad and replaced it with a $40 Coby DVD player which served me flawlessly playing everything I threw at it until I went bluray. Now I have a $150 Sony bluray and it does great.
> I swear by inexpensive CD players. They sound the same and I won't cry if technology leaves them behind and I have to replace them.


 
  I also used to have an expensive fancy CD player.  It DID reproduced the sound better.  Having said that, the difference was small enough for me to get rid of it when I downgraded my system to make more room.  My ears are not trained and I'm mostly based on how I "feel" the music.  Probably, this is the reason why audiophiles are often made fun of sometimes.  Still, I believe there is more to what we feel than those others are willing to give credits.


----------



## Eee Pee

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Sony Blu-ray players are the best sources on the planet.


 
  Which one?


----------



## bigshot

It doesn't really matter which one. They all have the same stuff inside. The only difference is features.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





eee pee said:


> Which one?


 

 I think most of Sony's BR players have SACD capability, and can read every other disk on the planet. You can get them new for pretty damn cheap too. It's unfortunate that they're extremely ugly IMO. I picked up a (used) universal Marantz player and it sounds fine.


----------



## Eee Pee

Cool, thanks guys.  I've been using a Sony DVP-S9000 SACD/CD player for years, *eleven* actually, and was just wondering.  The DVP-9000 is so sensitive to any scratches on discs, or whatever, and doesn't read some of my seemingly perfect CDs, so I'm looking for a replacement.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





eee pee said:


> Cool, thanks guys.  I've been using a Sony DVP-S9000 SACD/CD player for years, *eleven* actually, and was just wondering.  The DVP-9000 is so sensitive to any scratches on discs, or whatever, and doesn't read some of my seemingly perfect CDs, so I'm looking for a replacement.


 
   
  I'm no expert, but it might be a problem with the reading mechanism. You can probably clean it and it'll sound perfectly fine again.


----------



## bigshot

They all get temperamental after a while. Get a cheap one so it won't be a problem to replace it when it acts up. They all sound the same.


----------



## Eee Pee

OJNeg, it's only a few discs.  They look pristine, really.  Even hand washed with soap and water.  It is what it is.
   
  My various Playstations over the years have become temperamental as well.
   
  For $79 is seems worth a shot, eh?
   
  http://www.amazon.com/Sony-BDP-S185-Blu-Ray-Disc-Player/dp/B005NEZDUA/ref=lh_ni_t
   
  Seems I'm getting kinda off topic from the original question, but hey...


----------



## bigshot

Not stackable, if that makes a difference.

This looks like the one I have, but mine isn't 3D (older model)
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-BDP-S470-Blu-ray-Disc-Player/dp/B0036WS4CK/

I prefer straightforward remotes like that.


----------



## Eee Pee

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Not stackable, if that makes a difference.


 
  Nah, but thanks.  Just need something that sounds good and plays my discs.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





eee pee said:


> Nah, but thanks.  Just need something that sounds good and plays my discs.


 
   
  The older Sony players look great actually. It's the new "sleek and slim" ones I can't stand.


----------



## Clarkmc2

I have a Sony 480 and I bought my son a 580. Wait until the model has been out a while and watch for sales. The 580 has a Netflix button on the remote and it is on an onscreen menu in the case of the 480. Like Bigshot said, just features. Most Sony units will play SACD. It is their technology. So is CD, DVD, Blu-ray and DSD. Sony has always used new technology to solve problems. Sony is not glamorous and has zero traction with audiophiles. All it does is invent technology and sell it in solid units at a fair price. What a radical business model.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> I have a Sony 480 and I bought my son a 580. Wait until the model has been out a while and watch for sales. The 580 has a Netflix button on the remote and it is on an onscreen menu in the case of the 480. Like Bigshot said, just features. Most Sony units will play SACD. It is their technology. So is CD, DVD, Blu-ray and DSD. Sony has always used new technology to solve problems.* Sony is not glamorous and has zero traction with audiophiles. *All it does is invent technology and sell it in solid units at a fair price. What a radical business model.


 
   
  Of course. But to be fair, their cheap amps and speakers are very much "consumer" grade. Anything that sticks 5.1 in a $200 box is going to be lacking.
   
  Also, Sony still owns the SACD format, correct? Why has production of the discs fallen off so drastically?


----------



## Clarkmc2

ojneg said:


> Of course. But to be fair, their cheap amps and speakers are very much "consumer" grade. Anything that sticks 5.1 in a $200 box is going to be lacking.
> 
> Also, Sony still owns the SACD format, correct? Why has production of the discs fallen off so drastically?



To be fair, Sony is good at the technologies they invented; they didn't invent the audio amplifier. They did invent the stuff I mentioned, either alone or in partnerdhip with Phillips. SACD is a failed format, market penetration wise. It did not take over from CD and had the bad luck of coming along shortly before the download revolution. Super DVD died too, but it was abandoned right after release because Sony's Blu-ray showed its dominance immediately. And of course DVD-A failed as well. It lost out to SACD. It's a battlefield out there.

Also, despite getting really beat up lately in the marketplace, Sony is a major player and not a niche manufacture. They have to field a full line of products from entry level on up. They sell, for instance, more headphones than any other company in the World.

Most 5.1 boxes are integrated circuit output pieces. Think of the big companies' offerings as being much more competitivly priced than the boutique stuff. Almost all amps have a jfet front end. At this point I think op amps do it as well or better than discrete. Again more compact, lighter and lower cost.


----------



## bigshot

I used to have a Sony receiver. It was as good as any other amp I've owned.


----------



## BrownBear

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I used to have a Sony receiver. It was as good as any other amp I've owned.


 

 Win.
   
  For some reason I love this post.


----------



## JK1

The lasers in CD players wear out over time. As they wear out, the laser light output decreases. If the player has had a large amount of use, the light output becomes low enough so that player become much more vulnerable to dirt and scratches on a disk blocking enough light from being reflected from the disc. I have never worn out a CD player, however I have a feeling that typically the laser output will become too low before the motor or gears wear out.


----------



## Lan647

There is no audible difference between 320kbit MP3s and FLAC. Those who say the opposite are wrong, period.


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





lan647 said:


> There is no audible difference between 320kbit MP3s and FLAC. Those who say the opposite are wrong, period.


 
   
  That's not true.  IIRC some forum posters (deadlylover(?)) on this forum had showed that they could ABX 320kbps and FLAC of some tracks with 100% accuracy with a certain setup of his, with some being easier than others and that he has to be in analytical mode to pick up the difference, so *some* people can certainly tell the difference under *certain conditions.  *  
   
  However when someone boosting that they can tell 320kbps and FLAC using leaky earbuds on their smartphone when on the go such that they won't use mp3s I'm going to be very skeptical.


----------



## bigshot

The people that can tell a difference haven't level matched. When you compress a track, it normalizes it down a hair. MP3s and AACs are slightly quieter than lossless. But if you match the level, they sound the same.

Also with MP3, the encoder you use makes a difference. An old encoder won't produce files that sound as good as an up to date one.


----------



## nanaholic

I've lost the thread but I was pretty sure that deadlylover had use the ReplayGain plugin for foobar and had the level matched (he posted his entire test log etc), so I was convinced that he did do the test properly.  That said those who does have these golden ears probably make up less than 0.1% of the population.  
   
  It's like it is possible for someone to run 100m under ten seconds and for sure someone has done it, but if some random joe comes up to me and say they can ran 100m under 10 I'm naturally not going to believe him until he shows me.  It's the same for mp3/FLAC test here, I'm certain a tiny amount of people can do it, just not 99% of those who claims they can do it, especially not those who says it's "easy and if you can't you must be deaf" kinds of people.


----------



## Albedo

I don't really know how much the different codecs have improved, but how can anyone tell... if AAC 256 VBR was transparent four years ago for some ears?
   
  Well back in 2008 there was an article in Stereophile (from fig. 7 and downwards) about FLAC vs. AAC vs. MP3 that might be of interest.
   
  Quote: http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2


> Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you are going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it.
> 
> It is true that there are better-performing MP3 codecs than the basic Fraunhöfer—many audiophiles recommend the LAME encoder—but the AAC codec used by iTunes has better resolution than MP3 at the same bit rate (if a little noisier at the top of the audioband). If you want the maximum number of files on your iPod, therefore, you take less of a quality hit if you use AAC encoding than if you use MP3.


 
   
  Back then it supported what majkel had to say about going beyond 320 kbps...
   
   
  Quote:  





> I find full timbral transparency at q8, and full spectral (no treble roll-off) at q10 but it needs very good records/amplification/headphones or speakers to hear it. For headphones like Sennheiser PX100, q8 is the limit.


----------



## Eee Pee

Quote: 





jk1 said:


> The lasers in CD players wear out over time. As they wear out, the laser light output decreases. If the player has had a large amount of use, the light output becomes low enough so that player become much more vulnerable to dirt and scratches on a disk blocking enough light from being reflected from the disc.


 
  I'll go along with that.  I spent way too much time reading and learning about the under $200 Sony Blu-Ray players this weekend, and have a BDP-S590 in my Amazon cart currently.  My DVP-S9000 has MAAAANY hours on it.


----------



## bigshot

I like how everyone who does a careful comparison finds out that there's no audible difference, but then they ask why anyone would play compressed audio on good equipment. Well duh! Because it sounds the same!


----------



## BlindInOneEar

http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html
   
  LOL at Stereophile using "objective" data to conclude that something sounds "sonically compromised."  Funny, objective data in Stereophile never seems to prove that two things actually sound the same.
   
  What does the objective data reported in that article even show?  That basically the lossy formats reproduced almost all the signals the lossless formats reproduced.  The lossy signals just had a higher noise floor.  Just how high was that lossy noise floor?  About -80db.  Any one know what the noise floor is on a reel to reel analog tape deck?  On a vinyl record?  Just how audible is -80db?  Heck, stereo separation on fancy phono cartridges is less than -30db.  And that was just the 128K files.  The 320K files had noticeably lower noise floors.  Indeed, for the 320K AAC files "the noise-floor components have dropped to below –110dB below 16kHz, and to below –120dB for the lower frequencies."
   
  One thing that Stereophile article doesn't do is mention that any one actually _listened _to the various lossy formats to determine the audibility of any "sonic compromises."  Indeed the only mention I can find of a listening test in that article is in one of the footnotes which refers to a different article _from 1995_.  In the 1995 article the writer stated "I found the performance of the DTS system in its 240kb/s mode ... phenomenally good."  http://www.stereophile.com/reference/456   The article from 2008 does admit: "the AAC codec produces a result that may well be indistinguishable from CD for some listeners some of the time with some music." 
   
  While I agree with the writer's conclusion that "Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps," nothing in the article itself supports the statement that these changes result in the music being "sonically compromised."  They may well be, but without a proper, double blind listening test we'll never know.


----------



## bigshot

Stereophile was a joke even when I was in high school.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Props to Steve Eddy for mentioning this in a different thread.  I'm posting here so he can respond if he wishes.  Thanks, Steve Eddy, for mentioning this!
   
  This is the Audio DiffMaker:  http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm 
   
  I highly recommend downloading it and then trying the "Downloadable DiffMaker 'Dyf' files."  The "Listener Challenge" at the end is a hilarious "ear opener."  How many of the tracks can you identify that have the "difference" in them?   
   
  I think this bolsters my point above that -80 db would be very hard to hear.


----------



## Albedo

Can we boil down the question of this thread to CD's dynamic range at 96 dB vs. the "instantaneous dynamic range of human audio perception" at 85 dB?


----------



## bigshot

Normal listening volume is boosted a bit because our ears aren't very sensitive at very low volumes. In order to hear the quietest parts of a recording with music at -85dB, you would have to raise it 20 or 30 dB to over 100 dB, which is around the point where listening gets pretty uncomfortable. Play it on speakers and you'll have to add a bit to overcome te room's noise floor. Add 20dB more and pain is going to start to set in.

Most recorded music only has around 45-50dB or so, even the most dynamic classical music. Music that goes all the way to te edges of the dynamic range would be unlistenable. You'd be adjusting te volume constantly.


----------



## Albedo

I was thinking more of transients and attack, which "is often forgotten in the traditional Fourier analysis based reasoning on sound characteristics".
   
  Quote: http://www.zainea.com/physiologicalsound.htm


> The root of this terminology lies in linear system analysis. There steady‐state means that a clean, often periodic or almost constant excitation pattern has been present long enough so that Fourier based analysis gives proper results. Formally, when exposed to one‐sided inputs (non‐zero only if time is positive), linear systems exhibit output which can be decomposed into two additive parts: a sum of exponentially decaying components which depends on the system and a sustained part which depends on both the excitation and the system. The former is the transient part, the latter steady‐state. Intuitively, transients are responses which arise from changes of state—from one constant input or excitation function to another. They are problematic, since they often correspond to unexpected or rare events; it is often desired that the system spend most of its time in its easiest to predict state, a steady‐state. Because transients are heavily time‐localized, they defy the usefulness of traditional Fourier based methods.
> 
> In acoustics and music, the situation is similar in that frequency oriented methods tend to fail when transients are present. Moreover, in music, transients often correspond to excitatory motions on behalf of the performer (plucking a bow, striking a piano key, tonguing the reed while playing an oboe etc.), and so involve
> Significant nonlinear interactions (instruments behave exceedingly nonlinearly)
> ...


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Normal listening volume is boosted a bit because our ears aren't very sensitive at very low volumes. In order to hear the quietest parts of a recording with music at -85dB, you would have to raise it 20 or 30 dB to over 100 dB, which is around the point where listening gets pretty uncomfortable. Play it on speakers and you'll have to add a bit to overcome te room's noise floor. Add 20dB more and pain is going to start to set in.
> *Most recorded music only has around 45-50dB or so, even the most dynamic classical music. Music that goes all the way to te edges of the dynamic range would be unlistenable. You'd be adjusting te volume constantly.*


 
   
  This x1000. All the talk I hear about the different dynamic range values between formats is silly. A vinyl record is already capable of producing all the dynamic range you could ever want. Recorded music doesn't go beyond that, and you wouldn't want it to either.


----------



## bigshot

I'm not understanding you, Albedo. I'm not good with scientific theories. I only know about the practical application of them.... Digital audio has a 90dB dynamic range which extends downwards. You put your loudest sound... the transient peak... at the top of that range (aka normalizing) and the differences between one dynamic range and another is the difference between noise floors. The transient peaks are the same if you have a 60dB dynamic range or a 110dB dynamic range.

Recording engineers compress sound to maintain a listenable balance. In particular, they compress transient peaks so they can organize sound into an overall level that is comfortable to listen to. They'll allow a certain amount of headroom for dynamic effects and percussion, but in general, it isn't desirable to have huge spikes that go far beyond normal listening levels.

If you wanted to record in a perfectly unfiltered manner, you could certainly set a level that contains the peaks without clipping and digital audio would give you an accurate reproduction of it. But recording and mixing is a creative process that organizes sound to make it clearer and comfortable to listen to without straining. I don't know why you'd want to jettison all of that just for the sake of theory.


----------



## Lan647

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> That's not true.  IIRC some forum posters (deadlylover(?)) on this forum had showed that they could ABX 320kbps and FLAC of some tracks with 100% accuracy with a certain setup of his, with some being easier than others and that he has to be in analytical mode to pick up the difference, so *some* people can certainly tell the difference under *certain conditions.  *
> 
> However when someone boosting that they can tell 320kbps and FLAC using leaky earbuds on their smartphone when on the go such that they won't use mp3s I'm going to be very skeptical.


 
   
  No, no. It's all just your imagination. If you work SOO hard analyzing you get confused and perhaps your brain starts playing games on you. I have an HD 800 which is said to be a very analytical headphone, and a pretty good system built around it. There is no difference. However, there is a difference between 320kbit/FLAC and 160kbit tracks. 

 320kbit compression is high enough you are pretty much eliminating all audible artifacts with the file, if the encoding itself is of high enough quality.


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





lan647 said:


> No, no. It's all just your imagination. If you work SOO hard analyzing you get confused and perhaps your brain starts playing games on you. I have an HD 800 which is said to be a very analytical headphone, and a pretty good system built around it. There is no difference. However, there is a difference between 320kbit/FLAC and 160kbit tracks.
> 
> 320kbit compression is high enough you are pretty much eliminating all audible artifacts with the file, if the encoding itself is of high enough quality.


 
   
  I wish you would actually read my post - it's not me imagining it but some forum poster who actually posted EVIDENCE (which was scrutinized here btw) that he can tell the difference.
   
  I personally can't tell the difference and I don't bother with lossless either - just like I can't run 100m under 10seconds and many others can't either, but some gifted individuals can.  The fact is scientifically 320kbps is not completely transparent compared with lossless, even though it may be inaudible to 99.99% of the population, but that doesn't mean that 0.01% of people who can tell the difference don't exists, and that certain people does have better hearing which is also perfectly within reasonable human biological limits.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





nanaholic said:


> I wish you would actually read my post - it's not me imagining it but some forum poster who actually posted EVIDENCE (which was scrutinized here btw) that he can tell the difference.
> 
> I personally can't tell the difference and I don't bother with lossless either - just like I can't run 100m under 10seconds and many others can't either, but some gifted individuals can.  The fact is scientifically 320kbps is not completely transparent compared with lossless, even though it may be inaudible to 99.99% of the population, but that doesn't mean that 0.01% of people who can tell the difference don't exists, and that certain people does have better hearing which is also perfectly within reasonable human biological limits.


 

 No disrespect, but the fact that a forum poster convinced YOU that he could tell the difference between high bit rate lossy and lossless hardly constitutes "scientific fact" that high bit rate lossy is audibly distinguishable from lossless, or that there is a select group of individuals who can make the distinction.  The incident may be interesting.  It may even be worth investigating further.  What it's not, though, is proof.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> No disrespect, but the fact that a forum poster convinced YOU that he could tell the difference between high bit rate lossy and lossless hardly constitutes "scientific fact" that high bit rate lossy is audibly distinguishable from lossless, or that there is a select group of individuals who can make the distinction.  The incident may be interesting.  It may even be worth investigating further.  What it's not, though, is proof.


 
   
  Again - no disrespect - but it goes both ways.  With bigshot and Lan647 saying conclusively that it is indistinguishable - but someone like DeadlyLover showing Foobar logs on volume matched samples that say they can distinguish - then I guess we are left with the premise that most people seem unable to show proof that they can differentiate (I certainly can't), however it seems possible that a small percentage of individuals may be able to differentiate.
   
  Either way - I agree - the current data seems inconclusive


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





brooko said:


> Again - no disrespect - but it goes both ways.  With bigshot and Lan647 saying conclusively that it is indistinguishable - but someone like DeadlyLover showing Foobar logs on volume matched samples that say they can distinguish - then I guess we are left with the premise that most people seem unable to show proof that they can differentiate (I certainly can't), however it seems possible that a small percentage of individuals may be able to differentiate.
> 
> Either way - I agree - the current data seems inconclusive


 

 I agree.  The "data," if we want to give that level of dignity to claims made on internet forums, is inconclusive on both sides of the argument.


----------



## Clarkmc2

blindinoneear said:


> I agree.  The "data," if we want to give that level of dignity to claims made on internet forums, is inconclusive on both sides of the argument.



You would think that the distortion analyzer had never existed. I use my ears, I have been known to enjoy distorted reproduction, but I trust in o scope traces for facts.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> You would think that the distortion analyzer had never existed. I use my ears, I have been known to enjoy distorted reproduction, but I trust in o scope traces for facts.


 

 I'm not sure what your point is.  I thought the argument was whether differences could be heard between high bit rate lossy files and lossless files, not whether or not differences existed.  I think we'd all agree that there are differences between the two formats.  The dispute is whether or not they are audible.


----------



## bigshot

blindinoneear said:


> I agree.  The "data," if we want to give that level of dignity to claims made on internet forums, is inconclusive on both sides of the argument.




There is one fact that is conclusive... If in fact a difference does exist, it's small enough to be considered insignificant. For all intents and purposes, the sound quality of high bitrate AAC and lossless is equivalent.


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There is one fact that is conclusive... If in fact a difference does exist, it's small enough to be considered insignificant. For all intents and purposes, the sound quality of high bitrate AAC and lossless is equivalent.


 

 You've the misfortune of having staked out the unprovable side of the argument.  However large our data set, however many people we test that can't hear a difference, that does not mean there isn't a paragon somewhere out there who actually can hear a difference.  As you say, we can be very confident that the two formats are equivalent, but we can't be certain.  The other side of the issue has a much easier case.  All they have to do is come up with one person, just one, who can demonstrably hear the difference and their proposition is proved.  That's why I pointed out to nanaholic that though one internet poster may have convinced nanaholic the difference is audible, that's not actually proof that the difference is audible.


----------



## Clarkmc2

blindinoneear said:


> I'm not sure what your point is.  I thought the argument was whether differences could be heard between high bit rate lossy files and lossless files, not whether or not differences existed.  I think we'd all agree that there are differences between the two formats.  The dispute is whether or not they are audible.



Sorry to have been unclear. I was not speaking in the particular, but in general. That said, my tie in to this issue is that a distortion analyzer - at this point most known as an old HP piece of gear by some - shows how far down, in dB if so set up, the distortion is. If someone says they hear it and it is 50 dB down, I would be doubtful, to put it kindly.

The distortion analyzer was used for amps and such, but I have no doubt similar osilloscope based equipment could be set up to measure most things we debate here. Need I mention that a scope is the easiest way to do a null test as well? That is the long version of what I meant. If I'm flat wrong about that, I'm sure someone will let me know.

Listening tests are like arms control to me. Trust but verify.


----------



## DFXLuna

I just use flac because I have enough hard drive space to hold as much music as I could ever want and I also wanna give my gear the best possible chance of sounding great


----------



## BlindInOneEar

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> Sorry to have been unclear. I was not speaking in the particular, but in general. That said, my tie in to this issue is that a distortion analyzer - at this point most known as an old HP piece of gear by some - shows how far down, in dB if so set up, the distortion is. If someone says they hear it and it is 50 dB down, I would be doubtful, to put it kindly.
> The distortion analyzer was used for amps and such, but I have no doubt similar osilloscope based equipment could be set up to measure most things we debate here. Need I mention that a scope is the easiest way to do a null test as well? That is the long version of what I meant. If I'm flat wrong about that, I'm sure someone will let me know.
> Listening tests are like arms control to me. Trust but verify.


 

 Thanks for the explanation!  That makes things clearer for me. 
   
  I'll take your word that an oscilloscope is the easiest way to do a null test, assuming you have one lying around!  Not being so blessed I've had to limit myself to fiddling with the Audio Diffmaker.  Even there I'm only using the provided dyf files as I'd have no idea how to record my own.  Still, just that little introduction has been a revelation for me.  Soft sounds are hard to hear when loud music is playing!  People often quote the decibel scale as if the ear can easily hear the full range of it at once, from 0 db to 130 db.  I wonder if there is actually a much narrow range of loudness that the ear can hear _at the same time._  Sure, you can hear leaves rustling on a quiet day, but I'll bet you can't while you're at a rock concert.  I'll also bet that the ability to hear noise or distortion drops off pretty quickly below -60 db or so.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> Thanks for the explanation!  That makes things clearer for me.
> 
> I'll take your word that an oscilloscope is the easiest way to do a null test, assuming you have one lying around!  Not being so blessed I've had to limit myself to fiddling with the Audio Diffmaker.  Even there I'm only using the provided dyf files as I'd have no idea how to record my own.  Still, just that little introduction has been a revelation for me.  Soft sounds are hard to hear when loud music is playing!  People often quote the decibel scale as if the ear can easily hear the full range of it at once, from 0 db to 130 db.  I wonder if there is actually a much narrow range of loudness that the ear can hear _at the same time._  Sure, you can hear leaves rustling on a quiet day, but I'll bet you can't while you're at a rock concert.  I'll also bet that the ability to hear noise or distortion drops off pretty quickly below -60 db or so.


 
  -60dB is WAY down! Not to take it entirely off topic, but oscilloscopes for audio are cheap used. The required bandwidth is very low and digital display is unnecessary. A scope off eBay is frequent at $100 shipped and a couple of probes sourced from the bay are maybe $40. A B&K 2120 is fully featured for this work. How to use it? Well, that's what the internet is for. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Here are a couple available now, as current examples.
   
http://www.ebay.com/itm/B-K-BK-Precision-2120-20MHz-Oscilloscope-tested-working-/200786205635?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2ebfca5bc3
http://www.ebay.com/itm/B-K-Precision-2120-20MHz-Dual-Trace-Oscilloscope-Scope-/110913712540?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item19d2f8f19c
   
  This level of rig will handle most electrical signals. Getting into displaying live acoustic sound is pricier. A calibrated microphone and a power source for it are necessary - you are after all trying here to do better than PC based tools. I imagine a signal generator from PC software would be fine. Getting this far into it and a bit of practice will end a lot of arguments that tend to add post count to audio forums. Admit it, it would be great to not have to trust others who may be talking off the top of their head or recycling third party information which is not about your specific gear anyway. (The one thing that is very difficult to do cheaply is headphone measurement. I trust Tyll at Innerfidelity to do that for us.) IMO the scope and probes will get you there for seeing what it going on with electronics.
   
   
  I would probably take more heat for recommending Ethan Winer's book to give this all context in the real world of audio science and practice. _The Audio Expert _is about $60 shipped from his website with a lot of nice extras included. The scope of the book is unique and I highly recommend it. It is very easy to read and understand.


----------



## bigshot

blindinoneear said:


> You've the misfortune of having staked out the unprovable side of the argument.  However large our data set, however many people we test that can't hear a difference, that does not mean there isn't a paragon somewhere out there who actually can hear a difference.




Up may not always be up, and there may be rare occasions when down isn't quite as down as we might think.


----------



## bigshot

dfxluna said:


> I just use flac because I have enough hard drive space to hold as much music as I could ever want and I also wanna give my gear the best possible chance of sounding great




You can have a little music that sounds great, or a lot of music that takes up the sames space that sounds great too. Personally, I'd rather have more music than more inaudible bits.


----------



## OJNeg

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> -60dB is WAY down! Not to take it entirely off topic, but oscilloscopes for audio are cheap used. The required bandwidth is very low and digital display is unnecessary. A scope off eBay is frequent at $100 shipped and a couple of probes sourced from the bay are maybe $40. A B&K 2120 is fully featured for this work. How to use it? Well, that's what the internet is for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Wow, I thought oscilloscopes were a lot more expensive than that. What won't a 20MHz scope be able to handle? Obviously that's more than enough for audio applications, but what couldn't I use it to measure?


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





ojneg said:


> Wow, I thought oscilloscopes were a lot more expensive than that. What won't a 20MHz scope be able to handle? Obviously that's more than enough for audio applications, but what couldn't I use it to measure?


 

 I'm not sure because I only use it for audio. Current scopes tend to be in the gigahertz range. I suppose very fast ICs might have performance parameters in that range. Radio, obviously. In audio high frequencies are encountered in unwanted oscillation of circuits, but I imagine a 20mHz instrument will find it. I have read that it is usually still in the kilohertz range.
   
  Interestingly, most tubes we use for audio are good to up in the megahertz range but are described as low frequency amplifier tubes. That is because they can't handle the gigahertz radio applications. So 20 megahertz is considered low frequency.
   
  Today's op amps can be pretty fast, but the manufactures' data sheets have the specs presented clearly and thoroughly.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> I'm not sure because I only use it for audio. Current scopes tend to be in the gigahertz range. I suppose very fast ICs might have performance parameters in that range. Radio, obviously. In audio high frequencies are encountered in unwanted oscillation of circuits, but I imagine a 20mHz instrument will find it. I have read that it is usually still in the kilohertz range.


 
   
Here someone found the AD797 used instead of a "slower" op amp oscillating at 43 MHz. It is safest to use parts that have no gain above the bandwidth of the oscilloscope.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> You can have a little music that sounds great, or a lot of music that takes up the sames space that sounds great too. Personally, I'd rather have more music than more inaudible bits.




When you have 10TBs of HD space on your media server, it doesn't matter.


----------



## bigshot

I have four drobos with over 25 TB on my media server. It's nearly all full.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Here someone found the AD797 used instead of a "slower" op amp oscillating at 43 MHz. It is safest to use parts that have no gain above the bandwidth of the oscilloscope.


 
  A classic case of what I was talking about earlier in this thread.
  Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> It brings to mind the individuals (and companies) who look at a good design and decide the op amps are not good enough in a piece of gear. They substitute better thought of op amps and mess everything up, yielding a worse sounding unit. In their arrogance, they forget that the designers of integrated circuits know better than anyone else how to use them. Op amps in particular are *very* application specific, even more than most ICs. Audio history is full of very over priced electronics that are great sounding designs right out of the manufacture's application books. I guess the fancy casework was worth the extra zero or two on the price tag. But not for me. I'm buying sound, not furniture, but that is another topic in sound science.


 
  Better to leave well enough alone and copy the suggested designs. Unless you are even more talented than the component engineers. Steinmetz and Nelson Pass types are not born every minute. And so far, just one Tesla, darn it.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> I have four drobos with over 25 TB on my media server. It's nearly all full.




I don't. That's probably because I don't hoard HD video files.


----------



## bigshot

Neither do I.


----------



## Dyaems

so whats the real answer to the topic? i read 8 pages and it has mixed answers =(


----------



## bigshot

Take your favorite CD. Rip it to various levels of bitrates. Do a direct A/B line level matched comparison and see where the line is where you can't tell the difference is any more.

I spent two days doing this. I found that 320 LAME MP3 and AAC 256 was indiscernable from the original CD. An awful lot of people have found the same.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> Neither do I.




With 10TB I can hold ~250,000 40MB FLACs. Just how many MP3s are you claiming to have in that 25TB array?


----------



## KimLaroux

Quote: 





dyaems said:


> so whats the real answer to the topic? i read 8 pages and it has mixed answers =(


 
   
  There's probably a million pages on the internet on this topic.


----------



## bigshot

magick man said:


> With 10TB I can hold ~250,000 40MB FLACs. Just how many MP3s are you claiming to have in that 25TB array?




Last time I counted, my music libraries totalled about a year and a half. There are movies on there too. I'm in the process of ripping all of my CDs and DVDs to files.


----------



## Magick Man

bigshot said:


> Last time I counted, my music libraries totalled about a year and a half. There are movies on there too. I'm in the process of ripping all of my CDs and DVDs to files.




At 320kbps, allowing 10MB /file, that's only 1.9TBs of HD space.


----------



## bigshot

Sounds about right. I have a Drobo dedicated to music. It consists of three 2TB virtual drives. One is audio files and the other two are music videos. I'm going to have to upgrade it to 3TB drives soon, because I'm not even halfway through ripping yet.


----------



## rhiga

Honestly, i can't tell a difference between 320kbps and FLAC, maybe my headphone  isn't that good (Shure SRH440) or it's my ears.


----------



## Lan647

I am young, have treated my ears carefully, and I use the HD 800s. I can't tell a difference between 320kbps and FLAC  I do believe it's non-existant for human ears (we all know many people tend to imagine things...) but hey I could be wrong.


----------



## Magick Man

lan647 said:


> I am young, have treated my ears carefully, and I use the HD 800s. I can't tell a difference between 320kbps and FLAC  I do believe it's non-existant for human ears (we all know many people tend to imagine things...) but hey I could be wrong.




I usually can't either, there have only been a couple of very subtle exceptions. I just like to archive in FLAC. Drive space is incredibly cheap, so might as well save my music in a lossless format on the server.


----------



## bigshot

When I was testing codecs, everything encoded transparently at 192 AAC, except one track. It cleared up at 256, so I encode AAC 256 VBR and I've never encountered any artifacts in thousands of hours of rips. It's exactly the same as the CD.


----------



## Lan647

Quote: 





magick man said:


> I usually can't either, there have only been a couple of very subtle exceptions. I just like to archive in FLAC. Drive space is incredibly cheap, so might as well save my music in a lossless format on the server.


 
   
  I only use FLAC. In my 1,6TB music library (thats over 50000 songs) only two or three albums are MP3 320kbps. But it's mostly because it's satisfying to know you have the best quality possible


----------



## youngngray

Ok bigshot, since you seem to have done the most testing for yourself, did you ever compare MP3 V0? Or any other variable bit rate encoding? How did you find it in comparison to the others?


----------



## Lan647

Quote: 





youngngray said:


> Ok bigshot, since you seem to have done the most testing for yourself, did you ever compare MP3 V0? Or any other variable bit rate encoding? How did you find it in comparison to the others?


 

 No clue.


----------



## immtbiker

Here's an analogy that I came up with while reading this thread:
   
  When my wife is agitating me, or a person who feels a need to tell me how I can be a better driver like him, I'd rather hear it in 128kbps instead of FLAC. I still hear them,
  but there's no reason to hear them in hi-def audio.
   
  If I am listening to music that I love and that gives me gobs of insatiable joy, I'd rather hear it in Lossless FLAC or ALAC instead of 256 or 320kbps. When my
  wife is telling me why she loves me and how great a lover I am, I don't want to miss one consonant, or any tonal imbalance that might stop me from getting
  110% of what is being broadcast.
   
  I might not be able to hear all of the benefits of the higher bit-rate, but if there's a chance I might miss one, that's one too many.
   
  Yes, the difference between 320 and flac might be almost negligible to most of our ears, but when comparing a 8MB 320 kpbs file to a 80MB 1100 kbps file, there is ~ 10% more information available to our ears, which equates to a deeper fuller soundstage with more air between all of the instruments and vocals, and a larger dynamic range, with
  more sustained cymbal hits and a bass curve that doesn't die out as quickly.
   
  Do I need a Bugatti Veyron that does 0-60 in less than 3 seconds? No, but it's nice to know that you have car that can get on the highway from a stop in less than 6 seconds.
  You might not need it when transporting a crystal ice sculpture, but you do need it when getting on the Long Island Expressway during rush hour, when people are being mean
  and closing you out just because they get joy out of other's misery. Do I need 520 hp? No, but I do need unending power when passing a semi who, if I don't pass, means that
  I will be stck behind him doing 35 the next 7 minutes pulling out the the rest area onto a highway of rush hour mean people who would swallow you up alive, if given the chance.
   
  To sum it up, the difference between 320 and lossless is very small when using anything other than really hi-quality home or portable equipment. But, it *is* there. If you have the space and you have a player that handles lossless, why not have the best files that you can, for those times that it makes a difference.
  On my iPhone, I have everything at 320, rather than ALAC because, the iPhone will never give me quality that I crave, on the go. But, on my iMod with a high end DAC/Amp add-on, hi-quality output wiring, and my UE-10's or JH-13's, then you can bet that I am only going to contain a lossless library.
   
  YMMV!


----------



## soozieq

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> Here's an analogy that I came up with while reading this thread:


 
   
  Just brilliant. Thanks for that


----------



## Clarkmc2

That's a great analogy, but I was laboring under the idea the audibility was the issue. I use only full or FLAC, but I can't defend it on the basis of audibility. Ten times the information, digitally, does not mean better auduble reproduction if it is not audibly different.

Your concept brilliantly addresses WHY you and I use FLAC, but not if it leads to audible differences.


----------



## bigshot

youngngray said:


> Ok bigshot, since you seem to have done the most testing for yourself, did you ever compare MP3 V0? Or any other variable bit rate encoding? How did you find it in comparison to the others?




I'm a Mac guy, so some of the settings aren't the same for the software I was using. I compared a dozen or so CDs using CBR AAC and MP3 out of iTunes and MP3 LAME (can't remember the app or settings I used to make those because I didn't keep it- sorry). I encoded all of those at 128, 256 and 320, and compared them to an AIFF rip off the CD.

The 320 MP3 out of iTunes was very, very close to being transparent, but not quite. MP3 LAME became totally transparent at 320. And AAC out of iTunes became transparent at 192, but I found one CD that artifacted but was perfect at 256. I settled on AAC 256 and added VBR to the mix. It was still transparent, but it distributed the bitrate more intelligently, so I stuck with it.

I line level matched carefully and compared on both my speaker system and my Sennheiser HD590s. It took two days... A real pain in the ass. I know why so few people do it,


----------



## bigshot

immtbiker said:


> I might not be able to hear all of the benefits of the higher bit-rate, but if there's a chance I might miss one, that's one too many.




The best way to avoid missing out on good sound is to only take the numbers on a page as a starting point. Go the extra mile and test it for yourself and know for sure.

I'm sure there are people with FLAC libraries with just a few 320 MP3s sprinkled in who worry about those MP3s and wish they had them as FLAC files. It's like a burr under their saddles to have those few lossies. That's because they really don't know exactly what the difference is between a high bitrate MP3 and lossless.

I know. I did the test. I have a library full of over a year's worth of 256 AAC VBR, and I don't miss a second of sleep over it. I know it sounds exactly the same as lossless because I compared them and found out. I know AAC makes a good master because I took one and encoded it and reencoded it over and over ten times. It still sounded very good. That's all I need to know and I don't have to guess or take someone else's word for it.

I highly recommend doing controlled listening tests on every stage in your audio chain. You'll learn a lot, but the best thing you can possibly learn is what matters and what doesn't. Most audiophiles expend WAY too much energy on the latter, and not enough on the former.


----------



## bigshot

clarkmc2 said:


> Ten times the information, digitally, does not mean better auduble reproduction if it is not audibly different.




That's a bingo. The reason people use lossless instead of high bitrate lossy has absolutely nothing to do with actual sound. It's all about *potential* sound.

I keep hearing people say that with equipment more fabulously expensive than they happen to own and ears more sensitive than theirs, that the difference is audible. Well... First of all, without that equipment and those ears all that is nothing more than a guess. And secondly, who needs sound better than they can hear anyway? There are plenty of things you can do to improve your sound that actually *does* make a measurable and clearly discernable difference. Worry about that stuff.


----------



## bigshot

immtbiker said:


> Yes, the difference between 320 and flac might be almost negligible to most of our ears, but when comparing a 8MB 320 kpbs file to a 80MB 1100 kbps file, there is ~ 10% more information available to our ears, which equates to a deeper fuller soundstage with more air between all of the instruments and vocals, and a larger dynamic range, with more sustained cymbal hits and a bass curve that doesn't die out as quickly.




No offense, but everything you say in that paragraph is totally wrong, and I don't mean just your math.

Not 10%, 10X. High bitrate lossy has audibly identical soundstage and "air" (which are functions of the transducers, not the file format), the dynamics are identical and the response curve on the bass is the same.


----------



## youngngray

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I'm a Mac guy, so some of the settings aren't the same for the software I was using. I compared a dozen or so CDs using CBR AAC and MP3 out of iTunes and MP3 LAME (can't remember the app or settings I used to make those because I didn't keep it- sorry). I encoded all of those at 128, 256 and 320, and compared them to an AIFF rip off the CD.
> The 320 MP3 out of iTunes was very, very close to being transparent, but not quite. MP3 LAME became totally transparent at 320. And AAC out of iTunes became transparent at 192, but I found one CD that artifacted but was perfect at 256. I settled on AAC 256 and added VBR to the mix. It was still transparent, but it distributed the bitrate more intelligently, so I stuck with it.
> I line level matched carefully and compared on both my speaker system and my Sennheiser HD590s. It took two days... A real pain in the ass. I know why so few people do it,


 
   
  Thanks for the reply!
   
  Cheers!


----------



## Magick Man

lan647 said:


> I only use FLAC. In my 1,6TB music library (thats over 50000 songs) only two or three albums are MP3 320kbps. But it's mostly because it's satisfying to know you have the best quality possible




HD storage is cheap and for archiving I'd rather have the whole thing. I like having complete digital "masters". For my mobile devices I use 256k AAC VBR, I just convert the songs and send them over.

That's my system and it works well for me.


----------



## bigshot

I have at least 10,000 CDs in boxes in the garage. Maybe more. Those are my master copies. In nearly five years of building my media server, I haven't ever had occasion to need to go back to them. AAC 256 VBR works perfectly for every application, from my ipod with portable headphones to my main listening room with my speaker setup. All of my itunes libraries, with a year and a half worth of music, fit on a 2TB single hard drive partition. Massively simple and the exact same sound quality as lossless. Easy peasy.


----------



## Magick Man

I'm encroaching on 17k myself, counting LPs and all other disc formats. I back up all the CDs then carefully pack them away in the basement. LPs, SACDs, and DVD-As I keep in the music/HT room (mancave) and retrieve them as I want them. I like having complete and well organized collections, it probably comes from being an avid bibliophile.


----------



## OJNeg

Why are you so adamant on defending lossy formats bigshot? Just because you've ripped your whole library to AAC?
   
  Again, I'm not going to make any claims that I or anyone else can hear the difference. Whether the difference is audible or not is irrelevant; there is a difference. The fact of the matter is, when you apply lossy compression, you take away information and no longer have an original copy. That's not up for debate, it's very much a technical reality. I know you're going to say that an end-user has no use for a lossless copy, but that is very much a blanket statement.


----------



## bigshot

I do tests on everything I use in my system, comparing it and finding out if there is any effect on sound quality. It's a lot of work, but that's the kind of guy I am. I want to know. I'm not guessing, repeating the general consensus, or advising that people do something I'm not sure about "just to be safe". I know.

If I've carefully tested and determined that a particular codec and bitrate is audibly transparent, and that it maintains that sound quality for ten generations, why should I equivocate? How would that benefit anyone?

I don't listen to bits. I llisten to sound. The conversion from electrical signal to mechanical sound is a process that changes audio in many orders of magnitude beyond lossless vs high bitrate lossy. People should be aware of exactly how much of a difference things make so they can choose their battles. As long as they understand that, they can assuage their OCD and save to WAV files backed up to a hundred different drives running a bitcheck algorithm before each play... As long as they know that all that doesn't make a lick of difference.

I'm operating on a wild and crazy theory here. I know it's revolutionary. I'm wearing a hard hat and keeping my head down. Here is my theory...

People want great sound, and they don't want to pay more than they have to, spend more time and energy than they have to, or complicate the process more than they have to.

I know that is an unusual and unique theory. I've been told recently by one fella that he actually *wants* to spend thousands more for a high end amp that sounds exactly the same as a midrange one, because he considers the cabinet to be "art". Other people tell me they encode their music lossless, even though they can't hear any audible difference "just to be safe". Other people buy SACD players based on frequencies they can't hear, and dynamic ranges that are only audible at ear damaging volume levels. Still others buy cables that cost hundreds of dollars because they think "silver sounds sharp and clear" and copper sound "warm".

I'm not speaking for the benefit of those folks. They can cheerfully ignore my posts and I won't care. I'm speaking to the hifi nuts who want to get great sound and not be silly or wasteful about it. I think these folks deserve being told what matters and what doesn't. I know it's a crazy idea....


----------



## xnor

I think everyone (ok, every sensible person) agrees with you on acoustic transparency. But I don't see how making backups using FLAC is silly or wasteful.


----------



## Clarkmc2

I seem to remember that Bigshot's backups are ten thousand CDs in his garage. I use the same system. When I download original files I get the FLACs. No transcoding up from lossy to burn a CD and I archive the FLACs on DVDs. Media is cheap. The downloads are not. Hard drives all die eventually.

Lossy makes no sense for me because I don't play from files. Old school, and I don't multitask listening to music.


----------



## OJNeg

It sounds like you're trying to group people who keep lossless libraries with cable believers and other audio nonsense. That's silly.


----------



## bigshot

I'm saying that there really is no real practical need to keep a lossless version. You can keep one if you want to, but I transcoded AAC 256 VBR ten generations and it still sounded fine. I can't imagine in my lifetime needing to transcode more than that. I let record companies keep masters. All I need is players.

Backups are imperative though. It just doesn't matter if the backup files are lossless or high bitrate lossy. I back up my AAC files because I've invested a lot of time preening the tags since I've ripped them. Quite frankly, the tagging I've done is more valuable to me than the CDs in the garage.


----------



## nanaholic

Quote: 





blindinoneear said:


> No disrespect, but the fact that a forum poster convinced YOU that he could tell the difference between high bit rate lossy and lossless hardly constitutes "scientific fact" that high bit rate lossy is audibly distinguishable from lossless, or that there is a select group of individuals who can make the distinction.  The incident may be interesting.  It may even be worth investigating further.  What it's not, though, is proof.


 
   
  You've misinterpreted - I never said that it is a scientific fact that lossy and lossless audibly distinguishable, however it IS a scientific fact that lossy and lossless is not completely transparent on the waveform level - otherwise it would not be called a "lossy" codec and a "lossless" codec.  The only point up  for debate is whether that difference could be heard, and data showed that *most* can't yet *some* can.  Again here please refer to my 100m in 10s example, so I think my stance is perfectly logical and rational - my default position is that unless you are super-special (ie you trained really hard or you have a special biological advantage) you won't be able to tell the difference, but I don't *completely* rule out the possibility that such people can and do exists because it is biologically possible for someone just to have better hearing, this isn't something like believing in a Lizard-man or something like that.


----------



## bigshot

What you can't hear is never the problem.


----------



## HiFi1972

There is a HUGE difference in sound quality from something originally recorded at 24bit and a 320kbps MP3. I know this because I master audio for a living, and I get to hear what a 24bit master sounds like over a full-range speaker system (B&W) and once in a while, I'll listen to the 320 MP3 (LAME encoded, usually using CBR).
   
  Whenever I hear people say "I can't tell the difference between the CD and the MP3" I then question the playback system (not to mention that they're unaware of the material before it was dithered down to 16 bit, from 24). If it's a pair of headphones (no matter how great the amp and pair of cans are, they're likely to NOT hear a difference because headphones don't resonate through your body the way audio does coming out of speakers). The more refined the playback system is (high end DAC, speakers and a system that reproduces from 20Hz to 20kHz as neutral as possible) the more obvious it will be; MP3s sound "narrow" and even though most of us can't hear 16kHz, there will be a sense that something is missing or not completely there when you cut those frequencies out.
   
  One thing that is usually not in this discussion is the difference between "hypercompressed" audio that is typical these days on most modern releases and material that has optimal dynamics. When you maximize the levels of a song by use of dynamics processing (upward compression/limiting) you lose low end frequencies and there is little dynamic crest between peak and average levels. Most of the time, you're listening to predominantly middle frequencies and combined with loudness, you start becoming subjected to the Fletcher Munson effect, where we're hearing more mid frequencies (which is natural, as we perceive those than lows and highs). If you take a track that is so loud that you mostly hear mid frequencies, but can't "feel" the low end, you are less likely to be able to hear any difference, especially if you're playing back material over headphones.
   
  I'm not trying to argue with anyone over the above, I *know* this is true because I listen to approximately 40 different songs, every week, that come in as 24bit mixes for me to work with and there is ALWAYS a trade off in sound quality when you 1. apply dynamics processing to make the material louder (therefore reducing the dynamic range) and 2. removing "inaudible" frequencies which are likely more "felt" than "heard".
   
  EDIT: One (non-scientifical) observation that I've made for myself is the fact that MP3s sound better when made from the 24bit masters and not from dithered, 16bit files ripped from a CD. It's gotten better recently, but at one point, most digital file distributors only created MP3 versions of albums to sell online from 16-bit files, and I found this out when calling a distributor for a client who simply could not take my 24bit masters as a source for making digital (metadata-tagged) MP3 files. The reason was that their system only accepted 16bit files for the source. I'm not too familiar with the kind of system that is used by most distributors, but this seemed a bit odd to me, since CDs are not perfect, and there's always a degree of lost data that is acceptable for burning CDs (known as C1 or "recoverable" errors). Whenever possible, I provide 16bit (dithered) files and not a CD as a source for distributors, to avoid them ripping files that have some degree of data loss, so when you hear that CD is "lossless", it's not exactly so, unless you're talking about a straight transfer from DDP files, which is 1:1 and even so, the number of CD releases that are done from DDP is quite small, most CD replicators use Red Book CD-Rs, which have a degree of data loss, even the best burns have approximately 0.6 average/sec digits lost.


----------



## bigshot

hifi1972 said:


> There is a HUGE difference in sound quality from something originally recorded at 24bit and a 320kbps MP3. I know this because I master audio for a living, and I get to hear what a 24bit master sounds like over a full-range speaker system (B&W) and once in a while, I'll listen to the 320 MP3 (LAME encoded, usually using CBR)..




24 bit to MP3 involves two conversions... 24 bit to 16 and uncompressed to compressed. Which of those steps is introducing the huge difference? Is there a huge difference between 24 and 16 bit uncompressed, or do you hear a bigger difference between 16 bit compressed and uncompressed?

By the way, VBR is better sound quality than CBR with compressed audio.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





hifi1972 said:


> There is a HUGE difference in sound quality from something originally recorded at 24bit and a 320kbps MP3. I know this because I master audio for a living, and I get to hear what a 24bit master sounds like over a full-range speaker system (B&W) and once in a while, I'll listen to the 320 MP3 (LAME encoded, usually using CBR).


 
  What track was that? Did you match the levels, and do a ABX test? Anything to back up that claim?
   
   
  Quote: 





> Whenever I hear people say "I can't tell the difference between the CD and the MP3" I then question the playback system (not to mention that they're unaware of the material before it was dithered down to 16 bit, from 24). If it's a pair of headphones (no matter how great the amp and pair of cans are, they're likely to NOT hear a difference because headphones don't resonate through your body the way audio does coming out of speakers).


 
  There's a couple of things wrong with this. First of all there have been tests done comparing 16 and 24 bits and no, there's no huge difference as you claim. Secondly, several listening tests over at HA have shown that headphone reveal compression artifacts more easily than speakers (which is only logical since there is no room acoustics, lower distortion ...). Thirdly, resonating bodies have nothing to do with MP3 compression. Before artifacts appear in the bass, they usually show up quite audibly in the higher frequencies.
   
   
  Quote: 





> The more refined the playback system is (high end DAC, speakers and a system that reproduces from 20Hz to 20kHz as neutral as possible) the more obvious it will be; MP3s sound "narrow" and even though most of us can't hear 16kHz, there will be a sense that something is missing or not completely there when you cut those frequencies out.


 
  MP3 320 CBR doesn't filter out stuff above 16 kHz. As someone who masters audio you should know that.
   
   
  Quote: 





> One thing that is usually not in this discussion is the difference between "hypercompressed" audio that is typical these days on most modern releases and material that has optimal dynamics. When you maximize the levels of a song by use of dynamics processing (upward compression/limiting) you lose low end frequencies and there is little dynamic crest between peak and average levels. Most of the time, you're listening to predominantly middle frequencies and combined with loudness, you start becoming subjected to the Fletcher Munson effect, where we're hearing more mid frequencies (which is natural, as we perceive those than lows and highs). If you take a track that is so loud that you mostly hear mid frequencies, but can't "feel" the low end, you are less likely to be able to hear any difference, especially if you're playing back material over headphones.


 
  Really? Isn't it typically easier to make out artifacts in heavily DR compressed tracks..
   
   
  Quote: 





> I'm not trying to argue with anyone over the above, I *know* this is true because I listen to approximately 40 different songs, every week, that come in as 24bit mixes for me to work with and there is ALWAYS a trade off in sound quality when you 1. apply dynamics processing to make the material louder (therefore reducing the dynamic range) and 2. removing "inaudible" frequencies which are likely more "felt" than "heard".


 
  People *knew* the earth was flat. So what?
   
  I agree with 1) but not with 2). The MP3 psychoacoustic model doesn't remove frequencies which are more likely to be "felt" than "heard". Overly simplified: it looks at strong tones and removes much weaker signals that are masked by the stronger tone. Only when you reduce the bitrate the encoder has to remove more and more tones eventually introducing artifacts.
   
   
  Quote: 





> EDIT: One (non-scientifical) observation that I've made for myself is the fact that MP3s sound better when made from the 24bit masters and not from dithered, 16bit files ripped from a CD. It's gotten better recently, but at one point, most digital file distributors only created MP3 versions of albums to sell online from 16-bit files, and I found this out when calling a distributor for a client who simply could not take my 24bit masters as a source for making digital (metadata-tagged) MP3 files. The reason was that their system only accepted 16bit files for the source. I'm not too familiar with the kind of system that is used by most distributors, but this seemed a bit odd to me, since CDs are not perfect, and there's always a degree of lost data that is acceptable for burning CDs (known as C1 or "recoverable" errors). Whenever possible, I provide 16bit (dithered) files and not a CD as a source for distributors, to avoid them ripping files that have some degree of data loss, so when you hear that CD is "lossless", it's not exactly so, unless you're talking about a straight transfer from DDP files, which is 1:1 and even so, the number of CD releases that are done from DDP is quite small, most CD replicators use Red Book CD-Rs, which have a degree of data loss, even the best burns have approximately 0.6 average/sec digits lost.


 
  What MP3 encoder are you using?


----------



## bigshot

I'm suspecting his problem is when he's bouncing from 24 to 16. The wrong dither can indeed make a huge difference. If he's exporting from a 24 bit ProTools mix directly to MP3, ProTools does the downconvert in the background using a default dither. I'm betting that default is set wrong.

Also, xnor, I've met perfectly good recording engineers who knew jack diddly about the MP3 format. If it isn't something they use in their everyday work, they really don't need to know. I think he is mistaken because he misdiagnosed his problem. As a side note, he doesn't seem to know much about the CD replication process either. The only people who manufacture disks from CD-Rs are consumer services like Diskmakers. In industrial applications a glass master would be made from a disk image or raw audio files with a TOC delivered on hard drive.


----------



## HiFi1972

Okay, lot's of comments! Here's what I know (and as an audio engineer, look, we're not scientists - some of these arguments reach scientific levels to the point where it's no longer about what's important, which is perception). All I can comment on is what I've known for a while, and what other engineers concur with (we leave the scientific arguments to "audiophiles"). My responses to the key points:
   
*"24 bit to MP3 involves two conversions... 24 bit to 16 and uncompressed to compressed." *- No, it depends on what bit resolution the encoder can handle. LAME 3.99 can encode an MP3 directly from a 24bit file (the LAME encoder is one of the most, if not the most popular encoder in the mastering community, likely what most of the MP3s out there have been encoded with).
   
*"By the way, VBR is better sound quality than CBR with compressed audio."* - Perhaps, the idea of keeping things CBR is (from other engineers who share this POV) to keep the encoder consistent; VBR will reduce the size of the file even more and when creating MP3s, my idea is to keep as much of the data as possible (a bit counterintuitive, I suppose). Pondering whether VBR sounds better than CBR is right up there with saying one fake Sugar brand is better than the next; they're still NOT real sugar 
   
*"Secondly, several listening tests over at HA have shown that headphone reveal compression artifacts more easily than speakers"* - This comment is a bit argumentative, I will avoid that aspect of this conversation, all I have for this comment is this: Not all headphone drivers are the same, and the same thing goes with Speakers. I don't know what was used for these listening tests, the room (who designed it) and how neutral the environment was, all I know is the equipment I use, whose purpose is there for wide-ranging translation of the material I work on to whatever my clients listen to, and besides, who is "HA"!? (LOL, don't answer)
   
*"Anything to back up that claim?"* - Just a little over 15 years of experience working with loads of recording/mixing/mastering issues from various sources (no science degree here, sorry). Trust me, the only ones obsessing over things like ABX testing aren't typically the people responsible for delivering this content to the masses (tends to be really analytical audiophiles that love to argue more than just chilling out and listening to the tunes!)
   
*"MP3 320 CBR doesn't filter out stuff above 16 kHz. As someone who masters audio you should know that."* - I mentioned the LAME encoder, other encoders might not do it, but I mentioned that LAME is one of *the* most popular encoders, so likely some commercial tracks that people download have everything past 16kHz filtered out. Versions prior to 3.99 didn't, but I see a lot of MP3 files with missing frequencies past 16kHz; it's not that uncommon.
   
*"The MP3 psychoacoustic model doesn't remove frequencies which are more likely to be "felt" than "heard".* - On paper, this is the truth. In the real world, I'll tell you what I did one time. I grabbed my wife's favorite CD and made a 320kbps MP3 version of it and I popped it in the car stereo on our way to run errands. After about 10 minutes, she said "Something's wrong with this CD, it sounds like it's going bad or something." My wife completely hates anything to do with analyzing audio and is simply someone who loves music without having any affection to anything technical (my favorite kind of person). Once you start talking science, it's possible to start believing things because someone can present a very articulate reason to the cause; I don't care for written theories of how a person perceives sound.
   
*"I'm suspecting his problem is when he's bouncing from 24 to 16. The wrong dither can indeed make a huge difference. If he's exporting from a 24 bit ProTools mix directly to MP3, ProTools does the downconvert in the background using a default dither."* - The Pro Tools dither not the best, that's for sure. Again, LAME allows direct encoding from 24 bit files and I personally batch process MP3 files (or simply have the clients send whatever the digital distribution house needs to create their metadata-encoded MP3s for iTunes, etc.) 24bit masters printed into PT are exported without any other processing from my end. I often don't create MP3s for clients, this is often done by distributors and once in a while, I load the MP3s into my system and can tell that there's a huge difference, it's almost like fat free vs. the real whatever it is you want to compare fake stuff to.


----------



## El_Doug

oh boy, the "even my wife could hear it" anecdote... especially ironic, given the paragraph concludes with suggesting scientific evidence can lead one astray from the truth, so we should all trust our own perceptions


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





hifi1972 said:


> Okay, lot's of comments! Here's what I know (and as an audio engineer, look, we're not scientists
> 
> *Actually some of us here are scientists*
> 
> ...


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Okay, lot's of comments! Here's what I know (and as an audio engineer, look, we're not scientists - some of these arguments reach scientific levels to the point where it's no longer about what's important, which is perception).


 
  Yes, perception is very important which is why we make listening tests. You need to eliminate (sub)conscious bias to get valid results. Any audio 'engineer' (sorry for the quotes, but engineer requires an academic degree over here) should know that.
   
  Quote: 





hifi1972 said:


> *"24 bit to MP3 involves two conversions... 24 bit to 16 and uncompressed to compressed." *- No, it depends on what bit resolution the encoder can handle. LAME 3.99 can encode an MP3 directly from a 24bit file (the LAME encoder is one of the most, if not the most popular encoder in the mastering community, likely what most of the MP3s out there have been encoded with).


 
  Sure, some encoders indeed can handle above 16 bits, but the resulting MP3 isn't accurate anywhere close down to 24 bits. The only difference between a dithered 16-bit and 24-bit file encoded as MP3 is noise. Low level noise.
   
  Quote: 





> Perhaps, the idea of keeping things CBR is (from other engineers who share this POV) to keep the encoder consistent; VBR will reduce the size of the file even more and when creating MP3s, my idea is to keep as much of the data as possible (a bit counterintuitive, I suppose). Pondering whether VBR sounds better than CBR is right up there with saying one fake Sugar brand is better than the next; they're still NOT real sugar


 
  I don't understand 'keep the encoder consistent' but yeah your idea to keep as much data as possible is right. Since 320 CBR is the highest possible bitrate (higher than V0) you get the highest possible quality but also much bigger files, and: "but to date, no one has produced ABX test results demonstrating that perceived quality is ever better than the highest VBR profiles" (HA wiki).
   
  Quote: 





> Trust me, the only ones obsessing over things like ABX testing aren't typically the people responsible for delivering this content to the masses (tends to be really analytical audiophiles that love to argue more than just chilling out and listening to the tunes!)


 
  Sorry but I don't.
   
  Quote: 





> *"MP3 320 CBR doesn't filter out stuff above 16 kHz. As someone who masters audio you should know that."* - I mentioned the LAME encoder, other encoders might not do it, but I mentioned that LAME is one of *the* most popular encoders, so likely some commercial tracks that people download have everything past 16kHz filtered out. Versions prior to 3.99 didn't, but I see a lot of MP3 files with missing frequencies past 16kHz; it's not that uncommon.


 
  LAME also doesn't filter above 16 kHz with the highest settings. Not even with 192 CBR. If you get a LAME-encoded CBR file with everything above 16 kHz filtered out you got most likely a 128 kbit/s file - something I wouldn't even download for free.
   
  Quote: 





> On paper, this is the truth. In the real world, I'll tell you what I did one time. I grabbed my wife's favorite CD and made a 320kbps MP3 version of it and I popped it in the car stereo on our way to run errands. After about 10 minutes, she said "Something's wrong with this CD, it sounds like it's going bad or something." My wife completely hates anything to do with analyzing audio and is simply someone who loves music without having any affection to anything technical (my favorite kind of person).


 
  Nice story.
   
  Quote: 





> Once you start talking science, it's possible to start believing things because someone can present a very articulate reason to the cause; I don't care for written theories of how a person perceives sound.


 
  Yeah right, you start believing things for good reasons. Theories are not based on hot air but for example on listening tests.


----------



## bigshot

I've never seen a 24 bit MP3. I didn't even know such a thing was possible. Are the file sizes larger? I don't see how they could be with a defined kbps for the mp3 (256, 320 or whatever.) Can portable mp3 players handle 24 bit playback? I don't think AAC does that. I think iTunes downconverts 24 bit files to 16/44.1, then converts to AAC.

CBR uses the same number of bits to render dead silence as it does to render a complex orchestral string tone. VBR will only use as much as it needs to render the simple parts flawlessly, and it will give extra rendering quality to the complex parts. That means more efficient encoding because it's using the bandwidth efficiently. Sound quality isn't an issue with CBR or VBR. The only reason they offer you the option is in the early days, some primitive players couldn't play dynamically optimized bitrates. Everything can handle VBR now. There is absolutely no reason to use CBR any more. It isn't better quality, it's worse, because it's a file full of ballast.

By the way, I work in the business too, and I've done my own listening tests between 16 bit and 24 bit and uncompressed vs compressed. I found that at normal listening levels, there's no audible difference between 24 and 16, and AAC 256 VBR is audibly transparent to uncompressed. I'd encourage you to do the tests too. I didn't believe it until I did it myself either.


----------



## xnor

No there's nothing like a 24 bit MP3, but some encoders support 24-bit input. The output always is a 320 kbit/s (assuming 320 CBR) file. Afaik there's only one decoder (l3dec) that is accurate down to 24 bits assuming the input is a simple and very low-level signal (if it's masked by louder tones chances are low that the encoder will keep such low-level signals).
   
  Regarding CBR vs. VBR: I cannot speak for AAC, but LAME's -V 0 switch limits the bitrate to the range 220 to 260 kbit/s. Of course, lots of silence will result in a waste of space with CBR, no question about that. Also, MP3 CBR does employ a mechanism called bit reservoir that allows the encoder to encode transient sounds better. Unused bits in one frame can be used in the following frame.


----------



## bigshot

Xnor, if I understand you correctly, it's just converting on the fly, and the only difference between encoding your mp3s directly from 24 bit and downconverting first is the quality of the dither? Is that correct? Because if so, I can't imagine there being any audible difference at all, because a good dither is totally transparent.


----------



## xnor

Atm I don't have time to do extensive ABX tests but DiffMaker shows a difference in correlation depth of 2 dB (btw, the correlation depth doesn't even reach 96 dB) and a simple null test shows a difference of less than 0.5 dB (peak, rms is ~0.2 dB) between the two.
   
  I seriously doubt audible differences.


----------



## HiFi1972

Wow, for a bunch of proper engineers, some of you can be naaasty!! I was going to respond to some of the comments, but I'm suddenly not a credible source because I lack a proper degree 
   
  Oh well, I guess I'll just go and join the many other professionals who are working on audio who also lack proper degrees. Bye Scientists! Have "fun" in your research of fat-free, diet audio (had to use the quotes here too, ha!)


----------



## bigshot

No one questioned his qualifications that I saw. His profile says he's a sound tech. That's the guy who sets up the mixing stage for the sound mixer and runs the dubs afer the session. That's an audio engineer in my book.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> No offense, but everything you say in that paragraph is totally wrong, and I don't mean just your math.
> Not 10%, 10X. High bitrate lossy has audibly identical soundstage and "air" (which are functions of the transducers, not the file format), the dynamics are identical and the response curve on the bass is the same.


 
  No offense taken. I've always respected your opinion. When I re-read my post, I realized my math was in percentages of 100 and not 10's and I edited it before reading your post.
  The rest, I have to take a serious look at.
   
  A-


----------



## bigshot

It's not a direct A/B comparison, but it's easy to set up a quickie blind test in iTunes. Just rip the same CD three times... Once as Apple Lossless, once as a 320 MP3 and once as AAC 256. Put it on random shuffle and turn off your monitor. When each song is about to end, try to guess which file format it is and turn on the monitor, check the file type column and see if you're right. Good luck! Much harder than many people think.


----------



## wberghofer

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> […] Much harder than many people think.


 
   
  You know, we had a → very similar discussion a few weeks ago, and I’m aware that we share quite contrary opinions about the never-ending story “Lossless vs. lossy file formats”.
   
  My assertion has no “scientific” background, I can’t offer any statistical data and I don’t operate a perfectly calibrated sound lab suitable for ABX testing, but I certainly do know that after listening for approximately one hour to lossy compressed music my audio perception feels somehow exhausted or spent. However, even after some hours listening to* lossless* music, this condition has *not* occured.
   
  It does not matter if I use my KRK active monitors or my Beyerdynamic T1 headphones for listening. I can assure you that this is not caused by some placebo effect. I know that this effect also occurs in other people who are not interested in analytical comparisons of playback quality, but simply prefer to enjoy the music instead.
   
  Werner.


----------



## Clarkmc2

I am terrible at critical listening because I can't stay focused on the audio quality. Almost immediately I focus on the music and forget to pay attention to the sound quality.

It is not that I am adverse to experiment, but rather a function of how completely I love music. As I have explained, I can't multitask listening to music. I am not a natural at mixing the sacred and the profane, I suppose. I prefer to think of it as prioritizing my time on Earth.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





clarkmc2 said:


> I am terrible at critical listening because I can't stay focused on the audio quality. Almost immediately I focus on the music and forget to pay attention to the sound quality.
> It is not that I am adverse to experiment, but rather a function of how completely I love music. As I have explained, I can't multitask listening to music. I am not a natural at mixing the sacred and the profane, I suppose. I prefer to think of it as prioritizing my time on Earth.


 
   
  Agree.
  If the music is interesting, I don't mind youtube videos, as long as they are not terribly compressed.


----------



## bigshot

wberghofer said:


> I certainly do know that after listening for approximately one hour to lossy compressed music my audio perception feels somehow exhausted or spent. However, even after some hours listening to *lossless* music, this condition has *not* occured..




Classic expectation bias. I'm sure you listen to low resolution sound on television sets or car radios all the time without becoming exhausted. When you put on a DVD or bluray, there's a good chance you're listening o lossy audio without even knowing it. Cable TV uses compressed audio. It's all around you, not just in iTunes.

Sound quality isn't a magical thing that makes you happy or sad or energized or exhausted. Music can do that, but not just sound quality... Not unless there is a huge headache inducing response spike in an inaudible frequency, and lossy audio just doesn't have that.

It is very easy to find out what the difference is between lossy and lossness. Even if you're sloppy about setting up your test, it's still easy to discover that they are very very VERY close. The fact is, it's so close, the only way to know for sure is to set up a line level matched switchable A/B comparison... And even then, it's so close it's impossible to tell... Because there is no audible difference.

It's easy to tell that lossy sounds as good as lossless. Any fair comparison will show you that. It's a lot of work to tell for sure whether they're audibly identical or not. Most people don't want to spend the time. They just say, "I'll play it safe and just encode lossless, just in case." That's fair if you really don't care. But that doesn't change the outcome of the tests done by those who *have* taken the time to do the test.

I'm not being stubborn or insistent. I've done the test. I know. No one can convince me otherwise because I experienced it for myself. That isn't the case with thse who rely on "feelings" and "impressions". They don't know, they just feel the need to justify their decision to not care and play it safe. That's being stubborn and insistent.

There is a difference between lossy and lossless... file size. That's enough to create an expectation bias in people who worry about OCD stuff. Normal folks with human ears who take the time to find out, just *know*.


----------



## bigshot

clarkmc2 said:


> I am terrible at critical listening because I can't stay focused on the audio quality. Almost immediately I focus on the music and forget to pay attention to the sound quality.




If you have speakers and want to get the most out of them, you might want to hire someone to calibrate your response then. Because equalizing requires a LOT of very precise listening and analysis. Unfortunately, it isn't something that you can just let slide. It's the single most important thing you can do to achieve good sound.

But if average sound is fine, just buying a couple of inexpensive bookshelf speakers and using the bass and treble is fine. I wouldn't spend more than $700 on a stereo without equalizing though. It's a waste of money to buy good speakers and play them out of calibration.


----------



## wberghofer

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Classic expectation bias. […]


 
   
  Classic expectation bias cannot be the case when people are not aware about the audio source or the file type. Please stop telling me and others what we feel, I’ve been listening long enough to both lossy and lossless music, and I do know how I feel after a while.
   
  You also can’t compare the attention level paid to music playback or the soundtrack of TV and movies. When watching movies or TV, the moving image is the dominating part of the experience, but not the sound track.
   
  When reading your posts, I often get the impression that your main goal was that your audio library fits into 2 TB of storage. If you’re happy with your incredibly extensive audio library ripped to AAC 256 VBR, then so be it. I’m happy when listening to my selected library in ALAC format, and fitting its size to a given storage size was not my primary goal; it was quality instead.
   
   Quote: 





bigshot said:


> […] I know. No one can convince me otherwise because I experienced it for myself […]





   

  That’s wonderful self-explanatory, isn’t it?
   
  Werner.


----------



## c61746961

It's not that we don't trust you, it's just that you do.


----------



## El_Doug

Expectation bias is by far the most likely case, unless you are purposely randomly choosing to play from two identical playlists, one lossless one lossy, and only check which playlist you are listening to once you begin to feel fatigue or not. 
   
  So many people take offense at the very idea that their perceptions are not reflective of 100% truth, despite the fact that EVERYONE is susceptible to these psychological phenomenon.  It is not a deficiency in the person, it is a result of millions of years of primate brain evolution. 
   
  Quote: 





wberghofer said:


> Classic expectation bias cannot be the case when people are not aware about the audio source or the file type. Please stop telling me and others what we feel, I’ve been listening long enough to both lossy and lossless music, and I do know how I feel after a while.
> 
> You also can’t compare the attention level paid to music playback or the soundtrack of TV and movies. When watching movies or TV, the moving image is the dominating part of the experience, but not the sound track.
> 
> ...


----------



## streetdragon

my friend with a srh940 claims he can differenciate FLAC and 320mp3, but when he passed his headphones to me i couldnt differenciate.
 when i went home i tried it with my hd558 and i found out that i only could differenciate it about 30% of the time, 70% i was uncertain, even then i couldnt pin point out a single part of the music that was different, i could only feel the slight extra subtleness, but then again i might be wrong...


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Regarding CBR vs. VBR: I cannot speak for AAC, but* LAME's -V 0 switch limits the bitrate to the range 220 to 260 kbit/s.*


 
   
  This is incorrect. If the music is sufficiently complex, the bitrate can go right up to 320kbps.....it just won't stay up that high unless needed.


----------



## Clarkmc2

bigshot said:


> If you have speakers and want to get the most out of them, you might want to hire someone to calibrate your response then. Because equalizing requires a LOT of very precise listening and analysis. Unfortunately, it isn't something that you can just let slide. It's the single most important thing you can do to achieve good sound.
> But if average sound is fine, just buying a couple of inexpensive bookshelf speakers and using the bass and treble is fine. I wouldn't spend more than $700 on a stereo without equalizing though. It's a waste of money to buy good speakers and play them out of calibration.




I've done it, but I would not look forward to doing it the next time I have to. It was a neccesity twice with the JBL 4345 four ways. Before and after modifications (biamping and rebuilding the crossover). One does not simply drop JBL studio monitors into a home and wing it. I had to draw the line at sofit mounting. They were designed to sound best that way, but they are the size and weight of refrigerators.

My full range augmented speakers needed nothing, thank goodness. In both cases, I do not have to move them around and the room changes very little. So when dialed in they tend to stay that way.


----------



## bigshot

wberghofer said:


> When reading your posts, I often get the impression that your main goal was that your audio library fits into 2 TB of storage.




It's much more convenient to have all of one's music on one drive. Easier to back up, easier to shuffle, easier to keep organized, easier to switch between libraries.

Wheni it comes to expectation bias, if you knew it was expectation bias, it wouldn't be expectation bias, would it? Based on your comments, it's pretty clear you're knee deep in it. Nothing wrong with that. We're only human. We don't think ill of you because of it. Don't worry.


----------



## bigshot

clarkmc2 said:


> I've done it, but I would not look forward to doing it the next time I have to.




I just finised the process (I think), and it was some of the most complex and precise listening I've ever had to do. I bought my new amp months ago and I've been working on it ever since. I screened a movie for some friends this weekend and played some music and they all commented on it. It's pretty good when you're showing a hidef film projected on a ten foot screen and they comment on the sound and not the picture!


----------



## bigshot

achmedisdead said:


> This is incorrect. If the music is sufficiently complex, the bitrate can go right up to 320kbps.....it just won't stay up that high unless needed.




That was my impression, but I wasn't sure of it. With my AAC 256 files, it allows the rate to drop to whatever is necessary and uses the bandwidth it saves to boost it up to 320 if it's needed. With 320 files, VBR is still a good idea because it optimizes the bitrate to avoid filling the file with needless bits. There really is no reason to use CBR at all.


----------



## wberghofer

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> […] expectation bias […] it's pretty clear you're knee deep in it.


 
   
  Do you ever actually read what the other person wrote before you click the “Quote” button?
   
  Friends and relatives who are not interested at all in “analytical listening” but prefer to simply enjoy the music instead, made statements like “This just doesn’t feel right” or “Something’s missing” when they heard AAC 256 files in my home. The point is that these people were not aware of the music source or the file format they were listening to. Never heard such a statement the moment lossless music was being played to them.
   
  Werner.


----------



## bigshot

I'm sorry, but when you say something that's clearly made up, I ignore it out of politeness. I've heard the "even my wife can tell on our car radio" stories before. They're obviously either totally made up or there is something terribly wrong with the car stereo. The reply i'm expecting next is "It's true! My wife did say that! And my car stereo sounds perfect!" which I'll probably let go by too. It's an entertaining anecdote, even if it isn't credible.

The difference between lossy and lossless isn't anywere close to being that great. When someone brings something like that up, their credibility with me plummets. People who can't even come within a country mile of accurately relating the relative differences and similarties between two things aren't the best judges of a difference that is difficult to discern at all under the best circumstances.

Like I said, normally I would just let it go, but you asked. Sorry.


----------



## Clarkmc2

bigshot said:


> I just finised the process (I think), and it was some of the most complex and precise listening I've ever had to do. I bought my new amp months ago and I've been working on it ever since. I screened a movie for some friends this weekend and played some music and they all commented on it. It's pretty good when you're showing a hidef film projected on a ten foot screen and they comment on the sound and not the picture!



There is no way to balance the output of four drivers in one speaker without measurement. Fortunately a friend in Australia, the one who rebuilt the crossovers for me, worked out a method using a Radio Shack meter that is much more accurate than professional room measurement for the purpose. Only relative measurements are needed, so equipment calibration is not necessary. There are published corrections for the frequency response of the meter.


----------



## Clarkmc2

Double post


----------



## bigshot

Yeah, I know. I've been rough tuning the response curve by ear. An engineer friend is going to come and work out the bumps using sine wave sweeps when he gets time. I'm interested to see how close I get.


----------



## XxDobermanxX

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> Here's an analogy that I came up with while reading this thread:
> 
> When my wife is agitating me, or a person who feels a need to tell me how I can be a better driver like him, I'd rather hear it in 128kbps instead of FLAC. I still hear them,
> but there's no reason to hear them in hi-def audio.
> ...


 
  Well said


----------



## XxDobermanxX

What i like with flac is you can convert it from flac to flac and make it louder if you wish (via foobar) (replay gain), but for mp3 you cant (so very low  volume lossy files stay low)


----------



## JohnSantana

Quote: 





elysian said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
> 
> FLAC = Lossless
> MP3 = Lossy
> ...


 
  What about ALAC or APE audio ?
  are they any better than the 320 KBps MP3 ?


----------



## JohnSantana

Quote: 





achmedisdead said:


> This is incorrect. If the music is sufficiently complex, the bitrate can go right up to 320kbps.....it just won't stay up that high unless needed.


 
  So does this means is that VBR is best of both worlds because with VBR bit rate, it can actually adapt to the musics as needed thus saving some disk space more than CBR 320 KBps ?


----------



## c61746961

johnsantana said:


> What about ALAC or APE audio ?
> are they any better than the 320 KBps MP3 ?



They are both lossless formats.



johnsantana said:


> So does this means is that VBR is best of both worlds because with VBR bit rate, it can actually adapt to the musics as needed thus saving some disk space more than CBR 320 KBps ?



Pretty much, yes.


----------



## JohnSantana

Cool, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Iamnothim

Opinion from the New Guy..
FLAC v 320 Mp3

Ordinary headgear, probably not
Great headgear, probably
A mid-top end home system, absolutely. 

It's the same as the photography argument of RAW files vs jpeg files
More data, better picture.   Others will say jpeg is fine, no difference.

Digital music, more data better sound.
Caveat.... Professionally engineered flac files from a studio.  As purchased on HD Tracks.

A previous post noted sustain on string instruments.  Correct.  The guitar pick, the singers breath, clearer percussion.   The definition of the sound staging is amazing.  
Sound staging can be difficult to discern with headphones.

I like rock and blues.  Old recordings of Buddy Guy & Jr. Wells are 16 bit / 44.1 kHz
They sound amazing.   There's a reason these files are 70Gb.  The 192 k/Hz files are 130 Gb

Like a $10 Cabernet (10Gb Mp3) vs a $130 Cabernet (130Gb FLAC / AIFF)
There are people that can tell the difference.   Are there some great tasting $10 Cab's?  Yes, but not often.

I get them from HD Tracks, put them on a dedicated Mac Mini running Sonic Studio Amarra with iTunes.
I go out the Mac USB to a Cambridge Audio DAC Magic plus. The DAC Magic clocks the Mac at 192kHz. Amarra switches rates on-the-fly.   44.1/88.2/96/192

The DAC Magic is connected to an Anthem DVM20 preamp via balanced analog XLR  ports.  An Anthem 6 ch amp powers Theil CS 1.5 speakers.

Finding FLAC was like a rebirth of my system.

Btw: Amarra does a great job with the Mp3 files.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





iamnothim said:


> There are people that can tell the difference.


 
  Their sighted "abilities" usually go away in an ABX test.
   
  Otherwise, why are these people hiding when there are public listening tests?


----------



## Iamnothim

Big mistake in my post.... make that MB rather than GB.  Dufus attack.
   
  "XNOR" 
  Not sure about Public Listening tests.  I couldn't find one in google, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
  The entire topic is subjective, that's what makes the discussion fun.   I simply posted my experiences, reasons, and beliefs.
   
  As you know it's all about the source.  My FLAC music is made from original master tapes with the goal of sounding exactly what was picked up in the recording session by the tape machines.  Mostly old music.   HD Tracks usually has a write up for a given album on the the process that was used to create the FLAC file.  In some cases the engineers try to find the same make/model of the equipment used to make the original.
   
  It's not made from another file and it's not made from a CD.  Again, IMO, these recordings sound better than a CD..... To me.  Perhaps psychosomatic.  
  That said, I'm not in love with every album.  Creedence Clearwater Chronicle 20 sounded only a bit better... on some cuts.  Same case with Beach Boys Pet Sounds.  The chimes are crystal clear with resonance but I expected more with a 192kHz recording of the #2 Rolling Stones top 500 album.  Like Creedence the album didn't have the dimensional sound staging as other FLAC's I've purchased.
   
  R.E.M. Automatic for the People...epic.
  Elton Madman Across the Water....epic
  Cat Stevens Tea for the Tillerman.... epic
  Buddy Guy & Jr. Wells, Alone & Acoustic 1991..... epic
  Buddy Guy & Jr. Wells, Drinkn' TNT N' Smokin' Dynamite 1982 ... amazing
  Hound Dog Taylor & the Houserockers,  Beware of the Dog 1976 ...... immense amount of fun.
   
  This is the music I play and I play it on very nice gear.
   
  Since the FLAC files are only on my dedicated Mac Mini in my equipment closet it's hard for me to comfortably test it with head gear.
  I have not done this, as I'll either need to stand there, use a very long cord, or get WiFi phones.
   
  Is it like being a wine snob, or some other over-the-top passion? Maybe.
   
  btw.  If you like metal,  Give Hound Dog a spin you might be surprised.  Be sure to turn it up.
   
   
  cheers


----------



## Brooko

@Iamnothim
   
  The real question is if you can distinguish flac from mp3-320 in a blind test.  So take your highest resolution, best known track.  Rip it to flac, and using same track (same master) rip to 320-mp3 (or 256aac - both are same transparency).  You can then use your high resolution source / speakers / normal chain - as long as you feed it from an application that can double-blind (Foobar2000).  Make sure both tracks are volume matched (Foobar has a tool to do that too).  Run the ABX - aim for at least 15-20 iterations.  Post the log.
   
  You might be surprised under true blind testing that those differences you perceive suddenly disappear.  The brain is a wonderful and powerful thing ......


----------



## streetdragon

Quote: 





brooko said:


> @Iamnothim
> 
> The real question is if you can distinguish flac from mp3-320 in a blind test.  So take your highest resolution, best known track.  Rip it to flac, and using same track (same master) rip to 320-mp3 (or 256aac - both are same transparency).  You can then use your high resolution source / speakers / normal chain - as long as you feed it from an application that can double-blind (Foobar2000).  Make sure both tracks are volume matched (Foobar has a tool to do that too).  Run the ABX - aim for at least 15-20 iterations.  Post the log.
> 
> You might be surprised under true blind testing that those differences you perceive suddenly disappear.  The brain is a wonderful and powerful thing ......


 
  128 vs 320 is not too hard, flac vs 320 i will admit i failed. i actually thought the FLAC one sounded harsher, i was wrong


----------



## Iamnothim

Ok, I believe you.
 I'm probably confused on a couple of points.
  
 Here's my comparison:
 FLAC files from HD Tracks.  Then Amarra software converts them to AIFF
 Compared to
 iTunes music  Apple MPEG-4 audio
 or
 a CD burned into iTunes with files showing up as an AIFF file at about half the size.
  
 Picking the FLAC from an iTunes download is a slam dunk.
 Comparing to a ripped CD…  that's hard, on many tracks.   The sound staging depth "seems" richer on the HD Tracks file.  As you said, it's hard to level the playing field.
  
 It dawned on me that I am ignorant / uneducated about 320 Mp3 vs 128 Mp3.
 Where do these files (320) come from?  Can't be iTunes.
  
 My FLAC is all purchased not ripped from some source I might have.
 For a comparison would I take the AIFF that was created from the HD Tracks FLAC file and duplicate it in a 320 Mp3 format then use your application for the ABX?   The HD Tracks is the best stuff I've heard.  Do I use that?
  
 At the moment I'm listening to a 24 / 96kHz flac recording of The Doors LA Woman for the first time.  OMG


----------



## bigshot

You're making it very complicated for yourself thinking about all that stuff at once. It's easier to think of it as a line across which sound can't get any better because it's audibly identical to the master. You can make a bigger file out of it, but it doesn't sound any better.

In general that line is around 320 MP3 or 256 AAC.


----------



## Iamnothim

I will simplify .
Any song I have purchased from HD Tracks sounds better than any song I have purchased from iTunes and many CD's

That's all I'm saying.

If iTunes is 320 than I have dog grade hearing.


----------



## Brooko

@Iamnothim
   
  To make a side by side actual comparison - you need to use exactly the same track (same mastering source).
   
  So you take your HD Tracks download, and transcode it to whatever format you want to compare - that way you are using the same mastering source (just different format container).  Next you must make sure the comparison is completely blind (abx) - which is why we suggest using Foobar's abx comparator.  Finally the output must be level matched to ensure they are same volume.  Louder volume is often perceived as better quality.
   
  If you compare this with your opening post - you were suggesting that you could absolutely tell the difference on your mid/high tier system between 320mp3/flac and you mentioned CD as well.  In fact, you were probably listening to:
   - different masterings
   - at different volumes
   - and the test was sighted
   
  You can probably see why you can't make your initial statement.  Of course you can tell the difference if effectively you are listening to two completely different tracks ......


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





iamnothim said:


> I will simplify .
> Any song I have purchased from HD Tracks sounds better than any song I have purchased from iTunes and many CD's


 
   
  Those are two different masters. Take the HD Tracks song, knock it down to 16 bit/44.1 then to 320 MP3 and you won't be able to hear any difference.


----------



## xnor

The biggest crime in the industry, besides borderline fraudulent marketing (I'm thinking expensive cables): selling different masters as more expensive "high-res" tracks and use crappy mastering for CDs.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





xnor said:


> The biggest crime in the industry, besides borderline fraudulent marketing (I'm thinking expensive cables): selling different masters as more expensive "high-res" tracks and use crappy mastering for CDs.


 

 Its all crap, now in high resolution!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
  However, we also need to see that times have changed. Listeners no longer listen to the whole album, its usually one or two songs, so I guess the music industry has to come up with new ways to revitalize the business.


----------



## Iamnothim

I misspoke.
  I've compared them (flac) to iTunes Mp3 and ripped CD's.
   
  I asked does iTunes deliver 320 Mp3's ?
  Aren't they 256 AAC ?
  If not, I don't believe I have any 320 Mp3 to compare.
   
  And yes, I have not performed any specific controlled tests, other than some iTunes tracks that are duplicates of my HD tracks.
  Very ad hoc.
   
  Hey, I'm just a rube engaging in a bit of banter.  I'm pseudo technical and I'm an easy sell.
  Right now it's very easy for me to purchase from HD Tracks.  I import the files, convert them and listen through via iTunes / Apple Remote / RedEye Pro.
   Again, I'm confused, where do I purchase 320 Mp3's  Legit music ?
   
  Is there an option on the iTunes store?
  Do I convert my iTunes files?
   
  What is the upside?
  The prices on HD Tracks don't bother me......  Yes, I'm an idiot that paid more for 192kHz.  (no more)  Logic told me that was the case.
  The 16/44.1 or 24/92 are fine at $18 per album.  My biggest concern is that I'll run out of music I like in their catalog.
   
  Then 320 Mp3 sounds like the ticket.  To be redundant, where do I purchase the music?
  Perhaps you've answered me and it went right past me.
   
  So, to peak my curiosity I will acquire foobar2000 for the file conversion and ABX


----------



## bigshot

ITunes has always delivered AAC files, not MP3. AAC is a better codec than MP3. AAC 256 is equivalent to 320 LAME MP3. Both of those settings sound as good as any other format. Sound quality isn't an issue of file format after a certain point.


----------



## Iamnothim

I will let ya'll have the last word.


----------



## c61746961

Always focus on getting the best masters available, mp3 or otherwise, if you have a trusted source for decently mastered music, then by all means go for it.


----------



## rn3037

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> ITunes has always delivered AAC files, not MP3. AAC is a better codec than MP3. AAC 256 is equivalent to 320 LAME MP3. Both of those settings sound as good as any other format. Sound quality isn't an issue of file format after a certain point.


 

 Is the difference in SQ of the source much more apparent when using FLAC vs. MP3's at 256 or 320?  Like iPod touch 3G/4G vs. J3 vs. classic 5.5 etc....


----------



## bigshot

No.


----------



## tremolo

Thanks for this thread. I like flamenco music and usually buy the CDs from Spain, and they cost a bundle. Now many of the albums are being made available directly from iTunes. I have been hesitant to buy from iTunes since I only have lossless files. I have now compared the preview tracks on iTunes to the CDs that I have, and I just cannot tell a difference.


----------



## Iamnothim

I've asked this before and haven't received an answer...
   
  Where/How do I acquire 320 Mp3 music?
  I have not found anything online except obscure artists.
   
  Is it strictly ripping CD's to files?
  Foobar?  I use Macs
   
  iTunes now has mastered for iTunes but that's still 256k.


----------



## bigshot

256 AAC VBR, like the files at iTunes have the same sound quality as 320 LAME MP3. The AAC codec is more advanced, being mp4 instead of mp3. Amazon uses 256 LAME MP3, which isn't quite as good as iTunes, but it's up in the range where it really doesn't make a difference.

The quality of mastering is MUCH more important than the quality of the format. In some cases, an original release on CD sounds better than a remastered one in the iTunes store, and in other cases a remastered MP3 at Amazon can sound better than an original release CD. In most cases, it's all the same. The only way to find out which is which is toread reviews by people who have directly compared the various remasterings.

Personally, I buy CDs and rip them myself to AAC 256 VBR. I did extensive comparison tests and couldn't detect any difference between that setting and the CD I was ripping. People worry too much about lossy/lossless and various settings. Just find the dividing line where it doesn't matter any more and stay on the right side of it.


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> 256 AAC VBR, like the files at iTunes have the same sound quality as 320 LAME MP3. The AAC codec is more advanced, being mp4 instead of mp3. Amazon uses 256 LAME MP3, which isn't quite as good as iTunes, but it's up in the range where it really doesn't make a difference.
> The quality of mastering is MUCH more important than the quality of the format. In some cases, an original release on CD sounds better than a remastered one in the iTunes store, and in other cases a remastered MP3 at Amazon can sound better than an original release CD. In most cases, it's all the same. The only way to find out which is which is toread reviews by people who have directly compared the various remasterings.
> Personally, I buy CDs and rip them myself to AAC 256 VBR. I did extensive comparison tests and couldn't detect any difference between that setting and the CD I was ripping. People worry too much about lossy/lossless and various settings. Just find the dividing line where it doesn't matter any more and stay on the right side of it.


 
  Thank you.


----------



## Iamnothim

Wait.
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The quality of mastering is MUCH more important than the quality of the format. In some cases, an original release on CD sounds better than a remastered one in the iTunes store, and in other cases a remastered MP3 at Amazon can sound better than an original release CD. In most cases, it's all the same. The only way to find out which is which is toread reviews by people who have directly compared the various remasterings.


 
   
  So it's entirely possible that an HD Tracks recording, (in a format that shall not be spoken), could sound better than a CD recording, a remastered CD recording, an iTunes recording, a remastered iTunes recording, or remastered Amazon recording. Where "sounds better" is the same thing as "tell the difference" ?
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Those are two different masters. Take the HD Tracks song, knock it down to 16 bit/44.1 then to 320 MP3 and you won't be able to hear any difference.


 
   
  This really has me confused..... I'm supposed to take an 88kHz/24bit recording (Stones Let it Bleed), in a format that shall not be spoken, and use a process to "knock it down" to 44kHz/16bit, then use another process to convert to 320 MP3. Then I won't be able to hear a difference?  Why not take a 44kHz/16bit and knock it up to 88kHz/24bit and then compare?


----------



## Iamnothim

I should add, conversely, that all the formats mentioned in this thread can sound better than the format that shall not be spoken or any other format.  It all depends upon the engineer and the techniques he/she uses to master / remaster the music.
   
  Since I can't find and 320 MP3 online, I must deduce that the file format debate is only about a choice to import CD's.  Which is fine, choose the one you like "best".
   
  To summarize:
  Big Shot hit it one the head, this is a thread with 207... no 208 posts that mean nothing.
   
  The only reason anyone posts on this forum is to talk about what they hear and the subjective differences.
  Why should The format that shall not be spoke vs. 320 Mp3 be any different.
   
  Can you hear the difference?


----------



## bigshot

iamnothim said:


> So it's entirely possible that an HD Tracks recording, could sound better than a CD recording, a remastered CD recording, an iTunes recording, a remastered iTunes recording, or remastered Amazon recording.




Yes. But the reason it would sound better would have less to do with the file format than it would the quality of the mastering done for that particular release.



iamnothim said:


> I'm supposed to take an 88kHz/24bit recording (Stones Let it Bleed), in a format that shall not be spoken, and use a process to "knock it down" to 44kHz/16bit, then use another process to convert to 320 MP3. Then I won't be able to hear a difference?  Why not take a 44kHz/16bit and knock it up to 88kHz/24bit and then compare?




Either way, the result will sound the same as the original.

The people who take the time to do a controlled, line level matched direct A/B comparison of file formats (which I've done) overwhelmingly find that high bitrate lossy sounds just as good as any lossless format, even high bitrate lossless. The people who swear they hear a difference are generally those who have just done informal listening and have the impression that lossless sounds better. This impression disappears when they do a controlled test for themselves.


----------



## Brooko

@Iamnothim
   
  What's with all the "The format that shall not be spoke"?  It's called FLAC.  Many of us still use it for archiving.  I use it on my home system.  One of the main reasons those of us do use it - is simply because it is lossless.  If there are advances in the future (of codecs / formats etc) it makes more sense to transcode from a lossless master than a lossy one.
   
  However for normal day to day listening on my portable, I'm totally with BigShot.  I've tested my self, and to me aac256 is transparent.  So for my portable listening, I transcode to aac256 and am completely happy (no space issues).


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The people who take the time to do a controlled, line level matched direct A/B comparison of file formats (which I've done) overwhelmingly find that high bitrate lossy sounds just as good as any lossless format, even high bitrate lossless. The people who swear they hear a difference are generally those who have just done informal listening and have the impression that lossless sounds better. This impression disappears when they do a controlled test for themselves.


 
   
  I see that you have 9,360 posts and that you are in Hollywood. So it's entirely possibly that you have been close to audio for a very long time and I give deference to you.  I am quite certain you know more about audio technology than I.  Formats, sources, mastering, algorithms... 
   
  However, ....It's still your ears and "peoples" ears... A/B Xing music and expressing an "opinion". That's as subjective as it gets.
  Steak vs chops. Coke v Pepsi. Ride quality of a Lexus. Sennheiser HD650 vs. HiFiman HE 500
  The whole discussion is 70 parts subjectivity and 30 parts serendipity. Has anything authoritative been published?  It's subjectivity, not science?
   
  My opinion, I believe I can hear a difference, and if I wasn't absolutly blown away by HD Tracks I wouldn't pay more, wait for 100Mb files to download, transfer music file to my server import them using Amarra, use an outboard DAC and connect it to a tube amp.
   
  I also  believe I can see the difference between a print from a 500K jpeg image and one from 12MB RAW file. Why? There's more to see. That's why books are printed Hi-Res. Web site images are edited HiRes and converted to Low-Res for speed and portability. Quality vs Practicality. Still, it's subjective. Eyes to brain... Ear to brain.
   
  You brought up a good point with adjusted line levels. I noticed a significant difference in the volume between albums on HD Tracks. Jr.Wells might be soft and Cat Stevens loud. That makes sense to me. Different engineers, different setup, different source levels. Yet for me iTunes recordings almost never require volume adjustments between albums.. why not iTunes?  Is this my imagination?  Could be.
   
  Perhaps iTunes music has been sanitized for my protection. Is Apple pouring Welches grape juice into a Bordeaux and selling it in little boxes?  Still a subjective statement.
   
  A big By The Way. Straight from HD Tracks web site FAQ:
  320kbps MP3's are compatible with most players on the market, including iTunes, Windows Media Player, Winamp, Media Monkey, and Songbird. We recommend that you use this format if you are not sure what to choose, or you do not have a lot of space on your hard drive. 320kbps MP3's are compatible with most players on the market, including iTunes, Windows Media Player, Winamp, Media Monkey, and Songbird. We recommend that you use this format if you are not sure what to choose, or you do not have a lot of space on your hard drive.


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





brooko said:


> @Iamnothim
> 
> What's with all the "The format that shall not be spoke"?  It's called FLAC.  Many of us still use it for archiving.  I use it on my home system.  One of the main reasons those of us do use it - is simply because it is lossless.  If there are advances in the future (of codecs / formats etc) it makes more sense to transcode from a lossless master than a lossy one.
> 
> However for normal day to day listening on my portable, I'm totally with BigShot.  I've tested my self, and to me aac256 is transparent.  So for my portable listening, I transcode to aac256 and am completely happy (no space issues).


 
  I just had the impression that flac was a dirty word and that anyone that used it didn't know what they were doing.
   
  256... portable, make perfect sense.


----------



## Brooko

I just read your reply to BigShot.  I still think you may be missing one small piece of info when you compare.
   
  We are saying that you won't be able to tell the difference if using the same mastered source - then transcoded to either FLAC (lossless) or aac256 (lossy).
   
  So far you have been comparing HDTracks Flac with iTunes 256aac.  Chances are that they are completely different mastering.  There is your audible difference.  The two tracks aren't the same.
   
  So take your 24/96 HD Tracks file, and transcode that exact same file to 256aac - and compare the two .....


----------



## Iamnothim

But why?
  Where's the value?
  What practice should I follow?
   
  I think it's when ripping a CD to my library I should choose Mp3.
  No debate there.  In fact as a result of this thread I made sure how to do configure iTunes.  But I haven't been buying CD's....
  Should I re-rip?  I haven't done this yet.
   
  As I said no new CD's until now...  HD Tracks has a limited selection.
  Friday I get my cans.  As a starter kit I ended up with Lyr, Bifrost, HD650 and a handful of old Amprex ECC88's
  I'll be buying CD's again.
   
  HD Tracks I purchase and download flac then  Amarra to convert the flac to aiff so iTunes can manage it.
   
   
  I can't wait for Friday.


----------



## bigshot

The reason to do controlled comparisons is so you know what matters and what doesn't.

This is a general observation, but... It's been my experience that some people go about getting great sound with the "more is better" theory. They assume that bigger file sizes and fancy numbers on a spec sheet and high price tags will guarantee them good sound. I haven't found that to be the case at all.

I find that understanding how stuff works, identifying and addressing specific problems, not sweating stuff you can't hear and focusing on what matters gets you a lot further than blindly trusting numbers.

The two most important parts of the chain are the beginning and the end. How well music is recorded in the first place matters a lot. At the other end, the headphones or speakers you use to create the sound make a huge difference. Inbetween those two is fairly straightforward if you understand how it works.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





iamnothim said:


> But why?
> Where's the value?


 
  Peace of mind, really.
   
  Sure you might not notice a difference, with the way MP3 works I most certainly wont because if I understand it correctly it shaves off frequencies that I can't hear. But it's nice to know there's definitely not anything missing.
   
  Also makes it safe for burning and re-ripping without losing valuable data while the files remain the same size. According to bigshot he's re-encoded an AAC file several times and it was fine, but I'm not sure if this would be the case for MP3.


----------



## Iamnothim

Since it's all about the beginning of the chain I submit the following documentation of The Stones "Let it Bleed" recordings on HD Tracks
   
*Many years of research went into locating the original mono and stereo analog tapes that would be used in ABKCO's Rolling Stones Remastered Series. That research revealed a treasure trove of first generation tapes - true stereo masters from The Stones' 1964 Chess Studios sessions including the unedited version of "2120 South Michigan Avenue," Beggar's Banquet at its correct speed and Let It Bleed with splicing that indicates that the original intention was to leave little spacing between each cut.

 For the analog to digital transfers, vintage reel-to-reel tape machines were utilized - a modified Ampex 351 with original tube electronics (full track mono and two track stereo) and an Ampex ATR-102 modified with Aria Discrete Class-A Electronics (full track mono and two track stereo). A Sonoma DSD digital audio workstation was the chosen high resolution format and Meitner Design ADC8 and DAC8 MKlV converters were used for the conversion process. Cables used were the cryogenically frozen type supplied to us by Gus Skinas of Super Audio Center. Gus also provided much guidance to Jody Klein, Steve Rosenthal and myself for our first time use of DSD technology. For this HD Tracks release, the Bob Ludwig mastered DSD files were converted to both 176.4kHz and 88.2kHz high resolution PCM with Weiss Saracon conversion software."*
   
*This is diligent attention to detail.*
*This is what I am paying for.*
*This speaks to your post on source quality making a difference in sound.*
   
*I am not seeing this information on iTunes.*


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Peace of mind, really.
> 
> Sure you might not notice a difference, with the way MP3 works I most certainly works because if I understand it correctly it shaves off frequencies that I can't hear. But it's nice to know there's definitely not anything missing.
> 
> Also makes it safe for burning and re-ripping without losing valuable data while the files remain the same size. According to bigshot he's re-encoded an AAC file several times and it was fine, but I'm not sure if this would be the case for MP3.


 
  Precisely.
  I'm with you.
  Nice to know nothing is missing. 
   
  Why do I need to re-encode?  I've got every bit the ADC picked up from the master.  Painstaking detail was taken to feed the ADC with clean information.  Tell me what sonic improvement are made by having a compression algorithm process it?  What's the upside? It doesn't cost more to ADC to flac rather than to 256 ACC.  
   
  Answer: I suspect the masses do not care.  They're not reading Head-Fi posts.  Hence, give them small portable files.
   
  There will be a curve of human hearing ability, probably bell shaped.  Why ignore the right half of the curve?
   
  The data is valuable indeed.


----------



## chewy4

iamnothim said:


> Precisely.
> I'm with you.
> Nice to know nothing is missing.
> 
> ...


 
  You generally wouldn't re-encode. But if you're burning a CD as a medium to bring the songs elsewhere to rip them there, you are then compressing a 320kbps song as if it was lossless. So you're losing more data than if the CD was burned lossless in the first place. This can generally be avoided though, as there are better ways to transport your songs But I've had to burn and re-rip some stuff before to get rid of DRM. 
   
  AAC works differently from MP3 though I believe. It doesn't shave off frequencies, but it can result in artifacts.


----------



## PinoyPogiman

you can hear quite a difference in sound, and it can be quite appealing actually.
   
  comparing differences with Crappy bootleg Lossy Youtube Video>to>Audio Download vs CD Ripped 320kbps music.
   
  and with a decent pair of headphones (grado sr80i)
   
  you can quite clearly hear a difference in sound.
  in this case listening to a few Daft Punk songs and other CD rips from my collection.
   
  i can hear the Decay to be present, more open sound, etc.


----------



## bigshot

iamnothim said:


> Since it's all about the beginning of the chain I submit the following documentation of The Stones "Let it Bleed" recordings on HD Tracks




That is referring to the remasters that were released on SACD. Those were a mixed bag. Some were very good, but with others they went back to the multitrack masters and completely renixed. I grew up with the song "Street Fighting Man". I can't tell you how many times I've heard it over the years. The sound of the narrow band EQ on Jaggers' vocals, the wire reverbs, the balances of the instruments are ingrained in me. The remaster of that particular song sounds cleaner to be sure, but it doesn't have the raw guts of the original mix. It sounds more like a tired modern re-record. It isn't the same song.

The best thing about the Beatles remasters is that with the exception of Rubber Soul and Let It Be, they didn't attempt to remix. They just cleaned up the mixes approved and finalized on original release. The Stones and especially Led Zeppelin haven't been so lucky.

Like I said... The head end matters. Mastering is the big difference, not format.


----------



## bigshot

chewy4 said:


> AAC works differently from MP3 though I believe. It doesn't shave off frequencies, but it can result in artifacts.




At higher bitrates, neither format shaves frequencies. It's all about artifacts. At a certain point, there's enough bitrate to render the file cleanly and the sound becomes transparent- no artifacts. You just have to find that point.


----------



## bigshot

iamnothim said:


> There will be a curve of human hearing ability, probably bell shaped.  Why ignore the right half of the curve?




Audibly transparent is audibly transparent. It isn't a matter of some people not being able to hear. It's about presenting sound as human beings hear it.


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> That is referring to the remasters that were released on SACD. Those were a mixed bag. Some were very good, but with others they went back to the multitrack masters and completely renixed. I grew up with the song "Street Fighting Man". I can't tell you how many times I've heard it over the years. The sound of the narrow band EQ on Jaggers' vocals, the wire reverbs, the balances of the instruments are ingrained in me. The remaster of that particular song sounds cleaner to be sure, but it doesn't have the raw guts of the original mix. It sounds more like a tired modern re-record. It isn't the same song.
> The best thing about the Beatles remasters is that with the exception of Rubber Soul and Let It Be, they didn't attempt to remix. They just cleaned up the mixes approved and finalized on original release. The Stones and especially Led Zeppelin haven't been so lucky.
> Like I said... The head end matters. Mastering is the big difference, not format.


 
  Amen.
  I have some HD Tracks that I'm not in love with and what you're saying makes sense.  A bad bottle of wine.  I love Let it Bleed (Obviously)  but Pet Sounds, not so much.
  I love the guttural characteristics of old Hound Dog Taylor, Howlin' Wolf, and Buddy Guy.  Raw, climbing out of the speakers.  I've never heard that before.
   
  The Beatles are a perfect example of what I can't buy on HD Tracks.  I'm going to re-rip CD to MP3.  As an aficionado, what is your opinion of Beatles ONE?


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Audibly transparent is audibly transparent. It isn't a matter of some people not being able to hear. It's about presenting sound as human beings hear it.


 
  You are an amazing wordsmith.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





iamnothim said:


> Why do I need to re-encode?  I've got every bit the ADC picked up from the master.  Painstaking detail was taken to feed the ADC with clean information.  Tell me what sonic improvement are made by having a compression algorithm process it?  What's the upside? It doesn't cost more to ADC to flac rather than to 256 ACC.


 
   
  I think you need to go back to your original post - where you said you could tell the difference between 24-96 flac and lossy.  What we've established since is that you were likely comparing different masters.
   
  As to why you should re-encode ...... you shouldn't unless it's for portable use.  The great thing about re-encoding if you are putting music on a portable device is that once you've discovered your own limits, you then no longer have to make a painstaking choice between lossless (at huge size) and lossy.  If you can't tell the difference - then go comfortably with the smaller size.
   
  For the record, I still buy tracks from HDTracks (among other sites).  As long as the price is right, and the master is acceptable to me, then I regard them as a great source.  For home listening, I listen to the original flac (in whatever resolution I purchased at).  I never buy greater than 24/96 though, and for my iPhone - I always re-encode at 256aac.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





iamnothim said:


> The Beatles are a perfect example of what I can't buy on HD Tracks.  I'm going to re-rip CD to MP3.  As an aficionado, what is your opinion of Beatles ONE?


 
   
  The thing about the Beatles catalog is that they always started with the original session mixdowns. They can't change a lot when they do that. The primary difference between the original CD releases and the new stereo re-releases is that on the most recent re-release, they slightly compressed the dynamics. Other than that, they are pretty much identical and fine. The exception is Rubber Soul, which was remixed for stereo and Let It Be (Naked) which was completely remixed. For Rubber Soul, the mono version is better and for Let It Be, the bootleg Peter Sellers acetate is the best. In general, I prefer the mono box up to and including Sgt Pepper and stereo from Sgt Pepper on.


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





brooko said:


> I think you need to go back to your original post - where you said you could tell the difference between 24-96 flac and lossy.  What we've established since is that you were likely comparing different masters.
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, I still buy tracks from HDTracks (among other sites).  As long as the price is right, and the master is acceptable to me, then I regard them as a great source.  For home listening, I listen to the original flac (in whatever resolution I purchased at).  I never buy greater than 24/96 though, and for my iPhone - I always re-encode at 256aac.


 
   
  If you want to attribute the difference in "what I hear" to different masters, fine.  I never knew that different masters were used for iTunes recordings vs HD Tracks recordings.  I'll take your word for it and use that as a good explanation why "I prefer" the sound of my lossless recordings.   Boutique production of digital music.
   
  It explains a lot.
  iTunes is like McDonalds... billions served... versus flac and your local steakhouse.  You don't have time for perfection, recording to recording, when you are turning out 10's of thousands of recording.  Speed and Volume rule.    iTunes is good for music equipment purchased from aisle 9 at Fry's.
   
  If it didn't matter, or was undetectable, why spend the dough on great equipment?  Why would venders publish frequency specs of 5Hz to 50kHz and mfg products with those capabilities?  Why would a sound engineer use the stuff?  No one can hear the difference right?  It's 50kHz, all ya need is 10kHz.  Based upon "people" taking a blind A/B test.
   
  I agree with your last paragraph.  It makes perfect sense.  That's what you should listen to at home. iPhone, absolutely 256aac !
   
   I'm only talking about home audiophile listening.  Nice speakers, nice headphones.  That's why we are here.  The members here are ...  a guess...  0.01% of digital music listeners.  As in way, way, to the right of the curve. I rarely listen to portable music.  When I do it's on stock buds.  I do like the new Apple5 buds.  That's Rarely.
   
  I see no value whatsoever in going through the gymnastics necessary to set up an adhoc  lab that is capable of  balancing source levels etc. to personally compare one format against another.  Why?  Perhaps I'll conclude that I still like "lossy".   It has no practical use in my decision process.
   
  I would, however, be interested in reading the results of testing performed by a qualified entity. Where is the research?
   
   
   I have learned through this discourse.  I did state that I thought the sound quality I detected was due to the format.  In the end I just like  how it sounds.

   
   
   
  .


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The thing about the Beatles catalog is that they always started with the original session mixdowns. They can't change a lot when they do that. The primary difference between the original CD releases and the new stereo re-releases is that on the most recent re-release, they slightly compressed the dynamics. Other than that, they are pretty much identical and fine. The exception is Rubber Soul, which was remixed for stereo and Let It Be (Naked) which was completely remixed. For Rubber Soul, the mono version is better and for Let It Be, the bootleg Peter Sellers acetate is the best. In general, I prefer the mono box up to and including Sgt Pepper and stereo from Sgt Pepper on.


 
  Wow !
  Great stuff. Thanks.
   
  Now I have to read up so I can understand all, strike that, some of it.


----------



## bigshot

By the way, I have a kickass speaker system that I've built over 40 years. It's pretty darn good. It's all served from a Mac Mini loaded with 256 AAC VBR files. I keep my CDs in the garage. That's how good AAC sounds.


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> By the way, I have a kickass speaker system that I've built over 40 years. It's pretty darn good. It's all served from a Mac Mini loaded with 256 AAC VBR files. I keep my CDs in the garage. That's how good AAC sounds.


 
  I never for a moment thought you would have a mundane system.  After all you're in the 0.01%


----------



## atistatic

Well IMHO, with my equipment and piano experience the unique 2 difference can i hear in 320 and FLAC is one, the force of push the piano keyboards of the pianist player and piano vibrato and trill connection. the vibrato and push force you can hear that clearly when compare especially with Lang Lang.


----------



## Brooko

atistatic said:


> Well IMHO, with my equipment and piano experience the unique 2 difference can i hear in 320 and FLAC is one, the force of push the piano keyboards of the pianist player and piano vibrato and trill connection. the vibrato and push force you can hear that clearly when compare especially with Lang Lang.




You realise you're in the sound-science section right? Use a single source file, transcode the flac one to 320, use Foobar2000's abx comparator plugin (volume matched using replay gain), compare the 2 files for 15 iterations, and post the log.


----------



## bigshot

All I hear when I play Lang Lang is an awful piano player.


----------



## Iamnothim

brooko said:


> You realise you're in the sound-science section right? Use a single source file, transcode the flac one to 320, use Foobar2000's abx comparator plugin (volume matched using replay gain), compare the 2 files for 15 iterations, and post the log.




Show me the science.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





iamnothim said:


> Show me the science.


 
  What do you want to know? How to calculate ABX test results? Just look up a binomial cdf table.
   
  If that doesn't satisfy you:
  - Srednicki (1988) "A Bayesian Analysis of A-B Listening Tests" , _J. AES._ Vol. 36 No. 3
  - Burstein (1989) "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests", _ J. AES._ Vol. 37 No. 5
  ... there are many more papers.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





brooko said:


> You realise you're in the sound-science section right? Use a single source file, transcode the flac one to 320, use Foobar2000's abx comparator plugin (volume matched using replay gain), compare the 2 files for 15 iterations, and post the log.


 
  Normally I've been ripping a CD with Exact Audio Copy to flac and ripping it again to Lame V0 320 kbps and then abx'ing the 2 files.  I can't tell a difference between the files with any regularity.  I've never used replay gain at all in my testing.  Does this mean to check the box for replay gain from the abx component in Foobar, or is there something more that I need to do? 
   
  I'd like to be able to test some HD tracks at 24-bit 96kHz converted to mp3's at 16-bit 44.1 kHz 320kbps.  This would really make my day to be able to test this and prove that I can't tell any difference between the 2 files, but I want to make sure I am creating the files correctly using the same volume level.
   
  Can you hand walk me through the scenario to get this done?  Really I think I just need clarification on the part about using Replay Gain.  I've watched videos and have read a ton of forum comments and even read what little documentation is available, but I'm only ever presented with overall instructions without any details.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is why many people don't post their own logs, because the instructions are a bit vague for many of us.


----------



## xnor

Get foobar2000, choose full on installation, add your 24/96 file, right click - convert - ...
   
  Choose output: Add new
  encoder: lame.exe (download it from rarewares.org)
  extension: mp3
  parameters: -S --noreplaygain -b 320 - %d
   
  format is: lossy
  highest bps supported: 32
  OK
   
  Choose processing: Add Resampler (SoX)
  (download it form here and install it using File - Preference - Components - Install ...)
  Configure the resampler for 44.1 kHz
   
  Convert the file.
   
  Now select the 24/96 file and mp3 and right click - ReplayGain - Scan per track gain.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Thanks, your instructions will make it much easier for me to have confidence that I am performing the test accurately.
   
  Will try this first thing tonight when I get home and post the logs of my results.


----------



## Iamnothim

So glad I have a Mac.
   
  I found this interesting:  
http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/54/47/74/PDF/2007_IEEE_TASLP_OzerovEtAl_SingleChannelSourceSeparation.pdf


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





iamnothim said:


> Show me the science.


 
   
  Not sure what you're actually asking for here.
   
  The poster I was answering claimed a difference was audible.  Sound-science is the one area of the forum where it's perfectly OK (it's even preferable) to ask for proof when someone says they've heard a difference.  So I suggested he do an actual abx, and post the log.  Eg show actual data proving that he can tell the difference when testing blind, level matched, and that the results statistically prove his supposition that the difference is audible to him.
   
  Does this answer your query - or was that just an off-the-cuff remark?


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





brooko said:


> Not sure what you're actually asking for here.
> 
> The poster I was answering claimed a difference was audible.  Sound-science is the one area of the forum where it's perfectly OK (it's even preferable) to ask for proof when someone says they've heard a difference.  So I suggested he do an actual abx, and post the log.  Eg show actual data proving that he can tell the difference when testing blind, level matched, and that the results statistically prove his supposition that the difference is audible to him.
> 
> Does this answer your query - or was that just an off-the-cuff remark?


 
  xnor pretty well put me in my place and provided the science.  Interesting stuff, a combination of probability and psychology.
  It got me digging a bit.
   
  Since I only have a h/s education, I'm having some difficulty with the equations, but I'm handling some of the theories that are fleshed out.
  I posted a link http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/54/47/74/PDF/2007_IEEE_TASLP_OzerovEtAl_SingleChannelSourceSeparation.pdf
  What I gathered from some reading is that music is so complex that the source should be mono and the instruments / vocals should be isolated.   I could be wrong.
   
  Again limited by my h/s education,  the curves below appear to be diverging as file size increases.  I may be totally wrong about this...


----------



## Iamnothim

From:
 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUDIO, SPEECH, AND LANGUAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 15, NO. 5, JULY 2007
 *Adaptation of Bayesian Models for "Single-Channel"*
 *Source Separation and its Application to Voice/Music*
 *Separation in Popular Songs *
  
 An efficient model must be able to yield a rather accurate description
 of a given source or class of sources, in terms of a
 collection of spectral shapes corresponding to the various behaviors
 that can be observed in the source realizations. This requires
 GMMs with a large number of Gaussian functions, which
 raises a number of problems:
 • trainability  issues linked to the difficulty in gathering and
 handling a representative set of examples for the sources
 or classes of sources involved in the mix;
 • selectivity  issues arising from the fact that the particular
 sources in the mix may only span a small range of observations
 within the overall possibilities covered by the general
 models;
 • sensor and channel variability  which may affect to a large
 extent the acoustic observations in the mix and cause a
 more or less important mismatch with the training conditions;
 • computational complexity  which can become intractable
 with large source models, as the separation process requires
 factorial models [5], [6].
 A typical situation which illustrates these difficulties arises
 for the separation of voice from music in popular songs. For
 such a task, it turns out to be particularly unrealistic to accurately
 model the entire population of music sounds with a
 tractable and efficient GMM. The problem is all the more acute
 as the actual realizations of music sounds within a given song
 cover much less acoustic diversity than the general population
 of music sounds.


----------



## musical-kage

Even if I can't tell the difference (and in some high quality tracks, I think I can occasionally, but not enough to warrant it), I still rip in FLAC new CD's for piece of mind really.
  I then have 320kbps MP3 back ups for when I want to quickly rip tracks to Spotify for transporting over to the phone for listening on the way to work.
   
  Lossy files lose the extra information it deems un-neccessary on encoding the file. It doesn't lose any more data. It's not like an LP, or a tape, that can degrade over time.
   
  FLAC works cleverly in the fact its a compressed file, that retains all of the encoded information. It just simply uncompresses and decodes the file in real time, that happens to be the quality of the CD originally (if correctly ripped, so no pops or glitches).
   
  Exact Audio Copy, which I use has protection mechanisms to check the rip with checksums, to check that the file has remained intact.
   
  But yeah, to conclude, if I buy a CD, I will rip it in FLAC for piece of mind, if I can tell the difference or not. I would rather get what I would have got having played using the CD, but I don't tend to keep the CD's in the drive due to noise. I would rather have the file on the hard drive for playing the album, even if it means taking 10 minutes to rip the thing.
   
  I won't for example buy MP3's online. If I'm to buy music online, it either has to be in FLAC form, or CD form.


----------



## PinoyPogiman

my sister decided to listen to the Homework album on my iPod Classic 4th gen. along with my Grado Sr80i's
  its been CD ripped to iTunesHQ AAC format....
   
   
  but compared to her lossy Youtube mp3 audio converts. she says she really hears a difference, and regrets not buying her music in a high quality format.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I used a high resolution 24-bit 96 kHz ALAC file, "The Coachman's Dance" by Shostakovich, that came as a bonus with my DAC to showcase its performance.  The track is 10:01 long, and the file is 189MB with a bitrate of 2653 kbps.  I converted this file to a 320 kbps CBR mp3 with a file size of 22.9MB following the instructions provided earlier.
   
  PC > optical out > NuForce HD Icon as DAC-only with 15V linear power supply > Asgard Amp > Denon D5000 with J$ lambskin ear pads
   
  Immediately I noticed that the mp3 file was veiled and the ALAC file had much better detail with superior instrument separation. I could almost sense the humidity level in the air at the auditorium with the ALAC file.  Ok, that is complete BS.
   
  I did the Foobar ABX twice.  First up was 6/15, but I attempted to get cute with the file name and cancelled the save to look something up, and apparently lost the log file forever. (Grrrrr!!!!)
   
  So I waited an hour, relaxed a bit, and tried the test again.  By this time I was really familiar with the song, and I thought I had a great spot that would showcase the subtle differences between the 2 files.  Nope, just guessing again.
   
   
  foo_abx 1.3.4 report
  foobar2000 v1.1.13
  2012/11/26 18:57:46
   
  File A: C:\Music\High Resolution Tracks\HRT_96k_itunes_sample.m4a
  File B: C:\Music\High Resolution Tracks\The Coachman's Dance.mp3
   
  18:57:46 : Test started.
  19:02:01 : 01/01  50.0%
  19:07:27 : 01/02  75.0%
  19:08:02 : 01/03  87.5%
  19:08:36 : 02/04  68.8%
  19:09:21 : 02/05  81.3%
  19:10:11 : 03/06  65.6%
  19:11:25 : 03/07  77.3%
  19:12:03 : 03/08  85.5%
  19:12:46 : 03/09  91.0%
  19:13:30 : 03/10  94.5%
  19:14:16 : 04/11  88.7%
  19:14:43 : 04/12  92.7%
  19:15:31 : 05/13  86.7%
  19:16:09 : 05/14  91.0%
  19:16:56 : 05/15  94.1%
  19:17:01 : Test finished.
   
  I can understand, for peace of mind, why many people would want to keep a lossless file available, as nobody has the time or resources to verify that all of their music cannot be identified with an ABX test.  As for me, I'm convinced I am good with lossy mp3 files.  I use lame V 0 320 kbps, which is perfect for my needs, and Google Music uploads these files without transcoding them.  So, my mp3 files are available on Google Music, and I have the CD available too.  I'm not going to bother with lossless archives.
   
  I'm also convinced that I can't tell the difference between a CD and a song from either MOG or Spotify when using their highest bitrate streams. 
   
  Guess I'm done.  Now, back to enjoying my music.


----------



## Iamnothim

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> I used a high resolution 24-bit 96 kHz ALAC file, "The Coachman's Dance" by Shostakovich, that came as a bonus with my DAC to showcase its performance.  The track is 10:01 long, and the file is 189MB with a bitrate of 2653 kbps.  I converted this file to a 320 kbps CBR mp3 with a file size of 22.9MB following the instructions provided earlier.
> 
> PC > optical out > NuForce HD Icon as DAC-only with 15V linear power supply > Asgard Amp > Denon D5000 with J$ lambskin ear pads
> 
> ...


 
  WoW !


----------



## Audioscope

I don`t know, but I seriously don`t believe there is enough of a difference between the two for use on a DAP.  That is, most headphones or even IEMs that people use with DAPs don`t isolate noise well enough to make the FLAC files sound THAT much better than the 320Kbps MP3 files.  For everything else, FLAC makes perfect sense.


----------



## atistatic

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> All I hear when I play Lang Lang is an awful piano player.


 

 Sincerely he has a really particular personality when play piano, i dont know why for u he is a awful player.


----------



## bigshot

I'm used to Rubinstein, Gilels, Horowitz and Richter.


----------



## bigshot

ITunes makes lousy MP3 files. Folks should test against AAC 320 or at the very least 320 LAME.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





iamnothim said:


> xnor pretty well put me in my place and provided the science.  Interesting stuff, a combination of probability and psychology.
> It got me digging a bit.
> 
> Since I only have a h/s education, I'm having some difficulty with the equations, but I'm handling some of the theories that are fleshed out.
> ...


 
   
  I only really skimmed the abstract, part of the introduction, a few graphs, and parts of the conclusion—as any researcher knows, that's the "proper" way to "read" such documents 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





—but are you sure you linked the right thing?
   
  That's a paper describing techniques to deal with this general task: being given one signal (a song recording) and trying to separate one part of it (say the vocals) from the rest.  Pretty much completely unrelated.
   
   
   
  Just so we're clear (and at the expense of being needlessly pedantic and insulting everybody's intelligence), here's a description of the actual problem we're looking at.
   
  Procedure and reasoning is spoilered below:
   


Spoiler: ABX%20trial%20or%20similar%20statistical%20experiment



 
  Motivation:

 Mr. Z says he hear certain differences P and Q between two audio files.
 Other people wonder if it's true.  Can Mr. Z really hear it?
 Actually, never mind claims P and Q.  Can Mr. Z hear any difference at all?  If he can't, then the claims about hearing differences P and Q probably aren't true.
 Let's run an experiment to find out.
   
  The experiment, can be done by one person alone with the aid of software like foobar's ABX comparator, or via other means:

 For the experiment, we will run multiple (e.g. 15) trials.
 For each trial, Mr. Z listens to the two audio files A and B and then a third option X.  Exact procedure here can vary a bit.
 X is randomly chosen (unknown to Mr. Z) to be A or B in each trial.  That is, either A or B gets played twice.
 Mr. Z is asked to identify X as either being a repeat of A or a repeat of B.
 Count whether or not Mr. Z is correct or not.
 Repeat until all trials are done.
   
  The analysis (simplified, qualitative; hit the books for the statistics, which are not difficult for this simple test):

 What we wish to test is whether or not Mr. Z is effectively guessing at random (can't tell them apart) or not.  Formally, the hypothesis we tested is that Mr. Z can't tell a difference.
 If guessing at random, Mr. Z would have a half chance of getting each trial right.
 If Mr. Z can kind of tell some difference, there would be greater than a half chance of getting each trial right.
 The higher the percentage of successes in the trials and the higher the number of trials, the more certain we are that Mr. Z can tell a difference.  e.g. If you tossed a coin 100 times and it came up tails 56 times, you wouldn't think anything strange, right?  Same if you tossed once and got tails.  But what if you got tails 93 out of 100 times?  You'd think the coin was rigged—most likely not a fair coin with half probability of tails and half for heads—right?
 From the results and the statistics, we can crunch a few numbers and get a figure for how likely it was that Mr. Z was guessing (can't tell a difference) or not (can tell a difference).
   
  Now what?

 If Mr. Z could tell a difference in our experiment, then that still doesn't say whether or not he was hearing differences P and Q or something else.  We have more experiments to do.
 If Mr. Z couldn't tell a difference in the experiment, we can probably say that he wasn't hearing differences P and Q, or whatever, during the experiment.  However, is it possible that Mr. Z could hear differences between the audio files in general but not during the experiment?  Depends on how you run the experiment.  If you want conclusions drawn from the experiment to apply to normal listening circumstances, you probably should run the experiment to mimic normal listening conditions, for example.


----------



## Iamnothim

Need some advice:
Simple.... When I rip a cd into iTunes what is the preferred method/setting? Presently I'm choosing AIFF and checked the error correction box.

Anything for iTunes downloads? Again once I get them I right click and choose make AIFF.

I have a Mac so no foobar2000

Thanks


----------



## bigshot

AIFF is a complete waste. It gobbles up your hard drive and you get nothing for it. Either use the Apple Lossless Encoder or AAC 256 VBR. You won't have any problems with either of those settings. They both sound the same. AAC is better for use with ipods and ipads.

There's no reason to convert iTunes downloads. They're already AAC 256 VBR. Leave em as they are.

It might help you to google basic info so you know how iTunes works.


----------



## Iamnothim

Thank you


----------



## Iamnothim

bigshot said:


> AIFF is a complete waste. It gobbles up your hard drive and you get nothing for it. Either use the Apple Lossless Encoder or AAC 256 VBR. You won't have any problems with either of those settings. They both sound the same. AAC is better for use with ipods and ipads.
> There's no reason to convert iTunes downloads. They're already AAC 256 VBR. Leave em as they are.
> It might help you to google basic info so you know how iTunes works.




I'm not being sarcastic...
I know how to use Google. That said this is an opinion forum and I was asking for your opinion. I wanted to know what method you used.

On last question, I think you'll tell me they are the same..... The thread is titled 320 Mp3. Wouldn't I use that? Perhaps I should google that one.

I appreciate your time.


----------



## bigshot

Opinions are great. There are a lot of them all over the place. Some are good, and some are bad. The way to tell the difference is to understand the basics of how something works. Using AIFF tells me that you really don't understand what that format is and what it's used for. A simple google search ofthe various file format options would clear that all up.

The reason I didn't suggest 320 MP3 is because iTunes doesn't make the best MP3s. If you're going to use iTunes, use 256 AAC VBR. It sounds better than the 320 MP3s that iTunes makes.


----------



## Iamnothim

bigshot said:


> Opinions are great. There are a lot of them all over the place. Some are good, and some are bad. The way to tell the difference is to understand the basics of how something works. Using AIFF tells me that you really don't understand what that format is and what it's used for. A simple google search ofthe various file format options would clear that all up.
> The reason I didn't suggest 320 MP3 is because iTunes doesn't make the best MP3s. If you're going to use iTunes, use 256 AAC VBR. It sounds better than the 320 MP3s that iTunes makes.




I get it.

Thanks

Edit: you've got a lot of knowledge and experience. I value what you have to say.... but not necessarily how you "present it" to those less knowledgable.


----------



## xsal

All formats are lossy, whether analog or digital. Information is always lost during the recording process. So it's down to (1) your system's reproduction capability and (2) your hearing whether you notice a difference between any two formats. The general consensus seems to be that 320kbps MP3s reach the limits of human hearing, when played on a high-end system. That certainly fits with my experience, but no doubt there are exceptions in individual cases (although it would seem unlikely the musicians intended that 'ultrasound' as part of their product).
   
  The CD format is basically inefficient because decompression on-the-fly was a computing dream at the time this format was conceived. A factor of two compression without loss relative to CD is achieved by FLAC or ALAC which demonstrates 50% total waste in the CD format. High-end mp3s are another factor of 2 away from FLAC which is reached by filtering further for human hearing.
   
  So to conclude, whilst every format is lossy, in the domain of human hearing FLAC and high-end mp3s are, for all practical purposes, lossless.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





xsal said:


> All formats are lossy, whether analog or digital. Information is always lost during the recording process. So it's down to (1) your system's reproduction capability and (2) your hearing whether you notice a difference between any two formats. The general consensus seems to be that 320kbps MP3s reach the limits of human hearing, when played on a high-end system. That certainly fits with my experience, but no doubt there are exceptions in individual cases (although it would seem unlikely the musicians intended that 'ultrasound' as part of their product).
> 
> The CD format is basically inefficient because decompression on-the-fly was a computing dream at the time this format was conceived. A factor of two compression without loss relative to CD is achieved by FLAC or ALAC which demonstrates 50% total waste in the CD format. High-end mp3s are another factor of 2 away from FLAC which is reached by filtering further for human hearing.
> 
> So to conclude, whilst every format is lossy, in the domain of human hearing FLAC and high-end mp3s are, for all practical purposes, lossless.


 
   
  The words lossy and lossless were intended to refer to types of compression algorithms, not the end result vs the real life performance before the recording.
   
  And that 50% of space isn't wasted on a CD because it could have been compressed. It allows for universal compatibility and mechanical timing.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





xsal said:


> So to conclude, whilst every format is lossy, in the domain of human hearing FLAC and high-end mp3s are, for all practical purposes, lossless.


 
  Chewy already responded but I'd like to add that we have a term for that in psychoacoustics: transparency.


----------



## ForShure

Please, this FLAC vs. mp3 horse has been beaten time and time again and pulverized into glue. It's almost as bad as the cheap vs. expensive cables debate. FLAC and other lossless files sound better than mp3 because they have 10x more data than mp3's. MP3 encoding uses a process called psychoacoustic masking which throws out sound data that isn't deemed necessary in order to reach a smaller file size. It's really an amazing thing but in the data that is thrown out, many of the tiny nuances and details of the recording are lost. These all still there when a file is in a lossless format such as FLAC. The difference between the sound of each isn't huge but definitely noticeable. Just ask any audiophile which they would rather have, a player full of FLACs or one full of 320mp3's. You know which one they would choose


----------



## JohnSantana

forshure said:


> Please, this FLAC vs. mp3 horse has been beaten time and time again and pulverized into glue. It's almost as bad as the cheap vs. expensive cables debate. FLAC and other lossless files sound better than mp3 because they have 10x more data than mp3's. MP3 encoding uses a process called psychoacoustic masking which throws out sound data that isn't deemed necessary in order to reach a smaller file size. It's really an amazing thing but in the data that is thrown out, many of the tiny nuances and details of the recording are lost. These all still there when a file is in a lossless format such as FLAC. The difference between the sound of each isn't huge but definitely noticeable. Just ask any audiophile which they would rather have, a player full of FLACs or one full of 320mp3's. You know which one they would choose


 
  Hi ForShure,
   
  I am curious what sort of equipment to reveal the difference between FLAC and 320kb/s MP3 ?
   
  I have Westone W4 and Fiio E11 but somehow when I closed my eyes listening to the same album/songs from my laptop, I couldn't notice the difference.
   
  Now I'm going to buy HiFiman HE-500 to get different feeling between 4xBalance Armature IEM and Planar Magnetic Headphone.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





forshure said:


> Please, this FLAC vs. mp3 horse has been beaten time and time again and pulverized into glue. It's almost as bad as the cheap vs. expensive cables debate.


 
  Well the two debates do share a couple similarities: when blind testing people fail to notice differences between the two. And some times people end up preferring 128kbps MP3s when testing blindly, just like radioshack cables get a good deal of votes in blind cable test.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





forshure said:


> The difference between the sound of each isn't huge but definitely noticeable. Just ask any audiophile which they would rather have, a player full of FLACs or one full of 320mp3's. You know which one they would choose


 
  It's blanket statements and anecdotes like that, which makes you just another one of those audiophools.


----------



## ForShure

Quote: 





johnsantana said:


> Hi ForShure,
> 
> I am curious what sort of equipment to reveal the difference between FLAC and 320kb/s MP3 ?
> 
> ...


 

 My equipment isn't anything special. The setup that makes telling a difference easiest is MacBook Pro>Ibasso Dzero amp/dac>Sennheiser HD595. I find it harder to distinguish between the two with my iem's, I think the added soundstage of larger headphones makes it easier to tell. It might be easier for me since I'm only 20 years old and my ears haven't gotten destroyed by age yet lol. I was talking to one of my professors who has been an audio engineer for 30 years about this subject and he also argued that there absolutely is a difference. If there was no difference then lossless files wouldn't be around because the need for them wouldn't exist.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





forshure said:


> I was talking to one of my professors who has been an audio engineer for 30 years about this subject and he also argued that there absolutely is a difference.


 
  [X] Argument from (anonymous) authority.
   
  Quote: 





> If there was no difference then lossless files wouldn't be around because the need for them wouldn't exist.


 
  [X] You do not understand lossy compression, psychoacoustics.


----------



## D3Seeker

The real question is....... 
Why the h+ll is the sheer term 'mp3' even being mentioned at this point on this site. The only time anyone should be using mp3 is when your favorite artists release a free ep on their website and it's in said format and that formate alone! Silly people


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





d3seeker said:


> The real question is.......
> Why the h+ll is the sheer term 'mp3' even being mentioned at this point on this site. The only time anyone should be using mp3 is when your favorite artists release a free ep on their website and it's in said format and that formate alone! Silly people


 
  Similarly stupid question: why are there history books?


----------



## ForShure

xnor said:


> [X] Argument from (anonymous) authority.
> 
> [X] You do not understand lossy compression, psychoacoustics.



I explained psychoacoustics in my last post. I understand how it works. Everybody on head-fi is an anonymous source in some ways. Just trying to make my argument. I don't see you adding any new stuff to the debate, instead you choose to criticize the arguments that don't agree with your view without having support to back it up. But continue to enjoy your flat sounding mp3's believing that they sound as good as lossless.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





forshure said:


> I explained psychoacoustics in my last post. I understand how it works. Everybody on head-fi is an anonymous source in some ways. Just trying to make my argument. I don't see you adding any new stuff to the debate, instead you choose to criticize the arguments that don't agree with your view without having support to back it up. But continue to enjoy your flat sounding mp3's believing that they sound as good as lossless.


 
  I assume you haven't actually read this thread. Or any other thread regarding this subject in the sound science forum.
   
  Every time somone claims easily discernible differences between 320kbps and lossless, they either refuse to do any proper ABX testing, or fail a proper ABX test. So, would you like to give it a shot?


----------



## Brooko

@ForShure
   
  Here - will make it easy for you.  Read this thread (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding) and it'll give you an idea of how to easily set up an abx at home.  From your comments, I'm willing to bet you've never done one.
   
  As we're actually in the sound science section - it's reasonable to ask you to back up your claims.
   
  Set up the test - using the guide.  You choose the music.  If you can, make the two tracks available here so we can try it as well.  Volume match and use the abx tool.  Use normal listening levels  Run for 15 iterations.  Post the log.  Be completely honest [the system can still be cheated - but there is no real point - it's not about ego, but instead about discovery].
   
  The latest advances in LAME encoding for mp3 (and aac) are designed to essentially be transparent.  We're not supposed to be able to tell a difference (human hearing limitations).  Rather than fighting it (ego - my ears must be better etc), find out the truth and celebrate it.  Simply means that for our portable set-up you can carry more music.


----------



## chewy4

And if you don't have a decent converter, I can convert for you, or just provide the files. Keep in mind that the highest quality encoding is _not_ the default setting of the LAME encoder.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





forshure said:


> I explained psychoacoustics in my last post. I understand how it works. Everybody on head-fi is an anonymous source in some ways. Just trying to make my argument. I don't see you adding any new stuff to the debate, instead you choose to criticize the arguments that don't agree with your view without having support to back it up. But continue to enjoy your flat sounding mp3's believing that they sound as good as lossless.


 
  If you understand the matter at hand, then explain your reasoning behind writing this: "If there was no difference then lossless files wouldn't be around because the need for them wouldn't exist."
  With authority I was not referring to you, but the mentioned professor... look up the term.
  I don't think I'm obligated to add (for you) new stuff to the discussion, but yeah I am criticizing generalizations/claims/... that are wrong. It has nothing to do with my views. There is evidence for transparency of MP3 with lower bitrate than 320 kbps, try Google.
  I do enjoy "flat sounding" (wrong again) mp3/aac/vorbis/... files, do you enjoy ignorance? They say it's bliss after all.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





d3seeker said:


> The real question is.......
> Why the h+ll is the sheer term 'mp3' even being mentioned at this point on this site. The only time anyone should be using mp3 is when your favorite artists release a free ep on their website and it's in said format and that formate alone! Silly people


----------



## Prowler

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Every time somone claims easily discernible differences between 320kbps and lossless, they either refuse to do any proper ABX testing, or fail a proper ABX test. So, would you like to give it a shot?


 
   
  Hah, certainly not easy. Just last night I did your 128 kbps, 320 kbps, lossless test (didn't notice it till it recently got bumped) and successfully identified groups 1 and 3. I'll admit I ended up spending about an hour though... didn't realize it until I looked at the clock. The 128 kbps were relatively easy, the lossless vs 320 kbps sounded virtually identical.
   
  Recently I have been doing my own ABX testing between LAME V2, V0, and lossless. My conclusion is that both V2 and V0 are virtually transparent; some music was transparent at V2, but for example Pearl Jam - Black, I could still identify an extremely minute difference with V0.
   
  So yeah, now I know I'll be happy with V0 as it's virtually transparent (to me anyway) and saving the extra space over lossless is worth it (especially on a portable player).


----------



## xsal

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> The words lossy and lossless were intended to refer to types of compression algorithms, not the end result vs the real life performance before the recording.
> 
> And that 50% of space isn't wasted on a CD because it could have been compressed. It allows for universal compatibility and mechanical timing.


 
  Sure. I'm just saying every recording process involves lossy 'compression' of one sort or another. It helps put a perspective to remember that. Not sure why you think CD is a universal format... or why that is of any importance now a days. There are probably far more computers than CD players in the world today! Nor what you think the significance of 'mechanical timing' is. You can easily get the same timing precision from all formats, especially with buffered readout, which is pretty standard.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





xsal said:


> Sure. I'm just saying every recording process involves lossy 'compression' of one sort or another. It helps put a perspective to remember that. Not sure why you think CD is a universal format... or why that is of any importance now a days. There are probably far more computers than CD players in the world today! Nor what you think the significance of 'mechanical timing' is. You can easily get the same timing precision from all formats, especially with buffered readout, which is pretty standard.


 
  I get what you're saying, but I just don't think lossy or compression should be used to describe flaws in the recording process. It just makes things confusing.
   
  PCM data, the uncompressed data on a CD, is pretty much universal. FLAC, ALAC, or pretty much any other compressed format not so much. With raw PCM data you don't need some software in the middle, whereas with a compressed file you need something to convert it back to PCM.
   
  Yeah, you're right that mechanical timing isn't relevant in terms of any performance increase/decrease. Probably not really relevant to anything nowadays, but it certainly made sense at the time the format was released.


----------



## lisztian420

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Get foobar2000, choose full on installation, add your 24/96 file, right click - convert - ...
> 
> Choose output: Add new
> encoder: lame.exe (download it from rarewares.org)
> ...


 
  Good to know! Thanks!


----------



## lisztian420

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Get foobar2000, choose full on installation, add your 24/96 file, right click - convert - ...
> 
> Choose output: Add new
> encoder: lame.exe (download it from rarewares.org)
> ...


 
  ...


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Technical data is all well and good but, as has been mentioned a fair few times, it is your ears that you should trust at the end of the day. If you can't hear the difference between formats, more power to you, you can save a whole lot of disc space and more "fully" utilise your portaplayers.
   
  I am not what most people would call a "bona fide" audiophile. I lack the funds for high-end equipment, I think that my 175 Euro Sennheisser HD 25 II's are great (they are the most expensive earphones I have owned to date), am reasonably happy with my Skullcandy Aviators (though they are somewhat lacking in bass impact), and often enjoy the sound of my $99 Marshall's (who, at risk of sounding pretentious, have "personality" and make the music sound "come to life" to a certain extent). My stereo is, by today's standards, *very *dated, and my DAC is an onboard laptop crapbox. Furthermore, my higher frequency register is slightly impaired.
   
  That being said, I have noticed that in many cases, (probably not all), the base sounds fuller, richer and has more impact in lossless formats. The fundamentals shine through. In chewy4's DBT I scored 2 out 2 (there *are *three but I skipped one) based almost solely on bass response. It's true that the difference isn't enormous between lossless and 320kpbs but is *is* there. And if you have higher quality sound sources than I do, which many of you probably do, then those differences should be more noticeable.
   
  So if you, like me, a fan of electronic music you are probably into those lovely warm bassy sounds. They just sound better in lossless formats. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





mrlazyant said:


> Technical data is all well and good but, as has been mentioned a fair few times, it is your ears that you should trust at the end of the day. If you can't hear the difference between formats, more power to you, you can save a whole lot of disc space and more "fully" utilise your portaplayers.
> 
> I am not what most people would call a "bona fide" audiophile. I lack the funds for high-end equipment, I think that my 175 Euro Sennheisser HD 25 II's are great (they are the most expensive earphones I have owned to date), am reasonably happy with my Skullcandy Aviators (though they are somewhat lacking in bass impact), and often enjoy the sound of my $99 Marshall's (who, at risk of sounding pretentious, have "personality" and make the music sound "come to life" to a certain extent). My stereo is, by today's standards, *very *dated, and my DAC is an onboard laptop crapbox. Furthermore, my higher frequency register is slightly impaired.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Bass should be the last thing effected by lossy compression. The amount of data required to accurately reproduce bass is _very_ tiny compared to the high treble, so compression algorithms don't really deal with it until you get to really low bitrates.
   
  I'd suspect that your results were coincidental if that's what you were basing it off of. As suggested several times on here I would suggest using Foobar's ABX comparator;it is really the only way to _know _you can hear the difference. As stated before: if you are able to do this and get 15/15(or 11/11 at the very least), you would be the first I've seen.
   
  Always keep probability in mind when doing this kind of test... If 500 people participate in a coin flipping competition to see who can get heads the most number of times, chances are at least one person is going to be able to get heads 8 or 9 times in a row. Doesn't mean that they're good at flipping coins.


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Bass should be the last thing effected by lossy compression. The amount of data required to accurately reproduce bass is _very_ tiny compared to the high treble, so compression algorithms don't really deal with it until you get to really low bitrates.
> 
> I'd suspect that your results were coincidental if that's what you were basing it off of. As suggested several times on here I would suggest using Foobar's ABX comparator;it is really the only way to _know _you can hear the difference. As stated before: if you are able to do this and get 15/15(or 11/11 at the very least), you would be the first I've seen.
> 
> Always keep probability in mind when doing this kind of test... If 500 people participate in a coin flipping competition to see who can get heads the most number of times, chances are at least one person is going to be able to get heads 8 or 9 times in a row. Doesn't mean that they're good at flipping coins.


 
  I wasn't basing my assessment only on your DBT, this is a general impression whose accuracy I've grown more and more convinced of over time. And I probably won't be able to hit the nail on the head every single time, but I've listened to many a track on youtube, directly after listening to it lossless, just to check if it's the right track before sharing on facebook, and the bass always suffers. Maybe it is just my mind playing tricks on me, I don't know. When I can be bothered, I will eventually do the ABX test. But that won't be today, and probably not before I have upgraded my music system, and grown accustomed to it. And I did keep probability in mind, which is why I listened to each sample 6 times, once for reference and the rest for comparison. The "Shpongle" I got the last three sets right and the "Mighty River" I got sets 2, 4, 5 and 6 right. I was fairly happy with these results. Maybe I just think I am noticing the bass fundamentals when really I am listening for the harmonics, which play an important role. Either way, it sounds like the bass to me =)


----------



## MrLazyAnt

From "Sound On Sound" Magazine
   
  http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/articles/lost-in-translation.htm
   
"The MP3 format has a reputation for making bass and low-frequency content sound weak: that slammin’ bass line can easily lose its phatness! (See audio examples L and M referenced above.) Low frequencies are harder for DSP algorithms to analyse because their durations are long, and amplitude differences over the short analysis windows used by the encoders may only be slight — so the analysis system doesn’t get an entire cycle of a low frequency per analysis window. In some situations, the encoder will be presented with less than a half cycle of any frequency below 114Hz. The AAC format fares much better in bass resolution, and it is thus much more forgiving to the bass."
   
I hate to admit I get a disproportional amount of pleasure in being right about this.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





mrlazyant said:


> And I probably won't be able to hit the nail on the head every single time, but I've listened to many a track on youtube, directly after listening to it lossless, just to check if it's the right track before sharing on facebook, and the bass always suffers.


 
  Yeah but this is about 320 mp3s and not (most probably) transcoded from lossy to lossy audio in youtube videos..


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Yeah but this is about 320 mp3s and not (most probably) transcoded from lossy to lossy audio in youtube videos..


 
   
  The point is moot, if chewy is right (which a post I just delivered argues against) the bass should not be the first thing to suffer even in youtube. And it still is what I based my, for the most part, correct assessment on in the DBT.
   
  The long and the short of it is, trust your ears not your eyes.
   
  EDIT: Just to be clear, I argued that bass sounds better in lossless, Chewy said that this shouldn't be true because bass sounds suffer less from lossy compression to which I answered with this:
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3/270#post_9307565


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





mrlazyant said:


> The long and the short of it is, trust your ears not your eyes.


 
   
  This is exactly what an ABX test is all about.  Now walk the walk.


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Okay, so I've downloaded the ABX component thingymabob (terminology isn't my strong suit). How do I get it to work?


----------



## xnor

First you add a lossless file to a foobar2000 playlist, then right click - convert - ... - set output format to MP3 320 kbps.
   
  Then add the mp3 to the playlist, select both files - right click - utilities - abx two tracks.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





mrlazyant said:


> The point is moot, if chewy is right (which a post I just delivered argues against) the bass should not be the first thing to suffer even in youtube. And it still is what I based my, for the most part, correct assessment on in the DBT.


 
  Transcoding can do all sorts of bad things, especially if you do not know what the uploader actually uploaded. It could have been a 128 kbps MP3 transcoded to 128 kbps AAC (mp4).
   
  You have to eliminate all those variables so that in fact you're testing lossless vs. 320 kbps MP3 and not something else (transcoding artifacts, volume differences, player differences ...).


----------



## MrLazyAnt

True. I shall do the ABX test in the coming days. I shall either feel endlessly righteous and post the results as victorious proof, and brag about it to any who will suffer me, or shamefacedly admit defeat.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





mrlazyant said:


> True. I shall do the ABX test in the coming days. I shall either feel endlessly righteous and post the results as victorious proof, and brag about it to any who will suffer me, or shamefacedly admit defeat.


 
   
  Haha, just remember that only 15/15 gets you bragging rights in most people's books, and no cherry picking results.
  Quote: 





mrlazyant said:


> From "Sound On Sound" Magazine
> 
> http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/articles/lost-in-translation.htm
> 
> ...


 
  That's certainly the first and only bit of logic I've seen explaining why bass would be effected by compression. But remember he is talking about 128kbps mp3. Not sure if it's completely true as I can't find anything else supporting it, but it could be very well be legit.
   
  EDIT: OK so I could be thinking about this the wrong way but the analysis window for mp3 is 1,152 samples... How would this ever bring about a situation where it would only show half of a 114Hz cycle? If I'm understanding this correctly shouldn't a full cycle of a 20Hz sine wave be 1102 samples in? Hopefully someone who knows a lot about MP3 at a low level can explain this...


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





mrlazyant said:


> True. I shall do the ABX test in the coming days. I shall either feel endlessly righteous and post the results as victorious proof, and brag about it to any who will suffer me, or shamefacedly admit defeat.


 
  This is really only for you.  Don't think of it as a contest to win or fail.  Your results have no impact on my own discoveries.  I know that I cannot tell a difference.  I feel enlightened, but neither shamed nor victorious. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Now my audio equipment quests are all about transparency, where before I was victimized by misinformation and incorrect assumptions.  Again, though, this applies only to me with any certainty, as I do not hear things with any other ears.


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> This is really only for you.  Don't think of it as a contest to win or fail.  Your results have no impact on my own discoveries.  I know that I cannot tell a difference.  I feel enlightened, but neither shamed nor victorious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I was being (or at least trying to be) humorous in the whole victory/defeat thing. I'll still post the results when I get round to doing the testing. For kicks and giggles.


----------



## MrLazyAnt

And the results are in! I must admit it was *much *harder than I thought it would be, and in the lesser production I _was _pretty much guessing. But I am happy that my ears function well in the low-mid registers, and despite my sound-system being a far cry from hi-fi (ha! A rhyme! ='P ) I still got it more or less right.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Did you make sure that the files were volume matched, or did you simply convert the file and test?  What encoder were you using?  Why not test one file 15 times for statistical credibility?  Any way to upload 30 seconds of your files so that others might try a test for themselves?


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> Did you make sure that the files were volume matched, or did you simply convert the file and test?  What encoder were you using?  Why not test one file 15 times for statistical credibility?  Any way to upload 30 seconds of your files so that others might try a test for themselves?


 
  I just converted and compared. I can't make attatchments, so I can't upload the files (sorry about that), I used the LAME converter on highest quality, and I figured 15 tests in total would be as good as 15 tests on the same file, the statistics remain the same I scored 10/10 on proffesionally produced peices, which I find solid enough, and 3/5 (non-conclusive I know) on the home-mastered track. Either way, I have had my views on the quality of 320kbps altered. I think more highly of it now than before, and the only reasons I shall keep using FLAC files is so that i *know *it is lossless (I'm silly that way) and that when I eventually do bring my set-up closer to something that can be called hi-fi I will be more likely to profit from the codec.
   
  Either way, I've drawn my conclusions. Feel free to disagree, at this point, it matters little to me.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I just wanted to make sure the tests I performed were as accurate as possible. I was striving for the highest degree of objectivity that I could achieve. You just seem to want to convince yourself that your preconceived notions are true. These results are like so many others we see in this forum, in that they are not particularly convincing, with potentially flawed data being used. 

Why wouldn't you want to be sure? This is where we differ.

There are instructions showing how to volume match files for use in an ABX test with Foobar in this forum. Before I felt comfortable that I was easily able to distinguish between two files that most people could not, I'd want someone to examine the files or show me how to make sure there was not some glitch in the conversion process.


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> I just wanted to make sure the tests I performed were as accurate as possible. I was striving for the highest degree of objectivity that I could achieve. You just seem to want to convince yourself that your preconceived notions are true. These results are like so many others we see in this forum, in that they are not particularly convincing, with potentially flawed data being used.
> 
> Why wouldn't you want to be sure? This is where we differ.
> 
> There are instructions showing how to volume match files for use in an ABX test with Foobar in this forum. Before I felt comfortable that I was easily able to distinguish between two files that most people could not, I'd want someone to examine the files or show me how to make sure there was not some glitch in the conversion process.


 
  I can't easily distinguish the difference. I've no qualms admitting it. And like I said. The results were solid enough for me. I'm not a die-hardist (not that I see anything wrong with that, it just isn't me), and I'm rest happy in the knowledge that my Portaplayer is now usable for a more extensive library with very little compromise, at least to me. Which for me was the main point of this exercise.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





mrlazyant said:


> I figured 15 tests in total would be as good as 15 tests on the same file


 
   
  Statistically no, guessing 5/5 is hard but not beyond random guessing. A single track 12/15 is statistically more powerful. This does not mean that you cannot distinguish between the files but it is insufficient proof for any one example.


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Never mind this comment. This argument is pointless to me. I have answered the question I wanted answered, which was "Do I (personally) really need FLAC on my portaplayer?" And the answer was "no I don't".
  As to if I can make the difference between a FLAC and 320kbps mp3 consistetly or not, I believe so in case of professionally (and/or properly) produced tracks, otherwise no. Further testing will probably be done once I upgrade my sound system, but for the time-being, I have my answer, "I (again, personally) don't need to fill up my portaplayer with FLAC's, and can make do with mp3's"


----------



## sonitus mirus

My intention was not to argue.  I'm only attempting to seek clarity and discovery for myself.  While I do greatly appreciate your participation, you are posting comments in a public forum with a basic theme regarding the science of sound, but you are suggesting that your statements are more along the lines of a personal journal entry.   Again, this is not intended to be an attack.  I apologize for acting like a detective questioning a suspect.  I am just skeptical by nature and always seem to be asking the question, "why?".
   
  Enjoy the rest of your weekend.


----------



## MrLazyAnt

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> My intention was not to argue.  I'm only attempting to seek clarity and discovery for myself.  While I do greatly appreciate your participation, you are posting comments in a public forum with a basic theme regarding the science of sound, but you are suggesting that your statements are more along the lines of a personal journal entry.   Again, this is not intended to be an attack.  I apologize for acting like a detective questioning a suspect.  I am just skeptical by nature and always seem to be asking the question, "why?".
> 
> Enjoy the rest of your weekend.


 
   
  You, My Good Man, Have Made a Point
   
  I have treated the forum rather more as personal journal than as a debate about the science of sound. For which I duly apologize to you and all head-fi users. So in summation of my current input to this thread, I have come to understand that mp3's don't deserve as bad a rap as they get. And with that I bid you all the best, and happy music listening.


----------



## waynes world

Subscribed. I recently ripped my library to 320kbps mp3's. Do I really need to re-rip my library to flac or not? This is the question. Hopefully after reading through this thread, I will be closer to an answer lol!


----------



## bigshot

The way to find that answer is to rip a FLAC and see if you can hear a difference. Five bucks says you can't. Particularly if you used a LAME encoder.


----------



## waynes world

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The way to find that answer is to rip a FLAC and see if you can hear a difference. Five bucks says you can't. Particularly if you used a LAME encoder.


 
   
  Yes, I've done some of that. Ripped a few CD's to 320kbps mp3 using foobar2000 and LAME3.96r encoder and also to flac and switched between them. And so far, five bucks says you're right.
   
  I just downloaded this cool album in 320kbps mp3 and flac (for free I might add from awesome ektopazm), and again, so far you are not in danger of losing your five bucks:
  http://www.ektoplazm.com/free-music/phone-booth-robbers-falling-into-one
   
  So at least for the moment, I don't feel a pressing need for flac, especially with the gear and the ears that I have now.


----------



## bigshot

Well if you ever get a bat's ears, it might be different.


----------



## waynes world

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Well if you ever get a bat's ears, it might be different.


 
   
  That's the problem... I _have_ been thinking of upgrading...


----------



## xnor

It hurts to see crinkled headphone drivers. *sniff*


----------



## rjohn

No, unless you have good audio setups.
  320 sounds somewhat different, but only on $5000+ quality sound system.
   
  Or, you might need transcodes for your mobile devices and the storage is not large enough to hold 320s. Then you'd need to re-rip in FLAC, transcoding to V0 or V2.


----------



## leogodoy

rjohn said:


> No, unless you have good audio setups.
> 320 sounds somewhat different, but only on $5000+ quality sound system.
> 
> Or, you might need transcodes for your mobile devices and the storage is not large enough to hold 320s. Then you'd need to re-rip in FLAC, transcoding to V0 or V2.




it has nothing to do with the value of your equipment. Tell you what: lets DBT 320 kbps vs FLAC on your 5k+ equip and on my inexpensive setup, if most people find a difference you keep both + the value difference. Otherwise I keep both.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





rjohn said:


> No, unless you have good audio setups.
> 320 sounds somewhat different, but only on $5000+ quality sound system.


 
   
  I don't judge sound by price tags, but I will say that my system is the culmination of over 30 years of building and refinement. It sounds awesome. And my entire music library- over a year and a half's worth of music- is all at AAC 256 VBR and it sounds as good as it possibly can.


----------



## Megaohmz

I collect FLAC discographies of my favorite bands, with a good five digit discount of course, and I rip them into 320cbr all the time for listening on my PSP. I usually will remaster them to make the highs a bit brighter and try to make up for the lost "air" in the high end of the spectrum. This is just a bandaid for the loss of detail you get in the upper end of the sound spectrum. You of course get some noise artifacts that are not a part of the original recording, but is only audible at high volume during quiet parts. It sounds like robotic/machine type noise. You don't need expensive gear to hear subtleties in music, you just have to have the experience of "what to listen for".


----------



## Dillan

This is such a huge topic, I wish I had more time to read every post, but its too much. Honestly I have a lot of things to say about this topic, but my opinion is my opinion (so ill try to stick to the facts). Ill also try to keep this short and sweet. 

320 vs Flac

Ok so let me say that this is such a broad thing to compare.. Here are some factors you have to consider when arguing JUST the "320 bitrate vs FLAC"

First off how are you getting the files? Are you ripping them from a CD? What method are you using to rip them. Are you downloading them from random places on the net?



I can tell a big difference in sound quality with certain songs and the biggest differences usually are not from this being flac and that being lossless mp3. You can't always look at the exact statistics on paper, because that isn't always set in stone. On paper FLAC should always sound better because it is "lossless" and the frequency range can go below 20 and above 20k hertz. Let me remind you guys that humans cant hear much more than or less than those numbers, if at all. Its just such a broad topic I could talk about it all night. My main point here is that it is very situational. I for one feel safer with my audio library, mostly consisting of FLAC. Why? Let me talk about that.

I get a lot of my music from the internet, most of it actually. A person that prioritizes lossless music w/ thousands of songs versus someone that does the same thing, but with lossy MP3 files.. The person with the thousands of lossless will win everytime when it comes to quality. Not because every time you click one of his songs, the song is better because its FLAC, but because some of those songs might be 24/96 remastered (which by the way, my argument isnt that 24/96 or 24/192 is better because their higher rates, but because a lot of times those tracks are remastered and engineered to sound better than the original, or some of those are the actual original files before taken to cd or vinyl.) And some of those songs legitimately saved some bit of audible noise that the person with MP3 lost out on, no matter how insignificant. Because when it comes down to it, out of 10,000+ songs, I don't think anyone can disagree that its impossible for one tiny part of a song to be missing or disorient an audible piece of music, BECAUSE its an MP3 (LOSSLESS) file. You just can't argue with that. Now at the beginning of this paragraph I mentioned getting most of my files from the web, and yes that is sort of a gamble which reinforces my case. But honestly I feel the same can go for CD also, and ESPECIALLY for DVD and SACD. For me personally and my ears, I can't tell a difference in most songs between 320 and lossless. Its very hard to distinguish, most of the time impossible. When it comes to below 320, it gets a WHOLE lot easier, 256, 192, I can almost tell everytime... BUT.. (and ill end here)..

I have and always will download and rip to FLAC over MP3 anyday, because like I said, out of terabytes of music.. the person who has aquired almost all LOSSLESS music will have a better hear-able collection of music no matter if it comes down to only a few songs that you can notice. For me it is worth it, its a sense of security, its a good way to get remastered, collectors type stuff as well if we are talking about the internet. So my conclusion is, I think that you can't tell more than you can tell generally, but i feel out of a large collection of music you can tell some, depending on the gear and the persons ears, and that is worth the extra storage it takes and the extra time it takes (to rip and to download etc). In the end its up to the individual, but I think every single FLAC vs 320 argument is completely hard to argue unless you are talking about something very situational, and even then, peoples hearing is different. 

This is coming from someone with a fairly high end setup, and someone that puts facts far ahead of opinions (in any scenario).

(Thanks for reading)


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





dillan said:


> ........


 
   
  I didn't requote the post - because people can see it above 
   
  Not sure if you have performed actual ABX - using something like Foobar's ABX comparator.  Might be a good thing to do - eliminates placebo - then you can really make informed decisions.  Here's a quick guide I wrote to using the ABX tool + ripping, tagging etc (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding)
   
I'm suggesting this - because whilst it's interesting that you say that most of the time you can't distinguish 320 mp3 from flac - you might actually be really surprised if you abx some of your own music at 256aac, 256 pm3 (lame) vs lossless etc.  You're going to actually find it pretty hard to find audible compression artifacts even at 256.  Most people don't take the time to perform a decent abx - thus the same old myths keep getting perpetuated.
   
The secret is ripping a CD you own and know well - then using the same lossless rip to re-encode with a decent encoder.  Compare the two formats over 15-20 tests blind - it's an eye opener.
   
  I also pay for all of my music - mostly CD, the rest lossless paid downloads (HD Tracks etc).  I then archive it as lossless (FLAC) - and use this format for listening at my PC.  For the iPod / iPhone - I encode everything to vbr aac ~ 200.  The reason - to my ears it is essentially transparent.  If you're downloading (even lossless) from 'unpaid services' on the net - you have no guarantee of the quality of the mastering, the quality of the rip, or even the medium it was ripped from.  The beauty of buying CDs is that you know what you're buying, and you are at least supporting the artist in some small way.


----------



## bigshot

Whenever I see someone talking about being able to hear a difference between MP3 and FLAC without mentioning the codec or bitrate, I pretty much know they have never made any real effortt to find out for themselves. All MP3s are not the same, and doing a simple comparison test (not even a blind one) will show that.


----------



## waynes world

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Brooko* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Here's a quick guide I wrote to using the ABX tool + ripping, tagging etc (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding)


 
   
  Thanks for doing that!


----------



## Dillan

I agree with what everyone said after my post. Just saying MP3 vs FLAC in itself doesnt really make any sense. Way too many factors, way too broad. And for the person talking about ABX tests, i agree with that method too. Ive actually done it a few times the old fashioned way though, and had my back turned while a friend pressed play. Either way, I think placebo is huge in these cases, and dont think that I was defending MP3 more than anything in my post, because I was actually defending myself having all (mostly) FLAC. I just know that there's no potential harm (other than larger files) by going the all FLAC route, while on the other hand there is potential proof of harm in going all MP3. Its scientifically proven in sound science, and a lot of people feel in reality it really is a step above. Either way its a sense of security vs potential loss.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





dillan said:


> I agree with what everyone said after my post. Just saying MP3 vs FLAC in itself doesnt really make any sense. Way too many factors, way too broad. And for the person talking about ABX tests, i agree with that method too. Ive actually done it a few times the old fashioned way though, and had my back turned while a friend pressed play. Either way, I think placebo is huge in these cases, and dont think that I was defending MP3 more than anything in my post, because I was actually defending myself having all (mostly) FLAC. I just know that there's no potential harm (other than larger files) by going the all FLAC route, while on the other hand there is potential proof of harm in going all MP3. Its scientifically proven in sound science, and a lot of people feel in reality it really is a step above. Either way its a sense of security vs potential loss.


 
  Agree with some of what you are saying - but why not follow the guide and take a *proper abx?*  The beauty is that you can set it up yourself, by yourself - and do it in your own time.
   
  Your overall thoughts on lossy compression may change.
   
  I'm not trying to change your mind on lossless - I archive to FLAC and use it on my desktop.  What I am trying to do is let you make informed decisions regarding good lossy encoders, and the limits of your own hearing.  Like I said - the results will probably surprise you..


----------



## Dillan

My decisions aren't misinformed if that's what you are implying, but i understand what you are saying and I would love to setup a proper abx. Only problem is, I switched over to J River a little while ago and I am not sure if they have something like that. I wouldn't mind getting Foobar again just to try that out though.


----------



## Brooko

Definitely not implying anything - just gently suggesting that the actual ABX is very easy to set-up, and just involves time.  You obviously have a Windows PC.  My guide is pretty easy to follow.  If you do ever try it, I'd be interested to hear if it changes your thoughts on lossy - especially around the 256 kbps rates


----------



## bigshot

dillan said:


> I just know that there's no potential harm (other than larger files) by going the all FLAC route, while on the other hand there is potential proof of harm in going all MP3. Its scientifically proven in sound science, and a lot of people feel in reality it really is a step above. Either way its a sense of security vs potential loss.




The general consensus among those in Sound Science who have done controlled tests is that past a certain point with bitrate and codec, "lossy" audio is aurally transparent from "lossless". If you can't hear a difference, it doesn't matter any more to the sound quality than whether you're wearing a green shirt to listen to music or a red one.

"Security" and "Potential Loss" have nothing to do with sound quality. Those are psychological issues. Most of us have a little bit of OCD in us. Some have more than others. Worrying about "what might be" would be more important to the latter group of people.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> "Security" and "Potential Loss" have nothing to do with sound quality. Those are psychological issues. Most of us have a little bit of OCD in us. Some have more than others. Worrying about "what might be" would be more important to the latter group of people.


 
  While it might have nothing to do with sound quality, it does certainly have to do with the enjoyment of music. Knowing it's all there is nice.
   
  If I hear a tiny flaw in a recording I don't want to have to worry about whether it's part of the track or a result of compression. It's certainly nothing more than a psychological issue, but it's an issue nonetheless. And data storage is cheaper than getting a psychiatrist.
   
  Not to mention ABX tests aren't flawless. They're great for the most part but echoic memory is extremely limited and the effects of compression can be different for different songs.


----------



## bigshot

I think differently than a lot of people, I guess... I don't want to just be confident in my decisions. I want to know exactly why I make them. When I hear an anomaly in my sound quality, I don't worry about what it MIGHT be... I grab on like a terrier until I find out EXACTLY what caused it.

I have over a year and a half's worth of music in my iTunes library... classical, jazz, pop... older recordings, newer recordings... all kinds of music. The library plays throughout my house via wifi to every room in the house. The same library serves my main listening room where I have the system I've been refining for the past thirty years.

Every time I've heard a problem with the sound, I've tracked it down. It's never due to lossy artifacting... it might be a bad recording, equalization problem, funky transducer, volume imbalance, a million things. But I've never found a single artifact in my files. I use AAC 256 VBR. I determined that setting by doing line level matched A/B comparison testing.

To be honest, I don't think an audiophile will ever achieve optimal sound quality by taking the "more numbers is better" approach. The problem never has anything at all to do with the file size in my experiience. You can't get perfect sound by relying on numbers to do the work for you. It takes proactive problem solving. In fact, if there's anything I've learned in 30 years in this hobby, that is it.


----------



## xnor

Well you gotta keep in mind that AAC is an _excellent _lossy codec. You probably cannot even reach AAC 256 VBR quality with MP3 at any bitrate.
  I personally will take FLAC over MP3 anytime because I'm doing processing like equalization, crossfeeding .. and transcoding for portable players.


----------



## flipper2gv

In a very dense mix like death metal it's easier to spot the difference, which is contrary to popular belief. It seems to me that there is so much going on that having a lossy format will introduce artifacts because there is so little to cut.

 It's really easy to notice especially in how the cymbals sound.


----------



## julian67

bigshot said:


> ....But I've never found a single artifact in my files. I use AAC 256 VBR. I determined that setting by doing line level matched A/B comparison testing....




I like your approach, it makes a lot of sense, but I think you've been quite lucky...so far. AAC constrained VBR at around 256 is a very reasonable standard to settle on but no lossy format is foolproof. If your collection is of any size then you can be pretty sure it contains files with distinguishable compression artefacts or differences. It's impossible to abx each and every track so then you are back in the real world of normal listening where you are _not_ making a side by side comparison, you are listening to music or even just casually or incidentally hearing it. No human being has enduring echoic memory. This means that even making an abx test is quite an intense experience with a surprisingly high level of difficulty (if compared to a somewhat analogous test of visual differences). Noticing a gross artefact like clipping is simple, but what are the chances of noticing in normal listening a small change in weight of bass, or a very marginal sibilance in a complex piece of music? Or a very slight change in the illusion of depth created by the stereo mix? How about several of those or similar factors being present, each by itself insignificant but together making for a degradation that is very hard to define? A side by side comparison can be revealing but in normal listening there is nothing obvious screaming "COMPRESSION!!!". What you get instead is less of the experience and enjoyment, the potential that resides in the uncompressed copy on your CD.

I did abx tests and went through the process of doing them with low quality settings so as to easily recognise the differences, then using better quality settings and repeating and so on. There are well known killer samples out there which will defeat lossless compression and, more to the point, there are other samples in my particular music collection (and probably yours too) which are equally difficult to compress. I remember about a decade ago paying over £100 for a 80GB disk drive. These days that buys me 3TB. My cheapest personal music player sounds great and has a microSDHC slot which accepts 32GB class 10 cards which cost £20 each. I wiped my lossy collection and now just use flac except in a handful of cases where I could only purchase an album in a lossy format. I can 100% guarantee that I will never hear my music collection at anything less than the best possible quality available to me. Can any rational person say the same about their mp3/aac/ogg/mpc/wma collection?


----------



## bigshot

The complexity or density of the music has absolutely nothing to do with whether a sound will artifact or not. Some sounds artifact and other sounds don't. It can be a pure clear tone or a massed chord. It either does or it doesn't. I have thousands of complex cymbal crashes in my library and not a single one of them artifacts at AAC 192 or above. I would bet five bucks that what you thought was artifacting was actually distortion built into the mix of the music. It's extremely difficult to hear artifacts when they are a part of distorted guitars. Much easier to hear them in the pure tones of acoustic instruments.
   
  Lossy audio is capable of complete transparency- indistinguishable from the original CD. Try AAC 256 VBR for yourself and you'll see.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> I like your approach, it makes a lot of sense, but I think you've been quite lucky...so far. AAC constrained VBR at around 256 is a very reasonable standard to settle on but no lossy format is foolproof. If your collection is of any size then you can be pretty sure it contains files with distinguishable compression artefacts or differences. It's impossible to abx each and every track so then you are back in the real world of normal listening where you are _not_ making a side by side comparison, you are listening to music or even just casually or incidentally hearing it


 
   
  I really didn't take any of this lightly. When you have a collection of music as big as I have, you don't commit to a compression setting without taking all that into account. I have over 10,000 CDs and at least that many records, dating back to the earliest days of recording. When I decided to build a music server, I spent the better part of a week compressing audio using various codecs and bitrates and comparing them with the original CD. I compared classical music, jazz, rock music, pop vocals, opera and country. I digitized acoustic recordings from 1905 to the most modern DSD recordings. I compared on my own system and the system of a friend of mine who is a sound mixer. I studied the varieties of artifacts online and learned to recognize the various types. One thing I learned is that artifacting is not subtle. It's like clipping. If you hit that line the whole thing goes splat. Even small artifacts are immediately apparent, because they sound like outer space glorps next to acoustic music. They stand out like a sore thumb.
   
  I carefully inched my way up from very low bitrates to higher ones, so I could identify exactly what was being smooshed at each step. Finally at 192 CBR AAC, 256 CBR LAME MP3 and 320 Frauenhofer MP3 I couldn't detect any more artifacting. There was one stubborn CD that still artifacted very slightly at that rate, so I upped it one notch and added VBR to allow for a little bit more headroom if needed. I didn't arrive at AAC 256 VBR as my standard until I had thoroughly tested it as much as I possibly could. I could spend the rest of my life doing A/B tests on all my music, but I'm totally confident that I've allowed for a bit of overkill so I don't have to worry.
   
  With the amount of music in my library, if I had ripped only as ALAC, I would have had to split the library across at least two hard drives. As AAC, it all fits on one. That makes backing up and transporting my music much easier. File size does matter.
   
  I don't worry about what I can't hear.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think differently than a lot of people, I guess... I don't want to just be confident in my decisions. I want to know exactly why I make them. When I hear an anomaly in my sound quality, I don't worry about what it MIGHT be... I grab on like a terrier until I find out EXACTLY what caused it.
> 
> I have over a year and a half's worth of music in my iTunes library... classical, jazz, pop... older recordings, newer recordings... all kinds of music. The library plays throughout my house via wifi to every room in the house. The same library serves my main listening room where I have the system I've been refining for the past thirty years.
> 
> ...


 
  Well that's the thing - I too want to know what an anomaly is when I hear it. If I have a lossless file that eliminates a cause.
   
  Granted you're right it's very improbable any flaw is going to be due to a compression artifacts at 256kbps+ bitrates at either LAME mp3 or aac, and I do understand why you take the stance that you do. 
   
   


flipper2gv said:


> In a very dense mix like death metal it's easier to spot the difference, which is contrary to popular belief. It seems to me that there is so much going on that having a lossy format will introduce artifacts because there is so little to cut.
> 
> It's really easy to notice especially in how the cymbals sound.


 

  On the contrary - the  techniques that lossy compression uses work very well with complex arrangements. The artifacts are all masked by louder noises - that's a major part of how lossy compression works. Simple, high frequency stuff is what I believe might be the most noticeable.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I'm a Lame 320 CBR guy, and I have yet to find any file that I can ABX that identifies a problem with the encoding.  I use this format because it works on every device and Google Music does not mess with it when I upload it.  I'm at the point where I stopped worrying about those glitches in a song, because I hear it on YouTube, I hear it in MOG, I hear it in Spotify, I hear it in Pandora, I hear it in Sony Music, and if I also have the CD, I hear it there too.  I'm confident that Lame 320 kbps CBR is transparent to my ears and equipment.  I have not even seen any proof that anyone can tell a difference, but I know that I cannot.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Granted you're right it's very improbable any flaw is going to be due to a compression artifacts at 256kbps+ bitrates at either LAME mp3 or aac, and I do understand why you take the stance that you do.


 
   
  Ripping errors are probably much more likely than compression artifacting. I've had a few of those in the tens of thousands of CDs I've ripped. If one is concerned enough about compression artifacts to not use compressed files, he probably should be even more concerned about ripping errors. That means avoid digital files altogether and only play physical CDs which are able to do transparent error correction on the fly.


----------



## julian67

bigshot said:


> artifacting is not subtle. It's like clipping. If you hit that line the whole thing goes splat. Even small artifacts are immediately apparent, because they sound like outer space glorps next to acoustic music. They stand out like a sore thumb .......
> 
> I don't worry about what I can't hear.




Actually my point was that gross artefacts are usually _not_ subtle but harmonic changes or changes in stereo image _can be_ subtle. They do not necessarily stand out like a sore thumb in normal listening but are much more easily identified in a side by side comparison. I've certainly identified samples which don't have gross artefacts but which do sound different in compressed form vs uncompressed.

"I don't worry about what I can't hear." is *not* a good description of your position. You would be more accurate to say "I don't worry about what I don't _notice_." or "I don't worry about what I haven't directly compared." or "I don't worry unless I hear something so grossly obvious that it doesn't require a comparison." or "I have made some assumptions based on tests of a necessarily minute proportion of my collection".

My position is much simpler and I'll restate it:

I can 100% guarantee that I will never hear my music collection at anything less than the best possible quality available to me.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Ripping errors are probably much more likely than compression artifacting. I've had a few of those in the tens of thousands of CDs I've ripped. If one is concerned enough about compression artifacts to not use compressed files, he probably should be even more concerned about ripping errors. That means avoid digital files altogether and only play physical CDs which are able to do transparent error correction on the fly.


 
  My CD ripping software does have error correction and does a minimum of 5 passes to verify it's accurate, as well as comparing it to an accurate rip database. So I've got that covered beyond overkill.


----------



## bigshot

How long would it take you to rip 10,000 CDs?


----------



## julian67

Five times longer than someone with a collection of clean CDs and a sane ripper


----------



## bigshot

julian67 said:


> Actually my point was that gross artefacts are usually _not_ subtle but harmonic changes or changes in stereo image _can be_ subtle.




You should uncheck "joint stereo" when you encode.


----------



## bigshot

julian67 said:


> Five times longer than someone with a collection of clean CDs and a sane ripper




Woof! It's taken me three years, and I only had two ripping errors! There is a dear price to be paid for ADD when it comes to things like this!



julian67 said:


> I can 100% guarantee that I will never hear my music collection at anything less than the best possible quality available to me.




Me too, once I wiped the smudge off those two CDs and reripped them.


----------



## waynes world

I just wanted to say that I've learned quite a bit from all of the back and forth here. Very informative!


----------



## julian67

bigshot said:


> You should uncheck "joint stereo" when you encode.




I wasn't specifying a particular codec or the options of a particular codec. Your assumptions are incorrect. Your statement is also an implicit unfounded assertion. Your short response is in fact an aggregation of logical fallacies.

Worse is that you only (and fallaciously) address _only_ my mention of stereo image while neglecting to consider _every_ other kind of change that can arise from lossy audio compression. That is an _enormous_ evasion.

Again: I can 100% guarantee that I will never hear my music collection at anything less than the best possible quality available to me.

You cannot say the same if your collection is lossily compressed from your source. The best you can be sure of is that under the particular conditions under which you made comparisons you failed to notice any difference for the particular samples you compared. The things you cannot claim include:

"The compressed audio will also sound identical to me on any other playback hardware I might use."
"The compressed audio will also sound identical to any other person who makes the same comparison."
"I noticed each and every difference (if any)."
"I know for sure that my ears are not much different from simple measuring instruments and that sound does not affect me unless I am consciously aware of it."
"I only perceive sound via my ears. When I listen for differences or artefacts I definitely don't need to consider the various ways my mind and body respond to audio both within and beyond the known audible range."
"Personally, my echoic memory is so good that to me listening to different versions of the same track in quick succession is no different to looking at two versions of a picture and spotting the differences."

Nobody can honestly and truthfully claim those things. But I can honestly and truthfully state that when I listen to my lossless music collection " I can 100% guarantee that I will never hear my music collection at anything less than the best possible quality available to me."

I don't need any riders, caveats, exceptions, claims of exceptional ability or hardware, testing prowess, authority based on number of albums, biological capacity, age, experience, or any of the other stuff that gets presented. I *know* my music collection sounds exactly as good as it can. You *claim* yours does.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> How long would it take you to rip 10,000 CDs?


 
  Alright actually I have some things wrong - I usually hit rip and just go on doing other things for a few minute so I didn't notice.
   
  It only does the extra passes if it needs to. If the checksum matches the accuraterip database it doesn't go on with a second pass. With one pass and with this verification, as well as encoding to FLAC, it takes about 3 minutes for a_ completely_ packed CD. So if it did have to go with the ultra secure ripping passes(which if I understand correctly would be 5 total, or up to 8 if there are errors) it would still only take 15 minutes, worst case about 24 minutes(but that would mean that there definitely were some errors). Still faster than EAC.
   
  I'm glad I don't have to worry about ripping 10,000 CD's at once. I feel like that would melt the CD drive. I just rip mine as I buy them... Did you stumble upon a warehouse full of CD's at one point or did you not have a ripper before?
   
  EDIT: But to answer your question, 20.8-166.7 days, given the CDs are all around 120 minutes length.


----------



## julian67

If I was to rip 10000 CDs I'd make sure it was to a lossless codec so I never had to do it again. If I could afford 10000 CDs I think I could also afford the 5 Terabytes of storage it would take to store the flacs, scans, logs, cue files etc. 5TB of storage should suffice. Even if you double that so as to allow for back ups the cost of the storage only works out to something like the cost of 35 normal price CDs (not budget price, not premium).

Compressed audio has only one positive attribute: size. When storage was very expensive this was a very considerable advantage indeed, outweighing the inconvenience of encoding and many sound quality issues (people happily used compressed audio even 10 and 15 years ago when it undeniably always sounded dreadful). These days why on earth would anyone go to the trouble of compressing audio when the single positive attribute is negated? But still people actually _evangelize_ it! They promote it, advocate its use and even pour scorn on people who simply prefer the unaltered audio they paid for. You'd think that lossy compression offered some wonderful quality, some musical advantage or wonderful sonic benefit! This is nuts, bonkers and competely off the wall. The absolute best you can hope for is that you don't notice a difference. That isn't a benefit! So why bother?

There is one group of people who benefit very greatly from compressed audio: retailers of compressed audio! Apple and Amazon et al save on bandwidth and storage while charging you and me very uncompressed prices for very compressed product. Their profits are lossless but your music is not.


----------



## Dillan

Man its like chewy4 and julian67 are picking into my brain and typing out my thoughts. I agree with you guys whole heartily.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You should uncheck "joint stereo" when you encode.


 
  Why is that?


----------



## julian67

achmedisdead said:


> Why is that?




He was trying to assert that if the illusion of a soundstage/stereo image is perceived differently in a lossy encode then that difference must be because the encoder has used joint stereo mode. This isn't correct and in any case lossy encoders use a mix of techniques according to target bitrate/quality setting and the source material. Any decent encoder will do a better job of automatically selecting the best settings than a human being can do.

bigshot's comment actually was a kind of strawman, being a misrepresentation. It's a technique commonly used when one prefers to avoid addressing what has actually been proposed. It doesn't fall under the category of rational discourse.


----------



## sonitus mirus

My CD collection started back in the mid 80's.  At that time, I may have been using a "high speed" 900 baud modem to connect to a few BBS to chat about Dungeons and Dragons or how to hack the public pay phones. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  The problem with FLAC is that I am not able to consistently stream to any device across a wide range of different performing internet connections or mobile services.  So, while FLAC is perfect for archiving, I still have to convert to a lossy format so that I can stream my music collection away from home.  And while storage may be relatively inexpensive, and the ripping time has improved over the years, it's still far from free, and it takes more time and effort than I would like.  
   
  Since I have never been able to hear a difference between any lossless format and a properly encoded mp3 file, I decided to skip the step of archiving in a lossless format and simply use the CD itself  as the archived data.
   
  Now I can spend the money on storage and a reliable backup system on other things, including additional music.  The format I have chosen allows me to upload my music to Google Music, without having to worry about Google transcoding my files.  The files appear exactly as I had ripped them.  And using Google Music has an advantage over iTunes in that I am able to play all of my collection on either an iOS or Android device, as well as any computer with access to the internet.
   
  Another benefit of the self-discovery with regards to lossy formats is that I'm now able to thoroughly enjoy music subscription services with confidence, such as MOG or Spotify that use higher quality streaming formats on all of my devices. This effectively increased my music collection by leaps and bounds.  Now I only purchase CDs when I cannot find the music on a subscription service, such as artists that are holding out on joining the modern era or certain versions like the Beatles' mono collection.
   
  In the beginning, I would challenge any anomaly I heard in my mp3 files.  Over time, and probably what has been hundreds of false alarms, I've finally settled on the premise that I simply am unable to distinguish any difference at all.  On some rare occasions I have found a poorly encoded track or album on Spotify or MOG, but for the most part, if I can hear it in the lossy format, it is basically how it was recorded or mastered, and I'll hear the same thing on the CD.


----------



## waynes world

^ Thanks for sharing those thoughts.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> I wasn't specifying a particular codec or the options of a particular codec. Your assumptions are incorrect. Your statement is also an implicit unfounded assertion. Your short response is in fact an aggregation of logical fallacies.


 
   
  I'm talking about sound. I'm not talking about you. If you want to discuss audio, discuss audio.
   
  Artifacting is NOT subtle. Stereo imaging can be subtly affected by using Joint Stereo. However, it can't be affected when you are using a modern codec like LAME or MP4 at a decent bitrate.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> I'm glad I don't have to worry about ripping 10,000 CD's at once. I feel like that would melt the CD drive. I just rip mine as I buy them... Did you stumble upon a warehouse full of CD's at one point or did you not have a ripper before?


 
   
  Thirty plus years of collecting... And it's not just CDs. It's LPs, 78s, DVDs and blurays too. With all my records, my friends refuse to help me move any more, so I have to stay put.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> If I was to rip 10000 CDs I'd make sure it was to a lossless codec so I never had to do it again. If I could afford 10000 CDs I think I could also afford the 5 Terabytes of storage it would take to store the flacs, scans, logs, cue files etc. 5TB of storage should suffice. Even if you double that so as to allow for back ups the cost of the storage only works out to something like the cost of 35 normal price CDs (not budget price, not premium).


 
   
  I have almost 30 TB in my media server right now with all of my music and movies. It's already running out of space. I like having all my music on a single drive though. I have it on random shuffle 24/7 and if there are multiple iTunes libraries split across drives, it can't all be available at once.
   
  My stereo system kicks ass. Come on by and hear how good can AAC 256 VBR sound some time.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





achmedisdead said:


> Why is that?


 
   
  Joint stereo doesn't make the stereo file from two separate mono files. It compresses the two channels together to save space. A lot of the time, it works fine. But not always. It can sometimes make the stereo image flicker in and out when it mooshes the two channels together.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> Since I have never been able to hear a difference between any lossless format and a properly encoded mp3 file, I decided to skip the step of archiving in a lossless format and simply use the CD itself  as the archived data.
> 
> In the beginning, I would challenge any anomaly I heard in my mp3 files.  Over time, and probably what has been hundreds of false alarms, I've finally settled on the premise that I simply am unable to distinguish any difference at all.


 
   
  Exactly my experience and approach.
   
  Interestingly enough, I took an AAC 256 VBR file of very well recorded music and encoded it back to AIFF then back to AAC 256 VBR ten times... Ten levels of transcoding. Guess what? It still sounded good. I think I may be the only person in the world who has tried this when I read the internet forums.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think I may be the only person in the world who has tried this when I read the internet forums.


 
  You missed a pretty important audio forum. Google "Nine different codecs 100-pass recompression test" or "Short re-encoding blind listening test, wavpack - mp3 - mpc - aac - vorbis".


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





xnor said:


> You missed a pretty important audio forum. Google "Nine different codecs 100-pass recompression test" or "Short re-encoding blind listening test, wavpack - mp3 - mpc - aac - vorbis".


 
  Well that sure seems to beat the hell out of my test, I think the files are down for the 9 different codecs one though.
   
  In my testing I found that the only difference in high bit-rate AAC(nero) transcoding was a change in the volume of different frequencies. And yes I did ABX, with volume matching.


----------



## Dillan

sonitus mirus said:


> My CD collection started back in the mid 80's.  At that time, I may have been using a "high speed" 900 baud modem to connect to a few BBS to chat about Dungeons and Dragons or how to hack the public pay phones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It sounds like the top of your priority is not sound quality, but compatibility and ease of use. Its just.. I guess I am a little ocd about my music, but why not revolve everything on sound quality and go from there. Everyone always says they can't tell a difference. When you are talking about thousands and thousands of songs, how can the possibility of sound differences, no matter how small, not exist. Why not just avoid any possibility and just decide to be sure without doubt?


----------



## bigshot

For me, sound quality is VERY important. But only sound quality that I can hear. I learned long ago that numbers don't always tell the whole story. Salesmen at Pacific Stereo would pull out spec sheets and show me numbers and I had no idea what those numbers represented. I just went for whatever number looked the best. Then I made the effort to find out for myself how those numbers related to the thresholds of human hearing. That improved the sound quality of my system immensely, because it told me what aspects needed my attention and what didn't. Too many people don't understand enough about sound to be able to troubleshoot problems. They just throw numbers randomly at the problem and solve nothing. I think it's an experience thing. When you've been in the hobby a while you have more perspective.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I do care about sound quality, but I try to remain within the realistic realms of my financial capabilities.  I did not reach the conclusion that the lossy format I use is good enough.  I found that the format I use is equally as good, in every regard, as a lossless version.
   
  First, I read that a well-encoded lossy file should be audibly transparent to a lossless file from the same source.  Having only my own pair of ears, I can say with certainty that I absolutely cannot tell a difference.  The format I chose, LAME encoded 320 kbps mp3, is NOT the ideal format that I would like to use as a lossy format.  That would be AAC, as it seems to be technically superior (not audibly better), but this format currently has limitations with the equipment I am currently using.  (namely my Android devices, Google Music, and my Logitech Squeezebox Touch device with my NAS)
   
  In the beginning, I did go lossless.  First I used Monkey's Audio before I discovered FLAC.  It was only with the more recent improvements in network performance and mobile services that I even considered the possibility of maintaining my own library that could be accessed from practically any location.  Not too long ago, I was copying lossless files to a portable player or a netbook and using Rhapsody music service only for the radio to discover new music.
   
  Then MOG music service became available and I spent more time researching the differences in audio quality between lossy and lossless formats. It was only at this point that I began making an earnest effort to prove to myself that FLAC was significantly superior to any lossy format.  I was certain that it should be.  I mean, I had $150 4" interconnects and behemoth linear power supplies rocking my setups to help squeeze every last ounce of sonic goodness from my music. I wasn't about to waste all of that on some lossy format from the Napster days.  
   
  I tested, retested, and simply could not believe my ears at first. (I even had my hearing checked)  I purchased some high-quality music that I was very familiar with from HD Tracks. This music had a modest dynamic range and that most considered to be well mastered.  Nada.  Zip.  I could not reliably identify the difference between the original and the lossy copy.  I do have about 2000 FLAC songs on my server that I will listen to with my Squeezebox when I am at home, but I've since stopped ripping new CDs to FLAC.   Like I stated earlier, there were numerous times when a song sounded "off" or there was a glitch or odd echo that I would hear.  I'd grab the CD, listen to it and hear the same thing.  In every case, what I was hearing in the mp3 file was recreated exactly with the CD.  This was a frequent event, initially, that has faded significantly over time.  
   
  I'm still open to the idea that lossless is superior, but I just can't find any proof of this to date.  And I can still rip those CDs to FLAC or any new format that might come about later.  Right now I need to use mp3 to be able to listen to my music almost everywhere I go, and the sound quality is every bit as good as the original CD.  Although, I do not know if I would have gone this direction if I was not able to convince myself that I would not be sacrificing audio quality.


----------



## Dillan

But none of that matters. Literally its a black and white topic. Experience, wisdom, maybe, if, possibly... No excuses, nothing.. It comes down to concrete scientific proof and facts. Sure this person just puts on headphones, even to test for hours or days or weeks, says they "Can't seem to tell a difference" "I (hopefully) can't distinguish the two". Nobody can extensively test a well collected multi-terabyte collection of music, which is what a lot of serious "audiophiles" have. You just can't. The only downfall to FLAC is storage, even then its designed to take up less storage than other things like WAV. That's the only downfall, nothing else. If that is why someone would choose to use lossy, then so bit it, whose to look down on them for that. Just dont argue the fact that lossy could sound better, could sound the same, bla bla. Because those are maybe's. I'm a person who likes to feel secure, who likes facts and science. When there's not even the slightest possibility for my professionally, well ripped or downloaded FLAC collection to sound worse than the next guys MP3 collection, why "downgrade" to MP3? Especially if you have the money for storage. There's no reason at all. "I can't really tell a difference", well that isn't a factual statement, why not take the safe route? Why not know  you have the best possible quality. It doesn't matter if you don't think this or that, why not create an unarguable situation and remove any possibility or doubt. That is how i've always felt about this topic. I don't put too much effort into opinion, I look at the facts.


----------



## bigshot

If you made the effort to do a controlled listening comparison like Sonitus and I have, you might find out that the facts aren't quite what you think they are. Sonitus just outlined a very organized series of tests he mad. I spent a week comparing all the major codecs with all types of music. I play my music library 24/7 and whenever I find a problem with a track, I mark the track with a star so I can easily find it, go back to it on the server and determine exactly what caused it. That's happened to me twice. Both times, it was a ripping error, not an encoding error. I don't need to do an A/B comparison of every minute of every piece of music in my library. I've been listening to it for a few years now, and I have never found a single encoding problem. I've got boxes of CDs in the garage if I ever need them, but I don't think I ever will.
   
  The only reason to rip to FLAC when you own the original CD is for "peace of mind". That has absolutely nothing to do with the way the file actually sounds.
   
  The advantages of ripping directly to audibly transparent lossy are numerous... files stream better, I don't have to wait to transcode from ALAC to AAC when I fill up my iPod, I can fit my entire library on a single hard drive, smaller file sizes mean less chance of hard drive errors creeping in, every portable device and stereo in my home can play my files because they are a cross platform standard, and I can fit a LOT more music on my iPhone, iPad and iPods. All this and it sounds exactly the same as lossless, even on my main rig.
   
  I don't need to guess about "peace of mind". I KNOW my files sound as good as they can be, AND they are perfectly convenient to how I want to use them.


----------



## waynes world

Lol - something tells me that this debate has no end! But I have gotten a good feel for the arguments from experienced people in both camps.
   
  Not that anyone cares, but I have been swayed towards the dark (ie lossy) side. I can understand the concept of using FLAC simply because then you *know* you have "the best". But, I do have limited disk space, and I don't have unlimited funds, and I don't like how everything takes longer when dealing with larger files (ie file transfers etc), and I do like being able to load up as much music as I can on my Clip Zip/Tab2's 32GB microSD cards (hopefully 64GB soon when the prices come down a bit). Combine that with the fact that I do not yet have my bionic bat ears and I can't tell the difference between FLAC and 320 kbps LAME mp3 files, I am now going to happily stick with the mp3 files for the foreseeable future.
   
  Whew!


----------



## julian67

bigshot said:


> I'm talking about sound. I'm not talking about you. If you want to discuss audio, discuss audio.




You quoted me and replied to me specifically, saying "You should uncheck "joint stereo" when you encode". which, as I described, was something of a strawman. Even if you now claim it to be a general statement it is still not a good argument (even if accompanied by a piece of bossy hubris). Stereo image in a lossy file does not depend only on where the encoder selects joint/mid side/intensity, so your "advice" is simply wrong in any case. 



			
				bigshot said:
			
		

> Artifacting is NOT subtle. Stereo imaging can be subtly affected by using Joint Stereo. However, it can't be affected when you are using a modern codec like LAME or MP4 at a decent bitrate.




The differences between lossless and well encoded lossy can be subtle. You might find small differences in the amount of bass or treble, or in the decay of notes, or in the definition of transients etc. etc. etc. These are not gross artefacts and may pass completely unnoticed in normal listening, and might even be difficult in a side by side comparison. But they can exist and do. If you've only been listening out for gross artefacts then your listening tests are flawed.



			
				bigshot said:
			
		

> My stereo system kicks ass. Come on by and hear how good can AAC 256 VBR sound some time.




That's an appeal to what? Your purchasing prowess? Are you going to publish your address and pay my transatlantic air ticket? I prefer business or first class by the way. This is all so much hot air.



			
				bigshot said:
			
		

> The advantages of ripping directly to audibly transparent lossy are numerous... files stream better, I don't have to wait to transcode from ALAC to AAC when I fill up my iPod, I can fit my entire library on a single hard drive, smaller file sizes mean less chance of hard drive errors creeping in, every portable device and stereo in my home can play my files because they are a cross platform standard, and I can fit a LOT more music on my iPhone, iPad and iPods. All this and it sounds exactly the same as lossless, even on my main rig.
> 
> I don't need to guess about "peace of mind". I KNOW my files sound as good as they can be, AND they are perfectly convenient to how I want to use them.




All of that is very convenient but that's all it is: convenience. If convenience is king than just be happy with that. Why bother trying to also claim that you "KNOW" that the lossy audio files are as good as the uncompressed originals? You cannot know that, you can only believe it. All you can reasonably claim is that you don't notice a difference.

It doesn't matter if you attempt to upbraid Rem1x for some supposed lack of effort, or try to issue me orders like you're my commanding officer. Because your logic is flawed, and that is actually what matters (not your super hifi or the size of your library or how long you've been collecting it). Rem1x is right in saying 





dillan said:


> .... Just dont argue the fact that lossy could sound better, could sound the same, bla bla. Because those are maybe's. ....why "downgrade" to MP3? Especially if you have the money for storage. ... Why not know  you have the best possible quality. It doesn't matter if you don't think this or that, why not create an unarguable situation and remove any possibility or doubt."




I agree and like Rem1x I can claim with absolute reason and without any room for doubt or error that I hear my music at the best quality possible on the playback equipment I own. No ifs, no buts, maybes, additional claims or special pleading required.

Another problem with asserting beliefs as facts is that if the day comes where the claim is found to be less than golden, it's much easier to deal with if one doesn't feel personally invested in the matter. Ask a naked emperor.


----------



## julian67

waynes world said:


> Lol - something tells me that this debate has no end! But I have gotten a good feel for the arguments from experienced people in both camps.
> 
> Not that anyone cares, but I have been swayed towards the dark (ie lossy) side. I can understand the concept of using FLAC simply because then you *know* you have "the best". But, I do have limited disk space, and I don't have unlimited funds, and I don't like how everything takes longer when dealing with larger files (ie file transfers etc), and I do like being able to load up as much music as I can on my Clip Zip/Tab2's 32GB microSD cards (hopefully 64GB soon when the prices come down a bit). Combine that with the fact that I do not yet have my bionic bat ears and I can't tell the difference between FLAC and 320 kbps LAME mp3 files, I am now going to happily stick with the mp3 files for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Whew!




I'd say you were doing the perfectly reasonable thing under the circumstances. "I can't tell the difference" in combination with " I do have limited disk space, and I don't have unlimited funds" makes a compelling argument in favour of using lossy audio.

It's when people stop saying "I can't tell the difference" and start saying instead "it's identical/perfect/beyond criticism" often accompanied by "everyone should use it and anyone who disagrees is lazy/dishonest/foolish/ignorant" that things get a bit more exciting.


----------



## ForShure

Here's my two cents on the whole FLAC vs. MP3 debate. Looking at other compressed forms of media such as photos I see the same arguements going on but with different outcomes. In photo compression lossy formates like JPEG closely resemble the MP3. Most people use it and are perfectly fine with it. It's files take up much less space and consumer level cameras only support JPEG. Meanwhile many photo professionals shoot in uncompressed lossless files such as RAW. These files are many times bigger and only higher end cameras support shooting in this format. When examining a JPEG and RAW photo up close one can see the differences between the two. The edges tend to be less crisp and detail tends to be lacking.
   
  The difference in the debate is that while both deal with Lossy vs. lossless compression photo enthusiasts all agree that uncompressed RAW photos look better than their compressed brethren no matter how advanced the encoder is. While in the MP3 vs. FLAC debate people can't seem to agree on what sounds better. I believe the biggest factor in this is that with photos it is much easier to point out compression artifacts because it is something visual. Humans rely on their eyes much more than hearing and because of this naturally we trust what we see to be true. Listening on the other hand is very subjective and one it is much harder to get somebody to listen to the exact same thing you do. Part of this may be because we have way fewer words in our language to describe sound than describe sight.
   
  As far as I'm concerned there is a difference between lossy and lossless compression and how they sound. The numbers state that is true, however...if any human can tell the difference is a matter still up for debate. If humans had the hearing of a cat then I'm sure we would be able to tell the difference but because all of us (i think) are human we are limited in what we can hear. I personally will always try to rip my cd's in FLAC for bragging rights and archival reasons but if an artist only releases a 320 mp3 online then I wont lose any sleep about missing out on the music.


----------



## waynes world

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *ForShure* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The difference in the debate is that while both deal with Lossy vs. lossless compression photo enthusiasts all agree that uncompressed RAW photos look better than their compressed brethren no matter how advanced the encoder is. While in the MP3 vs. FLAC debate people can't seem to agree on what sounds better. I believe the biggest factor in this is that with photos it is much easier to point out compression artifacts because it is something visual.


 
   
  I understand your points. But if you like to edit your photos, another big advantage to shooting in RAW is because there is a lot more latitude for editing RAW files than there is with JPG files.


----------



## ForShure

Quote: 





waynes world said:


> I understand your points. But if you like to edit your photos, another big advantage to shooting in RAW is because there is a lot more latitude for editing RAW files than there is with JPG files.


 

 Facepalm* forgot to mention that bit lol. I'm ashamed I forgot that since I use Photoshop every single day at work.


----------



## Dillan

The audio and image files are a great comparison, I never thought of it like that. I wish comparing things that you hear were as easy as what you see. Our echoic memory is honestly pretty bad, I feel like mine is especially sometimes..


----------



## sonitus mirus

This is certainly not beyond criticism.  As for facts and beliefs, I can only speak for myself.  I've done tests that to this point have convinced me that I cannot hear a difference and I am not sacrificing audible sound quality by using a lossy format.  Sure, I can't know for certain in any reasonable manner, but I have actual results that I can fall back on, and I've never seen reliable evidence that shows anyone else would have different results.
   
  It was asked why anyone would use a lossy format other than simply trying to save space.  I was only attempting to explain the reason behind my decision, and that it was not as simple as just trying to save space.


----------



## Dillan

sonitus mirus said:


> This is certainly not beyond criticism.  As for facts and beliefs, I can only speak for myself.  I've done tests that to this point have convinced me that I cannot hear a difference and I am not sacrificing audible sound quality by using a lossy format.  Sure, I can't know for certain in any reasonable manner, but I have actual results that I can fall back on, and I've never seen reliable evidence that shows anyone else would have different results.
> 
> It was asked why anyone would use a lossy format other than simply trying to save space.  I was only attempting to explain the reason behind my decision, and that it was not as simple as just trying to save space.




You can't prove to anyone that you can or can't hear a difference, unless you can read minds, and even then - echoic memory is deceptive, so a lot of people don't even realize what they hear even if they hear it (or don't hear it for that matter). You can however look at what Lossless audio really is and what it is made for, and I can sit here and listen to it, and not have to prove anything, because it is a lossless file, it is scientifically better than lossy. It literally keeps every particle of sound that the album had, and makes it into a digital file. Whether certain human ears can hear the quality lost or gained is the only thing that can be debated, but there is quality lost with MP3. So while someone with a lossy album has to guess, the lossless album can know for a fact, why even deal with potential loss? I never understood. The only reasons I can think of going with a lesser quality format such as MP3 would be because you are saving space, or for compatibility issues - perhaps on mobile devices. Other than that, I can't even imagine.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> You quoted me and replied to me specifically, saying "You should uncheck "joint stereo" when you encode". which, as I described, was something of a strawman. Even if you now claim it to be a general statement it is still not a good argument (even if accompanied by a piece of bossy hubris).


 
   
  You're resorting to attacking the person not the argument again. I'm not going to reply to you if you do that. I'll talk past you to the rest of the readers of this thread.
   
  There is absolutely nothing wrong with ripping to FLAC or ALAC. They're fine formats. Lossless is great if you don't own the CD you're ripping and you need an exact backup. But if you do own the CDs in your collection, there is no practical advantage at all. High bitrate current lossy codecs are completely transparent. I have good ears and a kick ass sound system and I use AAC with no loss of sound quality. High bitrate lossy does however have definite advantages if you have a large collection, limited storage and backup space, if you stream your music regularly or if you use portable DAPs like iPods, iPhones or iPads. Also, MP3 LAME is the most versatile music format of all. It will play on just about anything that plays digital audio. I've found that it's possible to play FLAC on a Macintosh, but it's far from convenient. And although ALAC is open format, it isn't as accepted as MP3 by a longshot.
   
  No sound difference. More convenience with lossy. No brainer.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





forshure said:


> Here's my two cents on the whole FLAC vs. MP3 debate. Looking at other compressed forms of media such as photos I see the same arguements going on but with different outcomes. In photo compression lossy formates like JPEG closely resemble the MP3. Most people use it and are perfectly fine with it. It's files take up much less space and consumer level cameras only support JPEG. Meanwhile many photo professionals shoot in uncompressed lossless files such as RAW. These files are many times bigger and only higher end cameras support shooting in this format.


 
   
  The reason professional photographers use RAW is the same reason that recording studios use 24 bit audio... It has a wider dynamic range, so it allows for more room for post processing. A sound mixer may need to pull up a small sound in a mix, and not pulling up a noise floor with it is a definite advantage. A professional photographer may want to adjust the exposure or color balance in photoshop, and RAW files give him the latitude to do that.
   
  HOWEVER...
   
  Once the mix is complete, and the high bitrate master is bounced down to redbook and then high bitrate lossy, the original master and the high bitrate lossy are identical in normal listening situations. And once a RAW file is adjusted in post processing and saved out as a high quality jpeg, the RAW and jpeg are identical in normal viewing conditions.
   
  24 bit, RAW and lossless redbook all have their place when the sound or image is being manipulated. But for looking at pictures or listening to music, they are just bigger files with no added benefit to the viewer/listener.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





dillan said:


> You can't prove to anyone that you can or can't hear a difference, unless you can read minds


 
   
  Welcome to Sound Science, the only board on Head-Fi where I can say this...
   
  YES! You CAN prove it. It's called a double blind, level matched, direct A/B comparison. I've seen lots of reports of controlled listening tests, and I have done some slightly less formal ones myself. It's been proven time and time again. High bitrate AAC and MP3 LAME are aurally transparent to lossless. At this point, you can't prove that it *isn't* transparent without piling up a good amount of supporting test results to tip it the other way. Good luck with that. It won't be easy!


----------



## Dillan

Honestly what it comes down to is, what does the individual want. Do they need a smaller sized file, do they need a file more compatible on mobile devices, if my personal situation called for those two things, or maybe another reason, then yea the first thing I would do is start worrying about the possibility of a difference and loss in quality. I would probably spend many hours testing this, (not to say I have no experience comparing the two already), but for me?.. None of these things are the case. I have plenty of storage, I have devices and software for bit-perfect playback, and I chose to obtain a large collection of FLAC, and at every chance, I choose it over lossy formats. I don't hate lossy, I will happily download lossy if I have no other option - But I will always rip to flac, and download flac or other lossless formats when I can. Why? Because the previous scenarios do not reflect my situation and I chose with something that scientifically is better, and allows me to feel secure without having to do extensive testing. I too have a large collection of audio and I too have a very high end setup, both in the headphone world and speakers. Another thing to consider is how good is the setup, better setups tend to show poor quality audio more than your average pair of apple earbuds. (of course) But I don't use that as any form of proof, excuse, or anything like that.


So yea.. People have different situations, different hearing etc. Like I said, there's no negative with FLAC for me personally. I put sound quality above most any other possible factor. So for me I chose the safe, easy, scientifically proven route. I support high quality lossy, and I also support high quality lossless. My situation was a no brainer, especially since I am a little OCD and like to feel that everything is as perfect as it can be.


----------



## bigshot

Human hearing can be damaged and not as sensitive as other people's hearing, but when it comes to the specs of sound that relate to sound reproduction, the range of human perception is pretty well understood.
   
  I often hear people say... "if you have really good hearing..." or "if you have very good equipment" you might be able to hear the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless. I don't believe that's true at all. I've seen too many controlled tests that show that golden eared audiophiles using stereos that cost as much as houses are just the same as everyone else. Statistically there is no audible difference.
   
  Sound quality is not an issue here at all.
   
  Does washing machine that runs on 220 clean clothes better than one on 120? Bigger numbers don't always relate to quality. It all comes down to "I would worry about missing out on theoretical sound." or "I'm not going to worry about what I can't hear."


----------



## Dillan

Well I associate loss as quality. In my earlier posts I am talking about audio quality being bad if you lose audible pieces of music from the original recording and obviously being good for the opposite. I do think that good systems and bad systems do play a part, but that's not what I am trying to argue.. In fact that whole aspect doesn't even need to be brought up. Numbers cant always be ignored either, they do matter. Numbers and statistics always matter, you can't ignore them. If you asked yourself if you truly thought there was the smallest most insignificant possibility of observable difference between two extremely large collections of music in both Lossy and Lossless - Would you, without any shred of doubt, honestly say that there isn't the possibility? No matter your testing methods or the extent of them.. How can you be so sure. Especially when you look at the scientific facts. The truth is, you can't be sure, and I would bet the majority of people would say that they didn't have 0 doubt. To me, would the little bit of possibility be worth going out of my way to choose flac over mp3? Yes. 

Would the next person say the same thing? That's up to them. Really this entire discussion grows and becomes a lot better if the people who chose the lossy side of things would admit that there isn't fact behind their argument only opinion, and for the lossless side there is fact behind their choice, but the lossy side at least has the chance of being correct too. But with lossless your safe. Its factually either FLAC is the best hear-able quality, or they both are. Definitely in no dimension can you say FLAC is the one that is lower in quality and MP3 is the correct one.


----------



## bigshot

The big problem was when they named compressed audio "lossy". It gave people an incorrect impression. No audio is lost. Only file size. Lossless is not "better sound". It's the same sound.
   
  Imagine you have a freezer in your home and you want to make ice cubes made of water that freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit. A refrigerator salesman tells you that he has two models to choose from. One of them goes down to 20 degrees fahrenheit. That one is called "not as cold". But he has another model called "SUPER DUPER cold" that uses ten times more electricity, but it goes down to 5 degrees fahrenheit. Wow! 5 degrees! That's better, right? No. The ice cubes are exactly the same.
   
   
  Don't be tricked by the name people gave compressed audio. Modern codecs are designed scientifically using state of the art psycho acoustic principles. It's based on what human ears can and can't hear. They eliminate what you can't hear and keep what you can. Redundant info is eliminated to create an efficiently created file that streams smoothly and takes up less space. Win win.
   
  What is the point of archiving data you can't hear?
   
  By the way, logic is a very interesting subject to study. Google the term "logical fallacies". I did that back when I first got the internet in the dark ages and it was fascinating. Kept me busy all night until the sun came up in the morning.


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





forshure said:


> Here's my two cents on the whole FLAC vs. MP3 debate. Looking at other compressed forms of media such as photos I see the same arguements going on but with different outcomes. In photo compression lossy formates like JPEG closely resemble the MP3. Most people use it and are perfectly fine with it. It's files take up much less space and consumer level cameras only support JPEG. Meanwhile many photo professionals shoot in uncompressed lossless files such as RAW. These files are many times bigger and only higher end cameras support shooting in this format. When examining a JPEG and RAW photo up close one can see the differences between the two. The edges tend to be less crisp and detail tends to be lacking.
> 
> The difference in the debate is that while both deal with Lossy vs. lossless compression photo enthusiasts all agree that uncompressed RAW photos look better than their compressed brethren no matter how advanced the encoder is. While in the MP3 vs. FLAC debate people can't seem to agree on what sounds better. I believe the biggest factor in this is that with photos it is much easier to point out compression artifacts because it is something visual. Humans rely on their eyes much more than hearing and because of this naturally we trust what we see to be true. Listening on the other hand is very subjective and one it is much harder to get somebody to listen to the exact same thing you do. Part of this may be because we have way fewer words in our language to describe sound than describe sight.


 
Comparisons between image and audio compression are misleading and show a naive understanding of both approaches. Artifacts in JPG compression are caused by chroma subsampling and block-splitting, with the results processed by a discrete cosine transform and then quantized to allow for a more efficient lossless entropy coding. All of these approximations become obvious even in low compression ratios as you can test by simply zooming in to a JPEG which features curved gradients and high-contrast outlines. A JPEG is static, whereas an mp3 is not. The first step in mp3 compression involves breaking the uncompressed file down to samples and these samples to frequency bands which are then analyzed by a fast fourier transform. The FFT data is then run through a psychoacoustic model (think auditory masking) which further sorts the results into time slices, "windows" based on whether there's a steady noise or a transient. One so sorted the information is then fed through a _modified_ discrete cosine transform which has the remarkable property of time-domain aliasing cancellation (i.e. removing artifacts because of a signal which changes over time, unlike that of a static image).
   
The impetus behind lossy compression is how best to take advantage of the limitations of different human sensory apparatus. Your eye depends on detecting changes in chrominance and luminance but your auditory system depends on sensing rates of change of air pressure and minute differences in interaural-cross correlation. Whereas one can spend hours looking at a painting, photograph, jpeg or other static facsimile of visual stimuli with a magnifying glass and under different lighting conditions, you are not accorded the same luxury with the dynamic medium of audio. Actually it's even worse, since you are also subject to listening in an artificial and necessarily limited sound field where reflections and transducer limitations conspire to further distort the original signal (not that you'd ever perceive the "whole" signal because of auditory masking anyway).
   
To address your final point, there has been quite a bit of research over the past forty years in developing a consistent vocabulary used to describe audio quality and even training programs for listeners to acquaint them with judging specific aspects of sound.
   
The reason I'm calling you out in this spiel is because I want to stress that nothing is ever as simple as it seems and proper comparisons of signal processing methods require not only an appreciation and keen senses but also an understanding of the underlying physiology and mathematics.


----------



## bigshot

There is a definite advantage to stating things clearly and simply.


----------



## Dillan

anetode said:


> Comparisons between image and audio compression are misleading and show a naive understanding of both approaches. Artifacts in JPG compression are caused by chroma subsampling and block-splitting, with the results processed by a discrete cosine transform and then quantized to allow for a more efficient lossless entropy coding. All of these approximations become obvious even in low compression ratios as you can test by simply zooming in to a JPEG which features curved gradients and high-contrast outlines. A JPEG is static, whereas an mp3 is not. The first step in mp3 compression involves breaking the uncompressed file down to samples and these samples to frequency bands which are then analyzed by a fast fourier transform. The FFT data is then run through a psychoacoustic model (think auditory masking) which further sorts the results into time slices, "windows" based on whether there's a steady noise or a transient. One so sorted the information is then fed through a _modified_ discrete cosine transform which has the remarkable property of time-domain aliasing cancellation (i.e. removing artifacts because of a signal which changes over time, unlike that of a static image).
> 
> The impetus behind lossy compression is how best to take advantage of the limitations of different human sensory apparatus. Your eye depends on detecting changes in chrominance and luminance but your auditory system depends on sensing rates of change of air pressure and minute differences in interaural-cross correlation. Whereas one can spend hours looking at a painting, photograph, jpeg or other static facsimile of visual stimuli with a magnifying glass and under different lighting conditions, you are not accorded the same luxury with the dynamic medium of audio. Actually it's even worse, since you are also subject to listening in an artificial and necessarily limited sound field where reflections and transducer limitations conspire to further distort the original signal (not that you'd ever perceive the "whole" signal because of auditory masking anyway).
> 
> ...




I wish I knew more about photography. Maybe Forshure was a little off comparing the two, still an interesting topic either way.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The big problem was when they named compressed audio "lossy". It gave people an incorrect impression. No audio is lost. Only file size. Lossless is not "better sound". It's the same sound.
> 
> Imagine you have a freezer in your home and you want to make ice cubes made of water that freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit. A refrigerator salesman tells you that he has two models to choose from. One of them goes down to 20 degrees fahrenheit. That one is called "not as cold". But he has another model called "SUPER DUPER cold" that uses ten times more electricity, but it goes down to 5 degrees fahrenheit. Wow! 5 degrees! That's better, right? No. The ice cubes are exactly the same.
> 
> ...


 
  I think naming it anything else would give much worse impressions.
   
  In regards to integrity it's most certainly lossy, quite a bit really. To name it something other than that would just make things confusing and cause even more mixups between this special kind of compression and other forms of compression that preserve data integrity.


----------



## anetode

Quote: 





dillan said:


> I wish I knew more about photography. Maybe Forshure was a little off comparing the two, still an interesting topic either way.


 
  The response was a mistake on my part. I read over the last few pages of the thread and lumped Forshure's comment with a line of inane arguments from someone else and so misinterpreted the intent of his post. Sorry, for sure.
   
  In order to salvage that errant post I might as well dig deeper into what he actually said with regards to RAW. There I would analogize the process to the initial 24/96 ADC during recording which allows for the mixing and mastering at a higher resolution prior to downsampling and dynamic compression, followed by conversion to an industry standard format. If you were a music producer then given an mp3 source would surely count as an insult and possibly limit the fidelity of your final product, but from an end-user standpoint [proper] compression is not such a bad thing. FWIW, we've advanced from the days of 128kbps DRM crap sold by iTunes.


----------



## bigshot

That's a bingo.


----------



## Dillan

We have advanced that's for sure. Everything just comes down to the individual, which most people in the world will gladly take their low quality 128 mp3 file and be happy. Some people feel a proper formatted, compressed lossy file is just fine and others are comfortable with a fool proof flac collection. There isn't really an end to the argument between the audio itself, only reason behind choosing which and why.


----------



## bigshot

Well, an artifact filled 128 file isn't the same as an aurally transparent high bitrate MP4 or lossless track. We're talking here about two types of files that are identical to human ears, the only difference being the file size. A low rez MP3 is a different animal altogether.


----------



## Dillan

Well whether every single lossless file is the exact same sound wise to every single lossy file, even the high quality lossy files.. Is what I am not willing to admit. Even though I am willing to say I personally couldn't and still can't tell a difference for the most part, I just can not sit here and without all doubt be 100% confident in the fact that there isn't a possibility.


----------



## bigshot

I wasn't saying that every single lossy file sounds the same as lossless. Obviously low bitrate lossy files don't, just high bitrate ones. The fact that high bitrate MP4 is audibly transparent to lossless has been proven in controlled testing. I totally understand you feeling uncomfortable about data being missing. That's perfectly fine. But again, that has nothing to do with actual perceived sound quality. That is something you would just worry about because of your particular personality.


----------



## Dillan

I mean yea. I still stand by my statements. I feel that most low quality lossy files are easily and audibly different than lossless, and I feel that there is at least the possibility that some sort of difference can be heard of even the highest quality lossy versus its lossless counterpart. Like I said, especially with thousands upon thousands of albums. No matter how insignificant that difference may be. I at least can say that there is a possibility, no matter how small, how large. If someone was to disagree with me, then that's totally ok. But I feel safer with FLAC and I think its a good default format to stick with in my situation. Especially because some remastered, undiscovered albums like to find there way in 24/96 and above on the internet. Those can be great not because there are just lossless but because they are different (better) than the original, or can be something never put out on cd or vinyl in the first place. That's just the way it is, and i will always feel strongly about that. I like a solid fool proof collection that creates a barrier around it, where no one could possibly say that lossy would sound better, only the same at best. I don't know how else I can say it.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





dillan said:


> I mean yea. I still stand by my statements. I feel that most low quality lossy files are easily and audibly different than lossless, and I feel that there is at least the possibility that some sort of difference can be heard of even the highest quality lossy versus its lossless counterpart. Like I said, especially with thousands upon thousands of albums. No matter how insignificant that difference may be. I at least can say that there is a possibility, no matter how small, how large. If someone was to disagree with me, then that's totally ok. But I feel safer with FLAC and I think its a good default format to stick with in my situation. Especially because some remastered, undiscovered albums like to find there way in 24/96 and above on the internet. Those can be great not because there are just lossless but because they are different (better) than the original, or can be something never put out on cd or vinyl in the first place. That's just the way it is, and i will always feel strongly about that. I like a solid fool proof collection that creates a barrier around it, where no one could possibly say that lossy would sound better, only the same at best. I don't know how else I can say it.


 
   
  Rem1x - I hear where you are coming from.  I'm really curious though ..... have you actually tried the controlled abx with Foobar (I linked the how-to earlier in this thread - http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding).
   
If you try the abx - do it with as many tracks / genres / different albums as you can.  All it will cost you is time.  When I did mine - I abx'd ~ 15-20 different tracks all from different albums - ranging classical and jazz right through to rock and alternative.
   
I totally understand your comments so far - but until you actually perform the abx, then saying 'strongly' that you feel flac is better isn't really fair.  You've never comprehensively compared the two.
   
Please note with all of this - I'm not on a crusade here - I just think it's better to know both sides of the story 
   
FTR - I still also rip to FLAC - and listen to my own collection as FLAC files on the PC.  I do this simply for archival purposes - and the fact that if they ever come up with a better lossy/compressed format, I won't have to rerip any CDs.  But for my portables - I only ever use lossy (aac vbr ~200), and I'm quite comfortable about using that at home as well - to my ears it's audibly transparent.
   
I'm just really interested to hear your impressions AFTER performing a multitude of abx tests - would your initial feelings change?  If you're not inclined to do the abx - no problem.  It's been refreshing to hear your comments.  And I do understand about the OCD tendencies - can totally relate


----------



## Dillan

I guess it wouldn't hurt anything to do those tests. Like I said I have done a few blind tests, but I feel like my echoic memory is so bad it makes things really difficult. I think I'll take you up on that and set it up tonight or tomorrow and post my thoughts afterward.


----------



## chewy4

The nice thing about Foobar's ABX comparator is that you can switch between the files really quickly and even at the same part of the song. Still requires some memory work if you're passing over the same part to try and identify changes, but it does a great job at showing whether or not there is an overall change in the sound(which there shouldn't be for 128kbps and above).
   
  Now if only they could get rid of that click and somehow make the transition seamless.


----------



## waynes world

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> The nice thing about Foobar's ABX comparator is that you can switch between the files really quickly and even at the same part of the song. Still requires some memory work if you're passing over the same part to try and identify changes, but it does a great job at showing whether or not there is an overall change in the sound(which there shouldn't be for 128kbps and above).
> 
> Now if only they could get rid of that click and somehow make the transition seamless.


 
   
  I recently got sold the kool aid into believing that I can not tell the difference between flac and 320kbps LAME encoded MP3 files - those were my findings previously anyway when doing my own crude ab comparisons in foobar - and I doubt the abx comparator will change that opinion. But, I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between 320kbps and 128kbps, so I'll probably get the comparator going to at least try out that comparison.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





waynes world said:


> I recently got sold the kool aid into believing that I can not tell the difference between flac and 320kbps LAME encoded MP3 files - those were my findings previously anyway when doing my own crude ab comparisons in foobar - and I doubt the abx comparator will change that opinion. But, I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between 320kbps and 128kbps, so I'll probably get the comparator going to at least try out that comparison.


 
  If you have space concerns, you should really consider using LAME v0 (highest grade VBR) over 320kbps. You'll never hear a difference, and you'll save space. CBR is _*so*_ 20th century! 
  When I am doing my lossy conversions of the CD's I own (and other FLAC files I've come across in the wild) for my portable devices, I use LAME v2 for most, and v0 for the absolute favorites (and that's more for peace of mind than anything else). That's how I have 8,648 tracks on my 80GB iPod with a few GB of space to spare!


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





waynes world said:


> I recently got sold the kool aid into believing that I can not tell the difference between flac and 320kbps LAME encoded MP3 files - those were my findings previously anyway when doing my own crude ab comparisons in foobar - and I doubt the abx comparator will change that opinion. But, I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between 320kbps and 128kbps, so I'll probably get the comparator going to at least try out that comparison.


 
  Just keep in mind if you're doing testing with 128kbps - volume matching using replaygain is necessary. The gain on a 128kbps file is brought down at least a little over a half decibel usually.
   
  In my experience some files it can be surprisingly difficult to tell the difference, others there are some things that give it away fairly easily once you find out where to look. Overall sound is still surprisingly good either way.


----------



## bigshot

It's really good to read up about how codecs work, read accounts of controlled testing and try to determine if you can hear a difference yourself. If you do that, there won't be any doubt. You'll know the answer.

I learned the most about codecs when I took the same piece of music and encoded it at a wide range of bitrates. The way a 96 file is compressed is quite different from the way a 192 is compressed. Below 192, high frequencies are cut to reduce file size. At 192 the frequency response goes almost up to the limits of hearing. By 256, it selectively allows frequencies that go all the way to the limit. Above 192, there is no overall filtering going on. It's entirely dependent on momentary artifacting. If you get past the point where the sound goes splat, you're home free.


----------



## waynes world

Quote: 





achmedisdead said:


> If you have space concerns, you should really consider using LAME v0 (highest grade VBR) over 320kbps. You'll never hear a difference, and you'll save space. CBR is _*so*_ 20th century!
> When I am doing my lossy conversions of the CD's I own (and other FLAC files I've come across in the wild) for my portable devices, I use LAME v2 for most, and v0 for the absolute favorites (and that's more for peace of mind than anything else). That's how I have 8,648 tracks on my 80GB iPod with a few GB of space to spare!


 
   
  Really good info - thanks! I have seen reference to LAME v0, but hadn't yet gotten around to figuring out what it was.
   
  The sadly ironic thing is that when I last ripped my cd's a few years ago using my (now gone) linux box and grip/lame, they were done using VBR (and it might have been LAME v0 for all I know). But I recently got the grand notion that my mp3's weren't at the highest quality, so I very recently used foobar2000/LAME3.96r. I couldn't seen an option for VBR, so I used the "highest quality" setting which was 320kbps. I wasn't thilled at how much more space they were taking up, but I figured that's the price one pays.
   
  I just now went back in and figured out how to set quality down a notch and that magically comes up with - you guessed it - LAME v0 (approx 245kbps). Sigh! I wouldn't care except that I have a stinking small 32GB microSD card in my clip zip, and I can't fit everything I want onto it. I figured I'd have to get a 64GB card, but that wouldn't do it either. But possibly ripping at LAME v0 would get me quite a bit closer???
   
  I just re-ripped Jeff Beck's Who Else album at v0. The 320kbps version uses up 123 MB. The v0 version uses up 90MB, which is 73% the size. That's significant.
   
  As long as I can be sure that the LAME v0 VBR versions sound the same as the 320 CBR versions, then I might see some re-ripping in my future. And then I will have to be asking myself... should I _also_ rip them in flac at the same time for archiving/listening on my PC purposes? No no no - I've already gone through that discussion with myself enough times lol!
   
  Anyway, thanks again.


----------



## Dillan

waynes world said:


> Really good info - thanks! I have seen reference to LAME v0, but hadn't yet gotten around to figuring out what it was.
> 
> The sadly ironic thing is that when I last ripped my cd's a few years ago using my (now gone) linux box and grip/lame, they were done using VBR (and it might have been LAME v0 for all I know). But I recently got the grand notion that my mp3's weren't at the highest quality, so I very recently used foobar2000/LAME3.96r. I couldn't seen an option for VBR, so I used the "highest quality" setting which was 320kbps. I wasn't thilled at how much more space they were taking up, but I figured that's the price one pays.
> 
> ...




I would highly recommend keeping a FLAC copy of everything. If for no other reason than for pure archival. It is a way to keep the entire album in tact, without cutting sound waves or tampering with the original recording. It is also a way of being future proof, in case some new technology comes out later on. This is me giving advice without having any influence in opinion whatsoever.


----------



## waynes world

Quote: 





waynes world said:


> Really good info - thanks! I have seen reference to LAME v0, but hadn't yet gotten around to figuring out what it was.
> 
> The sadly ironic thing is that when I last ripped my cd's a few years ago using my (now gone) linux box and grip/lame, they were done using VBR (and it might have been LAME v0 for all I know). But I recently got the grand notion that my mp3's weren't at the highest quality, so I very recently used foobar2000/LAME3.96r. I couldn't seen an option for VBR, so I used the "highest quality" setting which was 320kbps. I wasn't thilled at how much more space they were taking up, but I figured that's the price one pays.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Well, I found my older VBR versions on a backup, so I won't have to re-rip if I want to use them. Cool.
   
  The older VBR versions are MP3 VBR V0 (LAME3.97) (done via linux and grip). The ones that I just did are MP3 VBR V0 (LAME3.964) (done via win7/foobar2000). What I don't quite understand is why the older ones have slightly higher kbps than the ones that I just ripped. This shows both versions for one of the songs:
   

   
  And I also see a pesky "joint stereo" turned on - time to learn more about that as I see it has been discussed in this thread.
   
  In foobar2000, the next setting down from highest 320 is "~245kbps" as per this image:
   

   
  Where is the "~256kbps" option! Possibly the difference doesn't matter. Probably though these are questions for another forum lol!


----------



## bigshot

There really isn't any reason to encode CBR below 320. VBR organizes the file better to dynamically assign extra bitrate where it's needed and cheat it from places where it's not (like silent spaces). When you encode 320, VBR will save a little bit of filesize, but it won't help the sound quality, because the bitrate can't go above 320. However, if you encode 256 VBR and the sound could use a little more oomph to encode properly, VBR will boost it up to 320 as long as it needs it.
   
  In my experience, LAME 256 VBR v0 is totally transparent. If that bitrate gains you a little extra space for music on your DAP, you should use it.
   
  P.S. To answer your question... It's reading approximately 245 because of the VBR. It's calculating a little bit of bitrate savings you gain over 256 from having VBR dynamically assign bitrate as it's needed. That's approximate. If you look at each file individually, you'll see the exact average bitrate.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





waynes world said:


> In foobar2000, the next setting down from highest 320 is "~245kbps" as per this image:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the "~256kbps" option! Possibly the difference doesn't matter. Probably though these are questions for another forum lol!


 
  The difference doesn't matter. The bitrate will go up or down as needed by the music.


----------



## julian67

bigshot said:


> You're resorting to attacking the person not the argument again. I'm not going to reply to you if you do that. I'll talk past you to the rest of the readers of this thread.




You issued a condescending command to me personally, also an unfounded assertion that one of the differences I described was due to not choosing correct encoding settings. Instead of addressing the points made, you instead suggested I was acting in ignorance. _That_ is ad-hominem. It was also a strawman and an evasion, with other logical fallacies implicit. I pointed this out and now you're using it as the basis for yet another evasion (wrapped up in a threat to decline to engage) while asserting that I'm making a personal attack. That's pretty rich. If you don't want to address the points that's up to you.



bigshot said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with ripping to FLAC or ALAC. They're fine formats. Lossless is great if you don't own the CD you're ripping and you need an exact backup. But if you do own the CDs in your collection, there is no practical advantage at all.




Not true. Discs are easily damaged by repeated handling. They all cost money, some being quite expensive new. I also have CDs which are no longer available to purchase new and which fetch high prices used. There is a huge practical advantage in having a lossless rip on hard disk. It serves as back up. If I want to use a particular lossy format for any purpose or device I don't need to touch the CD, I can conveniently and quickly make a transcode from lossless source. It doesn't matter what new formats or protocols might appear in the future I always have the lossless files to hand. If next week some new lossless algorithm is invented that can save me 100GB of disk space I'm ready. No Ripping Required! And best of all I actually listen to the music knowing that what I'm hearing is guaranteed the same experience as if I was playing the CD. That isn't a claim, an assertion, a wish, supposition or belief. It is rock solid, copper bottomed, actual fact and is irrefutable. No prizes for spotting the difference.



bigshot said:


> High bitrate current lossy codecs are completely transparent. I have good ears and a kick ass sound system......




Not true, only a claim repeated. There are samples which present problems for all lossy encoders. Nothing is guaranteed with lossy encoding. You can't claim universal tranparency, you can only claim that _you personally don't hear a difference on your equipment. _ Your tests can demonstrate nothing more. That is their absolute limit. Mere assertion carries no weight, and repitition does not alter that.

Next is *The Big One!* Telling people how great your ears and sound system is.....Oh dear...an assertion of the legendary condition of Golden Ears! Golden Ears are not only useful for those people who can hear which direction electrons move down their $1000 cables, they can also be used to make claims about lossy audio. Who knew? You have my grateful thanks.



bigshot said:


> and I use AAC with no loss of sound quality. High bitrate lossy does however have definite advantages if you have a large collection, limited storage and backup space, if you stream your music regularly or if you use portable DAPs like iPods, iPhones or iPads. Also, MP3 LAME is the most versatile music format of all. It will play on just about anything that plays digital audio. I've found that it's possible to play FLAC on a Macintosh, but it's far from convenient. And although ALAC is open format, it isn't as accepted as MP3 by a longshot.
> 
> No sound difference. More convenience with lossy. No brainer.




Now you're simply talking again about convenience. The supposed "fact" that flac playback is somehow inconvenient on a Mac doesn't speak to sound quality at all, it only says something (perhaps) about the Mac OS. This is simply about your personal situation and says nothing that can be extrapolated to the general. All my personal players support flac and play it using less battery power than any other format. So my particular situation is not your particular situation and each person sees a different range of positive and negative qualities when it comes to convenience and hardware support.

If versatility and convenience are king then that's fine, it makes sense to do what you do. But your idea of convenience is not necessarily the same as the next person's. Nothing supports your claim that "there is no loss of sound quality". The furthest you can go with your claim is that it sounds golden to you, with your "good ears and a kick ass sound system".


----------



## bigshot

i'm sorry. I'm not paying attention to your comments any more. I won't be trolled. You can cheerfully ignore me.


----------



## julian67

bigshot said:


> The big problem was when they named compressed audio "lossy". It gave people an incorrect impression. No audio is lost. Only file size. Lossless is not "better sound". It's the same sound.




I didn't notice this until just now.

Wow!

Wow! Again!

That is so wrong it's actually incredible. Laugh or cry?

If it was true that "no audio is lost" then the reconstructed waveform on decoding would be identical to the original waveform present before encoding. Anyone can check this for themselves in the space of a minute or two.

It _is_ audio data and only audio data that is discarded. It's not dark matter or mystery padding cunningly sneaked onto the discs at the CD pressing plant. This isn't complicated and it isn't opinion, it's simple, plain, VERIFIABLE, fact.

The _whole basis_ of a psychoacoustic model to make a lossy encode is that you _do_ discard audio (lots of it!) but in such a way that (you hope) the difference between the original and the compressed result is_ not apparent when listening_. Lossy is a perfectly good description: it isn't (or shouldn't be) a pejorative term, it is descriptive of the process and the result

Anyone can verify how lossy compression works. There is a very concise description at Hydrogen Audio Wiki - Lossy or for longer description see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy

I notice that since I started writing this post I have been issued a memorandum by bigshot (great name btw, really fits). For objecting to being addressed as a subordinate and also for that most heinous of debating crimes, pointing out deficiencies in the other party's arguments, I am to be punished by his refusing to engage with me. I think that's OK because a debate should at minimum be grounded on plain, verifiable fact, and a useful exchange requires good faith. If these are absent then there isn't any possibility of a conversation, only some hot air.


----------



## Dillan

As rough and passionate as Julian67's posts are, I have to say that I agree with everything that he says. I love discussing things like this, I just wish people wouldn't act like their opinion is fact. I love hearing opinions and learning new things, but at the end of the day I am a very down to earth, matter of fact kind of guy.


----------



## streetdragon

Audio data is indeed lost in lossy. Just normally an unnoticable amount that we don't hear any loss.
Isnt that the defintion of lossy and how it is different than lossless?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





streetdragon said:


> Audio data is indeed lost in lossy. Just normally an unnoticable amount that we don't hear any loss.
> Isnt that the defintion of lossy and how it is different than lossless?


 
  Yes!


----------



## Dillan

streetdragon said:


> Audio data is indeed lost in lossy. Just normally an unnoticable amount that we don't hear any loss.
> Isnt that the defintion of lossy and how it is different than lossless?




Yes, completely agree. Data is indeed lost. _Normally_ you cant, well I cant, notice a difference. I can agree to that.


----------



## Dillan

.. but differences can be noticed. Especially in poorly encoded situations. I take the lossless approach to remove any hint of possibility or argument. And at the same time I do not look down on anyone who chooses different methods.


----------



## streetdragon

dillan said:


> .. but differences can be noticed. Especially in poorly encoded situations. I take the lossless approach to remove any hint of possibility or argument. And at the same time I do not look down on anyone who chooses different methods.



Sure i'd choose lossless over lossy but if i don't have either i don't really mind.


----------



## julian67

streetdragon said:


> Audio data is indeed lost in lossy. Just normally an unnoticable amount that we don't hear any loss.
> Isnt that the defintion of lossy and how it is different than lossless?




I removed my post because I think I misread your question as a normal question, rather than the rhetorical question it seems to be. I am blowing hot air. ahem.


----------



## sonitus mirus

FLAC is wonderful for archiving, that much has been established.  If I had a super-rare CD, I'd probably keep a few lossless backups as well.  I don't really have that many CDs, and I purchase these mostly to fill a hole missing from the music subscription services that I use.  At this time, I really won't benefit from ripping to a format that I will be using only at home and for archiving.  If I found myself having to switch lossy formats to accommodate the equipment I was using on a frequent basis, I'd probably want to have lossless files to run batch routines against whenever this occurred.  I only chose cbr mp3 as a format after I was convinced that I was not sacrificing sound quality.
   
  That is not the end of the story for me.  I'm continually searching for any proof that will show me otherwise.  In my situation, at this time it would not be that big of a deal for me to completely redo my entire library to some other format.


----------



## Dillan

sonitus mirus said:


> FLAC is wonderful for archiving, that much has been established.  If I had a super-rare CD, I'd probably keep a few lossless backups as well.  I don't really have that many CDs, and I purchase these mostly to fill a hole missing from the music subscription services that I use.  At this time, I really won't benefit from ripping to a format that I will be using only at home and for archiving.  If I found myself having to switch lossy formats to accommodate the equipment I was using on a frequent basis, I'd probably want to have lossless files to run batch routines against whenever this occurred.  I only chose cbr mp3 as a format after I was convinced that I was not sacrificing sound quality.
> 
> That is not the end of the story for me.  I'm continually searching for any proof that will show me otherwise.  In my situation, at this time it would not be that big of a deal for me to completely redo my entire library to some other format.




I really respect that post. You aren't concrete set on opinions and you are willing to keep learning and adapt to what needs to change depending on experience and research.


----------



## julian67

sonitus mirus said:


> FLAC is wonderful for archiving, that much has been established.  If I had a super-rare CD.......
> ........ big of a deal for me to completely redo my entire library to some other format.




I also think that is all fair comment: it's reasoned, supportable, contains no extraordinary claims or appeals.

Flac is indeed wonderful for archiving. I back up every CD to flac. What I used to also do was make a lossy copy. I had a lossless archive I never listened to and a lossy library that served as my regular listening resource. The main logic was that the lossy files let me put a lot more music on my portable players while the lossless archive future proofed and backed up the CDs. I used to travel a lot (months away at a time) so on my portable players file size vs sound quality mattered a lot. I was also convinced that I'd never hear a difference. I'd done abx tests and thought Ogg Vorbis -q 5 seemed transparent. To play it safe I settled on -q 7. Anyway if you listen long enough to enough music you do run into stuff that doesn't sound so good. Often this can be verified to be a problem not with the encode but with the CD. But occasionally a problem comes back to lossy compression. I have to emphasise that these kind of problems are very rare but once you know they are there you do tend to wonder what else is lurking in those many 1000s of lossy files. And if there is stuff you can pick up on without going to the trouble of a comparison (the comparison comes next, for verification) then there has to be the potential for tracks which seem OK when played but don't in fact sound the same as the CD. It kind of bugged me. I tried out different codecs such as lame, fraunhofer mp3, fraunhofer aac and wavpack hybrid. I found they all can fail on some samples (not necessarily the same samples). Finally it dawned on me that the answer was sitting there packed away in tar archives on a partition labelled Lossless. doh! All my portables play flac. My PCs, laptops, tablets play flac. I don't travel long term these days so can I be happy with 90 or 100 CDs of music on each portable device instead of 350 or 400? Yes, easily. I think 90 CDs on each of three devices is plenty to get me through any boring trip into town or a few hours (or even days) escapism.

I gained a lot of disk space when I wiped the lossy rips and my music collection has never sounded better. I still regularly listen to high quality aac because that's what the BBC offers for BBC Radio 3 (320 kbps aac) and it's great. Live concerts sound really good and I enjoy it. I also listen to mp3 and aac in a variety of qualities such as low bitrate AAC-HE or low/moderate bitrate mp3 because there are some podcasts I like. That's all fine. But there is no way I'm going back to transcoding lossless files to produce something that cannot be better but can be less good, all to save disk space which currently costs *3 UK pence per gigabyte!!*. T H R E E P E N N I E S P E R GB.

On the other hand I am a grade A scrooge so maybe I'll squish it all down to AAC-HE and then auction my hard disks  I love those pennies. Do I hear two and a half pennies per gigiabyte? Two pennies?


----------



## Dillan

Yea I mean that's how I feel at this point. It would matter to me if my collection were lossy, but it's lossless. Going any other way would feel like a downgrade to me, regardless of anything.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





dillan said:


> Yes, completely agree. Data is indeed lost. _Normally_ you cant, well I cant, notice a difference. I can agree to that.


 
   
  I listen to music, not data. As long as the music is faithfully presented, which it is with high bitrate MP4s, no problem.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





dillan said:


> .. but differences can be noticed. Especially in poorly encoded situations.


 
   
  That's why you up the bitrate and use better codecs like MP4, so there is enough bitrate in the data stream to handle the encoding flawlessly. If the encoding of lossy audio is done well, human ears cannot tell the difference. Scientific testing has shown that, whether you want to believe it or not.
   
  The state of compressed audio isn't the same as it was ten years ago. Many of your DVDs and Blu-Rays use MP4 audio. So does high resolution YouTube, satellite radio and streaming music services like Spotify. You listen to lossy audio all the time and probably don't think twice about it. Odds are, you listen to 128 VBR regularly without even knowing it and think it sounds fine.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> If I had a super-rare CD, I'd probably keep a few lossless backups as well.


 
   
  Ha! That reminds me of a great story... I have tens of thousands of CDs and DVDs. They're all in SafeKeeper books and I have yet to damage any of them. They all play perfectly. All except ONE!
   
  I was perusing the used bins at the Wherehouse back in the day. I saw a CD called "Myron Floren's Polka Favorites". Floren was Lawrence Welk's accordianist, and he played a mean "Flight of the Bumblebee". He was accused of child molestation or something so all of his recordings had gone out of print. So I bought it and took it home. I popped it on my CD player and I hear, "This is Malcolm McLaren. Never mind the bollocks, here's the Sex Pistols!" and the Sex Pistols began to play. The disk was labelled "Polka Favorites", but the CD itself had the Sex Pistols on it!
   
  I have no idea how that came about, but I am probably the only human being in the world who likes BOTH Floren and the Sex Pistols. That disk became one of my favorite CDs. I kept it on display on top of my stereo. In the 1994 Northridge quake, I was very close to the epicenter. The stuff on my equipment rack was thrown to the floor and my tower speakers fell on top of the mess. The only loss I suffered was that my speaker fell smack dab on Polka Favorites and split the jewel case and the CD inside in two.
   
  There was no way for me to prove that it was really the Sex Pistols any more. Doggone it! Even a lossless backup on a hard drive wouldn't have helped.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





dillan said:


> I really respect that post. You aren't concrete set on opinions and you are willing to keep learning and adapt to what needs to change depending on experience and research.


 
   
  That is a good way to be. Best not to be dogmatic about opinions until you've done the research and the tests for yourself. It isn't good enough to just take the common knowledge on internet forums. A lot of people there are just repeating things they don't know for themselves. That's why we have the sound science forum. Here, we depend on tests and published results.


----------



## julian67

bigshot said:


> ....Blu-Rays use MP4 audio.




Really?

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_developers

Blu-Ray specifies the following audio codecs:

Linear PCM (LPCM) - up to 8 channels of uncompressed audio. (mandatory)
Dolby Digital (DD) - format used for DVDs, 5.1-channel surround sound. (mandatory)
Dolby Digital Plus (DD+) - extension of Dolby Digital, 7.1-channel surround sound. (optional)
Dolby TrueHD - lossless encoding of up to 8 channels of audio. (optional)
DTS Digital Surround - format used for DVDs, 5.1-channel surround sound. (mandatory)
DTS-HD High Resolution Audio - extension of DTS, 7.1-channel surround sound. (optional)
DTS-HD Master Audio - lossless encoding of up to 8 channels of audio. (optional)

In any case MP4 is a container, not a type of audio. The MP4 container can contain aac, mp3, mp2, als and lots of other types of audio Perhaps you were thinking of aac? Blu-Ray doesn't use that either.

But anyway who needs actual facts when you can just grab stuff out of the air?



bigshot said:


> ...use better codecs like MP4.




Nope, it's still not a codec. MP4 is only a container.



bigshot said:


> A lot of people there are just repeating things they don't know for themselves.




That's better. Finally hit the nail right on the head.


----------



## bigshot

I'm sorry. I'm not reading your posts or replying to you any more. I won't be trolled.
   
  Have fun doing something productive with your time.


----------



## julian67

If you're not reading my posts then how and why are you replying?

Someone pointing out the deficiencies in your argument in a debate does not equate to trolling. I did tease you a little in my last post because you suggest others are ignorant while you are in the know, but at the same time you are coming out with fanciful nonsense, plucked from the air it seems, and presenting it as being factual and supportive of your claims and assertions. Perhaps you think it sounds good or convincing. It doesn't.


----------



## bigshot

I'm sorry I'm not reading your posts any more. I won't be trolled. Keep on replying, keep getting the same answer. No fun, isn't it? (not waiting for the answer)


----------



## Dillan

bigshot said:


> That's why you up the bitrate and use better codecs like MP4, so there is enough bitrate in the data stream to handle the encoding flawlessly. If the encoding of lossy audio is done well, human ears cannot tell the difference. Scientific testing has shown that, whether you want to believe it or not.
> 
> The state of compressed audio isn't the same as it was ten years ago. Many of your DVDs and Blu-Rays use MP4 audio. So does high resolution YouTube, satellite radio and streaming music services like Spotify. You listen to lossy audio all the time and probably don't think twice about it. Odds are, you listen to 128 VBR regularly without even knowing it and think it sounds fine.




I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. Scientific evidence leans more towards the other side of things, there is no actually proof that states that every single high quality *lossy* file is exactly the same to every healthy human ear as its *lossless* counterpart. You can link whatever you'd like or tell me anyone's opinion, but there is not a well funded research organization populated with well suited audio technical engineers that have ever had enough proof to end this discussion. That is why it is even an issue to this day, why do you think anyone brings this up on a daily basis? We do not debate if green is the same color as red, even though my friend who is color blind does in fact see those two colors as the same exact color. I'm not exactly saying that your opinion is wrong bigshot, I am just saying that there is a chance that what you believe so passionately about could possibly have holes in it. I never claimed and probably will never claim that lossless is always better to my ears than lossy, I just think that the possibility exists. Im a very reasonable person. Instead of taking a chance (no matter if that chance is the size of a fermion), I choose a codec that has literally no room for debate in and of itself, and that does not affect me negatively in anyway. 

This debate can go on forever, at the end of the day you have to be reasonable. Like I said, I believe both can be right, but not one, and we know which that is. I am not against anyone who disagrees with me, but completely looking over the possibility doesn't make logical sense. We could get hit by a meteor at any moment that could wipe out our entire race (in fact we are past due for that to happen), would I bet everything I had that it was going to happen in my lifetime? No I wouldn't, but would I pretend to know for a fact that it couldn't happen? Of course not, that is very possible. Astronomers technology and research is only so advanced right now, much like sound scientists and audio research development.. there is no proof right now saying that it will happen or won't happen, but any sane astronomer would never completely dismiss a possibility unless there was firm evidence backing it up, but there isn't. I think that story can closely relate to one another, because we cannot overcome echoic memory or many other factors which are holding us back from knowing this topic to the point of being unable to debate. Just as we cannot overcome telescope technology and object trajectory in being able to view everything around us so far away that we can predict a century's worth of exact collisions, we only have the ability to predict and understand possibilities. (Until of course you have a smaller time frame to work with - as far as astronomy goes).

Maybe that was a bad way to compare, but at least you understand where I am coming from, saying my way or the highway is the only thing that I will never understand, you can't just dismiss everything because of your tests, or any other persons tests for that matter. In the end no one person can extensively test thousands of albums while overcoming echoic memory. Which makes tests not 100% accurate, only confirms how small a difference can be, if there is one at all. 

What I am trying to say is, acknowledge chance, this is not something every logical person can agree on, or they would. There isn't enough proof out there to stop us from talking about this right now, I for one will completely stick to my opinion that being one hundred percent "safe" and future proof is better than not. Either way, you can't say over and over that you are correct and just move on, without accepting some sort of possibility and reason. I will never that my way is better, because *I* could be the one wasting time here. I don't keep my files on 500 read 500 write solid state drives, there is no way. I keep mine on magnetic hard disks. The transfer rate is terrible compared to flash.. Lossless audio, even FLAC, definitely takes up more space. It is compatible on my portable devices, so that isn't an factor, but the others are.

I without a doubt think about it when I listen to internet radio, youtube, etc. I knew way before this discussion that youtube, at its very best possible quality, uses 192 aac. For that very same reason, I avoid youtube as a source for music, because most of the time it sounds terrible. I sometimes listen to internet radio for something refreshing and to introduce me to new music, not because I am seeking the highest possible quality. It isn't like I run from lossy audio, I just avoid it if I can. 

Please listen to what I am saying. 

Thank You.


----------



## Dillan

.


----------



## logicPwn

I thought the main difference was in the cutoffs of frequencies, for compressed (why it's called lossy I though)? Then the bitrate of different codecs, where VBR gives you better compression and higher bit rate when needed?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> Someone pointing out the deficiencies in your argument in a debate does not equate to trolling.


 
   
  This is true....and your point about MP4 being simply a container is also.


----------



## iamdacow

Subbed


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





logicpwn said:


> I thought the main difference was in the cutoffs of frequencies, for compressed


 
   
  Above 192, there are no frequencies cut off above 18kHz. Above that, the frequencies from 18-20kHz are selectively activated. That is so high, most people can't hear it. Even if they can, auditory masking from lower frequencies would make it inaudible. The only musical instruments capable of creating harmonics in that range are cymbals and triangles.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





dillan said:


> Scientific evidence leans more towards the other side of things, there is no actually proof that states that every single high quality *lossy* file is exactly the same to every healthy human ear as its *lossless* counterpart.


 
   
  There are lot of studies that show that. I've done the test for myself and I know for me it's true. If you took the time and effort to do the same, you would know for sure too, and you wouldn't have to quibble with testing procedure.
   
  It's not about being right or wrong. It's about knowing the truth. Generally accepted knowledge is that AAC 192 is transparent. I'm really not stating something that should be surprising.
   
  Maintaining a backup as a CD disk is better than a lossless rip. It eliminates the possibility of ripping error.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> The differences between lossless and *well encoded lossy* can be subtle. *You might find small differences in the amount of bass or treble, or in the decay of notes, or in the definition of transients etc. etc. etc*. These are not gross artefacts and may pass completely unnoticed in normal listening, and might even be difficult in a side by side comparison. But they can exist and do. If you've only been listening out for gross artefacts then your listening tests are flawed.


 
  Quote: 





julian67 said:


> I did abx tests and went through the process of doing them with low quality settings so as to easily recognise the differences, then using better quality settings and repeating and so on. *There are well known killer samples out there which will defeat lossless compression* and, more to the point, *there are other samples in my particular music collection* (and probably yours too) which are equally difficult to compress.


 
   
   


julian67 said:


> Anyway if you listen long enough to enough music* you do run into stuff that doesn't sound so good*. Often this can be verified to be a problem not with the encode but with the CD. But occasionally a problem comes back to lossy compression. I have to emphasise that these kind of problems are very rare but once you know they are there you do tend to wonder what else is lurking in those many 1000s of lossy files.


   

  Hi Julian - I'm following this line of thought with interest - and I have also done many, many abx tests - so I know what my personal limits are (they may be a lot more inferior to others due to my age and hearing  ability - I'm fine with that).  Aside from the back and forth with BigShot (the banter between you two is growing old - would be better if you just chose to ignore each other IMHO) - you've raised some interesting points which I've highlighted.
   
  I just want to add - that I'm not calling you out - I have no personal stake in either side - my collection is FLAC for archiving /home use and aac for DAP/portable.  What I am interested in is the tracks / killer samples that you've referenced that can be distinguished lossless vs lossy.  You obviously will know this from your own collection + you'll have ref to the 'killer tracks'.  Can you list them please.  I'd love to abx them myself (FLAC vs aac256) + get a couple of members on this board to do the same.  I know a couple who have very HQ gear + very discerning ears and also the technical knowledge of compression (ie what to look for).
   
  This is Sound Science - so if you can name the files, and we can run some tests, it should be interesting to stop the debate and prove your point.  If you could list the tracks (+ year of recording so we get the right master) & also the time-stamp that you noticed the artifacting it would be great.  Many thanks.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There are lot of studies that show that.* I've done the test for myself and I know for me it's true.* If you took the time and effort to do the same, you would know for sure too, and you wouldn't have to quibble with testing procedure.
> 
> It's not about being right or wrong. It's about knowing the truth. Generally accepted knowledge is that AAC 192 is transparent. I'm really not stating something that should be surprising.
> 
> Maintaining a backup as a CD disk is better than a lossless rip. It eliminates the possibility of ripping error.


 
  For you it is true. For me it is true. But there are a few people out there that do actually hear the difference, so you can't say it is an absolute truth. 
   
  And CD disks don't last forever either. I dug some of mine out after years of not playing them and they actually had little holes in them, that I could see through! So IMO it's best to keep the disk and a lossless rip as archive, even if you only are listening to your lossy conversions as many of us do.


----------



## Dillan

How can you know the truth though. How can you as a person, absolutely *know* the truth. How? Because you tested a few songs? Because you tested a few hundred songs? Did you test 10,000 songs and with each and every one, remember exactly every little detail that you heard - enough to be absolutely sure without any doubt in your mind that it was the exact same as its lossy counterpart? Can you sit here and tell everyone that your opinion and your testing or anyone else testing is so scientifically impossibly undeniable concrete that we can just forget about this and go with your methods? Testing only goes so far, human memory is the reason it can not be the sole basis of making your opinion a fact. 

A possible electronic or music instrumental note at around 19khz that lasts for a few miliseconds, hastily climbing to beyond possible hearing.. is it possible for that less than a second occurrence to happen on this guys lossless file, but not on that guys lossy file. No matter the method of obtaining the lossy encoding?

It isn't about being right or wrong, I agree, there isn't enough evidence. Refer to my longer post when I say again, I am very realistic, I choose to be safe and ready for perhaps new codecs in the future or maybe for that quality difference possibility. Either way I don't have to worry because I am losing basically nothing having an open mind and a safe method.


----------



## Dillan

achmedisdead said:


> For you it is true. For me it is true. But there are a few people out there that do actually hear the difference, so you can't say it is an absolute truth.
> 
> And CD disks don't last forever either. I dug some of mine out after years of not playing them and they actually had little holes in them, that I could see through! So IMO it's best to keep the disk and a lossless rip as archive, even if you only are listening to your lossy conversions as many of us do.




Wow. Reading that made me let out a sigh of relief for some reason.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





dillan said:


> It isn't about being right or wrong, I agree, there isn't enough evidence. Refer to my longer post when I say again, I am very realistic, I choose to be safe and ready for perhaps new codecs in the future or maybe for that quality difference possibility. Either way I don't have to worry because I am losing basically nothing having an open mind and a safe method.


 
   
  I agree with what you are saying Rem1x - but perhaps we could put the shoe on the other foot though - and get you or Julian to point to any track (all we need is the album, track, year of recording, and publishing company - so we know we have the correct mastering).
   
  Then we get the CD ripped (I'll gladly buy a copy just for this exercise) with EAC & accurate rip, transcoded with Nero-aac 256 & also with latest Lame mp3-320, and then we can get the samples up for everyone to have a go at it.
   
  I understand what you are saying - and in theory you are right.  But it's dead easy to prove your point.  Rather than us having to abx every track in our library - you/Julian simply name 2-3 tracks in yours where you know/have heard artifacts being introduced.  Then we can all say ahhhhhh - and move on with knowledge gained


----------



## streetdragon

Dear bigshot, please do realize that not all the treble in the world are only caused by cymbals.
There are other things too that produce high frequencies.


----------



## Dillan

brooko said:


> I agree with what you are saying Rem1x - but perhaps we could put the shoe on the other foot though - and get you or Julian to point to any track (all we need is the album, track, year of recording, and publishing company - so we know we have the correct mastering).
> 
> Then we get the CD ripped (I'll gladly buy a copy just for this exercise) with EAC & accurate rip, transcoded with Nero-aac 256 & also with latest Lame mp3-320, and then we can get the samples up for everyone to have a go at it.
> 
> I understand what you are saying - and in theory you are right.  But it's dead easy to prove your point.  Rather than us having to abx every track in our library - you/Julian simply name 2-3 tracks in yours where you know/have heard artifacts being introduced.  Then we can all say ahhhhhh - and move on with knowledge gained




I completely respect how you are coming at this. However, I have never done an extensive ABX test, only a blind test where I couldn't get through it. I got too frustrated. I would think, yea that sounds like this, play it again, then it would sound like that. It was almost as if my head was making things up. I definitely couldn't put what something sounded like in my head, and play it back again comparatively against something else. Maybe it is just me, but testing in such ways just doesn't work for me as a forgetful human. Even if i could stand here today and give you the information needed that worked for me, hoping it would be the same for you, it still wouldn't be the same situations. Not even to bring gear into the equation, we are two different people. I am under-sensitive to bass, and can not hear over or under some peoples personal frequency response ranges. You see what I am saying? 

I am not trying to dodge your request at all. I have never said I personally have concrete proof to back anything up. I just have always accepted the possibilities. Which is why I can collect lossless audio and not have to kill myself with tests. Because believe me.. me being as obsessive over things as sometimes I am.. I wouldn't honestly get any joy out of listening endlessly to music with an analytical perspective. I have found much more joy with researching and reading other people's test results. Other people claim to have heard differences.. Of course if you want me to link you some 128 pieces of beauty, I can do that (Because I can in fact feel confident with almost anyones ears in those situations) 

Either way, like I said I never claim to have concrete evidence, I only actively respect the possibility, and will not give up on my research, I can promise you that!


----------



## Brooko

No problem - we are cool - and mutual respect on my part.
   
  In a lot of these debates - it comes down to a lot of rhetoric without much substance.  This was simply my way of asking those saying there is a difference to prove it.  It's a lot easier for them to produce a track (any track) where properly transcoded a difference is audible.  If someone can do that - then the debate stops.  It's a lot harder for the other side to prove that every track has no difference - there is no way we can do that.
   
  Also - hearing ability is unique to each person - so that is a massive factor.  I'll bow out now.  I do hope Julian comes up with a track - as I'd dearly love to know if I can actually tell a difference.  I suspect I can't (minor but permanent tinnitus).
   
  Take the test if you ever get the time Rem1x - it actually is an eye-opener.  But in the meantime don't change what you're doing with FLAC.  For archiving - lossless is the the only way to go IMO.
   
  Peace all.


----------



## Dillan

Good stuff Brooko. That's the only reason I keep such an open mind on this topic. Because at this point in time, no side can be proven really. I will keep archiving and listening to my FLAC for sure, with the piece of mind, the ability to re-encode later on if need be, with a lossless collection.. just too appealing to me. Thanks so much for all of your input on this topic. And thanks for putting up with all of my text, I know a lot of people don't agree with me, but I try to stay reasonable and informative on my reasoning behind the things that I do. 

By the way, this is my 100th post.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





dillan said:


> I try to stay reasonable and informative on my reasoning behind the things that I do.
> 
> By the way, this is my 100th post.


 
   
  From what I have seen, you are succeeding in doing so.


----------



## Ghaunty22

I just wanted to add my observations & see if you agree or not?
   
  with HD600 MP3 with amp & EQ in equlizer pro app. The MP3 sounds worse, more hissing, harsh highs & wears my ears out more. the vocals have more clear detail with flac & the track sounds sharper & louder. The MP3 just seems to have distortion & fatige my ears with eq & amp.
   
  Although I really have to listen to hear the differences, which I do for intense listening sessions. my belief is in the long run flac is better on your ears & causes less fatiging.
   
  But considering some music falls under the loudness wars & with so much stuff going on in a track with all the bass, & huge amounts of sound I wonder if flac makes much difference?


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





ghaunty22 said:


> I just wanted to add my observations & see if you agree or not?
> 
> with HD600 MP3 with amp & EQ in equlizer pro app. The MP3 sounds worse, more hissing, harsh highs & wears my ears out more. the vocals have more clear detail with flac & the track sounds sharper & louder. The MP3 just seems to have distortion & fatige my ears with eq & amp.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Try this link.  All you need is a PC with an optical drive, an internet connection, a CD you know well, and some time.  Follow the instructions - set up a proper abx, then see if your opinions change.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





ghaunty22 said:


> I just wanted to add my observations & see if you agree or not?
> 
> with HD600 MP3 with amp & EQ in equlizer pro app. The MP3 sounds worse, more hissing, harsh highs & wears my ears out more. the vocals have more clear detail with flac & the track sounds sharper & louder. The MP3 just seems to have distortion & fatige my ears with eq & amp.
> 
> ...


 
  MP3's have less treble content than FLAC. That's the first thing the algorithm attacks since there's an awful lot of data up there. No additional hissing or distortion should be added, although they can be an effect of transcoding several times.
   
  You say the track sounds louder - turn it down


----------



## julian67

brooko said:


> Can you list them please.  I'd love to abx them myself




The most famous ones are eig_essence, trumpets,castanets. You can get some of them from http://web.archive.org/web/20070702152301/http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm I don't know where I picked up eig_essence but I remember it was linked to on hydrogen audio. Those are publicly available samples from real music that make some aspects of codec comparison/assessment very easy.

In my own collection i.e. stuff from CDs I encoded, I've most often run into clipping as being the main artefact problem (because some CDs are mastered close to 0dB and compression raises the level again), but occasionally also the kind of hissing you can easily get in the famous trumpets sample. Another issue I noticed sometimes was degradation of the illusion of width/soundstage.

I can offer some examples. I don't have an exhaustive list because I no longer have a need to abx stuff but some experiences stick in the mind quite well.

The most easily demonstrated clipping I encountered in lossy is in EMI CD 7243 8 26525 2 6 "Frühe Englische Orgelmusik" track 3. Parts are very close to 0dB and most lossy encoders take it over the edge, but not all. Vorbis did, opus did, lame did until the most recent versions of lame. I didn't use Quicktime or Apple but the frauenhofer aac doesn't clip it but attenuates, whether on encode or decode I don't recall. This track can induce plainly heard and very ugly clicking noises. Other people (lossy developers or proponents) have told me in one case that they can barely hear the clicks and doubt their existence, and in another case that I should have attenuated the level before encoding. Ho hum. 

I came across a horrible hising sound in lossy encoding of Respighi's Violin Concerto in A Major on Naxos 8.572332. Off the top of my head I don't recall which track but it is probably track 3, the second part of the main work, which ends on a very long sustained high violin note which falls and rises quickly a couple of times. There is also some ambient noise from the orchestra (probably sheet music being turned over, breath being drawn and so on). Lossy encoding introduces some unfortunate hissing and makes a kind of mess of the ambient noise. This was with Fraunhofer aac and I don't remember if I tried other codecs.

One sample I noticed was on Jimi Hendrix's Bleedeing Heart from the Japanese Polydor issue of War Heroes, disc P20P22010. The first few seconds has a studio made effect. I guess the sound started off as cymbal splash and the groovy long haired peaceniks in the mastering studio transformed it into a very nice kind of whooshing sound which starts on the far left, moves left to right in an arc (the sound appears to travel up as well as across) and fades out to the extreme right. I was actually abxing the track for completely different reasons: I just thought it didn't sound as good as it used to (I'm middle aged so I feel that way about most things) so I decided to try to abx it. My subjective impression in normal listening was that the bass tones were less substantial or weighty and that was what I would be able to distinguish in an abx comparison. I couldn't, but while failing to do so I gradually noticed a difference in the "whoosh": the far left was less distant and the far right also. The arc of "travel" was less well defined. I did abx that and then my brain felt it might cave in on itself with the stress.

I found this really interesting because it showed me how hard it ican be to know exactly _why_ something doesn't sound like it ought to. There was no gross artefact, intrusive sound, nothing announcing itself. The differences identifiable in abx were small and it was actually difficult and somewhat exhausting to do the abx. The single thing I could abx was something I hadn't even considered, yet in normal listening I had realised that I wasn't hearing what I ought to be hearing without going to any special effort beyond wanting to enjoy the music.

If that hadn't been a track I had heard many many times over the years then I probably would never have noticed the difference. It also still sounded like its bass quality wasn't right in normal listening, even after I had abx'd it and not been able to identify a difference in bass. That may be a problem of my echoic memory, poor interpretation of sound on my part, not having adequate terminology/expertise/experience to make a better diagnosis. It may be that subconscious bias is so powerful that it trumps knowledge, experience and practise even while subconscious bias is being consciously considered, I'm not sure. But that conundrum was solved entirely by listening to the flac instead.


----------



## julian67

bigshot said:


> I'm sorry I'm not reading your posts any more. I won't be trolled. Keep on replying, keep getting the same answer. No fun, isn't it? (not waiting for the answer)




You repeatedly reply to me to tell me that you're neither reading nor replying to me. Curiouser and curiouser.


----------



## Brooko

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> You repeatedly reply to me to tell me that you're neither reading nor replying to me. Curiouser and curiouser.


 
   
  Julian - just let it go.  The better man will always walk away.  You made your point - the rest is just baiting.
   
  Thanks for the sample references BTW - I'll start to make my way through some of them over the weekend.  I do suspect the subtleties mentioned will be lost on me though - the low level tinnitus pretty much kills really fine sonic differences sadly.  Hopefully others will also take time to test themselves though.  I'd love to hear some other feedback on them.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





brooko said:


> Thanks for the sample references BTW - I'll start to make my way through some of them over the weekend.  I do suspect the subtleties mentioned will be lost on me though - the low level tinnitus pretty much kills really fine sonic differences sadly.  Hopefully others will also take time to test themselves though.  I'd love to hear some other feedback on them.


 
   
  If you discover something, I would love to test for myself.  Age has most likely impaired my critical listening skills, but I'd love to have something as a reference that I could use that definitively includes an issue at a specific time in a track or during a certain passage.


----------



## ForShure

Before anyone else posts there's only been two arguments going down the whole time.
   
  User says flac sounds better than mp3-
  "Nah bro, flac is the exact as mp3 since new encoding is entirely transparent. Do an abx test and see for yourself."
   
  User says mp3 and flac sound the same-
  "Oh yeah mp3 saves you so much disk space. I love mp3's so much and I'm very glad you do too. Lets go prove these flac fanboys wrong and make fun of them for using unnecessary disk space and then try to convert them to using lossy compression."


----------



## julian67

@Brooko

Those are just three samples that I can most easily remember. I used to keep notes and samples from my own collection and a few tracks from other peoples and try different codecs and different settings, all this right up to the day I thought "****** this" and decided to just listen to my lossless files instead. I now keep a handful of really nasty killer samples (eig, trumpets, castanets and similar) so I can play with new stuff occasionally (opus for example). I expect you'll find they work well with some codecs and not with others. The first one was a real killer for lame in older versions but seems fine at very high quality (for example -V 1 or -V 2) in 3.99. It made opus clip a couple of months ago but latest libopus decoder successfully attenuates it to prevent clipping.

If you look up guruboolez listening tests at hydrogen audio or doom9 they give an insight into the state of lossy compression when disk space cost a lot and choosing lossy could save big money on disks. At the time there was no shortage of people claiming that lame or mpc or vorbis or  were transparent. If I had ripped my collection to anything other than lossless then I would by now be absolutely sick of doing it again and again.

If you want a good supply of samples of real music from people's collections you can find lots at Hydrogenaudio Forum Uploads

I don't think there's anything special about my music collection except for the way it reflects my innate good taste (joke). Any sizeable collection of lossy music is almost certain to have tracks which are not transparent. I suspect that my experience is far from unique and there may also be tracks in most collections which sound different from source but which are very hard indeed to identify with abx and which can pass unnoticed unless the listener is extremely familiar with the source. I _easily_ noticed in normal listening on unremarkable playback hardware a change which I found _extremely difficult_ but not impossible to abx. I'm unconvinced that is only about bias or predisposition. abx testing can be really hard. Identifying a or b as x is already harder than simple listening even when you think you know what to expect. When you're trying to pick out a difference in what might be a complex assortment of different tones and different levels it is a truly demanding challenge (which is why the task is often reduced to tiny edits). When there is no single gross artefact to identify, but perhaps an aggregation of individually marginal differences, it gets harder again. Aside from picking out the most obvious kinds of artefacts I find it very challenging to abx differently sounding tracks unless the music is tonally simple or of very short duration, or maybe both. But I don't listen to lots of short simple samples. So I started to have some sympathy with people whose criticism of abx is that it too easily produces a null result despite a difference being present. They may be right or they may be mistaken but even if they are wrong a null result is still only a null result. Null results have somehow been co-opted in some people's minds to take the place of proof positive, and that presentation of null as though it is evidence is regularly used, including in this thread, as though it supports claims of perfection or transparency. I used to unthinkingly accept this but later realised it's not the case. A null result in the context of a subjective individual comparison is indeed only a null result. It's empty. It contains nothing, says nothing, shows nothing and proves nothing.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *ForShure* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> User says flac sounds better than mp3-


 
  That's a claim that needs to be supported by evidence, like ABX logs including all details.
   
  Quote: 





> User says mp3 and flac sound the same-


 
  That's the null hypothesis, the default position, which can only be disproven, again for example with ABX logs.
   
   
  Even if you can hear differences at a given bitrate, you're still free to choose whatever you prefer.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I don't think anyone is trying to poke fun at another.  I take minor issue with those insinuating that I am sacrificing sound quality for convenience.  I was all lossless all the time before, and while everyone's situation may be different, my options were limited.  It was only after discovering that lossy could be transparent to my ears that I eventually skipped archiving to lossless and went with a format that opened up a wide range of inexpensive means for me to maintain an otherwise unattainable music library practically everywhere I go.
   
  Can I be absolutely certain I am not missing something with the sound quality?  No, but I've reached the point where I'm extremely confident that I am safe, and if there is some proof of this later, it would have to be something significant to make me go back to my old ways.  If I have to scour the world over to find 2 songs with a complex horn section that was mastered at the bleeding edge of clipping to find a small, barely perceptible anomaly for 2-3 seconds in a 10-minute orchestral piece, I'm probably going to shrug and move on with my life.


----------



## logicPwn

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to poke fun at another.  I take minor issue with those insinuating that I am sacrificing sound quality for convenience.  I was all lossless all the time before, and while everyone's situation may be different, my options were limited.  It was only after discovering that lossy could be transparent to my ears that I eventually skipped archiving to lossless and went with a format that opened up a wide range of inexpensive means for me to maintain an otherwise unattainable music library practically everywhere I go.
> 
> Can I be absolutely certain I am not missing something with the sound quality?  No, but I've reached the point where I'm extremely confident that I am safe, and if there is some proof of this later, it would have to be something significant to make me go back to my old ways.  If I have to scour the world over to find 2 songs with a complex horn section that was mastered at the bleeding edge of clipping to find a small, barely perceptible anomaly for 2-3 seconds in a 10-minute orchestral piece, I'm probably going to shrug and move on with my life.


 
  I can agree with that but not fully, on my laptop I use archive quality FLAC and then convert everything to mobile quality AAC for use on my iPhone 5 because of small storage size issues (16GB), once I get a nice dedicated mobile music player I will use some form of lossless though.


----------



## waynes world

Quote: 





sonitus mirus said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to poke fun at another.  I take minor issue with those insinuating that I am sacrificing sound quality for convenience.  I was all lossless all the time before, and while everyone's situation may be different, my options were limited.  It was only after discovering that lossy could be transparent to my ears that I eventually skipped archiving to lossless and went with a format that *opened up a wide range of inexpensive means for me to maintain an otherwise unattainable music library practically everywhere I go*.
> 
> Can I be absolutely certain I am not missing something with the sound quality?  No, but I've reached the point where I'm extremely confident that I am safe, and if there is some proof of this later, it would have to be something significant to make me go back to my old ways.  If I have to scour the world over to find 2 songs with a complex horn section that was mastered at the bleeding edge of clipping to find a small, barely perceptible anomaly for 2-3 seconds in a 10-minute orchestral piece, I'm probably going to shrug and move on with my life.


 
   
  At the moment (subject to change lol!), this is how I am also feeling. The highlighted bit is very important to me right now. I don't like spending time choosing which songs/albums I am going to listen to on my portable devices, and then spending the time getting them onto the portables. I would prefer to get as much as I can onto them (preferably everything), and the only way I can come remotely close to doing so is with mp3's. And if high quality mp3's are pretty much indistinguishable from lossless files to me, then high quality mp3's will work for me at this point in time.
   
  I have enjoyed the debate though, and I can see that it is very much dependent on each person's needs and desires - there is no right or wrong answer.


----------



## Dillan

These last few posts are really spot on. The only reason I even posted in this thread was because I kept reading a few posts from people who were so adamant on their lossy collection sounding the exact same through and through to that guys lossless. There isn't a right or wrong decision on what each person decides, but statements like that just doesn't sit right with me. Nobody's opinion is fact. 

People just have to make an informed decision based on the facts, and apply that to their situation. What they come up with probably is better than what someone else thinks they should do. Especially if they've done their research and care about what they are doing.


----------



## julian67

dillan said:


> .... better than what someone else thinks they should do.




I'm trying to imagine this thread without the posts containing "You should do X..." or "You have to do Y..."

It's much shorter.

One hypothesis is that extended exposure to lossy compression turns some people awfully bossy. A supposed remedy is to warm up that tube amp, get the turntable motor idling and ready, put the magic pebbles in the magic places, lay that heavyweight audiophile vinyl on the platter and finally drop the tonearm and listen to the sweet mellow sounds of those sine wave test tones, obscure vocalists and never-heard-of-again jazz combos. And some crackles.

edit:typo


----------



## Dillan

julian67 said:


> I'm trying to imagine this thread without the posts containing "You should do X..." or "You have to do Y..."
> 
> It's much shorter.
> 
> ...




I don't know if they are bossy or just really defensive. Some people get upset when they come to realize that their opinions aren't facts. Especially when they have a collection of audio so large, they realize changing it is almost impossible. And other people are understanding and just create reasonable examples, situations and ideas. I don't mean to sound rude or harsh. Just think that is why discussions like this can get tense. I for one have learned a lot in this thread, and have really enjoyed talking to you guys.


----------



## chewy4

Lossy compression gets a lot of flak on head-fi and it's mostly completely unwarranted and without giving it a proper chance. Too many times have I heard of people on this forum make jokes about how it's stupid to use MP3's with high end equipment when it's really not true at all. High-end equipment doesn't need lossless files to shine, that's just ridiculous.
   
  So there's a need for the advocating of ABX testing and the likes. There's no need to consider it a personal attack. The reason that so many people suggest it is because most are surprised by it the first time they do it. Not to mention if somebody is trying to prove that they can hear differences, it is a way to prove it. And the burden of proof is on those who _can_ hear the difference.

 I've heard people say many times that they can easily distinguish between mp3(of high bitrate) and lossless - NONE have provided evidence that they can do so. If it were _easy_ to do so, providing evidence would also be easy. Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes. Does this lack of evidence mean that there isn't an audible difference? No, but it certainly points in that direction. I'm cool with the whole peace of mind thing, as stated before I rip lossless for exactly that reason, but until some people start to provide evidence on audible differences these high bitrate lossy files shouldn't be looked down upon as having inferior audio quality.
   
  Another funny thing - there have been multiple blind tests where many users said they PREFER a 128kbps MP3 over the lossless alternative. I think this may be due to the fact that at this level some high frequency grain can be removed making the rest sound more clear.


----------



## julian67

chewy4 said:


> I've heard people say many times that they can easily distinguish between mp3(of any bitrate) and lossless - NONE have provided evidence that they can do so.




That is simply untrue.

How is it possible to discuss the subject if people fail to even acknowledge the self evident existence of anything that they don't approve of?

It's impossible to "distinguish between mp3(of any bitrate) and lossless"???? Of any bitrate? This is such nonsense that it surely arises from dogma or belief because it has no connection with reality, experience or reason. I don't think there is even one developer or knowledgable advocate of lossy encoders who would claim that "mp3(of any bitrate) and lossless" cannot be distinguished.

There are numerous published and freely accessible listening tests which demonstrate very definitely that lossy audio can be distinguished in abx tests from lossless easily at low bitrates, less easily at medium bitrates and only with great difficulty or not at all at high bitrates.

Anyone can make a set of samples at different bitrates and abx them against lossless and find exactly that. It's hardly a secret or a controversy.

I can only speak for myself but I haven't made any claim that I can always or easily distinguish high bitrate lossy from lossless in an abx.

What I have said:

Some samples/passages still defeat lossy encoders. These aren't common but do exist and any large collection is likely to contain some. Some "killer" samples are well known and freely available (several used to be distributed as part of a training pack for abx testing). If you listen to your music long enough you might even notice you have a few of your own.

abx testing is really hard. Again I'm speaking for myself; other people may find it a breeze. I find it really hard to produce a result in an abx test except on samples which are tonally simple and ideally also of short duration. As I described in a recent post I easily identified an unsatisfactory encode during normal listening and then found it extremely difficult but not impossible to abx it. Note the contrast: easily vs extremely difficult.

Null results are null.

Subjective and relative tests are subjective and relative.

A void does not constitute evidence, data or proof.

High quality lossy encoding might often be as good as the lossless source in listening. Of course it might. But it can never be better! And as source for making files with different encoders it cannot be as good.

The only advantages of lossy encoding are:
 reduction in file size or reduction in bandwidth required.
 some personal devices only support lossy format X or lossy format Y.

If you can afford 3 pennies per GB for disk storage and you're not constrained by the limitations of a personal player then those advantages evaporate.

There is nothing you can do with a lossy file that you can't do with lossless.

There are things you can do with lossless that you cannot do as well with lossy i.e. proper back ups, highest quality transcoding.

Playing lossless files means always hearing the music at best possible quality on your playback equipment. Guaranteed. Playing lossy files means it might do. No guarantee.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> That is simply untrue.
> 
> How is it possible to discuss the subject if people fail to even acknowledge the self evident existence of anything that they don't approve of?
> 
> ...


 
  Not sure why I put of any bitrate there, but I meant high bitrate. That's what nobody has provided evidence of there being a noticeable difference.
   
  I'll edit that now.


----------



## mikeaj

I'm pretty sure I recall seeing (multiple) people post 10/10 ABX logs (or better) for 320 kbps mp3 vs. lossless, with a modern encoder, say LAME 3.98 or whatever.  You know, there are ways to cheat if you want, but I didn't really see a reason not to take it at face value.
   
  Anyway, people are free to use whatever they want.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





mikeaj said:


> I'm pretty sure I recall seeing (multiple) people post 10/10 ABX logs (or better) for 320 kbps mp3 vs. lossless, with a modern encoder, say LAME 3.98 or whatever.  You know, there are ways to cheat if you want, but I didn't really see a reason not to take it at face value.
> 
> Anyway, people are free to use whatever they want.


 
  Where at?
   
  I believe I've only seen one but the user admitted they weren't listening under normal conditions - cheating by messing with an equalizer to bring up the artifacting frequencies and whatnot. But if there are some people who did it legit I stand corrected, although I'd like to see them first before passing any judgment. At any rate I mostly just take issue with those who say that the difference is easy to detect. People who say that are either unaware of how hard it actually is, or have a very bizarre definition of easy.


----------



## kn19h7

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Where at?
> 
> I believe I've only seen one but the user admitted they weren't listening under normal conditions - cheating by messing with an equalizer to bring up the artifacting frequencies and whatnot. But if there are some people who did it legit I stand corrected, although I'd like to see them first before passing any judgment. At any rate I mostly just take issue with those who say that the difference is easy to detect. People who say that are either unaware of how hard it actually is, or have a very bizarre definition of easy.


 
Like this? (posted my result at page6 btw)
   
  So far I have 2 success case in abx-ing 320mp3 vs lossless, had to tried really hard to detect the differences though.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Where at?
> 
> I believe I've only seen one but the user admitted they weren't listening under normal conditions - cheating by messing with an equalizer to bring up the artifacting frequencies and whatnot. But if there are some people who did it legit I stand corrected, although I'd like to see them first before passing any judgment. At any rate I mostly just take issue with those who say that the difference is easy to detect. People who say that are either unaware of how hard it actually is, or have a very bizarre definition of easy.


 
   
  You need to find the right track, right part, maybe listener.  Most probably still not obvious.
   
  Note that for people posting ABX logs and quoting probabilities, if they are viewing the results while testing, and/or restarting and/or trying multiple times, that's a more "complicated" test statistically, certainly a way to increase false positives in general unless you are accounting for those things.  The probability doesn't really apply to somebody going through until they hit a streak of X/Y that crosses "p < 0.05" mark.**  But still, anyway, you can interpret the data.
   
  Just doing a search:
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/573974/lossless-vs-mp3-abx-results-among-other-abxs#post_7791681
http://www.head-fi.org/t/431522/abx-test-of-320kbps-vs-flac-results#post_5797757
http://www.head-fi.org/t/431522/abx-test-of-320kbps-vs-flac-results/60#post_6574596
  (edit: yeah, I missed searching for ones with actual 10/10, but hopefully you'll forgive me on that.. also some results that include misses are more significant than 10/10 anyway)
   
  I remember reading some others too.
   
  Seems like encoders have more trouble with tracks going to 0 dBFS, which is kinda expected maybe.
   
   
  ** I don't read xkcd, but there's a relevant comic here:
http://xkcd.com/882/


----------



## julian67

I also wondered "where at?" and then used the mighty google and found a few. Some are old enough to now probably be limited to curiosity value i.e. Hydrogen Audio - Finally I can ABX Lame insane or http://www.head-fi.org/t/223612/can-you-hear-the-difference-between-lame-v0-and-lossless/60 but others are relatively recent i.e. http://www.head-fi.org/t/441084/my-lossy-vs-lossless-abx-experiment

Anyway there are various blogs, posts and similar out there which turn up relevant results with a search of "abx lame lossless" "abx lossy lossless" "abx mp3 lossless" and similar. I have only skimmed a couple of these so don't have any opinion on them yet.


----------



## chewy4

Thanks for the links guys. I'd say some of those are significant, particularly the deadlylover one.
   
  mikeaj you do make a good point about people cherry picking result sets - and unfortunately people do this and don't even see why it's wrong. Anyone can get a 10/10 without even listening given they give it enough tries. I've even trumped someone else's results without listening when they were trying to claim a cherry picked 7/7 result meant that they passed. But the deadlylover one definitely seems honest enough.


----------



## sonitus mirus

It would be nice to have a copy of the exact test files used.  I'd like to try the test myself or even look at them with an analyzer to see if there is anything that might show why they might sound different.  While I'm sure my ears and equipment would never pass, it would be interesting to see how others might perform with the same data.  Also, it would be interesting to see if the same song could be encoded by someone else to see if perhaps something was slightly amiss with the initial encoding.  The ABX is a first step, but it needs to be "peer reviewed" in a sense.


----------



## julian67

chewy4 said:


> some of those are significant, particularly the deadlylover one.




Agreed. That's a very interesting thread and I'm only halfway on page two!

There's someone who successfully abx the difference between high quality modern mp3 and lossless and who says 





deadlylover said:


> .....
> 
> Yeah I feel like I'm not missing anything at all when using mp3's, I just wanted to see if it was possible to distinguish them. For all intents and purposes, mp3's are more than transparent enough for everyday listening if there aren't any insane compression artifacts.
> 
> ...




Which I think is really well expressed description of the quality of compressed audio, its experiential difference and similarity to lossless, what listening to music is actually about (feeling, stimulation) and why and how abx testing can be so challenging that ascribing meaning or qualities to null "results" means one has moved from knowing to believing.


----------



## julian67

sonitus mirus said:


> The ABX is a first step, but it needs to be "peer reviewed" in a sense.




No, it doesn't need to be peer reviewed because it's a purely subjective test.

He used apps that are accepted as a kind of de facto standard because they work as described and he used the version of lame current at the time. Then he published the logs. If someone publishes similar logs from a similar test but the scores show 5/10 or 12/30 would people start to question an obviously knowledagble author's competence to make an mp3 from a flac in foobar or suggest this needed intervention to verify? I doubt it. I think you have to assume good faith unless there is some specific reason not to. The author does nothing to suggest he is anything other than entirely credible.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> No, it doesn't need to be peer reviewed because it's a purely subjective test.
> 
> He used apps that are accepted as a kind of de facto standard because they work as described and he used the version of lame current at the time. Then he published the logs. If someone publishes similar logs from a similar test but the scores show 5/10 or 12/30 would people start to question an obviously knowledagble author's competence to make an mp3 from a flac in foobar or suggest this needed intervention to verify? I doubt it. I think you have to assume good faith unless there is some specific reason not to. The author does nothing to suggest he is anything other than entirely credible.


 
   
  An ABX is not purely subjective.  Its purpose is to remove the subjective part.
   
  No, of course nobody should care about the competency of a failed test, as this is simple to do.  The person that passes the test should be able to let others look at the data that was used.  If I were able to successfully pass a similar test, you can bet that I would be passing around these files for people to verify that what I did was legitimate.  I hear claims of science and facts, but when a scientific method is asked to be used, nobody wants to participate.  I'm only suggesting this as in the past I've seen similar results only to find that the files were not being volume matched correctly, or they used an older version of the encoder, or had a setting used that would not create the best quality.  Let us check, what could it hurt?
   
  My ultimate goal is not to try and discredit anyone.  I'm trying to remain objective and to discover the truth for myself, with as much confidence and accuracy as I can.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> No, it doesn't need to be peer reviewed because it's a purely subjective test.
> 
> He used apps that are accepted as a kind of de facto standard because they work as described and he used the version of lame current at the time. Then he published the logs. If someone publishes similar logs from a similar test but the scores show 5/10 or 12/30 would people start to question an obviously knowledagble author's competence to make an mp3 from a flac in foobar or suggest this needed intervention to verify? I doubt it. I think you have to assume good faith unless there is some specific reason not to. The author does nothing to suggest he is anything other than entirely credible.


 
  To be considered as actual evidence towards anything it does need to be. No need to verify if a 5/10 or 12/30 test was done properly because it doesn't prove anything either way.
   
  Yes, I think it was an honest test. But there are many things people can do wrong without meaning to skew the results. I know that the default for my converter is at medium quality for LAME mp3's regardless of the bitrate, for example. You need to change the quality slider in order to get the best out of it.


----------



## julian67

sonitus mirus said:


> An ABX is not purely subjective.  Its purpose is to remove the subjective part.




No, the purpose of the blinding is to remove _bias_.

Bias and subjectivity are *not* the same thing!

It's a subjective test because the result depends on the senses/consciousness/perception of the tester. If he _perfectly_ executes the abx test and produces a result, it may be a different result obtained by you or me also _perfectly_ performing the _exact same abx test._ The same abx test perfectly executed by different persons may produce identical results, or different results, or no results at all. In each case the test is always subjective but is not biased. 

An objective test is one where the result is not variable according to the senses/consciousness/perception of the person performing it. The perfectly executed objective test will produce the same result _irrespective of the person performing it_. That's what makes it suitable for peer review.

What _is_ biased is declining to assume the same good faith in others that one expects to be accepted in oneself. Also biased is impugning the competence of others when there is no good reason to do so. Another bias is to make unreasonable conditions when encountering evidence which doesn't correlate to one's own expectation (expectation can also be read as....bias!).

I have a suggestion: if you doubt deadlylover's competence, execution, integrity or anything else then send him a pm and ask him if he will post some short clips of the lossless files and the lossy.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I may have fallen victim to the improper usage of the term objective with regards to ABX testing.  I'm certainly no English major, and I am not the only one that has made this connection.
   
  If someone claims to have found evidence of life on Mars, even if they seemed to have followed specific, accepted procedures to come up with their findings, the next logical step is to have other, capable people attempt to repeat the results and analyze the processes used.   I don't see where bias comes into play.  Skepticism is an important part of the modern scientific method.  The process is not meant to be taken personally.


----------



## julian67

This thread contains an awful lot of posts that run, in essence, something like "I didn't hear a difference in my abx test(s), therefore the files will also sound the same to any other person in any other circumstances."

Assuming good faith(!) then that kind of conclusion/assertion seems to arise from misconstruing bias and subjectivity as one and the same. This leads to believing the test results meaning something other than is the case.

In this context this is especially important when considering null results. If one mistakenly assumes a single user abx test to be an _objective_ test and not just an unbiased test then the null result assumes significance beyond one's own circumstances and perception. The empty space acquires an illusory weight and mass which appears universal. Why can't everyone see it? They're wilfully blind! (sorry for the pun).

Someone sincerely believing they have demonstrated or established an objective truth may in good conscience feel very frustrated with people who don't agree, and might ascribe that dissent to defects in intelligence, character, competence, experience and so on. They might also feel entirely justified in trying to persuade people that they have some good news which will benefit everyone.

Let us pray.


----------



## julian67

sonitus mirus said:


> .... the next logical step is to have other, capable people attempt to repeat the results...




No, it isn't. There is no requirement or expectation that a different person should obtain the same results! That is absolutely fundamental. It's a _subjective_ test that depends on the tester's senses and consciousness. If file a and file b are the same file then everyone ought to produce no result, but outside of that circumstance different results say nothing about the integrity of the test. 

The _process_ can be examined but in this case the tester _described_ his process. It's the same process known and accepted by anyone who is interested in these kinds of abx tests. The tester also describes his files and even which minor version of lame he used.

If you read the thread it is obvious there is no evidence of anything except a competent tester honestly performing a known process and finding it extremely difficult to distinguish file a from file b. On some comparisons he produces no result, which is to say he cannot find a difference. On others he finds a difference but states it is so tiny that he doesn't find it makes any difference to his normal listening and he will continue to enjoy his mp3 files. There is absolutely nothing to suggest any user error or bad faith. 

To read that thread and then decline to accept the author's tests unless they are held to a logically absurd standard is not a reasonable position to adopt.

But the tester is a current member. You could put your doubts to him.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Perhaps we need a process created?  
   
  1. ABX and get 13 of 15 correct. (Hey folks, look what I have found!)
   
  2. Make files available for others to analyze and test.  (Does everything look ok, can anyone else see what I see?)
   
  3. Someone else properly encode the same files and have the initial tester perform the test with the new files. (Let me try this again with your data.)
   
  4. Can this tester repeat this test using a different platform/computer? (Lets take my computer system out of the equation)
   
  Even if nobody else in the world is able to pass the test in step 2, step 3 and 4 should remove any doubt that the initial tester is capable of identifying the files correctly.
   
  It's not perfect, and anyone could probably cheat, but at least this is a step beyond simply posting an ABX log.  Usually step 2 proves something is incorrect with the process.  I've never seen any testing beyond this point.


----------



## chewy4

Why are you taking this so personally Julian?
   
  The request for evidence is pretty normal in science. It's nothing personal. It's just about wanting to _know_ something rather than just _believe_ it. Nobody is calling anybody an "idiot liar".


----------



## xnor

To me it seems to be common that many people who post in this forum don't even know what science is. So no surprise they haven't heard of "peer review" or "falsification" or an idea as simple as repeating an experiment ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> Yesterday 12 out of 15 results constituted statistical significance.


 
   
  Yes. 12 of 15 is what is normally accepted, my apologies.  My steps were not meant to be taken as gospel  Pray indeed.  Who is the fanatic in this discussion?


----------



## Dillan

I don't know, sound science is very different from science in general. I think it really isn't fair to say, "Well you heard a difference, I must also hear a difference." Yes it is good to ask questions, and use the same samples from the people who make their claims, but to have a negative tone and pretend like their making things up really isn't called for. Not to mention, some people have very admirable hearing. Just an example of differences, I myself find that my own hearing can change from time to time. Not even to scrape the surface of how separate peoples hearing is different at any given point of time with any given set of persons. 

Look. The point is, it doesn't matter how many times you ask someone for evidence in their claims, sometimes you have to accept the fact that you can either test their claims and call them a liar, or do the right thing and admit that perhaps someone else situation - whether it be their superior hearing, or perhaps their gear made the difference - provided them with different results. 

In the end a few examples aren't going to prove anything. You can either settle on what you believe, or accept that there are possibilities.


----------



## julian67

@sonitus mirus

It isn't me that wants to discard a test with a valid statistical method because it allows for valid results which don't confirm my bias. 

It's not me who is taking it personally. I accept that maths does work.

What I've done in the last few posts is point out an error of such magnitude that it completely invalidates every assumption that rests on it, that error being the belief that subjectivity and bias are the same thing (also expressed as the belief that a subjective test is actually objective). It isn't possible to have any meaningful understanding of the abx tests with that error in place. It really is that significant and not some minor semantic side issue.

Discarding the valid method while misunderstanding the test that uses it, all in order to propose a new test with invented bogus standards, which can be faked in exactly the same way as the original test by anyone acting in bad faith, does not meet the description of being "pretty normal in science"! 

To crown this by characterising objections as "taking this..personally" almost has a kind of unknowing glory.


----------



## Dillan

Besides, I think I've made my point clear on my situation. I do not care about space or portability, so I chose FLAC, because with that I have my piece of mind, I can sit there listening and knowing it will sound as good as it can. Otherwise I am the kind of person who worries that maybe it wouldn't sound as good if its an MP3. Maybe that is why some people get passionate about this topic, because their situation calls for MP3s and they can't really make the choice otherwise. The fact of the matter is a couple of people on an audio forum aren't going to prove any scientific breakthroughs. So trying won't do anything. I can understand if you just want to undergo research so that you have a basis for your own opinions, but I chose a long time ago that I can easily just choose the lossless file, and not have to worry about anything. I don't have to defend myself, I can rest easy - Because I listen to my music the best way in my situation. Sometimes the easy, safe way is the best way. 

If your situation calls for something different, who cares? That is what you have to deal with not anyone else. Your research can be done on your own, it's your ears and your opinion.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I don't want to make anything up or pretend.  We are clearly not even in the same book, much less on the same page in our thinking. I respectfully bow out.  I suppose an honor system on the validity of an ABX test is as good as I can expect.  I really believe there are differences between the best lossy and lossless files that some people can distinguish between with consistency.  I also believe that life must exist somewhere else in the vast universe.  I am simply looking for tangible proof that is more satisfying that what I have now.


----------



## julian67

sonitus mirus said:


> Yes. 12 of 15 is what is normally accepted, my apologies.  My steps were not meant to be taken as gospel  Pray indeed.  Who is the fanatic in this discussion?




I think it's the person who rejects sound method on finding it allows valid results he doesn't like.

Or it's the person who presumes dishonesty or incompetence in people who use the valid method and produce results he doesn't like.

Or it could be the person who fundamentally misunderstood what the test is and what its results mean but seeks to replace it with a method more complex, less likely to be completed (or even used), which requires multiple participants to achieve the same results as a single user test, and whose results can be falsified in much the same way. All this to try to avoid results that might not match a particular expectation.

That is fanaticism.

I still think in the context of an online discussion it's better to assume good faith unless there is a substantive reason not to do so. If you don't assume good faith it doesn't get you anywhere in an environment where people are not accountable. Assuming bad faith and trying to hold people to unusual standards (especially ones of dubious worth) also invites people to regard you in that same light. If you've made up some whacky rules and stacked the deck and called people names because they debated you it doesn't work out too well unless you're the board admin or moderator and can do magic edits and secret deals/threats/sanctions (I'm not referring to this board, just thinking of a couple of different places that I've seen run that way).


----------



## Dillan

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't want to make anything up or pretend.  We are clearly not even in the same book, much less on the same page in our thinking. I respectfully bow out.  I suppose an honor system on the validity of an ABX test is as good as I can expect.  I really believe there are differences between the best lossy and lossless files that some people can distinguish between with consistency.  I also believe that life must exist somewhere else in the vast universe.  I am simply looking for tangible proof that is more satisfying that what I have now.




Then you can obtain that proof on your own, because no one is going to jump through hoops to validate your opinion. Especially people who chose lossless in the first place, which completely does not need any sort of test or opinion to begin with. It literally has the same content as the original CD. Whether *you* can hear the difference that gets removed with lossy is what *you* need to decide.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> Discarding the valid method while misunderstanding the test that uses it, all in order to propose a new test with invented bogus standards, which can be faked in exactly the same way as the original test by anyone acting in bad faith, does not meet the description of being "pretty normal in science"!
> 
> To crown this by characterising objections as "taking this..personally" almost has a kind of unknowing glory.


 
  I think my words were "The request for evidence is pretty normal in science". Yes, you can still fake it either way. But I'd still like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not intentionally faking anything.
   
  You've been making accusations that the request of additional details, or the files used is the equivalent of calling someone a liar or an idiot, in reality it's just wanting to know all of the facts. To say that there hasn't been a faulty ABX test out there is just wrong, so if you want to prove something with yours than make sure you provide reasonable evidence that it isn't faulty. I know I wouldn't mind if somebody asked for evidence on any successful ABX test that I did - if it helped provide evidence of an audible difference in something I would gladly provide any information necessary. If more people did this I would appreciate it a lot.
   
  As sonitus said his methods weren't gospel. Just something he made up, it seemed more just a suggestion towards standardization. I don't agree with the particular things he suggested as a whole but I do agree that if you're trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm it's best to give as much detail as possible. And being able to hear differences between 320kbps and lossless files is definitely against the norm.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> @sonitus mirus
> 
> It isn't me that wants to discard a test with a valid statistical method because it allows for valid results which don't confirm my bias.


 
   
  I don't want to discard it at all. I want to research this finding more thoroughly.  Your assumptions are incorrect about my motives.  You pull minute details out of the whole context of what people have posted and painstakingly critique these as if you are participating in some debate competition.


----------



## Currawong

Guys, don't get personal, OK?


----------



## julian67

OK. The sudden need for a more rigourous standard arising immediately on discovery of credible but inconvenient results was just a coincidence then. That's good to know.

I haven't been pulling minute details.

There is nothing minute about not knowing the difference between bias and subjectivity.

There's nothing minute about confusing subjective tests with objective ones.

Deciding to propose a new set of standards is also not minute, nor is it a detail.

Chewy4's phrase "The request for evidence is pretty normal in science" was in no way a fair description of the proposal it referenced, so putting it up as something reasonable that I unfairly criticised is a strawman. That proposal was not a simple request for evidence. It was a convoluted scheme that added complexity and inconvenience but offered no more assurance that it couldn't be misused. It requires extra people to do what a single person can do and introduced a third party who must process the files (who checks this???) and requires the tester to perform the same test on more than one computer despite this being superfluous and meaningless. Any data collected would be of no value to the tester because he is no longer testing with the files he actually listens to! In essence it's a method to _avoid_ collecting any meaningful data. That is not a minute detail.

btw one reason why the abx test such as the foobar plug-in is widely accepted is not because it reveals universal truths (it doesn't) or guarantees that nulls have meaning (it doesn't), it's because designing and implementing valid blind tests is full of pitfalls, requires lots of time and resources and is _incredibly_ difficult to do well. The abx plug-in isn't beyond criticism but it is better at removing bias than any other method that a normal person might be able to design or perform.

Chewy4 uses the phrase "..if you're trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm.." 
But that is _not_ what people are doing. The entire point of the blinding is that it negates the bias that leads people to think in terms like "trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm"! In performing an abx people are trying to see if they can reliably identify x as being file a or b. That's it. If you see results which don't confirm your bias as an "attempt to go against a norm" it means you haven't understood what the blind test is and what it can and cannot be used for. That is not a minute detail.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> Chewy4's phrase "The request for evidence is pretty normal in science" was in no way a fair description of the proposal it referenced, so putting it up as something reasonable that I unfairly criticised is a strawman. That proposal was not a simple request for evidence. It was a convoluted scheme that added complexity and inconvenience but offered no more assurance that it couldn't be misused. It requires extra people to do what a single person can do and introduced a third party who must process the files (who checks this???) and requires the tester to perform the same test on more than one computer despite this being superfluous and meaningless. Any data collected would be of no value to the tester because he is no longer testing with the files he actually listens to! In essence it's a method to _avoid_ collecting any meaningful data. That is not a minute detail.


 
  Once again I didn't even agree with his proposed standards - nor were the details of his standards the point at all. Only that some details need to gathered rather than just stating that you ABXed something. This makes it much more useful and informative to the reader. It's a little insulting that you're dictating people's intentions like that... as he said he only wants to research further into it. 
   


julian67 said:


> Chewy4 uses the phrase "..if you're trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm.."
> But that is _not_ what people are doing. The entire point of the blinding is that it negates the bias that leads people to think in terms like "trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm"! In performing an abx people are trying to see if they can reliably identify x as being file a or b. That's it.* If you see results which don't confirm your bias as an "attempt to go against a norm" it means you haven't understood what the blind test is and what it can and cannot be used fo*r. That is not a minute detail.


 

   
   
  Some people do use ABX logs as proof that they can hear a difference. They _are_ as good of proof as you can get to show yourself that you can hear a difference. They don't provide absolute proof to others unless you're an eye witness, but with some good faith they're the closest thing you can get if done correctly. 
   
  As for the bolded statement... what? Hearing an audible difference in well encoded 320kbps files is much more rare than not being able to. Saying that you are able to is saying you're capable of an impressive feat that most people aren't capable of doing. That's all I was saying by that phrase. I'm not saying by doing so people are making a rebellious act of non-conformity.


----------



## Dillan

chewy4 said:


> As for the bolded statement... what? Hearing an audible difference in well encoded 320kbps files is much more rare than not being able to. Saying that you are able to is saying you're capable of an impressive feat that most people aren't capable of doing. That's all I was saying by that phrase. I'm not saying by doing so people are making a rebellious act of non-conformity.




..As long as you aren't saying that it's an impossible scenario. Some people say they can hear a difference, you can't just disregard it if you can't. Besides, I'll say it again.. People like me choose to not put themselves through all of these rigorous tests, because they don't have to. It's been said and I will say it again, the *most* you can hope for with lossy is being the same.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





dillan said:


> ..As long as you aren't saying that it's an impossible scenario. Some people say they can hear a difference, you can't just disregard it if you can't. Besides, I'll say it again.. People like me choose to not put themselves through all of these rigorous tests, because they don't have to. It's been said and I will say it again, the *most* you can hope for with lossy is being the same.


 
  Nope, I was never implying that. Otherwise I would probably not rip my CD's using lossless.


----------



## guun

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
   
  I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did [size=small](  ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[/size]


----------



## TMRaven

lol


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





guun said:


> Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
> 
> I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did [size=small](  ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[/size]


 
  I'm going to assume this is a joke, but since you brought it up optical media can be far more reliable than any hard drive.
   
  While the lifespan of CD-R's is debatable(I've heard as little as 5 years and as long as over a century), factory pressed CD's are going to beat any HDD in longevity. They'll last easily over a century.


----------



## waynes world

LOL - good one guun!


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





guun said:


> Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
> 
> I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did [size=small](  ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[/size]


----------



## julian67

chewy4 said:


> Some people do use ABX logs as proof that they can hear a difference.




Yes they do, and that's fine because that is exactly what an abx test can demonstrate. But you said something completely different. Your actual words describing a person's test were:

"trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm". That isn't the same thing at all. It doesn't even refer to either hearing or difference, but refers instead to an undefined notion of a norm and "going against" it. That is an unambiguous demonstration of expectation bias and of misunderstanding what the test is and what it can show.



chewy4 said:


> ....They don't provide absolute proof to others unless you're an eye witness




Even if you're sitting with the person doing the abx _*you cannot witness the other person's sense perception!*_ The test is *subjective!* You've *completely* failed to appreciate the difference between a subjective test and an objective test. 



chewy4 said:


> As for the bolded statement... what? Hearing an audible difference in well encoded 320kbps files is much more rare than not being able to.




We're back to your idea of norms and your feeling that a result that you don't expect or like is cause for suspicion. But that is simply _you expressing some bias_. The rarity value is not what is being tested. Nor is your expectation being tested, nor the expectation or bias of the tester (it has been negated by the method). What _is_ being tested is if the person can reliably distinguish one file from another. He does or he doesn't. The abx test doesn't weight the result in terms of social norms, potential reaction of 3rd parties, rarity, intention or purpose. You've mixed those biases in yourself.



chewy4 said:


> Saying that you are able to is saying you're capable of an impressive feat that most people aren't capable of doing. That's all I was saying by that phrase. I'm not saying by doing so people are making a rebellious act of non-conformity.




The test results in question _don't say that_. That is your interpretation of them based on your personal bias and misunderstandings.

What they do say:

Using a method that negates bias the tester could, in some tests, reliably distinguish file a from file b.
And sometimes he couldn't.


----------



## chewy4

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> Even if you're sitting with the person doing the abx _*you cannot witness the other person's sense perception!*_ The test is *subjective!* You've *completely* failed to appreciate the difference between a subjective test and an objective test.


 
  I can witness them correctly choose between two files. This is good enough proof for me that they can hear a difference. 
   
  I don't know what you're going on about, or more accurately why you are going on about it. There is no need to rant at anyone page after page telling people that they have a bias in something and that they should feel bad about it. Everyone has bias. Mine in this case is based on my observations of the ABX testing of others, the science behind the compression algorithms, and my own personal experience with my own perfectly fine ears and above average echoic memory. 
   
  At any rate this is ridiculous. I know you're going to take some phrase that I said here and repeat it 20 or 30 times trying to put it in the worst possible light, but I'm not going to be listening any more. I prefer civilized discussions over hostile debate, so I'm done talking with you here.


----------



## julian67

chewy4 said:


> I can witness them correctly choose between two files. This is good enough proof for me that they can hear a difference.




No you can't do that. You cannot verify their experience. Nobody can.

How can your observing a person allow you to assess what they hear?

Again: you _cannot_ witness the other person's sense perception!

Your sitting there is no different than reading the abx log.

It's impossible to know their mind. They might be hearing angels singing while they tell you they hear nothing at all. Or they might hear nothing at all and tell you they can distinctly hear a deep bass tone. How can you "witness" that? At what point and by what means are you able to verify another person's description of something that may or may not fleetingly exist in their mind? There is no proof!

What your "witnessing" proves is that you don't understand that sense perception is subjective. That is not a minor detail.



chewy4 said:


> At any rate this is ridiculous. I know you're going to take some phrase that I said here and repeat it 20 or 30 times trying to put it in the worst possible light, but I'm not going to be listening any more. I prefer civilized discussions over hostile debate, so I'm done talking with you here.




That's no more than a very weak evasion.

Disagreeing with someone in a debate does _not_ constitute hostility. Nor is it uncivilized. If you put your arguments up for examination in a debate it's completely unreasonable to object to deficiences being described, even in robust terms. The very strongest things I've said to you are that you have failed to understand the differences between subjective and objective tests, and that several of your arguments are founded on misunderstandings and hence amount only to expressions of bias. In each case I supported those descriptions with examples. It's supposed to be a Science forum. That means opinions have no value and should be refuted, not accepted as facts. Fallacies offered as facts also invite and deserve dismissal.




chewy4 said:


> I know you're going to take some phrase that I said here and repeat it 20 or 30 times trying to put it in the worst possible light..




In a debate people will debate you on _what you actually wrote_? If they disagree they might say so? And say why? If you keep presenting the same fallacy or opinion as fact then it might get remarked upon more than once? No! Really? Yes! OMG!


----------



## xnor

julian67 stop attacking straw men and making red herrings.
  Condemning fallacies first but then committing them yourself is pure dishonesty. Repeating points people have conceded is childish. We now know you excel in both areas, congratulations.
  I don't understand how you cannot see this, it really is getting pathetic.


----------



## Dillan

xnor said:


> julian67 stop attacking straw men and making red herrings.
> Condemning fallacies first but then committing them yourself is pure dishonesty. Repeating points people have conceded is childish. We now know you excel in both areas, congratulations.
> I don't understand how you cannot see this, it really is getting pathetic.




I don't think he's making red herrings. He is passionately responding to others, which some might find too harsh.. but I don't think he is making red herrings. At any rate, I haven't enjoyed this discussion as much as I did a few days ago.


----------



## julian67

xnor said:


> julian67 stop attacking straw men and making red herrings.
> Condemning fallacies first but then committing them yourself is pure dishonesty. Repeating points people have conceded is childish. We now know you excel in both areas, congratulations.
> I don't understand how you cannot see this, it really is getting pathetic.




I've neither made red herrings nor put up strawmen. I haven't repeated a point that has been conceded.

I've countered some red herrings and had to deal with a couple of strawman arguments that have been presented in place of arguments. Where I've repeated a point it has been because the same fallacy or misunderstanding has been presented over and again only in slightly different dress. It is boring, I agree.

You offer no example of any of those things you allege because you can't do so.

You've not even tried to construct an argument or refute a point or disagree with one, or put up some evidence that supports a differing or conflicting conclusion or position. You don't offer even a solitary argument or even anything in support of your angry assertions.

I've very strongly disagreed with some people and perfectly legitimately attacked their arguments where they seemed to me unfounded or misconstrued or incomplete. But whatever I think of their understanding and arguments I have to concede they were here to offer an opinion or argument and to try to support it, and people have also attempted to refute opposing or contradictory positions. That is called debate.

All you've done is express hostility.


----------



## julian67

dillan said:


> I don't think he's making red herrings. He is passionately responding to others, which some might find too harsh.. but I don't think he is making red herrings. At any rate, I haven't enjoyed this discussion as much as I did a few days ago.




I feel a little guilty if I've been all that harsh but I'm not so sure. There have been some harsh reactions to some of my posts but that isn't the same thing as me being harsh. Posting an angry outburst and some personal remarks can give a usefully misleading impression (no smoke without fire and all that), can serve as a useful means of avoiding inconvenience and can confer a very useful impression of righteousness (it might not survive a second look but a first impression is often enough). I haven't called anyone names or used pejorative terms to describe anyone. Some people have preferred to deal in terms of personal hostility or emotional outbursts and also avoided issues of fact or reason. Supposedly this is because they are reasonable while I am being a fanatic.

Two or three people have expressed anger and frustration but haven't been able to offer arguments that survive casual examination. Some truly fundamental misunderstandings have been aired, and it's impossible to both accept those and to have a debate. It's perfectly legitimate to point out when someone is trying to present opinion or invention or misunderstanding as fact. I also don't see anything wrong with telling people they are being evasive when they say are being evasive. "If you disagree with the stuff I actually wrote then I will be angry and ignore you!" is not a convincing argument. It is ridiculous but has been offered up a few times as though it's pretty good form. There's no crime in dismissing it as hot air. What to do.

Several times I've said that I think the basis for this kind of debate in this context has to be the assumption of good faith. But from several people its absence became apparent on the introduction of evidence which didn't confirm their expectation.

Finally I'd like to address your assessment of your enjoyment. I notice that your claimed levels of enjoyment of a few days ago were not witnessed and verified. Your claimed level of enjoyment today has also not been witnessed and verified. I propose that it is an objective truth that you are enjoying this debate more by the day, more than you even realise, whether you agree or not. All I need is a witness.


----------



## Dillan

Haha, ok. I will admit, you are entertaining Julian. I can not say in all honesty that the actual points you have been making are something I completely disagree with, because honestly you have been taking things that I agree with, and just delivering them in a way that is different from what I would. Without a doubt I believe your side of the story is the one that closely resembles mine, especially your statement of your music being the best quality that you can possibly use. That is how I feel as well and jumping through hoops for the chance of something of no possible benefit to me is a waste of time in my eyes. (Regarding in depth "ABX" analysis)

But then again, situations AND opinions are very different.


----------



## chewy4

Quote:


dillan said:


> I don't think he's making red herrings. He is passionately responding to others, which some might find too harsh.. but I don't think he is making red herrings. At any rate, I haven't enjoyed this discussion as much as I did a few days ago.


 
  Well he certainly was switching his point up a bit. Do you know what he was disagreeing with me about in the first place? I thought it was something about me saying it would be nice to have the parameters and original files used in an ABX - but then he's critiquing me for saying that a positive ABX can be decent proof of someone hearing an audible difference so I'm not sure. 
   
  This is a subject I enjoy discussing, but I'm only going to participate in any discussion if the other party at least gives an effort to correctly interpret what I'm saying, rather than treat the discussion as a competition and just look for logical holes it might be able to be attacked from. I'm no master at writing or speech so that's bound to get annoying after a while, plus I'm here to discuss sound not logic. Sorry if that offends anyone or seems evasive, but this wasn't going anywhere.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





julian67 said:


> *I've neither made red herrings nor put up strawmen. I haven't repeated a point that has been conceded.*
> 
> I've countered some red herrings and had to deal with a couple of strawman arguments that have been presented in place of arguments. Where I've repeated a point it has been because the same fallacy or misunderstanding has been presented over and again only in slightly different dress. It is boring, I agree.
> 
> ...


 
  ^ That's funny.
   
  #455: chewy was talking about how people say they can distinguish mp3 from lossless no matter what the bitrate, even 320 CBR, without providing any evidence they can really do so.
  You come along interpreting this as if he said people cannot distinguish mp3 from lossless at all, attacking with "nonsense that arises from dogma", "no connection with reality, experience or reason"...
   
  This alone made me double facepalm.
   
  Dunno if it's a language barrier or some form of selecting reading and special interpretation that is based on the assumption that everyone but you is stupid.
   
  Before you say "but he edited this 'of any bitrate' part", you know very well that "any" includes the highest bitrates and that ABX tests only get more difficult at higher bitrates and that of course people can distinguish at low bitrates and there's not even a need for providing evidence in such cases.
   
  #465: sonitus mirus says he would like to repeat the test with the exact same files.
  You come along with the same attitude as before that there is no need to repeat the test, putting "good faith" (your words) in the author that he made everything correct. I wrote it before but I will repeat it again, that's not how science works. How do you know the files were encoded properly and the test was done properly?
   
  #468: sonitus mirus confused subjectivity with bias, you point that out which is ok.
  #485: you repeat the point that had already been conceded.
   
  Your reply to #472 got deleted completely... because it was another emotional outburst for a simple typo!
  #477: you "accept the maths" implying sonitus doesn't although he already pointed out it was just a typo
   
  #494: Of course you cannot witness another person's perception, but you ramble on. The point was that you see that the person is encoding the files properly, has his player and ABX software configured properly, choses the right files for the test, takes the test, saves and publishes the pristine log ...
   
  Also, hearing differences between 320 CBR MP3 and the lossless source is not the rule despite your attempts to turn this into "you're just biased". Have you looked at public high bitrate listening tests? Just a random example: soundexpert.
   
  #496: He said it was good enough proof for him and you come along with, surprise surprise: No, it's not good enough for you. I'm facepalming again.
  Also, you again start ranting and repeating about ones inability to witness another person's perception.
   
   
  I'm tired so I'm stopping here. I guess I don't need to reference the harshness of most of your replies which others have noticed as well. Good night.


----------



## julian67

chewy4 said:


> Well he certainly was switching his point up a bit. Do you know what he was disagreeing with me about in the first place? I thought it was something about me saying it would be nice to have the parameters and original files used in an ABX - but then he's critiquing me for saying that a positive ABX can be decent proof of someone hearing an audible difference so I'm not sure.
> 
> This is a subject I enjoy discussing, but I'm only going to participate in any discussion if the other party at least gives an effort to correctly interpret what I'm saying, rather than treat the discussion as a competition and just look for logical holes it might be able to be attacked from. I'm no master at writing or speech so that's bound to get annoying after a while, plus I'm here to discuss sound not logic. Sorry if that offends anyone or seems evasive, but this wasn't going anywhere.




"he" here. Hello.

If you actually read my posts in this thread (and don't die of boredom, good luck) you'll find several places where I assert or agree that an abx result is evidence of difference, and/or that the purpose of abx testing is to detect difference. 

At no point have I criticised any claim that a positive abx result is proof of difference. It is. Nor have I criticised any person for saying so. If I had done so (I haven't) you will be able to use the board's quotation facility to publish that unadulterated example (you won't be able to). Beyond the assertion being actually untrue it's also another argument ad-hominem.



chewy4 said:


> ...I'm here to discuss sound not logic.




Nobody has asked anybody else to discuss logic but in a science forum actually ignoring or abandoning logic is likely to prove problematic.

Part of the essence of the empirical method is to try to _find_ the logical holes in a proposition or assumption or theory. The purpose is to arrive at (or try to) conclusions/positions which survive scrutiny. If a proposition can't survive examination then there's no point holding on to it. Protesting because people "look for logical holes" makes no sense. It's contrary to any form of science and the same holds true for any non-partisan debate.


----------



## PureViewer4t1 (Nov 24, 2018)

Let me take the dust off this thread:
I just wanted to share my own experience. I haven't read the whole thread so it may be duplicate.
There are some audible differences between flac and MP3 320, mainly in the decay of instruments and their reflexion in their surroundings. It may be minor, but I have some songs in which the difference is huge enough to be heard easily. You just have to know where to look for.

You can also import a flac and its converted mp3 320 into Audacity. Align them, then invert one of them and export the whole project as a WAV file. This would be the whole thing you are missing when listening to 320K.


----------



## Brooko

PureViewer4t1 said:


> Let me take the dust off this thread:
> I just wanted to share my own experience. I haven't read the whole thread so it may be duplicate.
> There are some audible differences between flac and MP3 320, mainly in the decay of instruments and their reflexion in their surroundings. It may be minor, but I have some songs in which the difference is huge enough to be heard easily. You just have to know where to look for.
> 
> You can also import a flac and its converted mp3 320 into Audacity. Then revert one of them and export the whole project as a WAV file. This would be the whole thing you are missing when listening to 320K.



How are you comparing?  Are your comparisons sighted?  Are they volume matched?  Were they from the same source?  What was the method and software (including versions) when transcoding? What was the music you tested?

There are supposedly a relatively small number of MP3 tracks which can be ABXed - so it is possible the tracks you are talking about are part of this small sample, but would pay to know source and method first.

Would be interesting to see if you can repeat the test with aac256 files. I am yet to find anyone who can discern FLAC from aac256, when properly transcoded from the same master, properly volume matched and blind ABXed.


----------



## PureViewer4t1 (Nov 24, 2018)

Brooko said:


> How are you comparing?  Are your comparisons sighted?  Are they volume matched?  Were they from the same source?  What was the method and software (including versions) when transcoding? What was the music you tested?
> 
> There are supposedly a relatively small number of MP3 tracks which can be ABXed - so it is possible the tracks you are talking about are part of this small sample, but would pay to know source and method first.
> 
> Would be interesting to see if you can repeat the test with aac256 files. I am yet to find anyone who can discern FLAC from aac256, when properly transcoded from the same master, properly volume matched and blind ABXed.


What I do is converting a flac to 320K using Foobar2K (LAME, actually) then put them into a playlist, so they are obviously from the same source and volume-matched. I close my eyes and repeatedly switch between them until I don't know which is which. Then I listen to each with closed eyes.
I can do this for aac256 too, if you wish.


----------



## PureViewer4t1 (Nov 24, 2018)

Well, I tested one more time. With both MP3 320 and AAC256. The difference is minor. With FLAC, you can hear a small amount of air around the instrument which is not present in either MP3 or AAC.
One important thing is to listen for just a moment, repeat it several times to establish the sound in your brain, and then quickly switch to the other track. Any delay would make it hard to hear the difference. What I do is that I put my cursor over a specific moment and I quickly switch between tracks using keyboard shortcuts.

The conclusion? You have to SEARCH for the difference. It cannot be heard with a normal listening.

P.S: It's a bit hard to explain this. If I could show you in person it would be awesome. But, I recommend IQ's "The Road Of Bones" (the song itself, not the album) for this. Pick one of the drum beats (those which have more reverb) and play it over and over, trying to listen to all its aspects. Then quickly switch to the next track.


----------



## PureViewer4t1

I have to admit: what I was doing was a basic ABXing. So I tried the ABX plugin of foobar. But I found out that my brain was deceiving me. Simple as that. There are some differences between FLAC and MP3 320 (as shown by Audacity), but they are NOT audible. It's basically like losing a whisper in the middle of a club. The whisper is there but you can't hear it.


----------



## Brooko

Yep - it’s quite interesting how perceived differences disappear when you have a true test 

If you are using Foobar’s comparator - suggest also using replay gain to ensure volume matching.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/

Old post now - but still valid


----------



## bigshot

The difference between compressed and lossless isn't in the fade outs. It involves artifacting. If you compress at multiple rates from low to high and then listen to them in a progression from more compressed to less compressed, you can hear exactly what is happening and know where to listen to figure out where it totally disappears. At some point, it's totally transparent, depending on the codec. AAC is the best. Fraunhofer MP3 is the poorest. LAME is in the middle. It's very handy to do tests to determine where the line is.


----------



## castleofargh

PureViewer4t1 said:


> Let me take the dust off this thread:
> I just wanted to share my own experience. I haven't read the whole thread so it may be duplicate.
> There are some audible differences between flac and MP3 320, mainly in the decay of instruments and their reflexion in their surroundings. It may be minor, but I have some songs in which the difference is huge enough to be heard easily. You just have to know where to look for.
> 
> You can also import a flac and its converted mp3 320 into Audacity. Align them, then invert one of them and export the whole project as a WAV file. This would be the whole thing you are missing when listening to 320K.


just to mention that while subtracting 2 signals is a really simple and effective way to check what the residual difference is, this here is one occasion where it's completely meaningless. the all idea of mp3 was that thanks to auditory masking, some parts of the music would be inaudible. so the algorithm removes the assumed inaudible data to save space. but the only reason it's inaudible is because it's covered/masked by louder close by frequencies in the music. so revealing it in isolation is meaningless. that cannot tell us if it would have been audible or not within the music. 
more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_band 
or in this pretty pedagogic video:


----------



## PureViewer4t1

bigshot said:


> The difference between compressed and lossless isn't in the fade outs. It involves artifacting. If you compress at multiple rates from low to high and then listen to them in a progression from more compressed to less compressed, you can hear exactly what is happening and know where to listen to figure out where it totally disappears. At some point, it's totally transparent, depending on the codec. AAC is the best. Fraunhofer MP3 is the poorest. LAME is in the middle. It's very handy to do tests to determine where the line is.


I concluded this because of what I was hearing when subtracting a FLAC and its mp3 counterpart in Audacity.


----------



## PureViewer4t1

castleofargh said:


> just to mention that while subtracting 2 signals is a really simple and effective way to check what the residual difference is, this here is one occasion where it's completely meaningless. the all idea of mp3 was that thanks to auditory masking, some parts of the music would be inaudible. so the algorithm removes the assumed inaudible data to save space. but the only reason it's inaudible is because it's covered/masked by louder close by frequencies in the music. so revealing it in isolation is meaningless. that cannot tell us if it would have been audible or not within the music.
> more here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_band
> or in this pretty pedagogic video:



So you're saying that those reverbs are not audible even in the FLAC and that's why I can't hear them when comparing? You just solved my most wanted puzzle. Thank you!


----------



## castleofargh

PureViewer4t1 said:


> So you're saying that those reverbs are not audible even in the FLAC and that's why I can't hear them when comparing? You just solved my most wanted puzzle. Thank you!


if the codec did a good job, then yes it removed something that was going to be masked by our auditory system anyway.


----------



## bigshot

PureViewer4t1 said:


> I concluded this because of what I was hearing when subtracting a FLAC and its mp3 counterpart in Audacity.



I believe the bit depth in a MP3 file is variable. You might just be hearing the edges of the points where the dynamic range drops. How loud was it? It might not be audible at all at normal listening volumes. Compressed audio is definitely missing information. It just isn't missing audible information.


----------



## PureViewer4t1

bigshot said:


> I believe the bit depth in a MP3 file is variable. You might just be hearing the edges of the points where the dynamic range drops. How loud was it? It might not be audible at all at normal listening volumes. Compressed audio is definitely missing information. It just isn't missing audible information.


It wasn't loud, but not very quiet. I think you're right about the drop of dynamic range. I was listening to lots of "air". And noise. The remnants of singer's voice was pretty detectable. You could even understand what he was singing.
You can replicate it with any track you want.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 25, 2018)

Can you look at it in a sound editing program and tell how far down below peak it is? If it's down below -40dB or so, it probably doesn't matter at all. It's easy to think something is louder and more important than it is if you don't calibrate for the peak level first.

I've put together a listening test with three different codecs at three different data rates along with a lossless sample.There's Fraunhofer, MP3 LAME and AAC at 192, 256 and 320 plus lossless, all randomly shuffled. If you'd like to take it, I'd be happy to set you up with a FLAC or ALAC file to listen to. It has 10 samples on it. All you have to do is rank them in quality from 1 to 10. It's fun and you can figure out where your thresholds like on each codec in the real world.


----------



## PureViewer4t1

bigshot said:


> Can you look at it in a sound editing program and tell how far down below peak it is? If it's down below -40dB or so, it probably doesn't matter at all. It's easy to think something is louder and more important than it is if you don't calibrate for the peak level first.
> 
> I've put together a listening test with three different codecs at three different data rates along with a lossless sample.There's Fraunhofer, MP3 LAME and AAC at 192, 256 and 320 plus lossless, all randomly shuffled. If you'd like to take it, I'd be happy to set you up with a FLAC or ALAC file to listen to. It has 10 samples on it. All you have to do is rank them in quality from 1 to 10. It's fun and you can figure out where your thresholds like on each codec in the real world.


It reaches -18dB.
I'm in! Let's do it!


----------



## bigshot

PureViewer4t1 said:


> It reaches -18dB.
> I'm in! Let's do it!



-18dB is pretty significant. Would it be possible to output a sound file of what the null test sounds like? Also the compressed and non compressed versions of the song. I'd be really interested to hear it.

I'll PM you with details on the listening test tomorrow. It'll be fun!


----------



## PureViewer4t1

bigshot said:


> -18dB is pretty significant. Would it be possible to output a sound file of what the null test sounds like? Also the compressed and non compressed versions of the song. I'd be really interested to hear it.
> 
> I'll PM you with details on the listening test tomorrow. It'll be fun!


Yeah, sure! I'll PM you.


----------



## stonesfan129 (Dec 29, 2018)

IcedUP said:


> My friend tried to tell me yesterday that flac is no better than a 320k mp3 quality-wise. He said it had to do with the fact that everything is recorded digitally now rather than in analog. They record at the rate of 320 kpbs so you're not getting better sound quality by ripping into flac unless the music had been recorded in analog originally. Was I misinformed or is this untrue? I've been ripping my music into flac, but I don't want to continue to do so if it's not giving me better quality.



FLAC _is_ higher quality than a 320k MP3.  The thing is that many people cannot hear the difference.  I am one of those who cannot.  It's got nothing to do with things being recorded or produced digitally.  And I don't know any musicians who record in MP3 or ever did.  They pretty much all recorded onto analog tape until the 1980s.  Then they started recording digitally with like DAT and CD-quality digital, then to now where they mostly use high-resolution PCM and I think some were recording in native DSD.  Some still record onto tape but more for that saturated sound than anything.

I rip all my CDs to FLAC using dBpoweramp Reference.  It's a 1:1 backup of the CD that way.  dBpoweramp Reference also has secure ripping so I can verify that the data in my rip is bit-perfect to the CD.  When I put music on my FiiO, I allow MusicBee to convert it to 256k AAC.  I save space this way and I can't hear the difference anyway.


----------



## bigshot

I haven't found anyone who can discern a difference between lossless and AAC 256 VBR or higher in a controlled test and normal listening conditions. I've found plenty of people who claim they can, but they all seem allergic to blind testing. That might tell you something.


----------



## Dieucocto

Hi there !

I have a question for you, the compression experts out there !

Here’s the thing : I know, for exemple, that when we compress a flac file into a 320 kbits/s MP3 (with LAME), it cuts everything that’s after the 20 Khz frequence (and sometimes a bit of stuff between the 16 Khz and 20 Khz too, depending on the file). But I was wondering : does it really mean that everything that’s being cut from the MP3 320 kbits/s are the upper treble ? If I’m being logic, yes, but sometimes I’m wondering if it’s _that simple_, because If that so, it means that even a 128 kbits/MP3 are basically lossless in terms of bass.

To make it short : is the cut of the MP3 compression really _that clean_ (and in that case it really only concerns the trebles), or does it also compress in a way the bass and the mids (even if there’s not really, of course, a clear cut) ? When I compared the spectrum between a 320 kbits/s and a FLAC, I don’t see any difference under the 16 Khz, but I have doubts... 
Oh, and I don’t talk about « what can be heard »... I’m really talking about the data itself.

Thank you !


----------



## stonesfan129

Dieucocto said:


> Hi there !
> 
> I have a question for you, the compression experts out there !
> 
> ...



Yes it cuts some bass response too.  The whole point though is that it should be inaudible at the higher bitrates like 256k or 320k.  And it should be even harder to spot with more advanced encoders like AAC or Opus.


----------



## Dieucocto

stonesfan129 said:


> Yes it cuts some bass response too.  The whole point though is that it should be inaudible at the higher bitrates like 256k or 320k.  And it should be even harder to spot with more advanced encoders like AAC or Opus.



Ok thank you ! Yeah I know it's supposed to be inaudible, it's really more about how the compression is done that I'm curious. The thing is, if its cuts some bass and mids too, why can't I see it when I compared two spectrums of an 320 Kbits/s and a FLAC ? Like I said, before 16 Khz i see no difference.


----------



## castleofargh

Dieucocto said:


> Hi there !
> 
> I have a question for you, the compression experts out there !
> 
> ...


the low bitrate mp3 ends up getting rid of the upper frequencies above 16khz, but not at 320kbps. it can be confusing because the format keeps the same name and we only move a slider to set a bitrate, but there are a lot of changes between max rate mp3 and really low rate settings.which is expected, to make the files even smaller, they have to get rid of more stuff, and at some point that will include perfectly audible signals. 
by default what is assumed to be inaudible to us humans will be removed. you can think of very quiet sounds recorded at the same time as really loud instruments. nobody is going to notice when the crazy quiet stuff are missing. but this system is dynamic, when the only sounds in music are quiet sounds, if I start removing those, you will notice. and the opposite is true, when the music is blasting non stop close to the maximum level, even someone talking at moderate volume might not always be audible to you and we could probably remove that information from the track without you noticing. this is based on auditory masking and it's both simple and not so simple depending how deep down the rabbit hole you're willing to go(and same thing with lossy codecs by the way, some aspects are dead basic, others are advanced math). basically, our hearing is far from perfect, so our music files don't really need to be for us to feel like it is. ^_^
I happened to share this link not long ago. that cool guy explains very intuitively one of the core principles behind lossy encoding


so to answer you question, sort of, stuff may be removed at any frequencies.


----------



## Dieucocto

castleofargh said:


> the low bitrate mp3 ends up getting rid of the upper frequencies above 16khz, but not at 320kbps. it can be confusing because the format keeps the same name and we only move a slider to set a bitrate, but there are a lot of changes between max rate mp3 and really low rate settings.which is expected, to make the files even smaller, they have to get rid of more stuff, and at some point that will include perfectly audible signals.
> by default what is assumed to be inaudible to us humans will be removed. you can think of very quiet sounds recorded at the same time as really loud instruments. nobody is going to notice when the crazy quiet stuff are missing. but this system is dynamic, when the only sounds in music are quiet sounds, if I start removing those, you will notice. and the opposite is true, when the music is blasting non stop close to the maximum level, even someone talking at moderate volume might not always be audible to you and we could probably remove that information from the track without you noticing. this is based on auditory masking and it's both simple and not so simple depending how deep down the rabbit hole you're willing to go(and same thing with lossy codecs by the way, some aspects are dead basic, others are advanced math). basically, our hearing is far from perfect, so our music files don't really need to be for us to feel like it is. ^_^
> I happened to share this link not long ago. that cool guy explains very intuitively one of the core principles behind lossy encoding
> 
> ...




Thanks for your answer !

That being said, I didn't said that 320 kbps were getting raid of the upper frequencies above 16 khz. What I meant was that the cut is being made at 20 khz, but we can see, depending on the music, sometimes that between 16 khz and 20 khz there's cleary stuff removed compared to the flac version (not a clear cut, obviously, like on a 128 or 192 kbits mp3). And that's something that we can't see between 0 and 16 khz -- like this area of the 320 kbits was truly lossless. 

That's why I'm wondering why can we see the loss between 16/20 khz (again I know that on the 320 kbits the cut is at 20khz, but starting at 16khz we can see a difference in the spectrum comparing to the flac, sometimes it's very thin but it's there), but nothing between 0/16, if that doesn't mean this region of the song is not lossless ? That's the thing I'm wondering about : what's being lost between 0/16 khz on a 320 kbits MP3 comparing to a flac, and why can't we see it on the spectrum ? I know it's not audible, but I'd really like to know how the compression is being made on this area of a song


----------



## castleofargh

Dieucocto said:


> Thanks for your answer !
> 
> That being said, I didn't said that 320 kbps were getting raid of the upper frequencies above 16 khz. What I meant was that the cut is being made at 20 khz, but we can see, depending on the music, sometimes that between 16 khz and 20 khz there's cleary stuff removed compared to the flac version (not a clear cut, obviously, like on a 128 or 192 kbits mp3). And that's something that we can't see between 0 and 16 khz -- like this area of the 320 kbits was truly lossless.
> 
> That's why I'm wondering why can we see the loss between 16/20 khz (again I know that on the 320 kbits the cut is at 20khz, but starting at 16khz we can see a difference in the spectrum comparing to the flac, sometimes it's very thin but it's there), but nothing between 0/16, if that doesn't mean this region of the song is not lossless ? That's the thing I'm wondering about : what's being lost between 0/16 khz on a 320 kbits MP3 comparing to a flac, and why can't we see it on the spectrum ? I know it's not audible, but I'd really like to know how the compression is being made on this area of a song


nothing lossless anywhere. that's just not how mp3/AAC work. 
based on usual hearing, it's not a big deal to remove upper frequencies more systematically(as in, without paying as much attention to masking from other sounds in the track as they do at lower freqs). but again, data can be removed/simplified at any frequency based on the principle of auditory masking, and will be! you can think of it as trimming the quieter sounds out of the track, or as increasing the quantization noise because the algorithm expects some loud signals to effectively mask that higher noise when hearing it. it's the same thing from a different point of view. and when the track gets quieter in that frequency range(or fairly close), then the encoding wont let as much noise being added by quantization(and wont save as much space in the file) from fear that it would be noticeable. it's a dynamic process. how much is lost depends on a psychoacoustic model after all.
as to why a spectrum doesn't make it obvious that there is data loss in the music frequency range? well loss of data doesn't mean that you have to lower the amplitude of the music. for example when you turn a 24bit .wav into a 16bit .wav file, would you expect huge changes in the spectrum? yet a lot of data is removed making the file a good deal smaller. bad analogy considering that again MP3 isn't PCM, but maybe that can give you the general idea as to why a spectrum might not be the best tool to see those variations from lossy encoding(even less so if changes by 10dB hardly show on the graph because of the usual scaling settings).


----------



## Dieucocto

castleofargh said:


> nothing lossless anywhere. that's just not how mp3/AAC work.
> based on usual hearing, it's not a big deal to remove upper frequencies more systematically(as in, without paying as much attention to masking from other sounds in the track as they do at lower freqs). but again, data can be removed/simplified at any frequency based on the principle of auditory masking, and will be! you can think of it as trimming the quieter sounds out of the track, or as increasing the quantization noise because the algorithm expects some loud signals to effectively mask that higher noise when hearing it. it's the same thing from a different point of view. and when the track gets quieter in that frequency range(or fairly close), then the encoding wont let as much noise being added by quantization(and wont save as much space in the file) from fear that it would be noticeable. it's a dynamic process. how much is lost depends on a psychoacoustic model after all.
> as to why a spectrum doesn't make it obvious that there is data loss in the music frequency range? well loss of data doesn't mean that you have to lower the amplitude of the music. for example when you turn a 24bit .wav into a 16bit .wav file, would you expect huge changes in the spectrum? yet a lot of data is removed making the file a good deal smaller. bad analogy considering that again MP3 isn't PCM, but maybe that can give you the general idea as to why a spectrum might not be the best tool to see those variations from lossy encoding(even less so if changes by 10dB hardly show on the graph because of the usual scaling settings).



OK, gotcha ! Thanks !


----------



## 5twnr (Feb 12, 2019)

Something I've noticed - I can hear a difference between 320kbps and V0 VBR pretty consistently. It's like the v0 keeps more echoes and reverbs, while making the bass fuller. There's also better separation of instruments. I noticed this while comparing songs from a Brandy album and songs a Mariah Carey album (to their own albums, not to each other). Compared to FLAC, the v0 sounds more like the FLAC than the 320.

My question is - has anyone else noticed this issue? Are the 320kbps mp3s just encoded poorly? Spectrum analysis shows that they look as expected, but they just sound bad. Now I can't un-notice it. I can provide samples via PM if anyone's interested.


----------



## bigshot

Are you doing level matched, direct A/B switched blind tests?


----------



## Brooko

5twnr said:


> Something I've noticed - I can hear a difference between 320kbps and V0 VBR pretty consistently. It's like the v0 keeps more echoes and reverbs, while making the bass fuller. There's also better separation of instruments. I noticed this while comparing songs from a Brandy album and songs a Mariah Carey album (to their own albums, not to each other). Compared to FLAC, the v0 sounds more like the FLAC than the 320.
> 
> My question is - has anyone else noticed this issue? Are the 320kbps mp3s just encoded poorly? Spectrum analysis shows that they look as expected, but they just sound bad. Now I can't un-notice it. I can provide samples via PM if anyone's interested.



Were both encoded from the same master?


----------



## castleofargh

5twnr said:


> Something I've noticed - I can hear a difference between 320kbps and V0 VBR pretty consistently. It's like the v0 keeps more echoes and reverbs, while making the bass fuller. There's also better separation of instruments. I noticed this while comparing songs from a Brandy album and songs a Mariah Carey album (to their own albums, not to each other). Compared to FLAC, the v0 sounds more like the FLAC than the 320.
> 
> My question is - has anyone else noticed this issue? Are the 320kbps mp3s just encoded poorly? Spectrum analysis shows that they look as expected, but they just sound bad. Now I can't un-notice it. I can provide samples via PM if anyone's interested.


given how people have a *really* hard time passing a listening test with either of those against lossless, it seems a little strange that you would be able to notice not one but several differences between 2 high bitrate MP3. I'd look up the conversion settings, or question my testing method if I was you. 
with that said, on a purely subjective gut feeling level that I was never ever able to confirm under test, I also somehow feel like I prefer VBR. anytime I think I'm hearing a difference, I test for it and fail. but the gut feeling is there anyway ^_^.


----------



## 5twnr

I converted the v0 from FLAC source, so on that front I know where the master came from. However with the 320 I'm not sure where it came from, so I only analyzed with Spek to check that the frequencies aren't cut off. To test more fully I should convert some 320s from the flac.

I didn't do a double blind test on v0 vs FLAC, but I can definitely tell the difference between the 320 and FLAC/v0. I also did a blind test for my roommate with the v0 vs 320, and they could tell the difference (they preferred the v0 too) so I guess it's not just me. Just wondering if others have noticed the same.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

Get Foobar 2000 and install the ABX plugin for it. That's the easiest way to see if you can _really_ hear a difference. The test program does everything you want a test program to do, and it gives you a report at the end with the probability that you were guessing.


----------



## danadam

5twnr said:


> However with the 320 I'm not sure where it came from


I wouldn't look for an answer further than that.

Why isn't it just obvious to everyone that such comparisons, with files from unknown sources, are pointless?


----------



## Brooko

5twnr said:


> I converted the v0 from FLAC source, so on that front I know where the master came from. However with the 320 I'm not sure where it came from, so I only analyzed with Spek to check that the frequencies aren't cut off. To test more fully I should convert some 320s from the flac.
> 
> I didn't do a double blind test on v0 vs FLAC, but I can definitely tell the difference between the 320 and FLAC/v0. I also did a blind test for my roommate with the v0 vs 320, and they could tell the difference (they preferred the v0 too) so I guess it's not just me. Just wondering if others have noticed the same.



Read my sig (the quote  )  Expectation bias can be a real issue.  Yep - we can all easily tell them apart - when:

Its likely the the 2 tracks were completely different masters
You didn't blind test - so its also unlikely you volume matched (and "by ear" is not good enough)
There was no control in your test, and no repetition to ensure you weren't purely guessing.
Here - tools are free - only costs you time.  Results will surprise you

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/


----------



## 5twnr

Brooko said:


> Read my sig (the quote  )  Expectation bias can be a real issue.  Yep - we can all easily tell them apart - when:
> 
> Its likely the the 2 tracks were completely different masters
> You didn't blind test - so its also unlikely you volume matched (and "by ear" is not good enough)
> ...



Are there mac instructions? Can't use most of these tools.

Yeah could be different masters. I'm down to try it again with my own conversions.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 12, 2019)

The difference isn't likely at all to be from the codec if you are using high data rates. I've done a lot of tests and I've found that MP3 LAME 320 and AAC 256 is perfectly transparent. For most music, lower rates are transparent too.


----------



## 5twnr (Feb 12, 2019)

Here's what I ended up using
- ABXTester to test 320 vs v0 (cannot compare flac)
- XLD for FLAC conversion

For the Brandy album, when compared to unknown 320 source, I could tell the difference with 80% accuracy (with 5 trials). I don't have the FLAC for this album.
For the Mariah album, I converted my own 320s and v0s. My accuracy was between 40-60%, so if we average that that's 50%.

I guess with this experiment it is the source that's causing the difference. I haven't found software that would let me set up a test against FLAC though.

Still I'm not sure if I didn't just get listening fatigue; some of the differences are also around soundstage and spacing, and when I'm listening to small segments at a time that tends to get lost. Would need to spend a lot more time to fully test this.

-edit-
Ok now I'm getting 80% on the Mariah track when I listen to half the song for each instead of just snippets.


----------



## Brooko

Need minimum 10 to 15 tests for it to be even close to statistically relevant


----------



## gregorio

5twnr said:


> [1] For the Brandy album, when compared to unknown 320 source, I could tell the difference with 80% accuracy (with 5 trials).
> [2] I guess with this experiment it is the source that's causing the difference.
> [3] I haven't found software that would let me set up a test against FLAC though.
> [4] Still I'm not sure if I didn't just get listening fatigue; some of the differences are also around soundstage and spacing, and when I'm listening to small segments at a time that tends to get lost. Would need to spend a lot more time to fully test this.
> [5] -edit- Ok now I'm getting 80% on the Mariah track when I listen to half the song for each instead of just snippets.



1. As @Brooko mentioned, 5 trials is not enough. If you flipped a coin 5 times, you would not get a 50% heads and tails result. Even with 10 coin flips there's only a moderate probability of getting 5 of each. However, it's not at all surprising to achieve a truly significant result if you don't know the source; the 320 could be a different master or the same master just transcoded from another lossy codec.

2. That's by far the most likely explanation.

3. Just convert the FLAC to WAV (or AIFF) and test with that, you will get a bit perfect copy of the original lossless WAV.

4. It's certainly not impossible that you actually can tell a difference. I could certainly tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and the original in a DBT with 100% accuracy BUT, that was ONLY fast switching carefully selected small segments, with certain pieces of music AND that was quite a number of years ago. This last point is very important because: MP3 is a perceptual lossy codec, meaning that data is removed on the basis of it not being perceivable but how do we know what is not perceivable? Well, we can work out frequencies that will be masked (as explained by castleofargh) and remove them but additionally, thousands of DBT/ABX trials have been completed. Over the years the lossy algorithms have been tweaked numerous times, sparking new rounds of thousands DBT trials, then tweaked again if subjects could identify a difference. Using the more recent versions of MP3 320, I can no longer identify an audible difference. So, if you have good listening skills, know what to look for and fast switch small segments which exhibit what you're looking for, then you can tell the difference between newer and older versions of MP3 320 encoding. It should be mentioned that by about a decade or so ago, virtually all the formal listening testing of the various lossy codecs ceased at the highest bit rates (320 CBR and 256 VBR) because no one could reliably identify a difference any more. Formal listening testing still continues today but at lower bit per second rates, typically 128kbps or lower. So, it's not inconceivable that you can tell a difference between 320 MP3, VBR 256 and lossless (FLAC), if you're using old software (or in theory, newer software which for some reason employs some old lossy algorithms).

5. That flies in the face of everything science has discovered about aural (echoic) memory, everything countless tens of thousands of professional music engineers have witnessed over many decades and everything we've discovered from the millions of ABX/DBT trials done over the last 6+ decades. In other words, what you're suggesting is pretty much inconceivable and the explanation must lie in some fault/failure of your testing procedure, for example not enough trials, not accurately level matched, etc.

G


----------



## castleofargh

5twnr said:


> Here's what I ended up using
> - ABXTester to test 320 vs v0 (cannot compare flac)
> - XLD for FLAC conversion
> 
> ...


would you send me the files of the track where you converted both versions yourself in PM? just to check if there is an obvious culprit. 

and @Brooko is right about stats, you need a relevant number. 15 runs is a fine minimum I'd say, although you are free to reach 15 or 20 over several days at you own pace. what matters is to stick to what you had decided beforehand, and not to start rejecting part of the trial when you don't get a good run or other such funky moves that would completely change the odds. otherwise, you do as you feel works best, after you're trying to pass.


----------



## 71 dB

Worrying about the last drops of finesse in miniscule detail is pretty pointless and against the idea of music enjoyment. In my opinion only things you can somewhat easily* hear really matter and differences that take effort to hear are not significant. When allow the sonic quality to be a bit imperfect and you know your system is better than that with some safety margin you can stop worrying about microscopic things and concentrate on the music itself. Soundstage 3 % flatter? Did that stop you enjoying the chord progression, melodies, rhythms and singing?

* Being 80 % of the time correct doesn't mean easily heard differences. It means you need to think why you were incorrect 20 % of the time? Lets say easily easily heard differencies causes incorrect (because we are humans) answers 1 % of the time at MOST. That requires a success rate of 99 % or better!


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> 5. That flies in the face of everything science has discovered about aural (echoic) memory, everything countless tens of thousands of professional music engineers have witnessed over many decades and everything we've discovered from the millions of ABX/DBT trials done over the last 6+ decades. In other words, what you're suggesting is pretty much inconceivable and the explanation must lie in some fault/failure of your testing procedure, for example not enough trials, not accurately level matched, etc.


----------



## castleofargh

@5twnr sent me a CBR and VBR version of a song, and I saw nothing obviously wrong with those. both say 44.1khz playback, no massive clipping(max true peak reaches +0.6dB on both), no volume difference, latest LAME encoder(is it like saying ATM machine?), same duration(to the last sample). DiffMaker went below -60dB so at first glance the files seem legit to me and properly converted. 

I tried an ABX and after 3mn of practice I thought there was some small difference in a sort of panning yoyo for low freq sounds, but when I ran the abx on that portion of music, I failed to identify anything. I didn't spend a lot of time on this and am not familiar with that song, but right now I'm not really confident that I could pass an abx on my system if I had more time.


----------



## Lulu800

Has anyone here did stuff with Experimental and industrial?. I've noticed quite few artefacts with AAC/vorbis from 128 to 320kbps, Only 3+ with Lame V0/320k.


----------



## bigshot

The type of music shouldn't affect how well a compression codec works. There are certain sounds, like audience applause and massed strings, that don't encode as easily as other kinds of sound, but all kinds of music can contain those sorts of sounds.


----------



## Lulu800

bigshot said:


> The type of music shouldn't affect how well a compression codec works. There are certain sounds, like audience applause and massed strings, that don't encode as easily as other kinds of sound, but all kinds of music can contain those sorts of sounds.



True seem's like big 3 culprits are synth's based noises, distorted ambient noises, complex/chaotic music with no pauses. Those show up even less experimental stuff, like some metal/rock.


----------



## bigshot

Are you sure what you are interpreting as artifacts aren't part of the synth voice? Generally artifacts sound like synthetic kinds of sounds, so they stand out most over acoustic instruments that we know what they are supposed to sound like in real life.


----------



## Lulu800

I've did 15 tests with them, they don't show up on any of my lossless content. Like hearing puffy wind noise with vorbis when a loud synth noise is there. Skin crimes - Heaven gate intro had that issue its really apparent with my ER4SR's on 160kbps ogg, it dosen't go away untill the bitrate is 420kbps.


----------



## bigshot

Could you please dropbox me a lossless copy of that track to play with? PM me and I'll give you my email addie.


----------



## Lulu800

bigshot said:


> Could you please dropbox me a lossless copy of that track to play with? PM me and I'll give you my email addie.



Sen't a PM.


----------



## TheTrace

How come no one talks about opus?

I convert everything from FLAC to opus 192 kbps. Never have a problem.  Used to have AAC 256 before I changed to Android


----------



## taffy2207

TheTrace said:


> How come no one talks about opus?
> 
> I convert everything from FLAC to opus 192 kbps. Never have a problem.  Used to have AAC 256 before I changed to Android



https://www.head-fi.org/threads/opus-codec.869570/page-3#post-13978445

Opus has been talked about sporadically in other threads as well to my recollection.


----------



## castleofargh

in my case, I only recently started to use AAC for my new rips maybe 2 or 3years ago. most of my library is still in MP3. I'm the man from the past! ^_^
the main reason being that I'm lazy of course. but also that I've been juggling with a bunch of old cheap DAPs, some of which had "compatibility issues"(AKA garbage firmware). nowadays AAC is basically everywhere by default so the inferior MP3 really doesn't make much sense. but Opus isn't exactly universal. so while I'm personally convinced that Opus rocks in term of sound/kb, I'm not planning to use it ATM because my DAPs haven't heard of it.


----------



## TheTrace (Feb 28, 2019)

taffy2207 said:


> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/opus-codec.869570/page-3#post-13978445
> 
> Opus has been talked about sporadically in other threads as well to my recollection.


True, but even that thread itself was last responded to more than a year ago. Maybe it's the compatibility issues still. Considering Android having a good share of the smartphone market today I would have thought that opus would have more of a lane by 2019 is all.


----------



## stonesfan129

I ripped all my CDs to FLAC with dBpoweramp Reference on Secure Mode w/ AccurateRip.  I rarely buy a CD anymore and 99% of my purchases are through iTunes.  I can't tell a difference between 256k AAC and FLAC.  I have enough storage space on my FiiO X1 that I do not need to compress anything but I'd say I'm fine with 256k AAC purchases from now on.  I have been incredibly impressed with Mastered For iTunes albums.  I think the iTunes AAC encoder sounds better than LAME MP3.  I don't see the point of using Opus as AAC is already good enough and far more software/hardware supports AAC.


----------



## 71 dB

I have ripped + pre-crossfed some music from CDs using 192 kbps mp3 for my portable player, and I have also bought some music files that aren't available on CD, but in general I don't like digital music files. I want physical CDs. Files get lost in my harddrive and I don't even remember what music I have. CDs are there in my bookshelf and remind of themselves everyday. If I can't get the physical things why pay for a file when I can listen to the music for free in Spotify * or Youtube? What's the difference? So, for me the problem isn't sound quality/bitrate, but the "hidden" and "invisible" nature of the files. I want my ownership of music to be more physical than that.

* I do explore music on Spotify and if I like what I hear I try to get the physical CD. Recently I listened to *Dua Lipa*'s _Complete Edition_ on Spotify and liked it enough to get the CD. *Dua Lipa* has been one of the more consistent pop artists of the last few years and this 25 track 2 CD set is pretty solid without complete duds. You may say pop music like this is crap, but I disagree. Sometimes it is crap and sometimes it's not. It can be great in it's own way and I like to switch between different genres of music, perhaps first listening to *Mieczyslaw Weinberg*'s _Violin Sonatas_ and then some pop music by* Katy Perry* and then maybe *Neil Cowley Trio*'s concert Blu-ray ending the listening session with_ cantatas_ by *Nikolaus Bruhns*.


----------



## RRod

TheTrace said:


> True, but even that thread itself was last responded to more than a year ago. Maybe it's the compatibility issues still. Considering Android having a good share of the smartphone market today I would have thought that opus would have more of a lane by 2019 is all.



In a sense Opus was probably too little too late to force a quick victory. People are already satisfied with their ~128-256k streaming or download solutions, and at those rates there's very little reason to choose Opus over AAC (or even MP3 if one uses the nearest VBR option). One could argue that being the best option on YouTube is a decent lane, I guess.


----------



## bigshot

I've never used Opus, but my impression is that it is basically the same thing as AAC. It's an MP4 codec isn't it?


----------



## RRod (Mar 2, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I've never used Opus, but my impression is that it is basically the same thing as AAC. It's an MP4 codec isn't it?



I think it's registered for mp4 but I'm not sure if anything supports it in the container yet. It definitely uses different algorithms than AAC, so I guess they are only the same in the sense they are both lossy codecs… I would wager that your AAC examples would have different artifacts (or none at all) at the same Opus bitrate.

Edit: ffmpeg supports Opus in mp4 if you allow experimental settings


----------



## spbkaizo

flight567 said:


> the way it was explained to me, is that a lossy file will open the file, when it opens it decompresses, and in that decompress, there is a "loss" then it saves the file again after the loss.so each time you open thefile, you lose some of the quality, they may be the same "out the box" but overtime the lossy will degrade. from what i understand atleast.



Are you sure your friend wasn't referring to Vinyl?


----------



## TheTrace

Yeah I've never heard of that theory for lossy.


----------



## stonesfan129

That's not how lossy audio works.  Lossy audio works by throwing away some of the original data.  Different data is thrown away depending on which encoder and bitrate you use.  This is how it reduces the file size.  It doesn't throw away data every time you play the file.


----------



## 71 dB

stonesfan129 said:


> That's not how lossy audio works.  Lossy audio works by throwing away some of the original data.  Different data is thrown away depending on which encoder and bitrate you use.  This is how it reduces the file size.  It doesn't throw away data every time you play the file.



Playing a file is just reading the file, not saving it. If you open the file to a editor and save again, you might lose data, because the algorithm handless lossy data differently than the original data, but I not sure you lose data always. I think sometimes it's possible to lose nothing.


----------



## stonesfan129

71 dB said:


> Playing a file is just reading the file, not saving it. If you open the file to a editor and save again, you might lose data, because the algorithm handless lossy data differently than the original data, but I not sure you lose data always. I think sometimes it's possible to lose nothing.



If you save a lossy file as another lossy file, then yes you are removing data each time and it will slowly degrade the sound quality.


----------



## bigshot

stonesfan129 said:


> If you save a lossy file as another lossy file, then yes you are removing data each time and it will slowly degrade the sound quality.



That isn't true. I took a CD and ripped it to AAC then to WAV then back to AAC ten times and there was no real degradation. Once you run a song through a codec, it removes what it's going to remove. If you run it through again, it just tries to remove the same thing again and it isn't there, so it pretty much passes it through. If you changed data rate or used a different codec, it would degrade, but not if you keep re-encoding it with the same codec and data rate.


----------



## 71 dB

stonesfan129 said:


> If you save a lossy file as another lossy file, then yes you are removing data each time and it will slowly degrade the sound quality.



The codec doesn't need to remove data because it fits to the given bitrate already. I believe the only reason why data would be lost is if the codec wants to encode the data differently than the original data, but for that to happen the lossy file must be very different so it perhaps can only happen at the lowest bitrates.


----------



## castleofargh

I wouldn't bet that the way a file is analyzed by an encoder will secure a definitive result once it's been done once or twice. I think that for lossy formats the rule of thumb of not editing the file too many times, should stand. but maybe I'm wrong about that for at least some encoders? 
on the other hand, we do know that from an audibility standpoint, it's usually no big deal. some years back I remember people running like a hundred or more encode-decode for fun ... I mean science.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> I wouldn't bet that the way a file is analyzed by an encoder will secure a definitive result once it's been done once or twice.



Try it! I have. Then you'll know. I once got tired of hearing people say that playing 78s with a steel needle would wear them out, so I took a new old stock 78 and made a digital capture of it, then played it 100 times, then made another digital capture. By the end I was sick of the song. But there was no audible difference between captures. People depend too much on common knowledge and what seems logical, when a simple test can tell them the truth of the matter.


----------



## stonesfan129

I think the difference is supposed to be easier to hear with high-end source gear and good headphones.  I listen on a FiiO X1 1st Gen and Sennheiser HD598SE.  I cannot hear the difference between 256k AAC from iTunes and a FLAC CD rip.  I don't really know what differences to listen for either.  I try to buy the CD or FLAC download when I can just so that I have the best source file for archival.  People with better source gear and headphones than me say the difference is easy to tell and that AAC and Opus are more transparent to the lossless source than MP3.


----------



## b0r0b

I can't hear the difference on AD1000x's when not hooked up to an amp. I don't feel like it's a massive difference regardless, but I also may not have the "ears" for it. I do however have the "eyes" for 144Hz monitors, etc.


----------



## RRod

stonesfan129 said:


> I think the difference is supposed to be easier to hear with high-end source gear and good headphones.  I listen on a FiiO X1 1st Gen and Sennheiser HD598SE.  I cannot hear the difference between 256k AAC from iTunes and a FLAC CD rip.  I don't really know what differences to listen for either.  I try to buy the CD or FLAC download when I can just so that I have the best source file for archival.  People with better source gear and headphones than me say the difference is easy to tell and that AAC and Opus are more transparent to the lossless source than MP3.



The issue with headphones at least is that the tuning of the specific cans amounts essentially to an EQ. If there's an artifact with content near 6kHz and your cans have what amounts to a massive EQ boost at 6kHz, you are more likely to hear the artifact.


----------



## maxtreme

I can't tell between 256/320, but for certain tracks with detailed highs, differences WAV and 320 are pretty audible.


----------



## maxtreme

b0r0b said:


> I can't hear the difference on AD1000x's when not hooked up to an amp. I don't feel like it's a massive difference regardless, but I also may not have the "ears" for it. I do however have the "eyes" for 144Hz monitors, etc.



Yes, 144hz vs 60hz to me is like WAV vs 128kbps.


----------



## bigshot

I have a test with ten particularly difficult to encode samples... Fraunhofer MP3, MP3 LAME and AAC at 192, 256 and 320 along with a lossless sample. Each codec has its own threshold of transparency, and this test is a good way to check to see where that threshold lies for you. If you would like to take the test, feel free to PM me and I will set you up. I think you might be surprised what you find with a blind test.


----------



## kriscm (Apr 16, 2019)

This is my first post here on head-fi. I decided to make an account and chime in, and I’m sure I’ll be posting more in the future. I’m on mobile so excuse the auto-correct and if I did something wrong.
I’ve spent quite a few hours examining and putting to the test various mp3 encoders.
I once read a page online which measured the effects mp3 compression had at different bit-rates to the noise floor of a 16-bit file as well as the removal of certain frequencies the encoder figures were not needed.
I discovered LameXP a few days ago and figured I’d look into it since it utilizes the lame 3.100.
After much experimentation; if I set the algorithm quality to highest, used V0, joint stereo, and enabled bit-rate management to 320kbps, the 16-bit dither was also retained without much loss.
Using experiments at lower bit-rates I was shocked to discover that V0 at 128k sounds better than CBR 128k. ABX tests were easy on that part.
V0 has many features that CBR does not include, such as noise shaping, and when forced to stay at one bit-rate it seems to perform better than CBR.
I never got into programming my encoders with custom commands and have always preferred using a GUI.
I still convert my lossless to 40khz sample rate with Audacity at Best Settings and back to 44.1khz to the encoder so the high frequencies past 20khz don’t weigh down the encoder and tends to even keep a shaped dither intact and mostly artifact free.
I recommend LameXP and the settings stated above if one wants to get the highest quality setting out of mp3.
(I have a lot of classical and dynamic/quiet recordings)
I don’t see the need for lossless except for archiving. I like to keep the copies in case I have to re-encode and will always consider my lossless rips to be pure gold. I love my newly encoded mp3s because of portability, compatibility, and quality.
Putting the lossless and the mp3 together while reversing the phase of one of them highlights the info removed during the encoding and luckily the difference between the encoders and encoder settings is measurable.
It was fun to examine, test, compare, measure, and figure out the highest quality mp3 encoder and settings, but I’m glad I have finally found the perfect setting and encoder..... until lame gets updated again


----------



## bigshot (Apr 16, 2019)

You should always use VBR. It only helps, it can’t hurt. I determine the threshold of transparency at CBR, then use the same setting with VBR for use.


----------



## Lulu801

RRod said:


> The issue with headphones at least is that the tuning of the specific cans amounts essentially to an EQ. If there's an artifact with content near 6kHz and your cans have what amounts to a massive EQ boost at 6kHz, you are more likely to hear the artifact.



Ah so peaky treble or bright signature could reveal flaws in a encode that would be fine on a smoother or dark headphone?. Could explain why i notice a few on my ER4SR but struggle with my SRH1540 since the shures are dark.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

I've done 320kbps and FLAC 16/44.1 testing with my own headphones and gear, and i can absolutely say with confidence that i can hear a difference.
That being said, im not using your typical "ipod earpods" which people can argue using better headphones makes it easier to hear the difference or not.

I'm using my favourite headphones at the moment, my DT1990 Pro and my B&O H6(2nd gen). and the source is the same, its my RME ADI-2 DAC. playing the two files on Foobar2000.
same song. with turning away from the screen and my amp/dac. my amp dac has a remote that allows me to shuffle between songs so its absolutely random.

every time i've made the choice on which is 320kbps and FLAC 16/44.1 i've been right. its noticeable for me. that being said, the only time i have difficulty between song quality detail is when im testing between 16bit and 24bit. im usually 70% accurate with thoes two detail points in respect.


----------



## castleofargh

Tsukuyomi said:


> I've done 320kbps and FLAC 16/44.1 testing with my own headphones and gear, and i can absolutely say with confidence that i can hear a difference.
> That being said, im not using your typical "ipod earpods" which people can argue using better headphones makes it easier to hear the difference or not.
> 
> I'm using my favourite headphones at the moment, my DT1990 Pro and my B&O H6(2nd gen). and the source is the same, its my RME ADI-2 DAC. playing the two files on Foobar2000.
> ...


1/ there is an abx component for foobar, so start there. it's better than a fake blind test. although I did sort of the same thing on DAPs for years, until I realized that I often could tell the file based on how fast it started or by the failure to play mp3 gapless. 
2/ I'll assume that you have converted the tracks yourself so you know they're not different masters, and that you don't have replay gain applied on one of the track. also that you're not using an MP3 encoder from the fifteenth century. always worth checking just in case. 
3/ if after that you still do get pretty consistent success, try lowering the volume in foobar by maybe 2 or 3dB in case what you're hearing is only intersample clipping. I personally notice it only on very few tracks, but I don't have the best listening skills in the world and I'm guessing the musical genre matters too, so it can be worth trying to be real sure it's about mp3 and not some side effect that we can all avoid. 
4/ if by now you still pass fairly consistently, I'll just accept that you know how to detect mp3 from PCM even at 320kbps. ^_^


----------



## bigshot (May 13, 2019)

Frauenhofer MP3 isn't the same as LAME, and AAC is a step above both of those. People tend to lump lossy all into one category. I haven't found anyone who can discern high data rate AAC yet. The other factor is the recording you use to compare. Some reveal flaws better than others. With some simpler to encode files, I doubt people could even discern 192 or even 128.

One dead giveaway is that you say you are discerning "sound quality detail" and you relate it to 16 vs 24. That's apples and oranges. Detecting lossy is all about artifacting, not detail. And 16 vs 24 is all about noise floors, which have absolutely nothing to do with detail. I think you are allowing bias to creep into your tests. They may not be as blind as you'd like to believe they are.


----------



## stonesfan129 (Sep 14, 2019)

I try to keep my source files on my server in FLAC when I can.  I have purchased single songs from Google Play which uses 320kbps CBR MP3 (I have noticed they are a mix between LAME and "Free Format" for the encoder).  I thought it was going to sound bad but I am pretty happy with the sound quality.  I think it's worthwhile to keep your sources in lossless as it gives the most flexibility in encoding to other formats.  But if all I had were my MP3 and AAC files, it wouldn't be the end of the world.  Keep in mind there are different MP3 and AAC encoders.  LAME is considered the best encoder for MP3.  Apple/iTunes is considered the best encoder for AAC.


----------



## gregorio

Tsukuyomi said:


> [1] I've done 320kbps and FLAC 16/44.1 testing with my own headphones and gear, and i can absolutely say with confidence that i can hear a difference.
> [2] ... the only time i have difficulty between song quality detail is when im testing between 16bit and 24bit. im usually 70% accurate with thoes two detail points in respect.



You'll have to forgive our scepticism. Every so often someone posts here that they can absolutely hear this difference but WITHOUT exception, it turns out they can't. Either they do hear some difference due to some serious flaw in the test (for example, they inadvertently compare different masters) or they are perceiving a difference due to some cognitive bias, in which case there is also a serious flaw in their testing. You should be aware that over the course of many years, many tens of thousands of tests have been conducted by many thousands of subjects (ranging from average members of the public to highly trained and experienced professional sound engineers), using pretty much everything from cheap consumer equipment to the very best pro studio equipment. In fact, for nearly a decade, the designers of codecs no longer test at 320kbps because no one can ever hear any difference, instead they test at much lower kbps rates (typically 128kbps and lower).

1. No, you can't "_absolutely say with confidence that you can hear a difference_", although you can maybe say with confidence that you "perceive" a difference (almost certainly due to a flaw in your testing). In effect, your statement tells us more about what you are publicly prepared to "absolutely say" and your "confidence" than it does about any potentially audible difference between 320kbps and lossless!

2. How can you be 70% accurate with discerning differences in "song quality detail" between 16 and 24bit, when there are no differences in "detail"? As bigshot stated, as digital theory stipulates and as objective measurements confirm, detail is the same at 16 or 24bit, the only difference is the level of the noise floor, which in both cases is well below the threshold of audibility. Your statement therefore further confirms that what you're noticing is actually a flawed test/cognitive bias!

I'm not saying with 100%, absolute confidence that you cannot actually hear a difference. It's possible, though incredibly unlikely, that for some genetic/physiological reason you have significantly different/better hearing abilities than everyone else but with so much reliable evidence that no one can hear the difference, you need some fairly extraordinary and compelling evidence that it's not just a testing error on your part, BEFORE you can say with ANY confidence that you can hear a difference. You would need to do a proper ABX test (which is easy with foobar) and provide the different files you are comparing, which is also very easy. Every single time anyone here (or elsewhere) has adamantly claimed they can hear a difference, when asked for reliable evidence they either: A. Simply run away, thereby admitting that what they "can absolutely say with confidence" was in effect a lie, B. Actually "man up", do an ABX/Double blind test and discover they can't actually hear a difference once cognitive bias is eliminated and/or C. Discover a relatively obvious fault between their original test files (different masters for instance).

G


----------



## Brooko

Tsukuyomi said:


> I've done 320kbps and FLAC 16/44.1 testing with my own headphones and gear, and i can absolutely say with confidence that i can hear a difference.
> That being said, im not using your typical "ipod earpods" which people can argue using better headphones makes it easier to hear the difference or not.
> 
> I'm using my favourite headphones at the moment, my DT1990 Pro and my B&O H6(2nd gen). and the source is the same, its my RME ADI-2 DAC. playing the two files on Foobar2000.
> ...



Must be same master.  Must be volume matched.  Must be multiple tests to statistically be relevant.

I'd suggest starting here - https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/
Post is old, software is free - all it takes is time.  Try it with a true blind test, and then post your actual results.  If you can still tell - post your files so other people can have a go.

Most of the time, with people claiming diffs, they are:

Different masters
Not volume matched
Have artifacting errors during transcode
Not as "blind" as they'd like us believe
Not statistically relevant - anyone can pass a single test if its repeated until you get it.  Pass 14/15 in a true volume matched double blind abx, and I guarantee people will want more info.  Especially as I've seen no-one do it. 
The better headphones one is pretty funny.  I have a pair of HD800S (detail monsters), and I can't tell aac256 from lossless with a proper valid test.  We've had a young guy who successfully abx'd 2 killer tracks @mp3 320 vs redbook a few years ago.  Stax system.  We later found that one of the tracks had very minor artifacting during the transcode.  When we repeated the tests with aac256 he couldn't pass them.  Great hearing, great system - couldn't tell the difference.

To date - I know no-one who has successfully abx'd aac256 vs FLAC in a valid test.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

castleofargh said:


> 1/ there is an abx component for foobar, so start there. it's better than a fake blind test. although I did sort of the same thing on DAPs for years, until I realized that I often could tell the file based on how fast it started or by the failure to play mp3 gapless.
> 2/ I'll assume that you have converted the tracks yourself so you know they're not different masters, and that you don't have replay gain applied on one of the track. also that you're not using an MP3 encoder from the fifteenth century. always worth checking just in case.
> 3/ if after that you still do get pretty consistent success, try lowering the volume in foobar by maybe 2 or 3dB in case what you're hearing is only intersample clipping. I personally notice it only on very few tracks, but I don't have the best listening skills in the world and I'm guessing the musical genre matters too, so it can be worth trying to be real sure it's about mp3 and not some side effect that we can all avoid.
> 4/ if by now you still pass fairly consistently, I'll just accept that you know how to detect mp3 from PCM even at 320kbps. ^_^


The converting was indeed done by me, I got a 24bit track and down converted two tracks. one to 16bit and one to 320kbps.
I didnt change foobars volume, left it default. and im not sure with the abx component for foobar, i'll have to look into that.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

gregorio said:


> You'll have to forgive our scepticism. Every so often someone posts here that they can absolutely hear this difference but WITHOUT exception, it turns out they can't. Either they do hear some difference due to some serious flaw in the test (for example, they inadvertently compare different masters) or they are perceiving a difference due to some cognitive bias, in which case there is also a serious flaw in their testing. You should be aware that over the course of many years, many tens of thousands of tests have been conducted by many thousands of subjects (ranging from average members of the public to highly trained and experienced professional sound engineers), using pretty much everything from cheap consumer equipment to the very best pro studio equipment. In fact, for nearly a decade, the designers of codecs no longer test at 320kbps because no one can ever hear any difference, instead they test at much lower kbps rates (typically 128kbps and lower).
> 
> 1. No, you can't "_absolutely say with confidence that you can hear a difference_", although you can maybe say with confidence that you "perceive" a difference (almost certainly due to a flaw in your testing). In effect, your statement tells us more about what you are publicly prepared to "absolutely say" and your "confidence" than it does about any potentially audible difference between 320kbps and lossless!
> 
> ...


I Dont mind at all the scepticism, in fact im always open for discussion.
I need to look more into ABX testing as I havent tried this yet.
I've tried to make multiple sample copies from higher bit files to smaller bitrates like 16bit/320kbp/128kbp.
I think you may be right about certain artifacts appearing in either how i master the file or perhaps in my equipment or external variables when listening. I do notice that 16bit files are much "louder" or at least sound louder for certain genres of music than listening to the same thing on 24bit files. to me, 24bit sounds quieter ? maybe thats what you mean by sound floor. (i'm still new to this hobby, not listening to music but buying and collecting better equipment than just regular stuff.) i'm always open to learn more how to do testing to test myself and the material I use.

I'm aware a lot of people claim sonic differences between things, file formats, power cables, audio cables, etc.. and I do like to test thoes things myself for myself to see if i can hear any change at all, thats part of the excitement for this hobby. 
but i will definitely learn from this and try to apply it to further testing.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

Brooko said:


> Must be same master.  Must be volume matched.  Must be multiple tests to statistically be relevant.
> 
> I'd suggest starting here - https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/
> Post is old, software is free - all it takes is time.  Try it with a true blind test, and then post your actual results.  If you can still tell - post your files so other people can have a go.
> ...


I use EAC already, its a great tool. and I do get 1 master file and make multiple copys of it for different rates.
When it comes to volume matching i tend to not play with it, i set it to a comfortable -26db on my ADI-2 with my DT1990 pros.
I do have EAC set to give best possible file with minimal errors or artifacts, i can't remember the youtube video i copied the settings from but it was very helpful.
I wish there was a place we could go to with pro equipment and do more testing with multiple people and different ears  id sign up gladly.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Tsukuyomi said:


> I use EAC already, its a great tool. and I do get 1 master file and make multiple copys of it for different rates.
> When it comes to volume matching i tend to not play with it, i set it to a comfortable -26db on my ADI-2 with my DT1990 pros.
> I do have EAC set to give best possible file with minimal errors or artifacts, i can't remember the youtube video i copied the settings from but it was very helpful.
> I wish there was a place we could go to with pro equipment and do more testing with multiple people and different ears  id sign up gladly.



Since you not using an ABX tool like the one discussed in the links provided by @Brooko with Foobar, the chances are that the converted lossy file is not the same volume level as the lossless version by enough dB to be identifiable.  The Foobar player's ABX tool has a ReplayGain option that can be applied to the tracks to ensure they are similarly matched by volume.  This volume matching does not permanently change the file and can be removed once the testing has been completed.


----------



## bigshot (May 14, 2019)

I have a lossy listening test that includes ten samples... one each of AAC, Frauenhofer MP3 and LAME MP3 at 192, 256 and 320, along with a lossless sample. It's set up properly so all you have to do is listen to each track and rank the sound quality from 1 to 10. It is a good way to find out where your threshold of transparency lies. If you would like to try the test, let me know.


----------



## gregorio

Tsukuyomi said:


> I think you may be right about certain artifacts appearing in either how i master the file or perhaps in my equipment or external variables when listening. I do notice that 16bit files are much "louder" or at least sound louder for certain genres of music than listening to the same thing on 24bit files. to me, 24bit sounds quieter ? maybe thats what you mean by sound floor.



No, that's not what I meant by noise floor. Noise floor is at the opposite, quietest end of the loudness spectrum. It's the almost inaudible hiss/noise that defines the lowest/quietest limit of dynamic range and comprises microphone/mic-pre-amp noise, the ambient noise of the recording venue/studio and various other noise sources (playback amp and speakers/HPs for example).

At the other, loudest, end of the loudness spectrum, 16bit and 24bit are completely identical. So if you're hearing 16bit as being "much louder" than 24bit, there's really only two possibilities, either: A. There is some additional processing that been applied before/during/after the conversion to 16bit (compression with make-up gain for example), so you're effectively comparing different masters or B. There's some expectation or other cognitive bias occurring that's causing you to perceive/imagine 16bit is louder. Leave the suggested replay-gain switched off and try an ABX test: If you pass the ABX test that eliminates possibility "B" and tells you there must be some processing other than just conversion to 16bit being applied somewhere. BTW, even if you're not doing the conversion yourself, it's not uncommon for record labels to apply more compression/make-up gain to the 16bit version than the 24bit "hi-rez" version.

G


----------



## bigshot

I know iTunes alters the level slightly when it reencodes. In order to to a true comparison, you need to level match as the last step.


----------



## Blackwoof

stonesfan129 said:


> I ripped all my CDs to FLAC with dBpoweramp Reference on Secure Mode w/ AccurateRip.  I rarely buy a CD anymore and 99% of my purchases are through iTunes.  I can't tell a difference between 256k AAC and FLAC.  I have enough storage space on my FiiO X1 that I do not need to compress anything but I'd say I'm fine with 256k AAC purchases from now on.  I have been incredibly impressed with Mastered For iTunes albums.  I think the iTunes AAC encoder sounds better than LAME MP3.  I don't see the point of using Opus as AAC is already good enough and far more software/hardware supports AAC.



Vorbis sounds better than Lame MP3 at 192kb/s to me 99% of the time and has just as much support. Opus is in a to late to little scenario since people will still use AAC, Ogg and Lame an there fine for 99.99% of people above 192kbps. While the rest will just go lossless.


----------



## stonesfan129

Blackwoof said:


> Vorbis sounds better than Lame MP3 at 192kb/s to me 99% of the time and has just as much support. Opus is in a to late to little scenario since people will still use AAC, Ogg and Lame an there fine for 99.99% of people above 192kbps. While the rest will just go lossless.



That's not surprising since it's a more efficient codec.  I just do not see the point of using Ogg Vorbis when LAME MP3 or Apple AAC do perfectly fine at the bitrates I'm using.


----------



## Blackwoof

stonesfan129 said:


> That's not surprising since it's a more efficient codec.  I just do not see the point of using Ogg Vorbis when LAME MP3 or Apple AAC do perfectly fine at the bitrates I'm using.



That true in my case, Ogg performs better at 144kbps on than AAC/Lame do. At 256kbps I would just stick with Winamp AAC or Lame mp3. I just don't see the point of Opus when Ogg, AAC, Lame are transparent above 128kbps for 99.9% uses cases. Opus would've been fantastic in 1996 to 2009 when quality at 64kbps to 144kbps mattered more.


----------



## bigshot

might be good for books on tape.


----------



## Blackwoof

Yeah I forgot about audio book/voice stuff which Opus is very good for.


----------



## stonesfan129 (Jan 28, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> That true in my case, Ogg performs better at 144kbps on than AAC/Lame do. At 256kbps I would just stick with Winamp AAC or Lame mp3. I just don't see the point of Opus when Ogg, AAC, Lame are transparent above 128kbps for 99.9% uses cases. Opus would've been fantastic in 1996 to 2009 when quality at 64kbps to 144kbps mattered more.



I don't see the point you're trying to make here.  And with storage space that keeps on increasing, why shouldn't I just use lossless or MP3/AAC above 192kbps?  For what it's worth, I have never used Winamp AAC.  I have always used either Apple AAC or FDK AAC (when I needed AAC) or just LAME MP3.  When you start getting to low bitrates (such as 128kbps), AAC does a better job at transparency.  At the rates I am using (256-320kbps), pretty much all of em do fine.


----------



## Sterling2

I don't know much and I can prove it but what I do know for sure is I can not distinguish Apple Music downloads from the same music I've downloaded in 24/192; thus, I have curtailed hi-res purchases. I typically enjoy Apple Music via usb connection from PC to OPPO-205 DAC, which sounds better, in all manner I can discern better, than listening to Apple Music via X-FI HD, or Airport Express.


----------



## alexwise (Feb 4, 2020)

I’m a filthy casual. I enjoy Apple Music AAC files through my Bluetooth amp and I cannot tell difference between this and FLAC. Let alone DSD.


----------



## Sterling2

alexwise said:


> I’m a filthy casual. I enjoy Apple Music AAC flies through my Bluetooth amp and I cannot tell difference between this and FLAC. Let alone DSD.


 Yes, my experience is similar. I do sense that my usb to OPPO DAC delivers AAC, ALAC, and AIFF from iTunes with greater definition and less smearing than my wireless PC  to Airport Express connection via S/PDIF to Pre-Pro, when playing music at life-like volume. At any rate, yeah, AAC satisfies. No more hi-res purchases for me other than multi-channel SACD.


----------



## alexwise (Feb 4, 2020)

Sterling2 said:


> Yes, my experience is similar. I do sense that my usb to OPPO DAC delivers AAC, ALAC, and AIFF from iTunes with greater definition and less smearing than my wireless PC  to Airport Express connection via S/PDIF to Pre-Pro, when playing music at life-like volume. At any rate, yeah, AAC satisfies. No more hi-res purchases for me other than multi-channel SACD.


Great to hear people being rational and not chasing the phantom hi-res gains saving money in process. Can always appreciate down to earth people in this forum.

I’m very fortunate to not being able to tell any difference between wired and wireless sound quality. Perhaps, I’m just being open-minded and honest with myself. After browsing audiophile communities, it’s easy to develop a bias towards new technology (for example DSP, Bluetooth and etc) being always worse than a traditional analog wired as-little-digital-as-possible setup.


----------



## Sterling2 (Feb 4, 2020)

alexwise said:


> Great to hear people being rational and not chasing the phantom hi-res gains saving money in process. Can always appreciate down to earth people in this forum.
> 
> I’m very fortunate to not being able to tell any difference between wired and wireless sound quality. Perhaps, I’m just being open-minded and honest with myself. After browsing auriophile communities, it’s easy to develop a bias towards new technology (for example DSP, Bluetooth and etc) being always worse than a traditional analog wired as-little-digital-as-possible setup.


  Until recently I did not distinguish AAC via Airport Express to Pre-Pro from AAC via usb DAC to Pre-Pro; but, one evening I was playing some Dance music at about 80 db via Airport Express and out of curiosity I wanted to see if switching to usb DAC means to music would sound different. It did. I'd describe it as not smudged as the Airport Express route seemed to be. I perceive this had something to do with a 20 year old DAC doing the processing vs my OPPO's DAC doing it. At any rate, I then compared and contrasted AAC, ALAC, and AIFF of same music in iTunes Library via OPPO DAC to Pre-Pro, which did not produce results which I could discern as being different, in any manner that different could be discerned So, it appears, I'll keep plowing along with Apple Music, since there seems now to be no point to hi-res downloads. If technology improves for me to hear a better performance from hi-res ALAC or other I suppose I might re-visit hi-res. BTW, I still buy multi-channel SACDs, not for the impression that the overall sound is in any way better; but, because some do add breadth and depth giving me a feeling of having a great seat at a live performance of the music.


----------



## bigshot

Try level matching. It might sound the same if you do.


----------



## Sterling2 (Feb 5, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Try level matching. It might sound the same if you do.


 AAC, ALAC, and AIFF do sound like each other,  processed by OPPO DAC and they sound like each other when processed by Pre-Pro's DAP; and thus, I no longer have interest in buying hi-res downloads  when I cannot distinguish them from AAC downloads of same. What sounds different  is Airport Express to Pre-Pro's DAP vs. OPPO-205 DAC to Pre-Pro's analog input. In this scenario at high volume with volume matching, I can distinguish the OPPO DAC means to music as being divergent from the Airport Express to Pre-Pro DAP means. And, I prefer the OPPO means, since it does not seemed smeared as does music processed by Pre-Pro's DAP (Sony TA-E9000ES).


----------



## bigshot

What model Airports are you using? Is it an older model? I have the little flat ones and they sound fine.  I find no difference between my Oppos and anything else. It's all transparent. There's nothing in the specs of the airport that would suggest it might sound different. Have you tried more than one to make sure it isn't just a bad one?


----------



## Sterling2 (Feb 5, 2020)

bigshot said:


> What model Airports are you using? Is it an older model? I have the little flat ones and they sound fine.  I find no difference between my Oppos and anything else. It's all transparent. There's nothing in the specs of the airport that would suggest it might sound different. Have you tried more than one to make sure it isn't just a bad one?


  My second generation Airport Express is not set to output analog. Instead, I send 16/44.1 optical S/PDIF from it to pre-pro, whereby pre-pro does digital to analog conversion; therefore the this vs. that is between 20 year old Sony TA-E9000ES DAP and OPPO-205's DAC. At high volume I can distinguish divergence between these digital to analog converters, the music sounding as if it was smeared from the Sony. At lower volume I can not discern one means to the music sounds better than the other. I have not used the Airport Express recently to do digital to analog conversion. In fact it's probably been 6 years since I've used Airport Express to do digital to audio conversion (not enough RCA's on my pre-pro); plus, sending digital from Airport Express allows me to record streams to DAT without  DAT Recorder doing an analog to digital conversion.


----------



## bigshot

Ah! So if I'm understanding correctly, the bottleneck is the Sony, not the Airports. I just take the analogue out of the Airport and it sounds fine.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> Ah! So if I'm understanding correctly, the bottleneck is the Sony, not the Airports. I just take the analogue out of the Airport and it sounds fine.


Yes, you understand correctly in spite of my poor communication. At some point I may re-visit analog output from Airport Express and then I could compare and contrast Airport Express DAC to OPPO's.  At any rate, bottleneck is indeed my 20 year old Sony's DAP. This pre-pro also does not have HDMI input and a few other contemporary features I'd like to have. Nevertheless, with the OPPO, as well as Airport Express connected to the old Sony, it delivers stereo that sounds pretty nice. For multi-channel I have connected my OPPO to another 20 year old multi-channel analog preamplifier, a Sony TA-P9000ES. Using the OPPO's multi-channel bass management I'm still real happy with this preamp too.


----------



## stonesfan129 (Feb 19, 2020)

I ran some listening tests awhile back on a much higher quality setup than what I own.  I took an album I knew well and made a WAV file then from that WAV file I created several MP3 files with LAME (320, -V0, -V2, -V4 and -V5) and several AAC versions with iTunes (256, 192, 128, 96).  My conclusions were basically that if I knew what I was listening to, I could hear the degradation with LAME -V5 and still somewhat with Apple AAC 128.  At the ~192Kbs mark, I really couldn't tell the difference.  When I don't know which is which, I cannot tell at those low rates.  I was really surprised because I always remembered 128Kbs MP3 files sounding terrible like I was underwater.  Maybe LAME has just gotten that much better over the years, who knows?  I tend to buy stuff on iTunes now (I think CDs are pointless unless you have to have a lossless file or different mastering) and I just convert everything to LAME -V0 or Apple AAC 256.  It takes up much less space than carrying FLAC and I can't hear a difference.

Anyone else been impressed with Apple AAC?  I am also curious if anyone here has ever tested the free Fraunhofer codec (FDK-AAC) with lossless to see if it's any better or worse than the Apple encoder.


----------



## bigshot

I've tested and I've found AAC > LAME > Fraunhofer. They are all very good at 192, but the difference between them is with certain kinds of hard to compress sounds. They're all pretty much perfect by 320, but AAC is perfect at 256. Always use VBR when you encode because it can only help. It can't hurt.


----------



## stonesfan129 (Feb 19, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I've tested and I've found AAC > LAME > Fraunhofer. They are all very good at 192, but the difference between them is with certain kinds of hard to compress sounds. They're all pretty much perfect by 320, but AAC is perfect at 256. Always use VBR when you encode because it can only help. It can't hurt.



When you say Fraunhofer are you talking about their AAC or MP3 encoder?  I understood that generally AAC is more efficient than any MP3 encoder.


----------



## bigshot

Regular plain vanilla first generation MP3 (pre-LAME)


----------



## stonesfan129 (Feb 20, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Regular plain vanilla first generation MP3 (pre-LAME)



Have you done any listening tests using their AAC encoder (Fraunhofer FDK-AAC)?  I didn't think it sounded as good as the iTunes one at the lower bitrates and I have to wonder if it has some kind of low-pass filtering going on.  At the highest VBR setting (-m5) it says they don't do that, but I swear it doesn't sound as good as the iTunes one at that bitrate (~200KBs).  Maybe I'm just imagining things.


----------



## bigshot

I use iTunes to encode AAC. Never used anything else.


----------



## gregorio (Feb 21, 2020)

stonesfan129 said:


> I was really surprised because I always remembered 128Kbs MP3 files sounding terrible like I was underwater. Maybe LAME has just gotten that much better over the years, who knows?



The people on Hydrogen Audio know. This is because some of the developers and those who test LAME hang out there and by extension, some of us know because we also frequent or occasionally visit. LAME has certainly developed and gotten better over the years, as testers discovered recordings that caused audible artefacts when encoded and the algorithms were tweaked to reduce/eliminate them.

What you're experiencing could well be a bit of both. Both a bit of mis-remembering and a bit of the actual improvements made to LAME. Are you sure the 128kbps MP3 files you remember sounding terrible were actually LAME encoded? 15-20 years ago, the difference between standard MP3 encoding and LAME encoding was often relatively obvious with many recordings.



stonesfan129 said:


> Have you done any listening tests using their AAC encoder (Fraunhofer FDK-AAC)? I didn't think it sounded as good as the iTunes one at the lower bitrates and I have to wonder if it has some kind of low-pass filtering going on.



Not recently but many years ago the Fraunhofer AAC encoder certainly could be somewhat deficient compared to Apple's. I doubt, though don't know for sure, that it's as deficient today.

G


----------



## Gosod

I have to listen to some musical artworks in mp3 128!


----------



## Àedhàn Cassiel (Mar 17, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Also with MP3, the encoder you use makes a difference. An old encoder won't produce files that sound as good as an up to date one.



I'll admit I _could _be fooling myself, but I'm still under the impression I can tell the difference between 320 mp3 and FLAC with _some _files. Very specifically, what I notice is that when a lot of instruments start going at once, the instruments that aren't the "focal point" of the song aren't as clear. Like, drums, keys, two rhythm guitars, and a vocalist can be going at once and the mp3 and FLAC seem indistinguishable to me, but then a lead guitar can come in alongside them all and now the keys and rhythm guitars sound warbly to me. When I listen 'for enjoyment' I really enjoy listening to polyrhythms and the interplay between the rhythms going on different instruments, and I like a lot of music with multiple instruments spewing chaos all at once for that reason (prog metal, math rock, etc.) I _did _also subjectively notice that newer albums can be indistinguishable anyway where older ones more likely aren't.

I'm assuming the encoder is the most likely explanation for this (I'll be taking the blind test as soon as it's sent to me). That said, how can I tell good from bad encodings if I'm downloading older music from something like Soulseek? Is there a time period for the album release that works as a useful heuristic? And if I want to compress my own FLAC collection to save disc space, what's the best thing to use?


----------



## bigshot (Mar 17, 2020)

Generally, there are two types of degradation with compressed audio. The first kind is high end roll off. At lower rates, the encoder applies a low pass filter to reduce ultra high frequencies which take up more bandwidth. The higher the data rate, the higher the filter until at a certain point, you should be getting every frequency humans can hear. The other kind of degradation is artifacting. Certain sounds are difficult to encode- massed voices, applause, complex orchestral string textures, etc. If there isn't enough bandwidth to render these sounds, they make a digital splat or gurgle. At very low rates, the digital distortion is easy to hear... as it gets higher, they become less and less frequent until the track achieves complete transparency. That happens at different points with different codecs.

Generally, I've found that people who claim to hear differences in soundstage or clarity not related to artifacting don't test blind. I think those two descriptions are pretty safe to chalk up to bias. 

With downloads from sharing it's impossible to know what the data rate or encoders are. Some people are idiots who take 128 MP3s and transcode them to FLAC and then upload that. The download stores state what they use... Apple is AAC 256 VBR and Amazon is MP3 LAME 256 VBR I believe.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Blackwoof

I don't see much talk about Opus 1.3 which sounds fully tranparent at 128kbps?.


----------



## bigshot

From what I'm told, Opus is pretty much the same as AAC. AAC is transparent at 128 for most music. AAC 128 VBR is transparent for most everything.


----------



## stonesfan129

My FiiO M6 doesn't support Opus.  I mainly just convert everything to 256k Apple AAC which I cannot distinguish from lossless on it anyway.


----------



## castleofargh

Blackwoof said:


> I don't see much talk about Opus 1.3 which sounds fully tranparent at 128kbps?.


It's a topic on mp3, but clearly it has become the grandad of lossy codecs. Anybody trying to achieve even more compression than high bitrate mp3 while expecting good transparency, will have to move on to AAC for compatibility, and opus for performance at really low rates. IMO mp3 has been on the way out for a long time, and having main streaming services and YouTube using other formats is the official burial of mp3. 
On a positive side, our old mp3s will still be compatible with almost anything for many years to come, so there is no need to panic if we have some. But I wouldn't advise to keep encoding in mp3 nowadays.


----------



## Blackwoof (Mar 20, 2020)

bigshot said:


> From what I'm told, Opus is pretty much the same as AAC. AAC is transparent at 128 for most music. AAC 128 VBR is transparent for most everything.



From my experience Opus at 128 can handle Industrial & harsh experimental like a champ, While AAC/Vorbis struggle hard. Only 1 song from my archive needed to encoded at 384kbps.

Werid having transparency on a Merzbow album at 128kbps.


----------



## housekrl

I have never been able to tell the difference between Flac and 320mp3. But then again, my hearing isn't the greatest. Which is also why I don't care about measurements.


----------



## Blackwoof

housekrl said:


> I have never been able to tell the difference between Flac and 320mp3. But then again, my hearing isn't the greatest. Which is also why I don't care about measurements.



With some samples/music i can tell 256/320 that also sound fine with 170Kbps musepack??.


----------



## bigshot (May 25, 2020)

It isn't just the data rate. The codec matters too. Frauenhofer MP3 is different than LAME, and both of those are different than AAC. Each one has its own level of transparency. There are also certain sounds that are harder to encode than others. But it is possible to reach total transparency with the big modern codecs.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> It isn't just the data rate. The codec matters too. Frauenhofer MP3 is different than LAME, and both of those are different than AAC. Each one has its own level of transparency. There are also certain sounds that are harder to encode than others. But it is possible to reach total transparency with the big modern codecs.



MP3 has hard limits with pre echo/hard attacks, But AAC/Ogg can overcome that by using bitrates above 320kbps. But Vorbis is just as good as AAC at 128kbps from my A/B tests but stereo suffers at 80 ~ 96kbps unlike on AAC. Oddly i have like 5+ samples from my ambient stuff where Lame/Vorbis >>> AAC at 128kbps, So i just stick with Q4.4 and >192kbps above for more demading stuff.


----------



## Àedhàn Cassiel

So what's the consensus on which file types and bitrates have total fidelity to human ears at the lowest file size? Can we make a list of what's compromised, what's not, and of the what's not, what's most space-efficient?


----------



## Blackwoof

Àedhàn Cassiel said:


> So what's the consensus on which file types and bitrates have total fidelity to human ears at the lowest file size? Can we make a list of what's compromised, what's not, and of the what's not, what's most space-efficient?



For AAC & Vorbis = 140 kbps, Lame MP3 = V3(170 kbps), Opus 1.3 = 80 kbps.


----------



## bigshot (May 26, 2020)

Àedhàn Cassiel said:


> So what's the consensus on which file types and bitrates have total fidelity to human ears at the lowest file size? Can we make a list of what's compromised, what's not, and of the what's not, what's most space-efficient?



I have a test that compares Frau MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC at 192, 256 and 320. The difference at 192 is very small, but some people can detect it if they concentrate. From the people who have taken my test, Frau 320, LAME 256 and AAC 256 seem to be transparent to everyone. If you added VBR, you might be able to take it down one more notch.

Personally, I use AAC 256 VBR for everything. Haven't had any artifacting at all.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> I have a test that compares Frau MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC at 192, 256 and 320. The difference at 192 is very small, but some people can detect it if they concentrate. From the people who have taken my test, Frau 320, LAME 256 and AAC 256 seem to be transparent to everyone. If you added VBR, you might be able to take it down one more notch.
> 
> Personally, I use AAC 256 VBR for everything. Haven't had any artifacting at all.



Vorbis at 140kbps VBR, 95% of my collection is tranparent to me. Anything complex is 192k and above since it let's me not stress my 64GB sd card. With AAC some ambient music i listen to needs 224kbps to sound fine while Vorbis dosen't have that problem.


----------



## bigshot

I’m talking about the best that anyone did. Many people were fine at 192 across the board. Sorry, I didn’t make it clear that I was talking about top scores.


----------



## old tech

Sorry to be pedantic, but isn't it possible to put 320 content into a flac file?  Should the subject heading be 320 v Lossless rather than 320 v Flac?


----------



## Blackwoof

old tech said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, but isn't it possible to put 320 content into a flac file?  Should the subject heading be 320 v Lossless rather than 320 v Flac?



Saying that i agree, There Wavpack hybrid which can be really good at 384kbps and tranparent at 512kbps assuming forced dynamic noise shaping switch is on. To stop artists like Merzbow/Epica sounding wrong. 

 Yes but i really hope many know not to do that anymore since there no point on lossy in a desktop area anymore. Since fake lossless files were common because people used 320 mp3 to cheat on 256GB HDDs in 2006?.


----------



## stonesfan129

I really like Opus but there are just so few players that support it.  Besides, I have space for FLAC on my portables anyway.


----------



## TheGiantHogweed

I've found that with most of the sort of music I listen to, it just isn't worth having CD quality flac over 320kbp mp3. I use a FiiO X3 and have nearly 7500 tracks taking up 90.4GB. The vast majority are Mp3s as the bitrate i mentioned. Most of what I listen to is from before 2000 and I don't think recording quality has improved significantly anyway, at least only on a very limited number of artists. I find that especially if you have a portable player and are out and about, the sound quality difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and 16bit flac will be absolutely tiny. That, the compatibility with other older devices and the file size difference is the reason I go with Mp3.


----------



## bigshot (May 27, 2020)

I'm the same. I did extensive tests before I built my music server because I have over 25,000 CDs. I didn't want to rip twice, and I didn't want to have to transcode to load my phone. I settled on AAC 256 VBR. It's completely transparent with any recording I throw at it, it's compact and it plays on everything I have to play it on. I can fit my entire music library (pushing on two years worth of music) on a single hard drive. That makes it easier to back up. The CDs are all in boxes in the garage now.


----------



## Sam L

TheGiantHogweed said:


> I've found that with most of the sort of music I listen to, it just isn't worth having CD quality flac over 320kbp mp3. I use a FiiO X3 and have nearly 7500 tracks taking up 90.4GB. The vast majority are Mp3s as the bitrate i mentioned. Most of what I listen to is from before 2000 and I don't think recording quality has improved significantly anyway, at least only on a very limited number of artists. I find that especially if you have a portable player and are out and about, the sound quality difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and 16bit flac will be absolutely tiny. That, the compatibility with other older devices and the file size difference is the reason I go with Mp3.



I'm curious if your observations re: cd quality flac vs. 320kbp mp3 holds true when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc? I'm debating whether I should pull the trigger on something other than Spotify but have held off because the rest of my family doesn't want to switch from Spotify and could care less about lossless audio.

during the covid era, I've started listening more critically to classical music again and I've noticed some artifacts from time to time on Spotify. I'm thinking of looking at primephonic or idagio


----------



## magicalmouse

Sam L said:


> I'm curious if your observations re: cd quality flac vs. 320kbp mp3 holds true when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc? I'm debating whether I should pull the trigger on something other than Spotify but have held off because the rest of my family doesn't want to switch from Spotify and could care less about lossless audio.


I had tidal lossless and spotify premium together for a few days (subscription overlap) and i did notice a slight difference but this may be due to different masters being used or even placebo - it would be intersting to hear a range of observations - imo differences may occur when listened to carefully through good equipment in a quiet room but portably out and about not likely.

d


----------



## TheGiantHogweed

Sam L said:


> I'm curious if your observations re: cd quality flac vs. 320kbp mp3 holds true when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc? I'm debating whether I should pull the trigger on something other than Spotify but have held off because the rest of my family doesn't want to switch from Spotify and could care less about lossless audio.
> 
> during the covid era, I've started listening more critically to classical music again and I've noticed some artifacts from time to time on Spotify. I'm thinking of looking at primephonic or idagio


I think Spotify uses 320kpbs ogg format. Oggs are slightly better than Mp3s. I think it will be pretty hard again to tell a difference between spotify and CD quality other than things related to the device you are using.

I used to think there was a bigger difference, but it is only when you really try to think about the difference that it is really noticeable. The one and only 24bit album I have is barely any better than hearing it on spotify. And I think that is because it never was amazingly produced in the first place IMO. Classical music especially (if it is old) I would see very little benifit. The last big step in my view is goign up from 160kbps to 320. Then from there upwards the quality differences are so small you need to do some extremely careful listening to notice obvious differences. A lot of the time, I don't see how it is worth the extra storage space myself. I will admit it is better, but barely. A limited amount of very advanced modern music that is exceptionally recorded may benefit more from this.


----------



## gregorio

TheGiantHogweed said:


> [1] Most of what I listen to is from before 2000 and I don't think recording quality has improved significantly anyway, at least only on a very limited number of artists.
> [2] I find that especially if you have a portable player and are out and about, the sound quality difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and 16bit flac will be absolutely tiny.



1. As a general trend, recording quality has decreased since "before 2000", although there maybe some exceptions.

2. We need to be careful here! The "_sound quality difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a 16bit flac_" will actually be relatively large but will also be inaudible.



Sam L said:


> [1] I'm curious if your observations re: cd quality flac vs. 320kbp mp3 holds true when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc?
> [2] during the covid era, I've started listening more critically to classical music again and I've noticed some artifacts from time to time on Spotify. I'm thinking of looking at primephonic or idagio



1. His observations broadly agree with the demonstrated science, that the difference is inaudible. Therefore, "_when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc_" one can discount the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless BUT, one can't discount the possibility of different masters, which of course are deliberately designed to sound different.

2. But of course we have to ask what's causing you to "notice some artefacts". It is possible though unlikely, that it's actually due to MP3 encoding, for example a transcode or possibly even an MP3 created with a very old MP3 algorithm. Although it's also possible (though also unlikely) that a lossless version is a transcode. Far more likely, is some problem with your internet connection or the internet itself, in which case swapping music service won't help or, some problem with Spotify's internet connection or servers, in which case swapping services could help, assuming they don't have a similar issue. And, without a controlled listening test, placebo always has a good possibility/probability of being the cause.



TheGiantHogweed said:


> [1] The last big step in my view is goign up from 160kbps to 320.
> [2] Then from there upwards the quality differences are so small you need to do some extremely careful listening to notice obvious differences.



1. Potentially this is true. Although it does depend on the type of music and the exact MP3 encoder employed. Using one of the modern MP3 encoders, this step would typically be rather small or inaudible but not necessarily always.

2. Actually, it's rather the reverse. Using a modern MP3 encoder at 320kbps, an "_extremely careful listening_" test will reveal no audible differences at all, let alone "_obvious differences_". However, a far less careful listening test, for example a sighted test, could result in obvious differences being noticed (due to perceptual biases/placebo).

G


----------



## TheGiantHogweed (May 28, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 1. *As a general trend, recording quality has decreased since "before 2000", although there maybe some exceptions.*
> 
> 2. *We need to be careful here! The "sound quality difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a 16bit flac" will actually be relatively large but will also be inaudible.*
> 
> ...




I sometimes do wonder why a great deal of music (especially popular stuff) sounds so poorly recorded / mixed these days. Especially if you conciser the capabilities of modern technology. Honestly, barely anything new that I know beats pink floyd from 45 years ago. A lot doesn't even sound remotely close to it. One of the main improvements I notice with modern stuff is very little or no background hiss. I don't know a great deal about the newer stuff out there, but in general, i find the popular music to sound like it has been recorded to sound sharp and clear right from phone speakers. Then when you listen to it with decent audio equipment, it sounds really badly tuned. The charts on spotify are an example of this. Admittedly, I very much dislike the style of most, but that isn't related to the way it is recorded. But I do wonder why so many artists that have so much money have them recorded in what sounds like they can't afford proper recording equipment - or the electronic sounds just sound like that in the first place.
One track that i actually happen to like the tune of is "Blinding Lights" by "The Weekend". But this is an example of what in my opinion is very badly recorded. The beatbox style drums i can accept as that may be deliberate (although not really my thing), but the synth, bass other sounds seem to have a really poor slightly muddy sound, almost like they are recorded from a tape. This may be 80s style music, but I know a large amount of bands from the 80s that had their recordings sound significantly better than this. I can accept strange recordings if music is pretty old, or clearly not that advanced yet, but so much modern stuff out there almost seems to be deliberately done like this and I just don't get why. If it was done better, it isn't like those who listen on their phones will care, and those who appreciate decent sound will actually be able to enjoy it more.
There are still a few more modern bands that i listen to, but are usually far less well known and have been heavily influenced by artists long ago. In my opinion, those are often the ones that tend to have better recordings.

Sorry for going on a rant about that! But it is an interesting topic. 








Oh yea i could have worded that better. I agree it certainly will be a lot better, and that is possibly why a lot of people always use the better option, but the audible difference in a lot of situations is what is tiny.







I used to believe i could hear more differences than I actually can. It wasn't just the file size that made me put all my CDs on my FiiO x3 as 320kbps Mp3s, it was that i could hear no or little difference. With a really good CD player, listening to it direct could well have a noticeable difference with my headphones compared to an Mp3 on my X3 in that case, but I think that will be more related to the quality of the device than the format. I don't think I did thourough enough testing such as ripping a disk as a wav or flac and listening to that and the same disk as a 320kbps mp3 on my X3. I almost wonder if I would notice a difference there now.


----------



## Sam L (May 28, 2020)

TheGiantHogweed said:


> I sometimes do wonder why a great deal of music (especially popular stuff) sounds so poorly recorded / mixed these days. Especially if you conciser the capabilities of modern technology. Honestly, barely anything new that I know beats pink floyd from 45 years ago. A lot doesn't even sound remotely close to it. One of the main improvements I notice with modern stuff is very little or no background hiss. I don't know a great deal about the newer stuff out there, but in general, i find the popular music to sound like it has been recorded to sound sharp and clear right from phone speakers. Then when you listen to it with decent audio equipment, it sounds really badly tuned. The charts on spotify are an example of this. Admittedly, I very much dislike the style of most, but that isn't related to the way it is recorded. But I do wonder why so many artists that have so much money have them recorded in what sounds like they can't afford proper recording equipment - or the electronic sounds just sound like that in the first place.
> One track that i actually happen to like the tune of is "Blinding Lights" by "The Weekend". But this is an example of what in my opinion is very badly recorded. The beatbox style drums i can accept as that may be deliberate (although not really my thing), but the synth, bass other sounds seem to have a really poor slightly muddy sound, almost like they are recorded from a tape. This may be 80s style music, but I know a large amount of bands from the 80s that had their recordings sound significantly better than this. I can accept strange recordings if music is pretty old, or clearly not that advanced yet, but so much modern stuff out there almost seems to be deliberately done like this and I just don't get why. If it was done better, it isn't like those who listen on their phones will care, and those who appreciate decent sound will actually be able to enjoy it more.
> There are still a few more modern bands that i listen to, but are usually far less well known and have been heavily influenced by artists long ago. In my opinion, those are often the ones that tend to have better recordings.
> 
> ...


Thank you all for your input. I'm likely going to stay with Spotify Premium. I don't think I can consistently hear the difference between lossless and Spotify's "very high" quality setting. What I previously thought was a huge difference was attributed to Spotify's "normalize volume" setting.

From what I can see with primephonic and idagio trials I started, the search feature is more accurate, given the challenge of long similar titles in classical music (as compared to Spotify's search hits. But I can live with it.)


----------



## gregorio

TheGiantHogweed said:


> [1] I sometimes do wonder why a great deal of music (especially popular stuff) sounds so poorly recorded / mixed these days. Especially if you conciser the capabilities of modern technology. Honestly, barely anything new that I know beats pink floyd from 45 years ago. ....
> [2] But I do wonder why so many artists that have so much money have them recorded in what sounds like they can't afford proper recording equipment -
> [2a] or the electronic sounds just sound like that in the first place.



1. There's several reasons for that. Probably the most significant reason is that's what consumers have inadvertently demanded! While the demand for music recordings is higher now than it was 45 years ago, the amount of money consumers are willing to pay for them is just a tiny fraction. A lot of music is consumed for nothing at all, on YouTube for example and even when consumers do pay for it, they typically pay only a few cents to stream/download it, much of which goes to the technology industry (the streaming/download services) rather than to the music recording industry. As the revenue from recordings sales has decreased, so has the amount of money the recording industry is willing to invest in making them. It made good sense to invest $1m in making an album (and millions more to promote it), if you were going to make several tens of millions in record sales but it obviously doesn't make any sense if you're only going to get a few million in return. Floyd and other bands would spend months, as much as a year or more, in a world class studio to produce an album but world class studios are very expensive. Today, artists typically produce an album in just a few weeks or potentially longer if much of the work is done in relatively very cheap project/home studios. Today's basic recording technology is both better and far cheaper, enabling project studios to rival world class studios in this regard but NOT in regard to the wide variety of mics, high quality recording spaces or the engineering knowledge and experience to employ it all to it's best advantage. And, even when world class studios are used, the relatively tiny amount of studio time allowed forces compromises that would have been inconceivable/unacceptable to Floyd (and just about every other successful group in the '60's, '70's and '80's).

2. Because they don't have "_so much money_" from selling recordings. They have "_so much money_" from being celebrities (from celebrity product endorsements for example) and from live tours. Today, albums are effectively just the promotional material for the actual product (celebrityhood and live tours), while in Floyd's day it was the other way around, celebrityhood and live tours were the promotional material for the actual product, the albums.
2a. Going back to point #1, that's another contributing reason. The use of sounds/samples that are so highly processed they are barely recognisable started decades ago but proliferated in the later '90's with the falling revenue, the demise of the big commercial studios and the rise of the home/project studios. Genres/sub-genres evolved that were largely or almost entirely dependent on these types of sounds (EDM, hip-hop, drum & bass and others) and because these genres grew in popularity at a time when "the writing was on the wall" for the traditional recording industry, these types of sounds were inevitably subsumed by other artists and eventually, the mainstream. A good example was Amy Winehouse, effectively a traditional jazz/blues/soul singer but whose productions incorporated several stylistic elements of hip-hop production.



TheGiantHogweed said:


> I used to believe i could hear more differences than I actually can. It wasn't just the file size that made me put all my CDs on my FiiO x3 as 320kbps Mp3s, it was that i could hear no or little difference. With a really good CD player, listening to it direct could well have a noticeable difference with my headphones compared to an Mp3 on my X3 in that case, but I think that will be more related to the quality of the device than the format. I don't think I did thourough enough testing such as ripping a disk as a wav or flac and listening to that and the same disk as a 320kbps mp3 on my X3. I almost wonder if I would notice a difference there now.



That's pretty much always the case, even with considerable experience and formal/professional training! We've ALL fallen into the trap of making fine adjustments we're sure we can hear, only to find out later that we couldn't hear them at all. I've certainly done that and I've never heard of any other professional sound/music engineer who hasn't. The necessity of not wasting time and many years experience doing it day in, day out, help the best engineers to avoid it most of the time. Consumers, even very serious hobbyists, really don't stand much chance but careful controlled testing (ABX for example) eliminates the issue and the more you do, the more you learn about what you can actually hear and the more you avoid the trap, but no one always avoids it, which is why science only accepts double blind testing/ABX.

G


----------



## stonesfan129

Bluetooth must just suck cause I swear I can tell a difference in the sound between files over Bluetooth and ones over a wired connection (both sources being the exact same FLAC file).


----------



## bigshot

There are different implementations of bluetooth. I can tell with older ones, but recently they've gotten a lot better.


----------



## wishbon3

Has anyone ever done this test?: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality 

I've gotten 5/6, so I think there is some merit to FLAC vs 320, or maybe I just got lucky.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jun 11, 2020)

I can't tell 140kbps Opus from lossless 99.9% of the time. With modern codecs or at 192 ~ 320kbps lossy audio pretty much for all music 99.9% of the time. Which rings true with Lame MP3 at 192kbps VBR, Which can't tell either unless it a known killer sample.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

The way I look at it, storage is cheap. I ripped a ton of CDs to 128K mp3 years ago and I regretted it later as I got better gear. I can definitely hear artifacts at 128K. I am not sure about 192. I could not ten or 15 years ago but with the equipment I have now I probably could. Anyway, on general principles I'm only doing lossless rips now from now on. There is no reason not to keep the quality 100% whether you need it or not.


----------



## Sam L

gimmeheadroom said:


> The way I look at it, storage is cheap. I ripped a ton of CDs to 128K mp3 years ago and I regretted it later as I got better gear. I can definitely hear artifacts at 128K. I am not sure about 192. I could not ten or 15 years ago but with the equipment I have now I probably could. Anyway, on general principles I'm only doing lossless rips now from now on. There is no reason not to keep the quality 100% whether you need it or not.


agreed... compression artifacts are annoying. Best to go lossless from this point forward, even if I can't hear qualitative differences that easily between anything above 192 vbr


----------



## Brooko

wishbon3 said:


> Has anyone ever done this test?: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
> 
> I've gotten 5/6, so I think there is some merit to FLAC vs 320, or maybe I just got lucky.



We have no idea if its the same master.  How did they create the files?  They don't say.
This is inherently wrong:
_Can you hear the difference? Take this quiz to find out. *One hint: Turn your volume up.*_
What you should be doing is playing it at your normal listening level - and seeing if you can tell a difference - not artificially raising it until you think you can.
If you want to see if you can tell the difference - take a FLAC file, transcode it yourself, then set up a double blind.  Instructions here:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.655879/
Its pretty old now but still holds true.
For reference - aac192 is pretty transparent for me - but my entire library ripped at aac256, and I have the lossless files archived.


----------



## gregorio

wishbon3 said:


> Has anyone ever done this test?: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
> I've gotten 5/6, so I think there is some merit to FLAC vs 320, or maybe I just got lucky.



I took the test and got 3/6, so should "_I think there is some merit to FLAC vs 320_" half the time, or at least occasionally?

However, I just clicked randomly on the answers without even listening to the samples! 

We have to be careful about statistics and how we interpret them, as it's all too easy to arrive at a false conclusion, which is why science has quite stringent rules about sample sizes and number of tests/samples. If I had taken the test seriously: I could have correctly eliminated the 128kbps sample sometimes, just randomly guessed between the lossless and 320, and then achieving 4/6 or even 5/6 would not have been particularly unlikely and I still wouldn't have ascertained anything useful about my ability (or lack of it) to discern FLAC vs 320.

If one wishes to rely less on luck, avoid making false assertions and be more scientific (which is certainly advisable in a sound Science forum!), there are free software tools available. Foobar with the ABX plugin for example.

G


----------



## TheGiantHogweed

wishbon3 said:


> Has anyone ever done this test?: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
> 
> I've gotten 5/6, so I think there is some merit to FLAC vs 320, or maybe I just got lucky.



I really struggle to tell which is actually the best one here. One thing I have noticed is that the background hiss seems more apparent on the higher bitrate version of "Tom's Diner", which was what made me guess it wrong. I actually selected 128 there. I'm a bit puzzled. When I got spotify premium, the bitrate of the tracks became 320kbps when they were previously on the standard version, they were 160. The difference was certainly noticeable. When my dad ripped all our CDs, i think there were first done as 128kbps oggs, then to make things more compatible with other devices as well as a sound improvement, they were done as 320kbps Mp3s. The difference here was also obvious.

I can normally quite easily tell these things apart if the bitrate is that different, so I'm wondering if my browser compresses the audio? Even on official music videos on youtube, they sound compressed compared to the same track on spotify. Nothing ever sounds that great in the browser to me which i don't think makes this test that realistic to test your ability to detect quality differences in music.


----------



## Sam L

TheGiantHogweed said:


> I really struggle to tell which is actually the best one here. One thing I have noticed is that the background hiss seems more apparent on the higher bitrate version of "Tom's Diner", which was what made me guess it wrong. I actually selected 128 there. I'm a bit puzzled. When I got spotify premium, the bitrate of the tracks became 320kbps when they were previously on the standard version, they were 160. The difference was certainly noticeable. When my dad ripped all our CDs, i think there were first done as 128kbps oggs, then to make things more compatible with other devices as well as a sound improvement, they were done as 320kbps Mp3s. The difference here was also obvious.
> 
> I can normally quite easily tell these things apart if the bitrate is that different, so I'm wondering if my browser compresses the audio? Even on official music videos on youtube, they sound compressed compared to the same track on spotify. Nothing ever sounds that great in the browser to me which i don't think makes this test that realistic to test your ability to detect quality differences in music.


To be honest, I had difficulty telling the difference on any of these examples. Normally I can tell 128kbps mp3 from lossless immediately.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 12, 2020)

gimmeheadroom said:


> The way I look at it, storage is cheap.



I have a very large library... at least a year and half worth of music. It's MUCH more efficient to reduce file sizes when working with a large library like that, and it makes backup simpler. I encode at AAC 256 VBR. It is audibly identical to lossless. The advantage is that I can quickly load up my phone or transfer large chunks of music without transcoding or waiting for a long time. For a smaller library, it's fine to just say to heck with it and go lossless, but that unnecessary bulk adds up when you start getting a lot of music.

The degree of artifacting depends on the music. Some music is easier to encode than others. At 128, there is a high end roll off in most encoders. That is going to be audible in the level of hiss. However at 192, I find that 99% music can be encoded cleanly. Codecs matter too. AAC > MP3 LAME > Fraunhofer MP3. You should always encode with VBR. It can only help and never hurts sound quality.

The best way to find out where the point of transparency lies is to do a controlled listening test. I have one that compares three different codecs at three different bitrates along with lossless. I'm happy to administer this test to anyone who is interested in finding out for themselves. Just PM me and let me know if you prefer FLAC or ALAC.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> The degree of artifacting depends on the music. Some music is easier to encode than others. At 128, there is a high end roll off in most encoders. That is going to be audible in the level of hiss. However at 192, I find that 99% music can be encoded cleanly. Codecs matter too. AAC > MP3 LAME > Fraunhofer MP3. You should always encode with VBR. It can only help and never hurts sound quality.



This why i don't see the gains with 128k with newer codecs. Lame MP3 is already transparent at 130kbps VBR, even with rock/metal/pop(on most stuff) and ambient 99% of the time. Heck their are some samples i have where AAC/Opus artifacts at 80 ~ 128kbps but V6/V5 sound fine with dark ambient.

At V0 it's 99.8% fine to my ears for anything i throw at it. But on a android phone Musepack at 200kbps is a king since it immune to tranform/mp3 artifacts, On harder to encode samples it will boost them to a average of 350 ~ 1200kbps since it has no frame limit.


----------



## Paddy

Hey guys my setup is a Hifiman edition X V2 and a ifi XDSD Dac. I've been using spoitfy for years as we get it free here with most phone plans. I'm trying out Tidal which costs $30 a month and I was expecting to hear a significant difference based on the file size compared to Spotify. Can anyone explain to me why there is no percievable difference?


----------



## bigshot

Because both have decent data rates. At some point sound quality reaches audible transparency, and adding more data rate won’t make it sound any better.


----------



## gregorio

Paddy said:


> ... I was expecting to hear a significant difference based on the file size compared to Spotify. Can anyone explain to me why there is no percievable difference?



Simply put, file size does not correlate with audible difference. Lossy codecs (such as MP3 and AAC) achieve significantly smaller file sizes by removing frequencies (thereby reducing data) that cannot be "heard" by human hearing (mainly due to "masking"). 

Of course, we can reach a point beyond which reducing the file size further does have an audible impact because the codecs will have to start removing freqs that can be heard. With most modern lossy codecs that point is around 128kbps, EG. With some recordings an audible difference might be detectable at that bit rate. However, 320kbps (or 256 VBR) is beyond that point and therefore there is no "perceivable difference", no matter how much larger the file size/bit rate!

G


----------



## Paddy

bigshot said:


> Because both have decent data rates. At some point sound quality reaches audible transparency, and adding more data rate won’t make it sound any better.



So the data file of spotify's 320kbps seems to be the sweet spot. Small enough to not take up too much room but also large enough to make sure all the auidable quality is there. Well i'll not lie I wish lossless was better. I'm always on the lookout to improve audio quality especially if it's not going to cost me $1000 lol


----------



## Sam L

Paddy said:


> Hey guys my setup is a Hifiman edition X V2 and a ifi XDSD Dac. I've been using spoitfy for years as we get it free here with most phone plans. I'm trying out Tidal which costs $30 a month and I was expecting to hear a significant difference based on the file size compared to Spotify. Can anyone explain to me why there is no percievable difference?


I had a similar experience after trying tidal, primephonic and idagio for classical music. I'm back to Spotify family plan.


----------



## Paddy (Jun 13, 2020)

Sam L said:


> I had a similar experience after trying tidal, primephonic and idagio for classical music. I'm back to Spotify family plan.



The funny this is there are some who say there are huge differences yet i have pretty decent gear and ears that can hear pretty well and i'm just not hearing it. I'll give it more time but so far after 30 days i will be going back to Spotify


----------



## bigshot

Paddy said:


> So the data file of spotify's 320kbps seems to be the sweet spot. Small enough to not take up too much room but also large enough to make sure all the auidable quality is there. Well i'll not lie I wish lossless was better. I'm always on the lookout to improve audio quality especially if it's not going to cost me $1000 lol



Once you've achieved audible transparency, the best way to get better sound quality is to listen to better engineered music.


----------



## Sam L

Paddy said:


> The funny this is there are some who say there are huge differences yet i have pretty decent gear and ears that can hear pretty well and i'm just not hearing it. I'll give it more time but so far after 30 days i will be going back to Spotify


Yeah, I attribute people saying they hear night and day differences to younger ears. I'm older now so I figure if I can't hear the difference, then I'm good with lossy formats


----------



## bigshot

I think it's expectation bias more than age.


----------



## castleofargh

In the list of possible causes for perceived differences, high bitrate lossy is way down the list. While being biased by the higher price and talks of losslessness is demonstrably at the very top along with poorly controlled listening tests. If someone decides to obsess over the unlikely while pretending that the likely doesn't exists, that's his prerogative. But we as a community should know better than to take what that person claims seriously. IMO TBH AFAIK etc. Just my opinion.


----------



## bigshot

I think this community does. Can't speak for others!


----------



## gregorio

Paddy said:


> So the data file of spotify's 320kbps seems to be the sweet spot. Small enough to not take up too much room but also large enough to make sure all the auidable quality is there. Well i'll not lie I wish lossless was better.



Actually, 320kbps is slightly higher than the sweet spot and if we're talking about VBR it's quite a bit higher.  However, there's relatively little additional "room" to save by going lower and 320 offers the peace of mind of being a little higher than necessary.

G


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Paddy said:


> So the data file of spotify's 320kbps seems to be the sweet spot. Small enough to not take up too much room but also large enough to make sure all the auidable quality is there. Well i'll not lie I wish lossless was better. I'm always on the lookout to improve audio quality especially if it's not going to cost me $1000 lol



This is kinda support for MQA though I considered the compression dumb in the 21st century.


----------



## dazzerfong

wishbon3 said:


> Has anyone ever done this test?: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
> 
> I've gotten 5/6, so I think there is some merit to FLAC vs 320, or maybe I just got lucky.



I got 6/6, and it was easy.

How, you might ask? Simple: FLAC takes the longest to load!


----------



## bigshot

I have a test that doesn't have that issue if you are interested dazzerfong. I'd be happy to share it with you. It lets you rank ten different samples ranging through three codecs at three data rates along with lossless. If you would like to take the test, let me know.


----------



## PointyFox (Jun 14, 2020)

Could lower bitrates sound better? What if the extra information in higher bitrate files causes the headphone driver to interfere with other frequencies?
Imagine a hearing headphones reproduce a song, then again the same song but with a 25 kHz tone played the whole time. I'd imagine the reproduction without the tone would be more accurate if you ignore the extra tone.
Also is the missing information even important? Does it degrade the sound like pops on a record? I'd imagine it would depend on the recording.


----------



## dazzerfong (Jun 14, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I have a test that doesn't have that issue if you are interested dazzerfong. I'd be happy to share it with you. It lets you rank ten different samples ranging through three codecs at three data rates along with lossless. If you would like to take the test, let me know.



No need - I know that I can't tell between 320kbps and FLAC, are rarely between 320kbps and 128kbps. It only gets consistently easy at around 96 kbps for me.

Thanks for the offer though.


----------



## Paddy

So if people generally can't hear the difference between Flac and 320kbps why would anyone pay for Tidal over Spotify? Peace of mind? Also the amount of reviews you get from the big audio sites that talk about how much better Tidal is than Spotify in terms of audio quality baffles me


----------



## bigshot (Jun 15, 2020)

PointyFox said:


> Could lower bitrates sound better? What if the extra information in higher bitrate files causes the headphone driver to interfere with other frequencies?



I would think that transducers don’t get messed up by complex sound. Our brains might be slow to interpret, but a transducer just reproduces. Your theory is probably anthropomorphism. In audible frequencies are inaudible. You hear with your ears.


----------



## Yuurei

Paddy said:


> So if people generally can't hear the difference between Flac and 320kbps why would anyone pay for Tidal over Spotify? Peace of mind? Also the amount of reviews you get from the big audio sites that talk about how much better Tidal is than Spotify in terms of audio quality baffles me



Maybe because it's creating an illusion, that if you payed for something and all the important audio reviewers are saying that something sounds better that something else then it really sounds better, even if you don't hear any difference. But you don't want to be worse than others so you buy better streaming subscription, invest in hi-res files and better sounding power cables 
For me, the only reason I would choose one streaming platform over other is music catalogue and UI/UX. Same goes with every other audio equipment except headphones/speakers. So I'm sticking to Apple Music playing from my iPhone and I'm very happy with how it sounds


----------



## gregorio

PointyFox said:


> [1] Could lower bitrates sound better?
> [1a] What if the extra information in higher bitrate files causes the headphone driver to interfere with other frequencies? Imagine a hearing headphones reproduce a song, then again the same song but with a 25 kHz tone played the whole time. I'd imagine the reproduction without the tone would be more accurate if you ignore the extra tone.
> [2] Also is the missing information even important? Does it degrade the sound like pops on a record? I'd imagine it would depend on the recording.



1. That's not an easy question to answer because exactly how the lower bitrates are achieved varies between different codecs (LAME, Fraunhofer, etc.), depends on how low the bitrate, the settings applied and even the version of the codec. For example, by the time we get to 128kbps and lower, pretty much all the different codecs will discard everything above about 16kHz or lower (as far as I'm aware), but this might not be the case at 192kpbs and might vary with VBR or ABR.
1a. Yes, that is a potential issue. IMD (Inter-Modulation Distortion) is quite common and typically occurs when a driver (or other device) responds non-linearly to very high or ultrasonic frequencies by producing spurious tones (within the audible frequency range). Lower bitrate MP3's would reduce that possibility and even lossless 16/44.1 would eliminate the specific example you've given (as all freqs above 22kHz are removed).

So, in answer to your question; "Yes lower bitrates could sound better" but requires a specific set of circumstances, for example: A lossless recording that contains significant very high/ultrasonic content, a reproduction chain that produces audible IMD in response to that content and an MP3 encoding/bitrate that removes those freqs but doesn't otherwise affect perceived sound quality. This set of circumstances is certainly possible and does occur but I don't know if it's common.

2. The whole point of perceptual lossy codecs (such as MP3, AAC, etc.) is that the missing information is NOT at all important to our perception, it can't be perceived/heard. However, at very low bitrates then there's no choice but to start discarding information that can/could be perceived BUT, it all depends on what we are encoding, the complexity of the music or sound. In those circumstances where data compression artefacts are audible, they don't sound like pops on a record, they typically sound like: Pre-echoes, a metallic ringing, warbling, bird chirps and/or hiss but there are some others.



Paddy said:


> [1] So if people generally can't hear the difference between Flac and 320kbps why would anyone pay for Tidal over Spotify? Peace of mind?
> [2] Also the amount of reviews you get from the big audio sites that talk about how much better Tidal is than Spotify in terms of audio quality baffles me



1. It's not that people "generally" can't hear the difference, they can't EVER hear the difference! The only exceptions I'm aware of is a very small number of recordings and if it's been encoded to 320 a long time ago or with an old MP3 encoder (15 years or so). The only valid reasons I can think of for someone preferring one service over another are: Price, user interface options/functionality and choice of available recordings.

2. It baffles everyone, with the exception of those mislead by marketing into believing that more data always means more/better (audible) sound quality. 

G


----------



## magicalmouse

Paddy said:


> So if people generally can't hear the difference between Flac and 320kbps why would anyone pay for Tidal over Spotify? Peace of mind? Also the amount of reviews you get from the big audio sites that talk about how much better Tidal is than Spotify in terms of audio quality baffles me


Can anyone verify from testing that spotify sounds just as good as tidal/qobuz from the same masters, i have found it impossible to tell as the aural memory will not survive the time taken to switch.
d


----------



## Paddy

magicalmouse said:


> Can anyone verify from testing that spotify sounds just as good as tidal/qobuz from the same masters, i have found it impossible to tell as the aural memory will not survive the time taken to switch.
> d



I have about 20 more days of Tidal, using a Ifi Xdsd Dac that can play MQA. No difference between Spoitify and Tidal (MQA). I've A,B'd them for a few days, I had them literially playing a second apart and again no difference.


----------



## magicalmouse

Paddy said:


> I have about 20 more days of Tidal, using a Ifi Xdsd Dac that can play MQA. No difference between Spoitify and Tidal (MQA). I've A,B'd them for a few days, I had them literially playing a second apart and again no difference.


Could you ell me what equipment you used for the test?

thanks

d


----------



## Paddy

magicalmouse said:


> Could you ell me what equipment you used for the test?
> 
> thanks
> 
> d



Hifiman Edition X V2. Connected to desktop pc or note 10 via USB connection to a ifi xDsd Dac/amp


----------



## iFi audio

Paddy said:


> I have about 20 more days of Tidal, using a Ifi Xdsd Dac that can play MQA. No difference between Spoitify and Tidal (MQA). I've A,B'd them for a few days, I had them literially playing a second apart and again no difference.



If you have magenta LED with those MQA tracks played from both Spotify and Tidal, they should be indistinguishable. Or have I missed something important about MQA   ?


----------



## bigshot

I had an old SACD deck that had a placebo button. All the manual said was when you pushed the button, the sound became "purer". When you pushed the button, a lovely purple light lit up. I tried many times to discern a difference between button in and button out, and eventually decided to leave it on because the purple light was nice. I bet magenta is something like that.


----------



## Paddy

iFi audio said:


> If you have magenta LED with those MQA tracks played from both Spotify and Tidal, they should be indistinguishable. Or have I missed something important about MQA   ?



Spotify led is green and Tidal goes magenta only when i play MQA however for the rest of Tidal's lossless tracks the led is also on green.


----------



## omegaorgun

For me 320 has compression, you need the ear and equipment to hear it.

FLAC all day long.


----------



## bigshot

FireLion said:


> For me 320 has compression, you need the ear and equipment to hear it.



Would you like to test that? I have a sample FLAC file that contains samples of three different codecs at three different data rates, along with a lossless sample. All you have to do is listen to them and rank them from 1 to 10. Feel free to use the best equipment and ears!


----------



## omegaorgun (Jun 17, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Would you like to test that? I have a sample FLAC file that contains samples of three different codecs at three different data rates, along with a lossless sample. All you have to do is listen to them and rank them from 1 to 10. Feel free to use the best equipment and ears!



Your FLAC test means nothing! I trust my own ears, files and gear not anybody else's.* If you're not into high quality recordings then why bother be in this hobby at all?*
Not every recording will have as noticeable difference and there is certainly more compression in a lower bit-rate file that has been greatly reduced in size.

If you have something that is badly mastered like thrash metal from the 90's or something similar then you probably won't hear much difference, crap recording is just crap and no bitrate can fix that.

Go on Show me the test! The fact we are arguing about this on an audiophile website is worrying enough.


----------



## Blackwoof

FireLion said:


> If you have something that is badly mastered like thrash metal from the 90's or something similar then you probably won't hear much difference, crap recording is just crap and no bitrate can fix that.



Bad masters can artifact codec's too because of the noisy tones, Like black metal or noise rock. When that happens cue the bit rate being 502kbps for AAC/Ogg/MPC, 320k for mp3. While on lossless it pretty much 1300kbps the whole time depending if it not Tak or wavpack, which can avg 320 ~ 900kbps on noise songs that use bad mastering to sound crunchy as hell weirdly?.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 17, 2020)

FireLion said:


> Your FLAC test means nothing! I trust my own ears, files and gear not anybody else's.* If you're not into high quality recordings then why bother be in this hobby at all?*
> Not every recording will have as noticeable difference and there is certainly more compression in a lower bit-rate file that has been greatly reduced in size.



This is a listening test. You just use your ears. You can listen to it on your own gear with your own ears. You can listen to it as long as you want, and as many times as you want. The recordings in the test are high quality, chosen by a golden ear audiophile. They reflect music that doesn't compress easily. In fact, they are difficult to compress without degrading the quality. You can listen to it as long as you want. There are ten samples. All you have to do is listen to them and rank them from 1 (best) to 10 (worst). But I won't offer it unless you are serious about taking the test seriously and conscientiously. I'm not going to make an effort unless you make an effort to find out for yourself. I am doing you a favor. You aren't doing me one. If you are going to say things like "Your FLAC test means nothing!" I am going to assume you are full of it. I'm only interested if you are genuinely interested.

Just to let you know how it works... I send you a FLAC file containing ten samples. They are randomly distributed by codec (Fraunhofer MP3, LAME MP3, and AAC) in three different data rates (192, 256 and 320). One of the ten samples is lossless. The only rules are that you can only judge these samples with your ears, not your computer; and you have to rank all ten samples from best to worst. That should be easy, right? Are you interested in finding out for sure how easy it is to tell? It should be fun and illuminating!

To answer your question, I am interested in the best sound my ears can hear. I don't care at all about sound I can't.


----------



## bigshot

Blackwoof said:


> Bad masters can artifact codec's too because of the noisy tones,



Bad mastering sounds bad for two reasons... Number one, because the music wasn't recorded or mixed well in the first place. Secondly, because some encoders will go into clipping if a recording is hot mastered with normalization up to 100%. If you knock the level down a hair before encoding, that solves the problem. Nothing fixes badly recorded or mixed music.


----------



## Paddy

FireLion said:


> For me 320 has compression, you need the ear and equipment to hear it.
> 
> FLAC all day long.



I have both, there is no difference. The vast majority of people in the audio industry aswell as numerous studies done have confirmed that almost everyone can't tell the difference. I notice the audiophile industry is full of marketing gimmicks that do nothing to enhance the sound while costing even upwards of thousands of dollars.


----------



## TheGiantHogweed

Paddy said:


> I have both, there is no difference. The vast majority of people in the audio industry aswell as numerous studies done have confirmed that almost everyone can't tell the difference. I notice the audiophile industry is full of marketing gimmicks that do nothing to enhance the sound while costing even upwards of thousands of dollars.


I suppose it does depend on what flac it is being compared to. 16bit CD quality flac compared to 320kbps mp3 just isn't woth having the vast majority of the time for most people IMO. I have the flac from some CD rips that I thought were exceptionally well recorded in the studio, but if I want to save space in the future, I am starting to doubt i will notice the difference unless i do some very extreme a and b testing, but then what is the enjoyment in that?

I admittedly don't have high end gear, but both my open backed headphones (Audio Technica ATH-AD700s and Beyerdynamic DT880 Premium) pick up all the faults of the recordings really well. They are so open and transparent that it really can sound like you are in the studio, they just lack that weight to the low end. But in terms of details, I believe you can get better, but the steps in sound improvement will just get smaller and smaller despite paying much more.

I have always been very sensitive to sound and struggle to listen to music if it has been badly recorded (if it is modern anyway). I can still hear frequencies as high as 18khz and get driven mad whenever i am near a CRT TV or monitor. Even many hifi amplifiers that have the transformer built into them seem to emit noise that I hear and others don't.

Given just how sensitive I am to audio and all other sounds, In recent years, I have started to struggle to believe people that can instantly tell apart these two formats. If it is 24bit flac vs mps and it is a great recording, then yea it could be noticeable with the right equipment. But the difference between CD quality flac and 320kbps mp3 is just so tiny that you would have to do careful testing to tell the difference which kind of removes your ability to enjoy music!


----------



## PointyFox

FireLion said:


> Your FLAC test means nothing! I trust my own ears, files and gear not anybody else's.* If you're not into high quality recordings then why bother be in this hobby at all?*
> Not every recording will have as noticeable difference and there is certainly more compression in a lower bit-rate file that has been greatly reduced in size.
> 
> If you have something that is badly mastered like thrash metal from the 90's or something similar then you probably won't hear much difference, crap recording is just crap and no bitrate can fix that.
> ...



Haha classic audiophile meme: " Your ______ test means nothing! I trust my own ears, files and gear not anybody else's.* If you're not into high quality recordings then why bother be in this hobby at all?"*


----------



## iFi audio

bigshot said:


> I had an old SACD deck that had a placebo button. All the manual said was when you pushed the button, the sound became "purer". When you pushed the button, a lovely purple light lit up. I tried many times to discern a difference between button in and button out, and eventually decided to leave it on because the purple light was nice. I bet magenta is something like that.



That tickled me   



Paddy said:


> Spotify led is green and Tidal goes magenta only when i play MQA however for the rest of Tidal's lossless tracks the led is also on green.



Green LED indicates PCM 44/48/88/96kHz streams, so that's what xDSD gets from a device before it.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 18, 2020)

TheGiantHogweed said:


> I am starting to doubt i will notice the difference unless i do some very extreme a and b testing, but then what is the enjoyment in that?



I have a very large music library... something like a year and a half of music at last count. The difference in file size makes a difference for me. Lossless would mean spreading my library over multiple drives instead of it all being on one drive. Before I started building my library, I wanted to find the threshold where lossy was identical in all cases. I spent a couple of weeks on the project, encoding in different ways, trying all kinds of music, and researching the most difficult kinds of sounds to encode. I determined that 99% of my files sounded perfect at AAC 192 VBR. But I wanted perfect sound in just one file format. So I encoded everything at AAC 256 VBR.

I have given a bunch of people my test, and no one has been able to discern any better than I did. If you would like to take the test and find out where your threshold is, I would be happy to share it with you. There's a certain relief in not having to guess any more because you know. FireLion appears to have retreated. He probably suspects he might be wrong, but he's afraid to take the test because he's so invested in being right. There's no convincing people like that, and they will never prove their point conclusively. They'll slip around and avoid being pinned down to an objective proof forever.


----------



## PointyFox (Jun 18, 2020)

I'm happy with anything over like 160 kbps and do most of my listening on YouTube. For me the difference is negligible to non-existent. I remember an article saying around 160-180 kbps is the threshold of audibility of differences for MP3s.


----------



## iFi audio

PointyFox said:


> I'm happy with anything over like 160 kbps and do most of my listening on YouTube. For me the difference is negligible to non-existent. I remember an article saying around 160-180 kbps is the threshold of audibility of differences for MP3s.



Whatever makes us feel comfortable. Personally I have nothing against how YT content sounds if I'm not in critical audition mode. Doesn't bother me at all, but how flat some music is recorded does.


----------



## TheGiantHogweed

iFi audio said:


> That tickled me
> 
> 
> 
> Green LED indicates PCM 44/48/88/96kHz streams, so that's what xDSD gets from a device before it.



My DAC has lights for 44 to 192. It never seems to go above 44 but I don't care as it sounds fine to me. It does however go to 48 when my computer hasn't played any audio for about a minute. Then when my PC is off, that is 88. So clearly my computer is capable of sounding better turned off than on! 




I put red PVC tape over the lights to make them easy on the eyes. When it is dark, the white LEDs illuminate my room! I only use this as my DAC and use the line out on the back to go to another headphone amp. This itself isn't quite loud enough to drive 600ohm headphones well.


----------



## iFi audio

TheGiantHogweed said:


> So clearly my computer is capable of sounding better turned off than on!



Yeah, clearly 



TheGiantHogweed said:


> I put red PVC tape over the lights to make them easy on the eyes.



For a second I thought that your machine had these red stripes as a standard. Good job though


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Blackwoof said:


> Bad masters can artifact codec's too because of the noisy tones, Like black metal or noise rock. When that happens cue the bit rate being 502kbps for AAC/Ogg/MPC, 320k for mp3. While on lossless it pretty much 1300kbps the whole time depending if it not Tak or wavpack, which can avg 320 ~ 900kbps on noise songs that use bad mastering to sound crunchy as hell weirdly?.


Theoretically random noise is impossible to compress and so the ultimate destroyer of all lossy codecs   Now, name a genre that sounds like random noise to you, I'm sure we can think of one or two


----------



## Blackwoof

Joe Bloggs said:


> Theoretically random noise is impossible to compress and so the ultimate destroyer of all lossy codecs   Now, name a genre that sounds like random noise to you, I'm sure we can think of one or two



Well musepack a odd one out it's transparent on 99% on noisy samples at 160 ~ 225kbps while the pure ones cause it avg 500 ~ 1100kbps as the 1%. Merzbow is my main example.


----------



## bigshot

TheGiantHogweed said:


> So clearly my computer is capable of sounding better turned off than on!



Blacker blacks!!


----------



## Blackwoof

Really love taphephobia's - Ghostwood. I'm listening to it now, it really weird how Lame mp3 V5 does better job than AAC at 128kbps?.


----------



## omegaorgun

bigshot said:


> I have a very large music library... something like a year and a half of music at last count. The difference in file size makes a difference for me. Lossless would mean spreading my library over multiple drives instead of it all being on one drive. Before I started building my library, I wanted to find the threshold where lossy was identical in all cases. I spent a couple of weeks on the project, encoding in different ways, trying all kinds of music, and researching the most difficult kinds of sounds to encode. I determined that 99% of my files sounded perfect at AAC 192 VBR. But I wanted perfect sound in just one file format. So I encoded everything at AAC 256 VBR.
> 
> I have given a bunch of people my test, and no one has been able to discern any better than I did. If you would like to take the test and find out where your threshold is, I would be happy to share it with you. There's a certain relief in not having to guess any more because you know. FireLion appears to have retreated. He probably suspects he might be wrong, but he's afraid to take the test because he's so invested in being right. There's no convincing people like that, and they will never prove their point conclusively. They'll slip around and avoid being pinned down to an objective proof forever.



Retreated no, laughing yes! I have to ask why are we arguing about high quality files vs lower quality ones? It's obvious if part of the track is chopped up there will be some degradation. I also am not talking baout CD's just something like Spotify MP3 vs Deezer FLAC.

What gear are you using as a matter of interest, can you give specifics and show me that test you have cooked up.


----------



## bigshot

Audibly transparent files aren’t high quality or low quality. To human ears, they’re equal. What equipment are you interested in? I have lots of stuff and listing models would be kind of boring. I’ll do it if you want, but I’ll need to be at my computer.


----------



## omegaorgun

bigshot said:


> Audibly transparent files aren’t high quality or low quality. To human ears, they’re equal. What equipment are you interested in? I have lots of stuff and listing models would be kind of boring. I’ll do it if you want, but I’ll need to be at my computer.



Do you have a inexperienced person wear pink m50x like this guy?


----------



## omegaorgun (Jun 18, 2020)

Much of the stuff is not going to be noticeable, it really depends on the track and if  the recording was actually good to begin with.


----------



## bigshot

FireLion said:


> Do you have a inexperienced person wear pink m50x like this guy?



I don't think you are reading anything I say. Your responses don't relate to what I am saying. Are we having a conversation or not? Take a couple of steps back and read my previous comments. These are the things you haven't replied to.

1) Would you like to take a listening test of high data rate lossy vs lossless? You can listen to the files any way you want. It is ten samples in a single FLAC file. You just listen to them on your own equipment, in your own way, at your own pace and rank them from 1 to 10.

2) Do you want me to talk about my equipment? I don't understand why that's relevant, but I'll do it if there is a reason.

I'd really prefer to talk to you, not watch random youtube videos, if that's OK.


----------



## omegaorgun (Jun 19, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I don't think you are reading anything I say. Your responses don't relate to what I am saying. Are we having a conversation or not? Take a couple of steps back and read my previous comments. These are the things you haven't replied to.
> 
> 1) Would you like to take a listening test of high data rate lossy vs lossless? You can listen to the files any way you want. It is ten samples in a single FLAC file. You just listen to them on your own equipment, in your own way, at your own pace and rank them from 1 to 10.
> 
> ...



Yes I'll gladly do a test your pick.

I mention equipment as higher end or good gear will have more detail or allow you to actually reap the benefits of using a lossless track.


----------



## omegaorgun (Jun 19, 2020)

I also mentioned the difference might not be apparent on badly recorded music.

The actual details might also be the same but there might be a sort of cut off on the MP3 that makes it sound more boxed in.

You might also hear sounds more clearly due to less compression.

What I am saying is it might not be always the sounds themselves but how they are presented.

All I can tell you is I prefer listening to my FLAC's.

The real debate is FLAC vs MQA.


----------



## Chris Kaoss

bigshot said:


> I don't think you are reading anything I say. Your responses don't relate to what I am saying. Are we having a conversation or not? Take a couple of steps back and read my previous comments. These are the things you haven't replied to.
> 
> 1) Would you like to take a listening test of high data rate lossy vs lossless? You can listen to the files any way you want. It is ten samples in a single FLAC file. You just listen to them on your own equipment, in your own way, at your own pace and rank them from 1 to 10.
> 
> ...


I'm very interested in.
May you share your test samples with me? 

My chain will be 
Surface Pro 7 with PotPlayer (wasapi)
AGD R28 or BTR5 over Usb
Quad Era-1 or Monitor 5 se and balanced out.

I'm open to all and new knowledge.   

Thanks in advance.

Have a great day and keep listening to good music.

Chris


----------



## Blackwoof

FireLion said:


> I also mentioned the difference might not be apparent on badly recorded music.
> 
> The actual details might also be the same but there might be a sort of cut off on the MP3 that makes it sound more boxed in.
> 
> ...



I used ER3SE, SRH1540, etc. Some music sounds better on 128k MP3 vs 96k AAC/Ogg, On the The human voice's - is this a palace or prison?. Ogg at 96k has stereo issues so it's a 3.5 to me, QAAC at 96k is 4.5 but synth's sound odd, Lame V5 is a 5 no issues at 120kbps and not much gains at 170kbps to 320kbps.

So that what i use since my AW45 only has 12.5GB space.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 19, 2020)

FireLion said:


> I mention equipment as higher end or good gear will have more detail or allow you to actually reap the benefits of using a lossless track.



OK. Equipment first because that is all I have time for right now. I'll come back later to fill you in on the rules of the test, and you can tell me if you agree to them.

My main system is in my theater/listening room. It is a 5.1 surround setup with custom built late 1960s 6 way studio monitors with JBL drivers and custom crossover (2235H 15 inch woofers with cloth surrounds / 2404 bullet super tweeters) and a set of JBL towers. The center speaker is a high end Klipsch (Reference Series). The subwoofer is a 12 inch Sunfire True Sub. The rears are high end radial design KEFs. The amp is a fairly beefy Yamaha AVR with 5 band parametric EQ on each channel. My source is an Oppo BD-103D. It feeds both the sound system and my Epson HD projection system with a ten foot screen. My other source is a Mac Mini which acts as a media server, with 100 TB of attached storage on Drobo drives. My home is covered by Airports that stream from the server all over the house. I have several smaller stereos in the living room, bedrooms and work area. I have three sets of Oppo PM-1s: One for the main system, one for my work computer, and one for my Oculus Quest VR headset. In my bedroom, I have an Oppo HA-1, but I don't use it much because I haven't found that it makes any difference with the PM-1s. I have nine iPods that I use occasionally, all loaded with different genres of music. I use Amazon Prime Unlimited to play background music around the house on various Echo Pluses, and I have a beater battery operated rig for BBQs with Oontz Angle 3 Ultra speakers and my iPhone 6s. I've got several Apple computers that I use to stream both the server and Amazon music.

Whew! I don't often do that because I don't believe that specific brands and models are as important as how you put them together to suit the purpose. But there you go.



Chris Kaoss said:


> I'm very interested in. May you share your test samples with me?



I'll get back to you in a bit, Chris. Happy to set up a test for you. I just finished a test with someone here, and it's a friend's birthday today, so I have to run right now. Chat you on PM soon.


----------



## Chris Kaoss

bigshot said:


> I'll get back to you in a bit, Chris. Happy to set up a test for you. I just finished a test with someone here, and it's a friend's birthday today, so I have to run right now. Chat you on PM soon.


Enjoy the party.
I'm not in a hurry.


----------



## gregorio

FireLion said:


> [1] I have to ask why are we arguing about high quality files vs lower quality ones? It's obvious if part of the track is chopped up there will be some degradation. I also am not talking baout CD's just something like Spotify MP3 vs Deezer FLAC.
> [2] What gear are you using as a matter of interest, can you give specifics and show me that test you have cooked up.
> [3] Do you have a inexperienced person wear pink m50x like this guy?
> [4] Much of the stuff is not going to be noticeable, it really depends on the track and if the recording was actually good to begin with.


1. Yes, there will be "some degradation", in fact there will be quite a lot but that's not the issue. The issue is whether that degradation is audible.

2. The gear doesn't make any difference. (see #1 below).

3. Sure, and hugely experienced professions and pretty much anyone else.

4. All of the stuff is going to be very noticeable. For example, one has a filename ending in ".mp3" and the other ".flac", the MP3 will have a noticeably smaller file size. The MP3 will also have a noticeable difference in frequency content but ONLY visually noticable (in say a spectral analysis), NOT aurally noticeable! And, it does NOT depend on if the recording was good to begin with. The very best recordings or the very worst ones, a 320 MP3 is indistinguishable.



FireLion said:


> [1] I mention equipment as higher end or good gear will have more detail or allow you to actually reap the benefits of using a lossless track.
> [2] All I can tell you is I prefer listening to my FLAC's.
> [3] The real debate is FLAC vs MQA.



1. Good gear does obviously reproduce more detail but it makes no difference because the "detail" missing in a 320 MP3 is inaudible. Neither a cheap set of ear-pods or a multi-million dollar studio will "_reap the benefits of using a lossless track_" because the "benefits" are inaudible!

2. No problem, you're of course entitled to your own preferences. Just be careful about stating or implying those preferences are due to any audible differences, because that would contradict a considerable amount of rigorous scientific evidence and would require exceptional evidence on your part.

3. No, that's not a "_real debate_" either!

G


----------



## PointyFox

> Good gear does obviously reproduce more detail


----------



## bigshot

If the gear that doesn't is below the threshold of audible transparency. It's more likely that a different set of headphones will reveal more detail than an amp or DAC or player.


----------



## gregorio

PointyFox said:


> "_Good gear does obviously reproduce more detail_"



I used "Good gear" in reference to all the "gear" that comprises a reproduction system. It doesn't really apply to DACs specifically, because within the limits of human hearing pretty much all DACs are equally good. The same is broadly true of amps, providing the amp has the appropriate power/impedance for what it's driving. It does apply specifically to transducers though and the environment in which the gear (system) is being used. For example, in a quiet environment HD 800s would "obviously reproduce" more audible detail than cheap earbuds used on a bus.

G


----------



## mobbaddict

I have yet to hear compression artefacts with my Stax setup using Spotify high quality  I'd also be interested by taking your test @bigshot


----------



## bigshot

I will set up a few tests. Sorry to be so slow, but it's been a busy week. I promise I will get back to you.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jun 25, 2020)

mobbaddict said:


> I have yet to hear compression artefacts with my Stax setup using Spotify high quality  I'd also be interested by taking your test @bigshot



I listen to industrial & power electronics, Prurient and few others have stuff vorbis needs 320kbps or the 480kbps modes. Which sounds like a loud puff of wind on 128 ~ 256k, AAC/Opus are fine at 160k though.

On Lame V2 they sound like the Eig.wav sample going around since going 320k on them does nothing.


----------



## RRod

gregorio said:


> For example, in a quiet environment HD 800s would "obviously reproduce" more audible detail than cheap earbuds used on a bus.



The HD800 are a great example as to why all of this testing of this codec vs that codec vs that bitrate is somewhat for naught on the intranets. If the particular artifact that a person is hearing was at, say, 6kHz, then a person listening to that artifact on the HD800 can have a 6dB or even greater effective EQ that helps to hear that artifact, just because headphone responses are all over the place between makes/models. With no reference for reproduction, there is no control, and hence no experiment.


----------



## Blackwoof

RRod said:


> The HD800 are a great example as to why all of this testing of this codec vs that codec vs that bitrate is somewhat for naught on the intranets. If the particular artifact that a person is hearing was at, say, 6kHz, then a person listening to that artifact on the HD800 can have a 6dB or even greater effective EQ that helps to hear that artifact, just because headphone responses are all over the place between makes/models. With no reference for reproduction, there is no control, and hence no experiment.



Weird how it always MP3 at 320kbps. Never the newer/better codecs at  256kbps & lower, On harder content all of them can target 350 ~ 1300kbps.


----------



## Blackwoof

Double post, It normal that i can't tell Lame MP3 at 175kbps VBR 98.9% of the time?. To my ears it handles Ambient music fine but QAAC at 160k struggles, Vorbis at 160k can't handle some Merzbow/noise stuff yet lame transparent on them. Pre echo dosen't count since i don't encode them with MP3 if i notice it.


----------



## bigshot

MP3 and AAC are able to achieve audible transparency. Other lossy codecs too. You just have to find that point.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> MP3 and AAC are able to achieve audible transparency. Other lossy codecs too. You just have to find that point.



Yeah been testing more, Vorbis with AoTuv seems to better suit. Ambient/softer music = 128k, Metal & heavier stuff = 176kb/s, Almost killer sample = 350kb/s. Noticed AAC(Apple, FHG) any killer sample still sounds bad even if set too 384kbps unlike Vorbis/Opus. Opus is bit tighter since it locks to 510kb/s frames while vorbis can do 1mbit on noisy electronic stuff.


----------



## bigshot

It doesn't have anything to do with the type of music. It has to do with the type of sound. The hardest sort of sound to encode is applause of a large audience. Massed violins too. Any dense texture is difficult. Electronic music is the easiest to encode because there is no "correct" sound for it. It's all theoretical. In general, AAC and OGG Vorbis are the best at 256 or above. But LAME is almost as good, and plain vanilla MP3 is fine at 320. I have a listening test for three codecs at three data rates along with lossless. If you would like to take the test and find out where your personal threshold of transparency is, let me know and I will share it with you.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with the type of music. It has to do with the type of sound. The hardest sort of sound to encode is applause of a large audience. Massed violins too. Any dense texture is difficult. Electronic music is the easiest to encode because there is no "correct" sound for it. It's all theoretical. In general, AAC and OGG Vorbis are the best at 256 or above. But LAME is almost as good, and plain vanilla MP3 is fine at 320. I have a listening test for three codecs at three data rates along with lossless. If you would like to take the test and find out where your personal threshold of transparency is, let me know and I will share it with you.



Not at hydrogenaudio, They used 4 electonic samples to stress test 128kbps lossy. Electronic shows how just bad MP3 is at handling pre echo even at 320kbps, AAC/Vorbis the bit rate shoots up to 290 ~ 640kb/s. I've found 4 tracks that have pre echo artifacts even at V0/320 but 128 ~ 192kbps AAC/Vorbis sound fine.

Cymbals/guitar distortion common in black & death metal can stress MP3 too, where they only sound fine if i used 224kbps ~ 320kbps.


----------



## bigshot

Not with human ears. We can detect natural sounds much more than we can theoretical ones.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

bigshot said:


> Not with human ears. We can detect natural sounds much more than we can theoretical ones.


I think he was referring to human ABX trials at hydrogenaudio...?


----------



## Blackwoof

Joe Bloggs said:


> I think he was referring to human ABX trials at hydrogenaudio...?



Yes the public ones used to tune the lossy codecs. Seems to never read up how HA users say if your a electronic fan, Your better off with Musepack, AAC, Vorbis(Aotuv). Since they have samples that show MP3 can fail at 192 ~ 320kbps on that music, While the 3 modern ones are fine at 128 ~ 175kbps. 

The HA regular /nmt(?) had 3 threads documenting how bad mp3 is with pre echo on industrial & industrial metal. With 1 thread about how kraftwerk's early albums of techno music, Failed on all track's with 320kbps.


----------



## bigshot

You would probably have to direct compare to an uncompressed sample of the electronic music to detect it. I can't imagine it would bother you if you were just listening to electronic music with the slight compression errors. There would be no way to know what was artifact and what was part of the voice of the synth. With natural sounds, like applause and massed strings, we are hard wired to detect even slight deviations because it's a sound we have heard a million times before. If there is a digital glorp or glop mixed in with the natural sound, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I understand that fidelity is fidelity in theory, but some lack of fidelity matters a lot more than others. And some lack of fidelity doesn't really matter at all.


----------



## VNandor

bigshot said:


> I can't imagine it would bother you if you were just listening to electronic music with the slight compression errors.


That is probably because you personally are more invested into acoustic music than electronic music.



bigshot said:


> There would be no way to know what was artifact and what was part of the voice of the synth.


This isn't true. If anything, it would be extremely hard to make a synth convincingly emulate compression artifacts and noone would ever try to do it anyways. If someone notices compression like artifacts there is a 100% chance it comes from compression and frankly, I don't understand why anyone would think it otherwise.



bigshot said:


> With natural sounds, like applause and massed strings, we are hard wired to detect even slight deviations because it's a sound we have heard a million times before.


How many hours have you spent on listening to ...clapping? Maybe people will generally have an easier noticing compression with sounds they have heard a lot of times. To you this might be string instruments, to some other people, not so much. Something that actually everyone is exposed to from a young age and for a long time is speech. I haven't tried it but I really doubt anyone would have an easier time picking up on compression while listening to speeches than to listening to music. Point is, clearly exposure isn't what really determines if something can be compressed well or not.



bigshot said:


> I understand that fidelity is fidelity in theory, but some lack of fidelity matters a lot more than others. And some lack of fidelity doesn't really matter at all.



I know you would be okay with an encoder that's only compressing the parts transparently that you care about but ideally, the compression should fit everyone's expectations, not just yours.


----------



## Blackwoof

VNandor said:


> That is probably because you personally are more invested into acoustic music than electronic music.
> 
> 
> This isn't true. If anything, it would be extremely hard to make a synth convincingly emulate compression artifacts and noone would ever try to do it anyways. If someone notices compression like artifacts there is a 100% chance it comes from compression and frankly, I don't understand why anyone would think it otherwise.
> ...



Yep, It took the Lame devs all their might to make MP3 even at 320kbps sound okay with electronic. AAC/Ogg fare better within 160 ~ 256kbps, But to my ears Musepack at 170kbps pretty much never phased by either acoustic or electronic music. I can tell eig.wav even at V0,  AAC/Ogg have their own eig versions that can make them fail at 320kbps so their not fully immune to pre-echo artefacts either.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 7, 2020)

VNandor said:


> I know you would be okay with an encoder that's only compressing the parts transparently that you care about but ideally, the compression should fit everyone's expectations, not just yours.



You've assumed a whole bunch of things to come to your foregone conclusion, and I'm afraid I don't have the patience to go into line by line explanations. If you want to write in whole paragraphs, I'll be happy to explain. Otherwise, the replies will just tear the context up into littler and littler bits. Been there, done that.

I stand by my points. There are certain sounds that are much more difficult to compress without artifacting than others- applause is one of the most difficult to encode, as are some kinds of massed strings. There used to be a web page with examples of difficult sounds to encode, but I haven't been able to find it recently. Probably offline. It's easier for us to recognize low level artifacting in natural sounds than it is in synthetic sounds because we are familiar with what natural sounds from real life should sound like. Combine a natural sound with a sound that is difficult to encode, and that will be the kind of artifact that is most difficult to achieve transparency with. However, modern encoders like AAC and MP3 LAME are capable of achieving complete transparency. In fact, 320 is generally overkill.

I've been listening to electronic music since early 1969.


----------



## Blackwoof (Sep 7, 2020)

Okay so you have never even read anything at HA forums like at all?. Since for a long time THEY said electronic had more issues than any genre with Lame MP3, I can walk away with dead can dance/arcana with 160kbps with Lame MP3, 128kbps AAC/Ogg. But with few Ambient artists & then few electro/noise artists with sounds almost close to eig.wav but much more noisy & crunchy?, Nope either 224kbps or go lossless. But with Musepack/Opus?, Fine for any genre at 160kbps but 1 track with Opus needed 384kbps to sound fine.

The site don't even talk about MP3 anymore there. Since AAC(depends on encoder)/Opus/MPC are kings at 160kbps.


----------



## bigshot

Do you have an example track I could experiment with?


----------



## VNandor

The thread I originally came across when I was searching for "mp3 killer samples" is this one. The downloads are at the bottom of the first post. I spent a lot of time testing just these 3 samples around 2014-2015. I quickly tested them again. I think the most revealing sample is from everything is green and the latest lame encoder still isn't doing a great job there. I remember I had an easy time with the track from quake as well, this time I actually had to pay attention to it to notice any difference. I listened again to the  autechre track just to be sure but I still couldn't discern the lossless from the 320k mp3.
 If you want to find more examples on hydrogenaudio there's plenty I just haven't listened to all of them. Just search for "hydrogenaudio killer sample" or "hydrogenaudio eig" because whenever someone brings that track up people seem to always link some others as well in the responses.


----------



## VNandor (Sep 7, 2020)

The reason I'm not writing whole paragraphs is to make sure it's clear which part of the comment I'm reflecting on because sometimes that wouldn't be clear. I think it makes the discussion to move forward easier. Instead of writing one big paragraph that might be only tangetially related to what you are saying, you could clearly see which parts I'm picking on. With that said here you go, there is a paragraph that that doesn't actually address anything that you say:

What I dislike about your way of thinking is that you seem to insist that fidelity matters less with electronic music and as such it could be compressed beyond the point of transparency because this is just a case where "lack of fidelity doesn't matter". This wouldn't bother me nearly as much if you didn't try to push it as some scientific fact about compression or at the very least "commonsense" based on some assumptions that are fairly vague but somehow still not holding true in a lot of cases. It's definitely not a fact and it's not commonsense either. It is your personal opinion that some people agree with and some don't.
If I misread your intentions I apologize because it's clear that I've struck a nerve with you. If I read you correctly then ding-dong your opinion is wrong. See further details in my reply.



bigshot said:


> You've assumed a whole bunch of things to come to your foregone conclusion, and I'm afraid I don't have the patience to go into line by line explanations. If you want to write in whole paragraphs, I'll be happy to explain. Otherwise, the replies will just tear the context up into littler and littler bits. Been there, done that.


The only thing I assumed is that you are more invested in acoustic music than electronic music (well at least if you think my last paragraph is a conclusion and not an assumption). I think my first assumption is on point. How much electronic music do you listen to in a week and how much do you listen to acoustic music? Who are your top five favourite composers of all time? What music releases have you been excited about lately? Would you rather go to a festival or to a concert? Do you spend more money (and time and effort) on getting great acoustic music or on getting great electronic music? I think the anwers would be telling, not like there is anything wrong with preferring acoustic music. Just don't  try and pretend you care about electronic music the same way you care about acoustic music. If you would somehow  mention let's say kraftwerk on the same page as the viennese classicists, your stance of when fidelity matters would be even more confusing.




bigshot said:


> There are certain sounds that are much more difficult to compress without artifacting than others- applause is one of the most difficult to encode, as are some kinds of massed strings.


Can you provide any examples with these kind of sounds where the differences are at least reliably detectable to you with a high bitrate format? To me, this doesn't really fall into the "well known fact" category although at least I have some ideas why applause could be hard to encode, no idea about the strings though.



bigshot said:


> It's easier for us to recognize low level artifacting in natural sounds than it is in synthetic sounds because we are familiar with what natural sounds from real life should sound like.


There are plenty of people who are more familiar with how synthesized music should sound because that is what they care about. There are a lot of sounds I hear every day but I still don't have a strong intution of how they actually sound because I'm not paying special attention to it.



bigshot said:


> Combine a natural sound with a sound that is difficult to encode, and that will be the kind of artifact that is most difficult to achieve transparency with.


I would agree with this except I don't think the "naturality" of sound in itself has a direct effect on encoding. Gunshots or explosions are "natural" sounds yet most people have never experienced either of these in real life so they won't really build up a meaningful expectation of how it should sound. I think we can agree that what could truly matter is how familiar you are with a certain sound? But even then, foley artists are known to substitute everyday sounds that are hard to make and record in a studio with everyday sounds that are easy to make in a studio. Clearly, this technique is working for everyone so people aren't that much hard wired to detect small differences in sounds they hear every day either.

Essentially I think it would be more correct to assume that people would typically notice compression artifacts with sounds that they not only heard uncompressed a lot of times over and over again but also paid very specific attention to its details every time they hear it. I think critical listening  would ingrain order of magnitudes more of how something should sound than just "listening" to something as background noise(which is how we listen to most natural sounds anyways, with some notable exceptions, like music).



bigshot said:


> However, modern encoders like AAC and MP3 LAME are capable of achieving complete transparency. In fact, 320 is generally overkill.


They are. Except with a tiny fraction of electronic music and apparently sometimes with strings and applause as well but I personally only experienced exceptions like that with electronic music and only because I specifically searched for it.



bigshot said:


> I've been listening to electronic music since early 1969.


I already tried to explain why this is a such a meaningless addition to the comment.


----------



## Blackwoof

VNandor said:


> I would agree with this except I don't think the "naturality" of sound in itself has a direct effect on encoding. Gunshots or explosions are "natural" sounds yet most people have never experienced either of these in real life so they won't really build up a meaningful expectation of how it should sound. I think we can agree that what could truly matter is how familiar you are with a certain sound? But even then, foley artists are known to substitute everyday sounds that are hard to make and record in a studio with everyday sounds that are easy to make in a studio. Clearly, this technique is working for everyone so people aren't that much hard wired to detect small differences in sounds they hear every day either.



Pretty much why AAC added Perceptual Noise Substitution, They can replace noise with some random noise to aid compression since to us it sounds the same to us. I'm sure Musepack/Opus has that too, Same with vorbis but only semi used with issues.


----------



## VNandor

Blackwoof said:


> Pretty much why AAC added Perceptual Noise Substitution, They can replace noise with some random noise to aid compression since to us it sounds the same to us. I'm sure Musepack/Opus has that too, Same with vorbis but only semi used with issues.


I know that lossy encoders use lossless algorithms as well to get the target bitrate. I also know lossless algorithms are completely ineffective with true noise and still can't do much compression with signals that are a lot like noise. I guess this means the lossy part of the encoder would have to be pushed harder to get the desired bitrate. It sounds like a good idea to try and replace these parts by just generating it. My guess is that our brain can sometimes still pick up certain patterns in noise like signals. If these are getting replaced by noise generated by the encoder, it will still sound noise-like but it's going to lack that certain quality we could originally pick out.

If I understand the point of PNS correctly, the reason this saves data is because the data needed to generate the correct signal will take up less space than the data that would be used to encode the actual signal.


----------



## Blackwoof

VNandor said:


> I know that lossy encoders use lossless algorithms as well to get the target bitrate. I also know lossless algorithms are completely ineffective with true noise and still can't do much compression with signals that are a lot like noise. I guess this means the lossy part of the encoder would have to be pushed harder to get the desired bitrate. It sounds like a good idea to try and replace these parts by just generating it. My guess is that our brain can sometimes still pick up certain patterns in noise like signals. If these are getting replaced by noise generated by the encoder, it will still sound noise-like but it's going to lack that certain quality we could originally pick out.
> 
> If I understand the point of PNS correctly, the reason this saves data is because the data needed to generate the correct signal will take up less space than the data that would be used to encode the actual signal.



That because lossless codecs only compress audio, without removing any data. A Merzbow album being 1380kbps?, Yeah the codec realizes it too chaotic to compress so it just spits out a Wav file that 5% smaller, A Lustmord song being 380kbps is because the whole track just nearly empty. With lossy codecs it way more complex since they have more options to target say 160 ~ 320kbps with more complex audio, Musepack the only one that will pump out 1024kbps files if helps sound even if the target was 160kbps.


----------



## bigshot

VNandor said:


> The thread I originally came across when I was searching for "mp3 killer samples" is this one.



I'm afraid I can't use .wv files.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 8, 2020)

VNandor said:


> What I dislike about your way of thinking is that you seem to insist that fidelity matters less with electronic music and as such it could be compressed beyond the point of transparency because this is just a case where "lack of fidelity doesn't matter". This wouldn't bother me nearly as much if you didn't try to push it as some scientific fact about compression or at the very least "commonsense" based on some assumptions that are fairly vague but somehow still not holding true in a lot of cases. It's definitely not a fact and it's not commonsense either. It is your personal opinion that some people agree with and some don't.
> If I misread your intentions I apologize because it's clear that I've struck a nerve with you. If I read you correctly then ding-dong your opinion is wrong. See further details in my reply.
> 
> The only thing I assumed is that you are more invested in acoustic music than electronic music (well at least if you think my last paragraph is a conclusion and not an assumption). I think my first assumption is on point. How much electronic music do you listen to in a week and how much do you listen to acoustic music? Who are your top five favourite composers of all time? What music releases have you been excited about lately? Would you rather go to a festival or to a concert? Do you spend more money (and time and effort) on getting great acoustic music or on getting great electronic music? I think the anwers would be telling, not like there is anything wrong with preferring acoustic music. Just don't  try and pretend you care about electronic music the same way you care about acoustic music. If you would somehow  mention let's say kraftwerk on the same page as the viennese classicists, your stance of when fidelity matters would be even more confusing.



OK. I get it. First of all, I'm not saying "lack of fidelity doesn't matter". I'm saying that there is no reference point for what a synthesized voice should sound like. We all know what a violin sounds like or an acoustic guitar or a drum kit. I can easily recognize slight artifacting in that. But a synth can sound like anything. It's hard for me to judge distortion listening to an electric guitar because I can't separate the intended distortion from distortion added by the reproduction method. So if I hear a very low level burbling or other digital sound along with a synth, it's hard for me to determine if it's intended to be part of the voice or not. So it isn't about fidelity- it's about our ability to recognize very tiny artifacts. In fact, one aspect of fidelity is probably more important in synthetic instruments- frequency response, since electronic instruments can put out a much wider range of frequencies than an acoustic instrument can. The only acoustic instrument that comes close is a big pipe organ, and that can be very hard to record well.

Next, I am not the only putting myself up as a scientist. You have mistaken me for someone else. My purpose here is to learn to apply scientific principles to achieve practical ends. I don't care at all about frequencies I can't hear, or audibility of sound in listening conditions that I will never experience in my living room listening to my stereo. If you are interested in that, you'll find better people to talk with about that than me. I just want to use science to make the commercially recorded music I play on my home audio systems sound better to me. The advice I give to other people is intended to help them find more satisfaction in listening to music with their own systems. You'll notice that most people who argue with me are ones who claim to hear things that they almost certainly can't hear. They point to numbers on a page to prove they can hear it, or tests with test tones in anechoic chambers. I'm the practical one pointing out that the things they are referring to can't be heard in the average quiet living room listening to recorded music.

I am interested in all kinds of music... classical, modern jazz, old time country and bluegrass, trad jazz, opera, blues, rock, easy listening, latin, blues, ethnic music, 50s rock 'n roll, 20s dance bands,... everything from Hawaiian slack key guitar to Sousa marches to cha cha records. I've spent the last four or five decades absorbing as much music as I can. As a kid I bought my first electronic album- Mort Garson's Black Mass Lucifer. Since then I've followed the progress of electronic music through art rock to experimental to dance music to ambient to hip hop. If I had one bit of advice I'd like to get across to folks, it's that they shouldn't focus all their attention on their gear. Listen to new music and expand horizons instead.

Lately, the electronic music I've been interested in has been multichannel- I bought the Krafterk Katalog blu-ray box set and devoured it. I've gotten all the Japanese Tomita SACDs. The Jarre multichannel collection. All of the Noise Reduction System box sets. I've downloaded Russian electronic music from youtube. I have the Huber blu-ray but haven't had a chance to listen to it yet... I'm sure I have others I'm not remembering... and lots and lots of 70, 80s and 90s electronic stuff on CD. Yes, electronic music has as much potential as any other kind of music... including classical. But I know what a classical orchestra should sound like. I don't necessarily know what a synthesizer should sound like. I'm sure it would be possible to create a voice that sounds exactly like artifacting in a 64k mp3.

Interestingly enough, the one killer sample I've run across is a late 50s mono song by Sammy Davis Jr. I stumbled across it by accident when comparing codecs. It has massed strings that gurgle like crazy at low data rates. I found that I could still hear a tiny bit of artifacting at AAC192, LAME 256 and Fraunhofer 320. What we think of as "complexity" in music doesn't mean that it is difficult to encode. A normal symphony orchestra is relatively easy to encode, and a single piano can be difficult. It depends more on what the codec was designed to work well with.



VNandor said:


> I also know lossless algorithms are completely ineffective with true noise and still can't do much compression with signals that are a lot like noise.



Lossy has problems with that. Noise is broadband- it is all across the frequency spectrum. Lossy looks for bands of frequencies that are masked to remove. What you can't hear, you won't miss. But there's no masking in noise. The codec can't find anything to remove so it hacks it down however it can to reach the target. That is why applause is one of the most difficult things to encode. And it's probably why these massed strings were so tough- it was violins, violas, cellos and basses all playing the same notes at the same time with long continuous held notes. The codec couldn't grab onto anything that was masked.


----------



## VNandor

bigshot said:


> I'm afraid I can't use .wv files.


You would need some program that can handle wavpack. If you don't want to download something like that you can convert them to wav here. Just drag and drop and choose the correct output format.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> Lossy has problems with that. Noise is broadband- it is all across the frequency spectrum. Lossy looks for bands of frequencies that are masked to remove. What you can't hear, you won't miss. But there's no masking in noise. The codec can't find anything to remove so it hacks it down however it can to reach the target. That is why applause is one of the most difficult things to encode. And it's probably why these massed strings were so tough- it was violins, violas, cellos and basses all playing the same notes at the same time with long continuous held notes. The codec couldn't grab onto anything that was masked.



With MP3 yes since it frames max at 320k. Yet AAC/Ogg/MPC can be 1mbit+ with more compression choices assuming the encoder was made to do it. Oddly in the non MP3 codecs if it can't compress it will just go screw it high bit rate. I have some mpc files that hover 700kbps for a min or 560kbps for the whole track.


----------



## bigshot

I would think that with music, if you put it at 320 VBR, and it could go above that, it would be because of super audible frequencies you can't even hear.


----------



## sonitus mirus

The LAME encoder continues to see updates and tweaks, but it has limitations with the technology. 

https://www.videohelp.com/software/Lame-MP3/version-history

AAC is the better option, today.  Recently, Google Play Music has a library using 320 kbps cbr MP3  (Lame 3.98) and will soon transition to YouTube Music using a 256 kbps AAC vbr format that is similar to what iTunes uses. With Google Play Music going away in a few weeks, no major music streaming services will include MP3 files other than Amazon's entry-level service.  The YouTube Music service that will replace Google Play Music has 3 quality tiers: Normal: 128 kbps AAC, Premium: 256 kbps AAC, and Low: 48 kbps HE-ACC.

There is certainly nothing out of place with playing MP3 files over even the most expensive audio systems.  The music can still sound superb if the file was converted at higher quality levels. A few people make it seem like we are discussing a dish missing 3-4 grains of salt which results in absolutely ruining the entire meal.


----------



## Blackwoof

sonitus mirus said:


> There is certainly nothing out of place with playing MP3 files over even the most expensive audio systems. The music can still sound superb if the file was converted at higher quality levels. A few people make it seem like we are discussing a dish missing 3-4 grains of salt which results in absolutely ruining the entire meal.



Just because AAC/others are better at 160 ~ 256kbps, Doesn't stop many people finding 192kbps VBR MP3 transparent 99.5% of the time. Outside of edge case electronic i can't tell 192k MP3 from lossless & love how it supported everywhere. Many people when going lossy seem stick with V0 Lame & Flac since the differences are are tiny, To break MP3 i had to use very niche noise/electronic but with Wavpack hybrid being a thing i use 448k(DNS) on those killer samples.


----------



## bigshot

LAME and AAC are capable of being totally transparent. I use AAC 256 VBR and it is completely transparent. I don't have any use for lossless myself.


----------



## KeithPhantom

sonitus mirus said:


> 48 kbps HE-ACC


My question is: is HE-AAC and all its iterations enough to guarantee good stereo audio quality? I always had that question in mind in my days of lurking in Hydrogenaudio and I cared about audio formats.


----------



## Blackwoof

KeithPhantom said:


> My question is: is HE-AAC and all its iterations enough to guarantee good stereo audio quality? I always had that question in mind in my days of lurking in Hydrogenaudio and I cared about audio formats.



48kbps is only good for FM quality audio or CD level speech, For speech/very minimal ambient got better sound from 32kbps with it than Opus. Opus cant handle synth based ambient(Steve roach) at 112kbps it can reach 180kbps, While AAC/Lame sound fine at 120kbps?. Vorbis at <144kbps has stereo problems which is why I get iffy when at Q5 it reaches 89 ~ 99kbps.


----------



## Blackwoof

VNandor said:


> The thread I originally came across when I was searching for "mp3 killer samples" is this one. The downloads are at the bottom of the first post. I spent a lot of time testing just these 3 samples around 2014-2015. I quickly tested them again. I think the most revealing sample is from everything is green and the latest lame encoder still isn't doing a great job there. I remember I had an easy time with the track from quake as well, this time I actually had to pay attention to it to notice any difference. I listened again to the  autechre track just to be sure but I still couldn't discern the lossless from the 320k mp3.
> If you want to find more examples on hydrogenaudio there's plenty I just haven't listened to all of them. Just search for "hydrogenaudio killer sample" or "hydrogenaudio eig" because whenever someone brings that track up people seem to always link some others as well in the responses.



I wouldn't totally trust Hydrogenaudio's listening tests, They've been caught in 2006 by MPC devs using easy samples/not add musepack to make AAC/Vorbis at 128kbps look good. They can trip up sooner than Lame mp3 V5 on some electro samples, Guru's acoustic tests too claiming Ogg at 175kbps > MPC was odd when i can sometimes notice poor stereo handling on symphonic metal <144kbps with Vorbis AoTuV 6,3. When it became clear all 3 had issues with 160kbps they shifted on why 256kbps lossy is suddenly good despite MPC at 192kbps was transparent on any sample.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think anyone should put all their faith in tests on an internet forum. It's really easy to just set up your own tests... take some tracks and encode them in different codecs at a range of data rates from low to high. Do a line level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparison and see where the line of transparency is for yourself. Choose the best, up it one notch in data rate and add VBR. Encode away, secure in the knowledge that your encodes will be audibly identical. That's what I did and I learned a lot about codecs doing it. I don't have to take anyone's word for it.


----------



## VNandor (Sep 10, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> I wouldn't totally trust Hydrogenaudio's listening tests, They've been caught in 2006 by MPC devs using easy samples/not add musepack to make AAC/Vorbis at 128kbps look good. They can trip up sooner than Lame mp3 V5 on some electro samples, Guru's acoustic tests too claiming Ogg at 175kbps > MPC was odd when i can sometimes notice poor stereo handling on symphonic metal <144kbps with Vorbis AoTuV 6,3. When it became clear all 3 had issues with 160kbps they shifted on why 256kbps lossy is suddenly good despite MPC at 192kbps was transparent on any sample.



I'm not regularly browsing hydrogenaudio, I just came across the site because they seemed to have samples that couldn't be properly encoded. The samples I linked are lossless and for my test, I did the conversion myself using audacity with the latest lame and  ffmpeg at the time (so I didn't use musepack either).
I would encourage everyone interested about how different compression algorithms sound to try it with their own music using their own encoders as well as getting some known, hard to encode samples that circulate the internet. I started testing with an earlier version of audacity because I could switch blindly and seamlessly between the tracks but once I was testing samples/bit rates where the differences wasn't obvious I got foobar's abx comparator plugin which let me go through the audio and pick 1-2 sec intervals to listen to over and over which helped me out a lot.


----------



## KeithPhantom

VNandor said:


> I'm not regularly browsing hydrogenaudio, I just came across the site because they seemed to have samples that couldn't be properly encoded. The samples I linked are lossless and for my test, I did the conversion myself using audacity with the latest lame and  ffmpeg at the time (so I didn't use musepack either).
> I would encourage everyone interested about how different compression algorithms sound to try it with their own music using their own encoders as well as getting some known, hard to encode samples that circulate the internet. I started testing with an earlier version of audacity because could switch blindly and seamlessly between the tracks but once i was testing samples/bit rates where the differences wasn't obvious I got foobar's abx comparator plugin which let me go through the audio and pick 1-2 sec intervals to listen to over and over which helped me out a lot.


If you do not have a need for lossy audio, you're better off using a lossless format (unless you find a MPEG-4 SLS encoder (call me if you do)).


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> I don't think anyone should put all their faith in tests on an internet forum. It's really easy to just set up your own tests... take some tracks and encode them in different codecs at a range of data rates from low to high. Do a line level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparison and see where the line of transparency is for yourself. Choose the best, up it one notch in data rate and add VBR. Encode away, secure in the knowledge that your encodes will be audibly identical. That's what I did and I learned a lot about codecs doing it. I don't have to take anyone's word for it.



Since i use a LG V20, i did a face off at 160kbps with AAC/Ogg/MPC. After i got to tired to do anymore, I just stuck with Musepack standard since it was all 5's with everything in my collection. When i tried HA's sample pack it got funny at how at 160k mpc >>>>> 160k AAC/Ogg with noise/syth stuff, 320/V0 is pre echo dumpster fire. This is a codec that sub band based like MP2.


----------



## bigshot

I use AAC 256 VBR and everything encodes perfectly. I don’t use FLAC or ALAC because I own the CDs. That’s enough backup for me. There’s something to be said about simplicity and efficiency.


----------



## VNandor (Sep 10, 2020)

KeithPhantom said:


> If you do not have a need for lossy audio, you're better off using a lossless format (unless you find a MPEG-4 SLS encoder (call me if you do)).



I always get lossless if I'm given the option. I almost never actually use aac (even though I prefer its sound to mp3 at lower bitrates) because some of the programs I use can't handle them. I also have some 128k mp3s lying around because that's the best I could get. Some music I liked got deleted off the internet which I'm still unhappy about.
I didn't know that such an exclusive audio codec could exist.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Perhaps, 192 or 256 or 320 mp3 are transparent to "most", but I prefer to keep all my files lossless .flacs, the very least for further conversions and because I have enough storage space. 

"Transparent" is clearly a much more subjective term than "lossless", as evident from this discussion.


----------



## bigshot

I have a codec listening test with ten samples in three different codecs and three different data rates, along with a lossless sample. I’d be happy to share it with anyone who wants to define what “transparent” means.


----------



## KeithPhantom

VNandor said:


> I didn't know that such an exclusive audio codec could exis


There's WavPack Hybrid, but that's not unobtanium, so it isn't interesting.


----------



## Blackwoof (Sep 11, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I use AAC 256 VBR and everything encodes perfectly. I don’t use FLAC or ALAC because I own the CDs. That’s enough backup for me. There’s something to be said about simplicity and efficiency.



I'm lucky i still have CD's of 55% of my collection after nearly nuking it from Foobar being stupid. Too me Ogg = 320k, Lame = V0, AAC ~ 256k, I think i tried MPC at 256kbps but when i compared it to standard i couldn't tell even with complex acoustic, Noise music & extreme metal. 

Oh i just noticed if say a Dark ambient or Drone ambient song in FLAC is 480kbps. And MPC file is 500kbps the whole time in theory It's pretty much lossless, Same with MP1/MP2.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 11, 2020)

I agree. I haven't tried Ogg, but with LAME, I would want 320. You don't need VBR with MP3 I think, because it can't go above 320. AAC can. I like having the files in my media server be the same as my iPhone. They stream better over wifi than lossless too. I did a ton of tests before I arrived at AAC 256 VBR because I have over 10k CDs. I've ripped most of them now and I have only once found a glitch, and I went back to the original CD and the glitch was in the CD too.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I agree. I haven't tried Ogg, but with LAME, I would want 320. You don't need VBR with MP3 I think, because it can't go above 320. AAC can. I like having the files in my media server be the same as my iPhone. *They stream better over wifi than lossless too*. I did a ton of tests before I arrived at AAC 256 VBR because I have over 10k CDs. I've ripped most of them now and I have only once found a glitch, and I went back to the original CD and the glitch was in the CD too.




If the bolded statement is actually true for you in 2020, then you should address what must be a significant issue with your Wi-Fi performance.  How did you test/measure the performance of lossy vs. lossless on your network to even make this determination?  Where, specifically, did you see an audible impact? 

(I'm only pressing you the same way I would ask for a "cable believer" to support a claim that doesn't seem reasonable, given the relatively low data transmission rate required for audio when compared to 802.11 capacity ...)


----------



## sonitus mirus

bfreedma said:


> If the bolded statement is actually true for you in 2020, then you should address what must be a significant issue with your Wi-Fi performance.  How did you test/measure the performance of lossy vs. lossless on your network to even make this determination?  Where, specifically, did you see an audible impact?
> 
> (I'm only pressing you the same way I would ask for a "cable believer" to support a claim that doesn't seem reasonable, given the relatively low data transmission rate required for audio when compared to 802.11 capacity ...)


I do understand your point and mostly agree; however, if the file streams better from being 5.5 times smaller and sounds identical to lossless, then there is nothing to address with the WiFi performance.  While not a practical advantage in most situations for a lot of people, it is difficult to argue against potential benefits from transmitting a reduced amount of data.


----------



## bfreedma

sonitus mirus said:


> I do understand your point and mostly agree; however, if the file streams better from being 5.5 times smaller and sounds identical to lossless, then there is nothing to address with the WiFi performance.  While not a practical advantage in most situations for a lot of people, it is difficult to argue against potential benefits from transmitting a reduced amount of data.



I know where you’re going, but would like to see evidence from Bigshot that the size of lossless vs. lossy has any impact on a modern and reasonably well setup Wi-Fi network as the claim was made that lossy played better via Wi-Fi.  Both stream at rates so far below capacity that neither should have any impact, nor should one be “better” than the other.

Mostly, I posted to highlight bigshot making the kind of unsupported statement he would question had it been made by someone else.  As he likes to point out, fix the actual problem, which in this case, would be figuring out why one’s Wi-Fi is apparently running at less than 10% capacity...


----------



## bigshot (Sep 11, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> If the bolded statement is actually true for you in 2020, then you should address what must be a significant issue with your Wi-Fi performance.



If it was only me on the wifi, it would be easy. But my wifi gets hit hard with multiple video streams and downloads going on at the same time. I also have a million wifi devices and they are always tangling up with each other, making me reset the router and reassign addresses. A house full of smart lights makes everything else dumb! I think the neighbors on both sides of me have a million wifi devices and networks too. Wifi in my house is like the freeway at 6pm.

The problem I encounter is occasional little breaks in the stream, like dropouts. It isn't common but it drives me nuts. I never seem to have that problem with AAC. I don't often have problems with video streaming, but I think that is because it dynamically buffers. I think there's much less of a buffer in my AirPort network and interference can interrupt it for a fraction of a second.


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> Perhaps, 192 or 256 or 320 mp3 are transparent to "most", but I prefer to keep all my files lossless .flacs, the very least for further conversions and because I have enough storage space.
> 
> "Transparent" is clearly a much more subjective term than "lossless", as evident from this discussion.


Lossless is a technical term that isn't confirmed by ear.
Transparent, IMO, implies a listener challenging his ability to tell the difference with the reference track by ear, and failing. Most people passing judgement on MP3(or any lossy encoders) being transparent or not, have never challenged themselves in that way. Many think they did, but they didn't. Instead they asked themselves how they were feeling while having the answer to the "test" in front of their eyes at all time. Why would anyone mistake this for a listening test is beyond me, but I have to accept the fact that most audiophiles just do. 

Now, MP3 is a thing of the past and it will go away. There is no reason whatsoever to pick MP3 as an encoder nowadays. AAC is just as compatible and works a little better. Stuff like Opus work a lot better at ultra low bitrate. Nothing wrong with playing MP3 files, perhaps half my DAP content is MP3. I don't say to get rid of it, just to start encoding with the newer and better stuff. And of course there is absolutely nothing wrong about playing lossless files. People don't need to justify themselves for doing so. Ultimately we listen to the bands we want, using the formats we want, and all is well.


----------



## bigshot

The nice thing about small files is the amount of music I can pack on the micro-sd card reader for my iPhone that fits in my watch pocket of my jeans. Half a TB of AAC is a huge library, and I carry that with me everywhere.


----------



## PhonoPhi

castleofargh said:


> Lossless is a technical term that isn't confirmed by ear.
> Transparent, IMO, implies a listener challenging his ability to tell the difference with the reference track by ear, and failing. Most people passing judgement on MP3(or any lossy encoders) being transparent or not, have never challenged themselves in that way. Many think they did, but they didn't. Instead they asked themselves how they were feeling while having the answer to the "test" in front of their eyes at all time. Why would anyone mistake this for a listening test is beyond me, but I have to accept the fact that most audiophiles just do.
> 
> Now, MP3 is a thing of the past and it will go away. There is no reason whatsoever to pick MP3 as an encoder nowadays. AAC is just as compatible and works a little better. Stuff like Opus work a lot better at ultra low bitrate. Nothing wrong with playing MP3 files, perhaps half my DAP content is MP3. I don't say to get rid of it, just to start encoding with the newer and better stuff. And of course there is absolutely nothing wrong about playing lossless files. People don't need to justify themselves for doing so. Ultimately we listen to the bands we want, using the formats we want, and all is well.


Losless is a clear technical term, that assures that the information is preserved, at least as in original recordings (be it older CDs or current flacs). One clear advantage of lossless files is that they can be converted into any other compressed format of new generations. Not the case, for instance,  with "obsolete" mp3 for those, who ripped their collection into this format earlier.

Now to me "transparent" is quite subjective, being dependent on one's ear and equipment.
We have seen here in this thread multiple claims that 128 or 160 mp3/aac are transparent to some, and it very well may be the case.

Having said this, proving that, say, 256 may not be transparent to me is quite futile, and I do not plan to do, I am just happy with my perceived levels of "transparency".

I can only mention that in my experience, compression may be noticeable on upconversion (e.g. to 24/96) with DAPs (most likely as artifacts) and with some percussion, where very rich spectra of frequencies are produced, and for the compression algorithms it may be harder to separate what is essential and what is to cut. I would not argue that vinyl recordings may remain as "trasparent", as they are pressed, even at 192 or 160.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 11, 2020)

Transparent is a clear technical term too. It means that with human ears, there is no discenable difference. I know golden eared audiophiles like to claim they can hear things mere mortals can’t, and science accountants point to a single case of a 9 year old girl in Uzbekistan who was able to hear a quarter note higher than the rest of the population of the globe, but I’m going to say it anyway... Human hearing has finite limits. Our inner ear in pristine factory condition is able to hear 20 to 20. That’s about it. And no one is immune to masking. That is just how we hear.

There is a point where you can up the data rate, but no human is going to hear any difference any more. We call that the threshold of transparency. I guarantee you that no one can hear beyond that, and there are several good codecs that can easily achieve that. Controlled testing has proven it. My own personal testing has proven it to me. If you don’t believe it, do your own test and determine your own threshold. I think you’ll find that even lower data rates are transparent for your own ears.

Line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison or it doesn’t count.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Transparent is a clear technical term too. It means that with human ears, there is no discenable difference. I know golden eared audiophiles like to claim they can hear things mere mortals can’t, and science accountants point to a single case of a 9 year old girl in Uzbekistan who was able to hear a quarter note higher than the rest of the population of the globe, but I’m going to say it anyway... Human hearing has finite limits. Our inner ear in pristine factory condition is able to hear 20 to 20. That’s about it. And no one is immune to masking. That is just how we hear.
> 
> There is a point where you can up the data rate, but no human is going to hear any difference any more. We call that the threshold of transparency. I guarantee you that no one can hear beyond that, and there are several good codecs that can easily achieve that. Controlled testing has proven it. My own personal testing has proven it to me. If you don’t believe it, do your own test and determine your own threshold. I think you’ll find that even lower data rates are transparent for your own ears.
> 
> Line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison or it doesn’t count.



To establish the framework of our dialogue/conversation, I am definitely not trying to convince you or anyone about anything. I try to keep an open mind approaching any problem - balancing pro and contra, and deciding what can work for me. So I present here my arguments and thoughts, you present yours - and those who read our conversation can decide what makes sense to them.

First, if we take your statement: "I guarantee you that no one can hear beyond that..." - it is very strong. Just purely logically and scientifically (and we can talk science here, this is not a cable forum, where strong subjective statements often prevail, right?).
This statement is very hard to prove rigorously. Did you test literally everyone? Even one proverbial girl from your comment would (at least formally) unvalidate it. By no means I am saying  this statement is wrong, just my lessons from science are that there were so many times where convincing "no" of prevailing wisdom were shattered by simple experimental evidence. Blue LEDs (to which we owe now white LEDs everywhere), for instance, were considered impossible and impractical and there were hundred of scientists writing thousand of papers and happily consuming their grant money convincing each other about this impossibility. Then one man (!) almost single-handedly did it, and we have the real thing, the light (while the prevailing scientific wisdom was conveniently changed accordingly, and now there are ten of thousand papers describing how great it works).

Now, my scientific arguments to not dismiss those 20+ kHz so easily:

1) Related to a phenomenon of missing or fantom fundamental, and the fact that many instruments, like violin, have strong overtones still important at 10-12-th, may be 20+ kHz can affect the music perception by the overtone reconstruction. There are some papers on this subject, they are not fully convincing to me to bring them into discussion, but I would not dismiss them either.

2) Sound, its processing and reproduction can be usefully viewed through time-frequency relationships. So high frequencies correspond to short events, like rapid decay and fast transients, which still may be needed for precise reproduction by transducers, even the corresponding frequenciers can't be heard.
If you experiment with sound processing (e.g. sharpness filters, narrow lock range, etc) that is where mp3 often show some differences to me.

But again, I am not trying to convince you, since I would not be convinced by 100+ guys claiming that 160 mp3 are perfectly transparent to their ears and equipment (and not that I would not believe that their experience is tested and true, just not rigorous).


----------



## bigshot (Sep 12, 2020)

You can’t prove a negative. It’s the responsibility of the person claiming to be able to hear things that no one has ever been documented hearing to prove it. I’m happy to be convinced. Step up and prove it and change science! Otherwise, you work with the thresholds that’s have been established over more than a century of tests. But just because a bunch of golden eared audiophiles claim to be able to hear things bats strain to hear, it doesn’t mean they actually can.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 12, 2020)

bigshot said:


> You can’t prove a negative. It’s the responsibility of the person claiming to be able to hear things that no one has ever been documented hearing to prove it. I’m happy to be convinced. Step up and prove it and change science! Otherwise, you work with the thresholds that’s have been established over more than a century of tests. But just because a bunch of golden eared audiophiles claim to be able to hear things bats strain to hear, it doesn’t mean they actually can.


The fact that negatives can't be proven, highlights the fragility of related strong statements.

Another aspect, if one relies on century-old experiments, the equipment was different: simple dynamic drivers, sinusoidal tones.

Then, little arguments that in the frequency domain, 20 kHz is the limit.

The fast transients and whether they can have an audible effect may be a different matter.

Returning to "old", there were no recording equipment capable of fast processing until recent 10 years or so, then it is not likely that any difference will be there even if the files are post-processed to faster sampling rates.

Nowadays high-res equipment works with higher frequencies up to 80-90 kHz, it is hard to beleive that it is complete nonsense, at least for the sake of that proverbial girl and many hardcore audiophiles. 

Actually, to prove the ability of sensing these fast transients would not "change the science", unfortunately - several papers on this topic already exist, convincing or not...

So again, I am not trying to convince anyone, I am no even claiming that I am fully convinced, just discussing the arguments for the sake of the truth that is out there somewhere.


----------



## gerelmx1986

I personally encode CDs as FLAC and SACD as DSD(DSF) with a hacked pioneer bluray player. Nowadays I try to always download higher resolution first e.g. DSD or 24-bit, then if not available,  16-bit flac, if no download available then physical media and tip to flac or DSD DSD accordingly


----------



## bigshot (Sep 12, 2020)

PhonoPhi said:


> The fact that negatives can't be proven, highlights the fragility of related strong statements.



I think instead of talking on and on without making any real points, you should do a test on yourself and see what matters to you. That will help you make a decision that works for you. But I don't think you really want to know. You're just arguing to validate a preconceived idea.

For the history of the technology of sound, check up on Bell Labs. You would be amazed at the things they were researching as far back as the 1920s.

By the way, to get an idea of the threshold of perception for timing error, you would want to look at the numbers for group delay. It's about 1 to 3 ms. And the high end audio business is notorious for selling "fidelity" that can't be heard and doesn't matter.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Having all lossless is practical, if I have a vintage mp3 player that only can mp3/wma/aac I do tell the music converter to transcode to lossy and transfer to the mp3-player memory  with a few clicks.

The few scenarios in which I use AAC or mp3, I never use proprietary codecs *cough* WMA
Car stereo - self explanatory,  road noises, no need for lossless
Sonos -lazy people here ar this company- there now collecting dust
Programming test - when never I need yo test a software piece like a  website to apply quizzes or virus to delete files. 

I cannot think of other uses for lossy . I've had enough storage space for my library (1.34TB, 60.074 tracks or 3.420 albums)


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I think instead of talking on and on without making any real points, you should do a test on yourself and see what matters to you. That will help you make a decision that works for you. But I don't think you really want to know. You're just arguing to validate a preconceived idea.
> 
> For the history of the technology of sound, check up on Bell Labs. You would be amazed at the things they were researching as far back as the 1920s.
> 
> By the way, to get an idea of the threshold of perception for timing error, you would want to look at the numbers for group delay. It's about 1 to 3 ms. And the high end audio business is notorious for selling "fidelity" that can't be heard and doesn't matter.


As for the real points, please kindly give us an example of what Bell labs did in 1920s that is directly relevant to the main points of this discussion.

Are your values of group delays for speakers, big box speakers, as your equipment bias? IEMs have at least an order of magnitude less, so it is much less of an issue, but please correct me if I wrong.

Then thinking about it, my bias would be that speakers in a room will never closely imitate percussion instruments or violin because of the limitations of the drivers and further being far from the listeners. So indeed the fast transients are quite irrelevant, and the compression corresponding to those 3-4 ms can be substantial. I can definitely agree with you from this perspective.


----------



## castleofargh

If you guys are going to talk about anything but mp3, please go do it in a dedicated thread.


----------



## PhonoPhi

castleofargh said:


> If you guys are going to talk about anything but mp3, please go do it in a dedicated thread.


Sorry, though distinguishing mp3 inevitably involve the equipment used and  related signal processing.

I would still appreciate to learn what relevant Bell labs did in 1920s either in a different thread or by personal communication.


----------



## Blackwoof

Funny how well 384kbps wavpack hybrid with forced DNS can be despite having little to none perceptual model used. With 400gb SD cards could be a better choice at 448kbps since it not phased by artifacts just more noise & in many cases can transcoded without loss, Since the extra bitrate/size was data bloat 99% of the time. But with Ambient I've had few albums sound fine even with 96k LAME mp3's.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 13, 2020)

Blackwoof said:


> ... with Ambient I've had few albums sound fine even with 96k LAME mp3's.


That are the good irrefutable arguments 

Indeed, for the reasonable speech transmission 48k is perfectly enough, so music can be enjoyable at any rate as well.

For me, to hear the rich overtones of a violin, higher bit rates work better. Also I am perfectly happy with .flacs, which preserve every bit of information (without any bloat), as intended by professionals who made the recordings.

To recognize violin from viola, 96k may be sufficient though.


----------



## Blackwoof

PhonoPhi said:


> That are the good irrefutable arguments
> 
> Indeed, for the reasonable speech transmission 48k is perfectly enough, so music can be enjoyable at any rate as well.
> 
> ...



Going by your other post it weird how you seem sore that to 99% of the population, Lame at 192k & AAC/Ogg at 160k are transparent. Those same professionals have failed DBT tests ranging from 160 ~ 320k depending on Codec/encoder. With AAC/Vorbis/MPC they can do 1mbit+ frames on heavy samples, Most of my Vorbis Q5 files can range from 280 ~ 380kbps while MPC can go much higher like 800kbps. Opus at 96kbps already outperforms Lame at 192kbps even with the Eig.wav

Same with video you get people who wish for visual version of FLAC, but fail video DBT of mpeg2 at 8mbit on DVD video/448kbps DD 5.1?. Or 1080p TV/YT/Streams that use 4.5mbit X.264/VP9/HEVC.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Blackwoof said:


> Going by your other post it weird how you seem sore that to 99% of the population, Lame at 192k & AAC/Ogg at 160k are transparent. Those same professionals have failed DBT tests ranging from 160 ~ 320k depending on Codec/encoder. With AAC/Vorbis/MPC they can do 1mbit+ frames on heavy samples, Most of my Vorbis Q5 files can range from 280 ~ 380kbps while MPC can go much higher like 800kbps. Opus at 96kbps already outperforms Lame at 192kbps even with the Eig.wav
> 
> Same with video you get people who wish for visual version of FLAC, but fail video DBT of mpeg2 at 8mbit on DVD video/448kbps DD 5.1?. Or 1080p TV/YT/Streams that use 4.5mbit X.264/VP9/HEVC.


Going with your logic, if 99% of population were illiterate - printing books was unnecessary, which is not far from the truth by some grand logic, but not a perfect wisdom by far 

I know for me 96k and 160k are definitely defficient.

I keep my files as .flacs, so I do not need any excuses and subtle proofs that compression can be almost perfect and  those files may be transparent to 99.5% (or whichever % one can get testing tens of thousands of listeners in the same conditions - which is not realistic, so all these numbers are approximate, if not imaginary).


----------



## VNandor (Sep 13, 2020)

I wonder if you've ever at least tried ABX testing your lossless files against lossy files to find out where your personal threshold of audability lies. If so, what were your conclusions?


----------



## Blackwoof

VNandor said:


> I wonder if you've ever at least tried ABX testing your lossless files against lossy files to find out where your personal threshold of audability lies. If so, what were your conclusions?



I guess that would be a no, I highly doubt anyone can tell AAC, Vorbis at 192kbps unless their using killer samples. My threshold for AAC seems to be 192kbps with FHG encoder, V0 with Lame mp3.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Blackwoof said:


> I guess that would be a no, I highly doubt anyone can tell AAC, Vorbis at 192kbps unless their using killer samples. My threshold for AAC seems to be 192kbps with FHG encoder, V0 with Lame mp3.


I did long time ago before getting into headphones. I could distinguish easily between lossless and 128kbps in pretty much every format, bit even with really young ears at that time, 192kbps made everything "transparent". I remember when I used raw ADTS AAC at 256 kbps and left all the FLACs in my HDD, and never felt wanting more.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Blackwoof said:


> I guess that would be a no, I highly doubt anyone can tell AAC, Vorbis at 192kbps unless their using killer samples. My threshold for AAC seems to be 192kbps with FHG encoder, V0 with Lame mp3.


I am not sure, who was asked, and I am even less sure on which behalf you are answering and whether it is reasonable.

It is clear that you have your preconcieved agenda and express it.

It feels very similar to cable forums, where the guys can "hear the difference" and feel "right",  here you can't hear the difference and feel important to justify compression, whereas for me it is not justifyable .


----------



## Blackwoof

PhonoPhi said:


> It feels very similar to cable forums, where the guys can "hear the difference" and feel "right", here you can't hear the difference and feel important to justify compression, whereas for me it is not justifyable .



Thanks for admitting your now trolling...


----------



## PhonoPhi

Blackwoof said:


> Thanks for admitting your now trolling...


In this subjective statement of yours, the grain of truth is that you behave as "being trolled".

Can you explain what would be the difference between them "hearing" and you not?


----------



## VNandor

PhonoPhi said:


> I am not sure, who was asked, and I am even less sure on which behalf you are answering and whether it is reasonable.
> 
> It is clear that you have your preconcieved agenda and express it.
> 
> It feels very similar to cable forums, where the guys can "hear the difference" and feel "right", here you can't hear the difference and feel important to justify compression, whereas for me it is not justifyable .


I asked everyone so you can see that most people commenting here took the absolute minimal effort to do some listening tests before commenting. Why would you ever feel the need to comment on this topic if you clearly didn't try to do some testing before? I would love to hear anyone thoughts on the topic but only after they set up some form of blind testing and I think most people in this thread feel the same way.


----------



## PhonoPhi

VNandor said:


> I asked everyone so you can see that most people commenting here took the absolute minimal effort to do some listening tests before commenting. Why would you ever feel the need to comment on this topic if you clearly didn't try to do some testing before? I would love to hear anyone thoughts on the topic but only after they set up some form of blind testing and I think most people in this thread feel the same way.


I did.
But then I clearly feel that the point of all the recent comments to declare me "a troll", again similar behaviour to cable forums.

The proper answer would require quite a bit of writing (all the conditions, otherwise just the numbers are not very meaningful), and it would hardly make any difference in this conversation.
I actually mentioned the simple numbers in this thread before: 192 mp3 were my border line, above I would not bet my money in distinguishing.

Again, my much simpler point is that with the current cost of storage, what is the justification for lossy files that can't be further converted.


----------



## VNandor

That cleared most things up for me. Making a point about which format is better to use and not about which format _sounds _better is quite different.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 14, 2020)

PhonoPhi said:


> As for the real points, please kindly give us an example of what Bell labs did in 1920s that is directly relevant to the main points of this discussion.



The absolute thresholds of hearing, auditory masking and psychoacoustics- some of that was a little later than their earliest studies, but the work of Bell Labs is something everyone who is interested in the science of the reproduction of recorded music should research. Bell Labs laid the foundation for just about everything home audio is based upon. If you are interested in learning something new, see this... https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Allen96.pdf


----------



## Blackwoof (Sep 21, 2020)

Been trying Lame encoder more, V2 fine 99.5% of the time the stuff that breaks or needs more than V0. I just use Wavpack hybrid at 448kbps for those. Noticed stereo crush on MPC/Ogg at <150kbps & QAAC artifacts <150kbps with ambient with acoustic/synth sounds like a 32kbps MP3 would???.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Blackwoof said:


> Been trying Lame encoder more, V2 fine 99.5% of the time the stuff that breaks or needs more than V0. I just use Wavpack hybrid at 448kbps for those. Noticed stereo crush on MPC/Ogg at <150kbps & QAAC artifacts <150kbps with ambient with acoustic/synth sounds like a 32kbps MP3 would???.


I used to use FAAC and at 256 kbps there wasn't a single difference my ABX at that time could reveal. Nowadays, I'm thinking of compressing some of my FLAC files into AAC since I will need them to be smaller and I think 256 kbps Apple AAC should be enough to be virtually indistinguishable from lossless.


----------



## Blackwoof (Sep 21, 2020)

KeithPhantom said:


> I used to use FAAC and at 256 kbps there wasn't a single difference my ABX at that time could reveal. Nowadays, I'm thinking of compressing some of my FLAC files into AAC since I will need them to be smaller and I think 256 kbps Apple AAC should be enough to be virtually indistinguishable from lossless.



Just like i used to try Vorbis for a while at 175kbps then kinda binned it, When some samples needed 490kbps yet 224kbps AAC/MP3 was enough. I can't stand that puffy wind sound when it's bit rate starved when electro & noise rock/metal have noise burst sections.


----------



## ev666il

Hello,

I have a technical question about the mp3 format and figured I'd ask it in this thread.

If I understand correctly, the mp3 compression algorithms are based on psycho-acoustic models with particular emphasis on the masking effect: If a sound is present that would mask other sounds that play at the same time, those other sounds are removed. Is this correct (albeit perhaps a tad of an oversimplification)?

If I were to compress individual track stems for drums, bass, guitars and vocals, would _less_ information/data potentially be removed from each track than if I compressed the song after combining the stems? The assumption is that with all stems playing simultaneously, there would more likely be masking in place.


----------



## castleofargh

ev666il said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a technical question about the mp3 format and figured I'd ask it in this thread.
> 
> ...


The general idea is correct. The difficulty with specific examples is to know if the algorithm takes them into account or not, and how far the psychoacoustic understanding is pushed. For example the model for 2 tones played simultaneously is pretty much perfectly understood. In term of amplitude and time, we can very well predict when one will mask the other or just attenuate the perceived loudness of the tone by X amount. But with more complicated signals, something supposedly masked because of the relation between 2 tones, can become audible again in some cases because of other tones kicking in at about the same time. So using the basic models and then extend them to more complex signals, just ends up not working, or at least not working all the time. For that reason, most encoders tend to play it safe and don't go as far as they probably could. For a high bitrate MP3 it's not rare to see close to no difference from 0 to -50dB. Even though we have psychoacoustics models where one tone would mask another as soon as -20 or -25dB when the frequencies are really close to each other. 
So to not answer your second question, I have no idea if things would go as you imagined, because of the pretty huge "safety net" used at high bitrate.


----------



## bigshot

I think you're right Castle... I've spent the morning thinking about this... I'm not sure how compressing stems separately would sound compared to compressing them all at once in the final mix. Assuming they are all normalized, I suspect there might not be much difference at all. Thinking in pure theory, I would assume that if something is masked as a solo, it would be masked perhaps even more as an element buried in the mix. I'd certainly recommend not using compressed audio to mix with, but I don't think it would make any difference if the individual stems are compressed no further than the threshold of audible transparency.


----------



## Blackwoof

ev666il said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a technical question about the mp3 format and figured I'd ask it in this thread.
> 
> ...



That only one aspect, If say your guitar & drums are 85% of the song the codec will focus on that more than vocals & quieter stuff. But since those two are hard on the MP3 codec it could fail, Metal at V2 can pump out a 275kbps file if fast & quite noisy. With AAC/Vorbis the same rules applies but since they can handle 22KHz vs MP3s 16KHz, Have much more advanced  model & can do up to 1mbit in VBR mode. You should not tell any difference if things go right, It why even with 320kbps MP3 can die with hard electronic samples because it can't do masking or chop off the treble without quality loss, This is why AAC/Vorbis can be 495kbps even at the 128 ~ 192kbps settings & have extra stuff to fake noise if they do cut the information.


----------



## ev666il

Thank you very much for your replies, @castleofargh , @bigshot , and @Blackwoof 

To provide a little context: I own two albums that came with a bonus disc containing the individual track stems for each song in 192kbps mp3 format. I used Audacity to mix them together and saved them (in FLAC format to avoid a second pass of lossy compression) to get a final mix without the annoying Loudness War limiting.

Now, I do think it sounds pretty good (and I have been unable to tell FLAC from AAC/MP3 in the past; besides, my hearing pretty much caps at 16.5Khz)—but for my curiosity and peace of mind, I figured I’d ask my question. Thanks again!


----------



## bigshot

Balancing the mix might be more of a challenge than the compression. If they are stems, they might not be balanced to the mix. They may be flat level. That means you would have to mix each element riding it up and down as necessary throughout the whole song. It would be fun to play with though.


----------



## ev666il

bigshot said:


> It would be fun to play with though.



I can send you stems for a song or two if you'd like to try your hand at it


----------



## bigshot

That's OK. My plate is very full right now. Thanks for the offer though.


----------



## Blackwoof

Really love how even at 96kbps Opus is still transparent 99.5% of the time, On par with 160k AAC/Vorbis & 192Kbps Lame mp3. Could fit 12,500 Songs on my 128gb card since many of them are either <7 min or 56+ min Noise/Ambient/Noise metal freak outs, Which I'm still floored even possible at 96kbps since HA only expected above 128kbps for it. Wish xHE AAC support grows since that even better at 96kbps with Exhale 1.8.0

With USAC/xHE AAC cue better than FM stereo on AM stations, For the USA.


----------



## peskypesky

Blackwoof said:


> Really love how even at 96kbps Opus is still transparent 99.5% of the time, On par with 160k AAC/Vorbis & 192Kbps Lame mp3. Could fit 12,500 Songs on my 128gb card since many of them are either <7 min or 56+ min Noise/Ambient/Noise metal freak outs, Which I'm still floored even possible at 96kbps since HA only expected above 128kbps for it. Wish xHE AAC support grows since that even better at 96kbps with Exhale 1.8.0
> 
> With USAC/xHE AAC cue better than FM stereo on AM stations, For the USA.


My ears are getting old (I'm 54) and I went to a LOT of loud rock concerts...so my transparency bitrates are quite low.  I've been doing a lot of ABX tests in the past couple of weeks and have found that AAC/CoreAudio is transparent for me most of the time at 128k.  Opus at 96k.

It is ASTOUNDING to me that I cannot hear the difference between an Opus file and a FLAC that is 8 times the size. I mean, how can that be possible? One eight the file-size, and I can't hear a difference....

Could I have heard a difference in my teens? Probably. In my 20's, probably. In my 30s, maybe. But I have a feeling that by my 40s, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference consistently.

And without ABX testing...I would NEVER in a million years have believed this.


----------



## Sterling2 (Jan 28, 2021)

peskypesky said:


> My ears are getting old (I'm 54) and I went to a LOT of loud rock concerts...so my transparency bitrates are quite low.  I've been doing a lot of ABX tests in the past couple of weeks and have found that AAC/CoreAudio is transparent for me most of the time at 128k.  Opus at 96k.
> 
> It is ASTOUNDING to me that I cannot hear the difference between an Opus file and a FLAC that is 8 times the size. I mean, how can that be possible? One eight the file-size, and I can't hear a difference....
> 
> ...


I just compared and contrasted “Classis Hauser” on LP, CD, 24/96 FLAC, and 256k AAC (Apple Music) via Airport Express, as well as usb to OPPO DAC. I expected the 24/96 would be most satisfactory. This was not the case they all sounded so similar as to be indistinguishable; therefore, I concluded Apple Music from Airport Express being most convenient as well as most inexpensive was the route to take and I’m taking it. Yeah imagine that going with AAC.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Music is a bit like an iceberg when it comes to auditory masking and perceptual coding.  While the lossless file may contain the entire "iceberg", the lossy version only needs to make the section above the water visible and behave like a real iceberg.  In calm waters this is easier to do than in choppy waters with huge waves; just as certain music can be more difficult to encode in a lossy format without introducing audible artifacts.  With AAC 256 or higher, the biggest concern I have personally seen is how to handle conversions of tracks at or near 0 dB to avoid clipping.  If clipping is properly avoided, this may introduce slight volume differences with some frequencies that may be detectable in certain situations with a small number of individuals.  At least, that is what the research has shown that I have read.


----------



## bigshot

The iTunes encoder tends to boost the level a tiny bit. I've seen hot tracks bump a little into clipping too. I don't think that is AAC doing that. I think it is iTunes.


----------



## Plumbus the Wise

bigshot said:


> The iTunes encoder tends to boost the level a tiny bit. I've seen hot tracks bump a little into clipping too. I don't think that is AAC doing that. I think it is iTunes.


Boost via compression?


----------



## bigshot

No, just a very slight overall volume boost. Less than a percent, but sometimes it's enough to push into clipping. Rare, but I have noticed it a couple of times on hot mastered albums.


----------



## Blackwoof

sonitus mirus said:


> Music is a bit like an iceberg when it comes to auditory masking and perceptual coding.  While the lossless file may contain the entire "iceberg", the lossy version only needs to make the section above the water visible and behave like a real iceberg.  In calm waters this is easier to do than in choppy waters with huge waves; just as certain music can be more difficult to encode in a lossy format without introducing audible artifacts.  With AAC 256 or higher, the biggest concern I have personally seen is how to handle conversions of tracks at or near 0 dB to avoid clipping.  If clipping is properly avoided, this may introduce slight volume differences with some frequencies that may be detectable in certain situations with a small number of individuals.  At least, that is what the research has shown that I have read.



Codecs like Musepack are a odd one, It transparent on really hard samples at 175kbps but being VBR it can use bit rates at 384 ~ 800kbps while AAC 256 only peaks at 495kbps. I have a 30 min track at near the end average 605kbps pretty much near 1mbit. So it a lossy codec that can contain the whole "iceberg" only if it needs too.


----------



## Plumbus the Wise

bigshot said:


> No, just a very slight overall volume boost. Less than a percent, but sometimes it's enough to push into clipping. Rare, but I have noticed it a couple of times on hot mastered albums.


Well I hope no one plays Californication or Death Magnetic on it...


----------



## bigshot

Though might not hear the clipping through all the clipping. I’ve only run across it in classical music where there is a huge surge in volume all of a sudden.


----------



## gerelmx1986

bigshot said:


> The iTunes encoder tends to boost the level a tiny bit. I've seen hot tracks bump a little into clipping too. I don't think that is AAC doing that. I think it is iTunes.


I use personally, dbpower amp with FAAK, codec pack, that is AAC from fraunhoffer institut. This is the original German encoder. Better than itunes (american made sidtware)


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> Though might not hear the clipping through all the clipping. I’ve only run across it in classical music where there is a huge surge in volume all of a sudden.


I sometimes record iTunes to DAT at 16/44.1 and clipping is apparent occasionally on Dance music as seen from recording level meters when  DAT recorder is set for 0 db input.


----------



## bigshot

iTunes is fine for almost all commercial tracks, and normalizing down a hair takes care of the rest. In the real world, causing clipping is extremely rare. I’ve only encountered it in two tracks out of tens of thousands myself.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> iTunes is fine for almost all commercial tracks, and normalizing down a hair takes care of the rest. In the real world, causing clipping is extremely rare. I’ve only encountered it in two tracks out of tens of thousands myself.


 Unless you digitally recorded everything you’ve listened to from iTunes you would not know how often you have encountered it.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 7, 2021)

All my music library is encoded at AAC256 VBR in iTunes. I’ve ripped tens of thousands of CDs. Whenever I encounter clipping when listening, I pull the CD and check the rip against it. That has only happened a handful of times. Usually, it’s clipping in the master. I can only think of a couple of times when it was a sound peak up at 100% that peaked the iTunes encoder. Those were both orchestral recordings. I think they were both on the BIS label. Sibelius? Can’t remember the other instance.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> All my music library is encoded at AAC256 VBR in iTunes. I’ve ripped tens of thousands of CDs. Whenever I encounter clipping when listening, I pull the CD and check the rip against it. That has only happened a handful of times. Usually, it’s clipping in the master. I can only think of a couple of times when it was a sound peak up at 100% that peaked the iTunes encoder. Those were both orchestral recordings. I think they were both on the BIS label. Sibelius? Can’t remember the other instance.


 I sometimes record iTunes to a Sony PCM-7010F DAT Recorder, which is set to 0 db input gain. The unit’s meters occasionally reveal clipping, which is too brief to hear. I have only noticed this from Dance genre streaming.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Speaking about clipping, I stream music from Qobuz and Tidal at their highest quality tier with Roon.  Roon allows me to send and verify that the signal is lossless.  My DAC (RME ADI-2 DAC FS) has an awesome stereo level meter that can show the peak before any DSP processing, separately from the post-processed signal after any EQ.  This allows me to see if the content is overloading and clipping or if it is something that was done inadvertently from adjustments.  This "pre level" monitoring is great to see if the source is problematic.  I was able to find the best version of "Californication" from Red Hot Chili Peppers with this meter.  Everything clipped except for one version, "Californication (DMD Album)."

https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/californication-dmd-album-red-hot-chili-peppers/0093624420668

This was a terrible mastering, to be sure, and the music is loud with no dynamic range.  

It is nice to be able to visually see when a pop, click, or some other anomaly occurs that the source is bad, so I don't go chasing down a problem I can't fix.


----------



## bigshot

It's probably more of a problem in some genres than others. There's really no point releasing a CD that is normalized up to 100% (or beyond), but I guess in some genres, they just don't care.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> It's probably more of a problem in some genres than others. There's really no point releasing a CD that is normalized up to 100% (or beyond), but I guess in some genres, they just don't care.


 I don't see a point either; however, I do see a point of 20 to 20,000 Hz unless of course the material does not get to the ends of that spectrum. Today's dance tunes, like Kanye West's Love Lockdown has synthesized  bass which does get way down there and since I have a 2.1 system I can enjoy it via a subwoofer


 for the feeling it brings to the music overall.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Love JBL!   That room looks like it rocks.

A properly integrated subwoofer for music can be expensive and most rooms simply cannot benefit from the use of one.  The amount of clean power required is not cheap to provide for a large-sized transducer that specializes in this frequency range.  If an artist is creating meaningful sound under 40Hz that requires precise playback to get the most out of the music, more power to them, but nothing Kanye West has done uses sub-bass frequencies at a quality level that can't be reproduced by much smaller and lower powered drivers for all but the largest spaces in nearly all of our homes.

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-case-against-subwoofers-for-music/


----------



## bigshot

I look love my Sunfire sub. It really spreads out.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> I look love my Sunfire sub. It really spreads out.


Yes, but you have the space for that awesome beast from what you have previously described as your listening environment.  For a lot of people, the sub would be too overpowering and to get accurate playback for music, the volume would have to be reduced significantly for the sub to the point where it would be better to have those freqs coming from the main stereo speakers instead of a separate subwoofer.


----------



## bfreedma

sonitus mirus said:


> Yes, but you have the space for that awesome beast from what you have previously described as your listening environment.  For a lot of people, the sub would be too overpowering and to get accurate playback for music, the volume would have to be reduced significantly for the sub to the point where it would be better to have those freqs coming from the main stereo speakers instead of a separate subwoofer.



Not sure where the perception of needing a large space for a subwoofer comes from.  Like any component, it needs to be properly integrated, but I’ve yet to run into a room/system that wasn’t measurably improved with a subwoofer.  Unfortunately, far too many people run their sub(s) hot, cross them over too high, or have issues with phase cancellation with the mains, leading to some of the problems you described.

What the article in the link doesn‘t address is, IMO, the single most important factor in achieving good bass reproduction- speaker placement.  The best location in a room for bass and subbass output is rarely the same as the location of the mains.  As it’s essentially impossible to eq your way out of a null, the best option for most is the location flexibility a sub enables


----------



## sonitus mirus

bfreedma said:


> Not sure where the perception of needing a large space for a subwoofer comes from.  Like any component, it needs to be properly integrated, but I’ve yet to run into a room/system that wasn’t measurably improved with a subwoofer.  Unfortunately, far too many people run their sub(s) hot, cross them over too high, or have issues with phase cancellation with the mains, leading to some of the problems you described.
> 
> What the article in the link doesn‘t address is, IMO, the single most important factor in achieving good bass reproduction- speaker placement.  The best location in a room for bass and subbass output is rarely the same as the location of the mains.  As it’s essentially impossible to eq your way out of a null, the best option for most is the location flexibility a sub enables


Yes, you are right, I got the wrong impression from some things I was reading about.


----------



## bigshot

sonitus mirus said:


> For a lot of people, the sub would be too overpowering and to get accurate playback for music



My only problem is when the cleaning lady bumps the controls while she's dusting. (I had a BIG surprise once!)  But if it's set right it works great. I have a low crossover because my mains have old school 1970s JBL 15 inch woofers with the cloth surrounds. Those do a very good job on most of the bass. The sub just picks up at the very bottom.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> My only problem is when the cleaning lady bumps the controls while she's dusting. (I had a BIG surprise once!)  But if it's set right it works great. I have a low crossover because my mains have old school 1970s JBL 15 inch woofers with the cloth surrounds. Those do a very good job on most of the bass. The sub just picks up at the very bottom.


You have L300’s?


----------



## castleofargh

Modo/2: If you're going to continue this discussion, please move to even just a vaguely related thread.

castleofflafla:
It is pretty common for lossy formats to have bigger intersample clipping. I do not know how each encoder/decoder handles the gain(if at all) or if they even bother checking(which would require oversampling, meaning more processing and longer time to convert a file). I seem to remember that in the tools of mastered for apple or whatever name they ended with, there was an encoder app that included the extra headroom(was it one dB?) they required for a file to be validated with their catchy label.

In my case, I play most music from foobar on the computer and I always have replay gain turned ON. So unless the clipping is hard coded, all modern stuff ends up some 8 to 12db below FS and intersample clipping can't even be a thing. But it's not a complete solution as almost all classical music and a lot of acoustic stuff can have enough dynamic for replay gain to want to boost the signal(so the overal sound can feel close to the selected loudness target). 
To deal with that, foobar has "apply gain and prevent clipping according to peak", that will give priority to the peak level instead of the perceived loudness(so obviously those classical tracks will often sound a lot quieter than the rest). 
But we're not completely safe just yet. The peak values stored in the replay gain tags, if they were scanned at 44.1kHz, they wouldn't have a chance to track for all intersample clipping. Only a fairly high level of oversampling for the scanner will give "true peak" values to the peak value metadata. Which again means that the scan will take a good deal longer and might try to kill your CPU if it is really long and your fans aren't up for the job.
Now that all this is done, intersample clipping is a thing of the past and I've confirmed it years. Ooof. 


A simple alternative, that I used before becoming a total maniac, was to simply put -3dB on the preamp in the "playback" setting(or on any audio app), and assume that it would take care of almost all intersample clipping. It's not taylor made, but it's fast and simple. ^_^ 
to be clear, I can only notice a few of the clippings that occur that way without fixing anything and leaving all things to full scale. A great deal of what clips according to the dpmeter3 VST is within point something dB and doesn't really sound like anything to me. But in some pretty extreme cases where the clipping cuts off 3 to 5dB, obviously, that can be harder to miss on some music genres.


With DAPs or cellphones, often enough the control of the volume will be in the DAC or digital inside some app. That should help deal with intersample clipping just from not sticking to FS level. For devices that do all analog volume, intersample clipping might be a more common issue.

And for tracks that just got butchered by the guy mastering or remastering it(real baked in clipping), there are some tools to declip a specific track. Some of it will have to be a guessing game no matter how clever the algo is, but it could feel better for the listener.

BTW, it's been my hypothesis for a long time now, that a big percentage of people *really* hearing a difference with lossy files, are in fact having a case of nasty intersample clipping. the lossy file is likely to have more than the 44.1kHz and both would have more than a hirez version. It could work with the usual audiophile narrative. At high bitrate, beside a few killer samples and some devices that simply mess up the decoding of one of the formats tested, it's often the intersample clipping(big one) that lets me notice a difference. Even then, I basically need to know where to look beforehand, or really have a nasty track.


----------



## bigshot

Sterling2 said:


> You have L300’s?



My brother had a friend who built speakers for JBL. He made custom designed speakers for my brother for his McIntosh system. They are one offs. My brother gave them to me when he downsized. They’re 7 ways.


----------



## Blackwoof

Since I've got a 128GB card & most of music are 20+ min long songs. I really love how well 170kbps Musepack holds up, It transparent on electronic samples where AAC/Vorbis/Lame need 256kbps. In some cases can reach 500 ~ 890kbps on chaotic Noise music even if at 170kbps.


----------



## ev666il

A question for the technically savvy.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I possess a few albums that came with track stems for each song as a bonus.

For two of these albums tracks stems are in 192kbps mp3 format.

I hired a professional sound engineer on Fiverr to mix and master those stems for me and he always delivers 24bit WAV files exported from his DAW; I reckon that is the format he uses to work.

Now, let's take the last work he's done for me as an example. The song came with 8 stems totaling 50.5mb. The 24bit WAV I received is 68.5mb.

I understand WAV is an uncompressed format and would therefore expected to be bigger. However in this case the starting point were mp3 files totalling 50.5mb—how can I get a 68.5mb file from 50.5mb of starting information? Shouldn't the WAV file be 50.5mb?

I'm not complaining, mind you—I'm merely curious.


----------



## sander99

ev666il said:


> I understand WAV is an uncompressed format and would therefore expected to be bigger. However in this case the starting point were mp3 files totalling 50.5mb—how can I get a 68.5mb file from 50.5mb of starting information? Shouldn't the WAV file be 50.5mb?


No. WAV is a fixed size per second (only depending on the used sampling frequency and bit depth). It doesn't matter what sound is in there, silence or very complicated sound waves, or whether or not that sound originated from compressed files, the size per second of the WAV remains the same.


----------



## VNandor (Mar 7, 2021)

ev666il said:


> Shouldn't the WAV file be 50.5mb?


The wav file size depends on the sample rate, bit depth, length, and the number of channels is also important. It doesn't matter how the file is created, the size only depends on these factors. At least as far as I know.


----------



## 529128

Took this Spotify vs lossless audio test yesterday with an outcome that was exactly as expected: I am unable to separate the sheep from the goats so to speak. 

Disclaimer: 
I took the test with my HD6XX plugged directly into my computer as I am awaiting my new amp. And yes, I know the sound card on my computer is, well, crap. 

The result: 

I hit the head on the nail on a mere 56% of the tests - *including correct answers by coincidence*. 
What is more, on a more general level I heard *no or only minimal discernible difference* in my perception of the actual quality of the music samples. 
My conclusion: 
I am not saying that someone with a better hearing, more resolving gear or golden ears wouldn't benefit from lossless over lossy. I did not *perceive* the lossless music samples as 'better' than the 320 mp3. At least not by a margin that gives reason to favour Tidal over Spotify for me when inserting the much better user interface, more extensive catalogue (to my taste), Spotify Connect etc. into the equation. 

Relax and enjoy the music!


----------



## Blackwoof

Weird how Musepack never took of as there codec of choice, Since HA's latest blind test shows it being transparent on anything at 192kbps. I can still hear weak pre echo on some stuff at V0/320 while V2 ~ V4 is ugly.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis.  Not too many streaming services are exclusively mp3 now.  I know Deezer and Amazon Music have lower quality tiers that are using it, but most others have been using AAC, which offers a higher coding efficiency with both stationary and transient signals due to the variations in blocksize usage and a simpler filter bank.


----------



## Bozzunter

sonitus mirus said:


> Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis.  Not too many streaming services are exclusively mp3 now.  I know Deezer and Amazon Music have lower quality tiers that are using it, but most others have been using AAC, which offers a higher coding efficiency with both stationary and transient signals due to the variations in blocksize usage and a simpler filter bank.


Is there public knowledge regarding what's the transparency's threshold for Ogg Vorbis? As far as I'm concerned, on Spotify I can't discern any difference from 192Kbps (with a pair of Sennheiser HD800s and another half dozen headphones I tried).


----------



## sonitus mirus

Bozzunter said:


> Is there public knowledge regarding what's the transparency's threshold for Ogg Vorbis? As far as I'm concerned, on Spotify I can't discern any difference from 192Kbps (with a pair of Sennheiser HD800s and another half dozen headphones I tried).



At q9 level for Spotify's higher quality tier (pre-lossless option), I would expect it to be transparent to the lossless original.  Not much testing has been done since 2014, but up to then I didn't see any results that concluded with anyone identifying a difference at the higher bitrates.  Other than an occasional issue with pre-echo from instruments such as castanets, even the lower quality level q5 (160 kbit/s) is often cited as being transparent from the lossless version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis

https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Recommended_Ogg_Vorbis


Back in 2000 when Christopher Montgomery and the Xiph team first began work on the codec, they had already identified a few potential deficiencies with MP3 and were working toward providing a solution to them.

https://slashdot.org/story/00/08/14/1034209/ogg-vorbis---the-free-alternative-to-mp3


----------



## Blackwoof

Hydrogenaudio did a 192kbps multi codec test, Where Vorbis was 4,9. At 160kbps Q5 it still sounded better than QAAC/Lame on few samples that both give up on, so I don't by AAC being 4,94 for a minor gripe.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=120007.msg989005#msg989005


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> I would think that with music, if you put it at 320 VBR, and it could go above that, it would be because of super audible frequencies you can't even hear.



Only If the track averages 216kbps at a 160kbps target. AAC/Ogg are still MDCT codecs even at 320 ~ 500kbps something could fail. I stopped using Vorbis ages ago when some samples would still show the puffy wind artifact and to stop It needed 384kbps VBR, When AAC fails it sounds like MP3 but uglier.

With Musepack It doesn't have those issues, Heck It wasn't made for under 192kbps yet It outperforms both AAC/Ogg at 160kbps VBR. Would've been a wipe out if MPC was the popular one, Since It took till 2012 for AAC/Ogg/MP3 to come close to MPC @ 192.

These days any device with Android/ios & PC can play MPC with a 3rd party app. Since xHE AAC & Opus are too busy touting 96kbps in 2021, Opus performs even worse with minimal electronic ambient than the other 3 by having the bit rate reach 260kbps while MP3 is transparent at V5.


----------



## peskypesky

I'm lucky. For me, AAC at 160kbps is transparent. I've done dozens of ABX comparisons, with many different headphones, many different styles of music. I cannot tell FLAC from 160 AAC.  I'm 54 though, and my very high end hearing is gone....so that probably explains it.

I'm glad I don't hear the difference, as I can fit a lot more music on my computer and DAP's. And I have a LOT of music.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 18, 2021)

High frequencies with AAC can be an issue below 192, but above that it's only a case of momentary artifacting. I only found one recording that required more than 192. It's pretty rare, but audiences applauding and massed strings with lots of upper frequency sheen are the hardest to encode.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> High frequencies with AAC can be an issue below 192, but above that it's only a case of momentary artifacting. I only found one recording that required more than 192. It's pretty rare, but audiences applauding and massed strings with lots of upper frequency sheen are the hardest to encode.


----------



## Sterling2 (Apr 19, 2021)

I record relaxation sounds, like thunder showers. So far, the most life-like results have come from recording to DAT at 16/44.1.  Any copying to non-lossless makes the showers sound like white noise.


----------



## Roland P

I wonder, how 'bad' (or good) is DAT longplay? (32KHz 12bit). That bitrate is also used by those super small Sony NT cassettes.
I can't find much about it since it's pre-internet technology.


----------



## Sterling2

Roland P said:


> I wonder, how 'bad' (or good) is DAT longplay? (32KHz 12bit). That bitrate is also used by those super small Sony NT cassettes.
> I can't find much about it since it's pre-internet technology.


32 is in a word awful. Listening to it will wear you out. My Sony PCM-7010 plays and records it but I have not engaged it since 1992.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 19, 2021)

Roland P said:


> I wonder, how 'bad' (or good) is DAT longplay? (32KHz 12bit). That bitrate is also used by those super small Sony NT cassettes. I can't find much about it since it's pre-internet technology.



Better than cassette tapes in general, not nearly as good as high data rate lossy. It doesn't sound bad, but it's pretty much obsolete.



Sterling2 said:


> I record relaxation sounds, like thunder showers. So far, the most life-like results have come from recording to DAT at 16/44.1.  Any copying to non-lossless makes the showers sound like white noise.



If that is convenient enough, that works. But one of the advantages of AAC is that it is able to dynamically adjust data rate beyond 320 with VBR. So if you encoded your rain sounds at AAC 320 VBR, it would probably increase the data rate to the point where it could accurately reproduce the sound. I encode early 20th century 78s with tons of tiny clicks and those do very well with AAC, not so good with Frauenhofer.

I suppose you don't have a huge library of different rain sounds, so it probably doesn't matter though. You can just do those as FLAC and encode music as high data rate lossy.


----------



## iFi audio

peskypesky said:


> I'm glad I don't hear the difference, as I can fit a lot more music on my computer and DAP's. And I have a LOT of music.



Let me just say that you're lucky in that regard, I have to have FLACs because I got used to them a bit too much


----------



## bigshot

I'm format agnostic. As long as it's audibly transparent it's fine with me. Convenience is more of an issue to me than file size. I like AAC because one file can work for every purpose- serious listening in the home, and portable on the go.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> High frequencies with AAC can be an issue below 192, but above that it's only a case of momentary artifacting. I only found one recording that required more than 192. It's pretty rare, but audiences applauding and massed strings with lots of upper frequency sheen are the hardest to encode.



I've had few ambient tracks with loud percussion or synth artifact like that under 192 with AAC. Yet with MPC at 170kbps no such issues and In other times will upp the bit rate past 256kbps since It VBR with no upper frame limit, So some tracks can be 512 ~ 1300kbps even at 170k target.


----------



## bigshot

AAC will go beyond 320 with VBR too. There is no reason not to use VBR. It can't hurt, it can only help.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> Better than cassette tapes in general, not nearly as good as high data rate lossy. It doesn't sound bad, but it's pretty much obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sterling2 (Apr 20, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Better than cassette tapes in general, not nearly as good as high data rate lossy. It doesn't sound bad, but it's pretty much obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





bigshot said:


> I've retained my DAT editing system (Sony PCM-7010F's and RM-D7200 Edit Controller( because it yields the best results editing  field production, which is still recorded to DAT for SFX, like rain and seaside. There's no point to field recording that's lossless, none.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> AAC will go beyond 320 with VBR too. There is no reason not to use VBR. It can't hurt, it can only help.



Not at the same level, most encoders peak at 480Kb/s. Vorbis/MPC = 1mbit+ & Even MP3 by abusing the bit reservoir can reach 640kb/s. Also I've been testing LAME bit more, With --allshort switch the common killer samples are transparent at 224 ~ 320kbps(or higher). So I have no idea where the "MP3 short blocks are not short enough" claim Is from or Why the AAC/Ogg dev's hide there own "all short" switch.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 20, 2021)

Different codecs at different data rates react to different "killer samples" differently. I find that AAC 256 VBR covers absolutely everything I throw at it. It's transparent as you ever might need. You could save some space and encode smaller using different codecs or rates on a case by case basis, but who's going to spend hours finding the optimal way to encode a particular track just to save 100k in overall file size? The overall is what matters- the codec and data rate that can handle everything you throw at it with a small file size.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> Different codecs at different data rates react to different "killer samples" differently. I find that AAC 256 VBR covers absolutely everything I throw at it. It's transparent as you ever might need. You could save some space and encode smaller using different codecs or rates on a case by case basis, but who's going to spend hours finding the optimal way to encode a particular track just to save 100k in overall file size? The overall is what matters- the codec and data rate that can handle everything you throw at it with a small file size.



People have different target levels, MPC 160kbps VBR covers everything for me. The most demanding stuff ranges from 225 ~ 640kbps while with AAC/Ogg I need to set It at 320kbps VBR for that.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Flacs work well for me.
Heavy parametric equalizing can be problematic with compressed files.
I can perfectly afford the storage space to have every bit of music preserved, so I do not need any excuses to keep compressed/truncated files


----------



## gerelmx1986

PhonoPhi said:


> Flacs work well for me.
> Heavy parametric equalizing can be problematic with compressed files.
> I can perfectly afford the storage space to have every bit of music preserved, so I do not need any excuses to keep compressed/truncated files


My music is flac, hi-res flac & DSD  only occupying 1.40TB for 61000 tracks (3487 albums). All stored and mirrored to 3x 4TB external disks coating about 100€ To 70€ each Hardsisk


----------



## gerelmx1986

gerelmx1986 said:


> My music is flac, hi-res flac & DSD  only occupying 1.40TB for 61000 tracks (3487 albums). All stored and mirrored to 3x 4TB external disks coating about 100€ To 70€ each Hardsisk


For portable use i use either a NW-WM1A (128GB internal plus 1.0TB microSD)
Or
NW-A25 (16GB inte nal plus a 400GB microSD) this one doesnt support DSD. I have no issues converting DSD to 24/88.2 FLAC on this walkman.

forgot to tell that my music has a 4th mirror... 2x 1.0TB micro SD cards


----------



## bigshot

I’ve never had any problems EQing AAC files, but I wouldn’t consider my correction to be heavy filtering I guess. How far are you EQing?


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I’ve never had any problems EQing AAC files, but I wouldn’t consider my correction to be heavy filtering I guess. How far are you EQing?


I realized the difference is noticeable at the extreme of parametric equalizing (MSEB of Hiby). 256 were noticeable. I usually rarely use normal equalizing, but parametric is more fun, and I explored extremes.
It made sense to me (as with .tiff .jpeg processing analigy), and I was happy to count it as a pro-flac example.

Trying to be objective, as this forum implies, my mp3 were occasional old files (some web downloads from eons ago). I do not know codecs. Doing it with a systematic conversion may be a worthy test.


----------



## castleofargh

With strong EQ, auditory masking at or around the altered frequency won't give the same result. I guess it's possible for the outcome to be audibly different, if the codec dismissed something at a quieter level that turns out audible only once the EQ reduces the overal masking at that particular freq.
Perhaps something like that?


----------



## bigshot (Apr 23, 2021)

I equalize my system and the system wide EQ setting works the same for my AAC files as it does for my CDs. I'm not making massive EQ shifts though. I would think that if you were making enough of an EQ correction to interfere with a lossy codec, you should probably address the source of the imbalance rather than try to EQ that broad a correction. I've never heard anyone say they ran into problems EQing lossy files. I think this is something that only exists in pure theory, You'd never get that far in an extreme corner in real life.


----------



## PhonoPhi

castleofargh said:


> With strong EQ, auditory masking at or around the altered frequency won't give the same result. I guess it's possible for the outcome to be audibly different, if the codec dismissed something at a quieter level that turns out audible only once the EQ reduces the overal masking at that particular freq.
> Perhaps something like that?


I would think so.
Parametric equalizing use heavy processing.
The parameter there are something like:
Crisp -Thick
Detox - Vivid

But then MSEB is really well implemented, and using it in moderation is really enjoyable (somehow I never used much conventional frequency-based equalizers).

Having started it, I think I will have to do a blind test  ("deaf" test, as my wife joked about it).
I will use a single .flac file - converting it to different mp3s and then asking someone to convert mp3s back to .flacs and comparing it blindly.
Any suggestions for this approach?


----------



## bigshot

I have a test file set up with FLAC and three different codecs at 192, 256 and 320. It's all packaged in a single FLAC file. If you would like to use that I will send you a copy.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 23, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I equalize my system and the system wide EQ setting works the same for my AAC files as it does for my CDs. I'm not making massive EQ shifts though. I would think that if you were making enough of an EQ correction to interfere with a lossy codec, you should probably address the source of the imbalance rather than try to EQ that broad a correction. I've never heard anyone say they ran into problems EQing lossy files. I think this is something that only exists in pure theory, You'd never get that far in an extreme corner in real life.


It is hardly a problem but an observation; trying to relate it to your favourite concept of "transparency", it would be more of a test of resistance to the distortions, where more compressed mp3 start to "fall apart" by sounding less natural earlier. It happened at the extreme of the settings, which most would not use normally.

Then I also started to feel the responsibility to confirm using the same source file.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I have a test file set up with FLAC and three different codecs at 192, 256 and 320. It's all packaged in a single FLAC file. If you would like to use that I will send you a copy.


That would be perfect, thank you. Sending a link to the cloud upload would be ideal.


----------



## bigshot

Corrections that broad are getting into the realm of mixing, not normal playback. It's a given that for mixing you want a file with a lot of headroom. It's likely that you would be bumping into the noise floor of 16 bit as much as the lossy codec.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Corrections that broad are getting into the realm of mixing, not normal playback. It's a given that for mixing you want a file with a lot of headroom. It's likely that you would be bumping into the noise floor of 16 bit as much as the lossy codec.


In those tests, it is really the distortions started to be apparent, so I would not worry about noise levels (unless I am missing something).
If .flacs are the same size and of different resolution from the previous down&up conversions that would be ideal from what I can think.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 23, 2021)

Test file PMed to you. It's all in one FLAC file and the volume is balanced. You can cut the file up if you want. Just note the order of the ten samples when you do so you can rank them in quality and send me your results. I have a list that says what each one of the samples is in the order they appear in the file.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Test file PMed to you. It's all in one FLAC file and the volume is balanced. You can cut the file up if you want. Just note the order of the ten samples when you do so you can rank them in quality and send me your results. I have a list that says what each one of the samples is in the order they appear in the file.


Got the file, thank you!


----------



## PhonoPhi

The test was really interesting and insightful. I really appreciate it.

Great pieces of music - choral and orchestral. The latter with the orchestral overtones and the dynamic range should ideally be a good test piece.

Then the original recordings feel very limited to me in terms of their spectral range and sound stage. I compared with several of my random flacs.

I am not sure what is exactly the reason for the truncated spectral range, the original master?

I thought one of my treble exaggerating IEMs would be instructive to use  (treble murder for some electronic music recordings, it is often called). Not much to exaggerate, other than some strange recording noise in the choral music that felt quite revealing. 
Other than this noise, the choral piece is definitely less sensitive to variations.
The orchestral piece, the starting solo and the climactic end felt most revealing.

Nothing was falling apart with the parametric equalizing, but the extremes of equalizing still felt more revealing.

Anyhow, 
1 and 2 - not acceptable;
3- better not perfect;
4 - not acceptable;
5 - second best;
6 and 7 - more reasonable;
8 and 9 - not acceptable;
10 felt the best, perhaps after 9,  I've also compared to 5 -10 felt a bit better.

I did not use any file analysis, spectral or otherwise, just my direct listening impressions.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 23, 2021)

Here are your results:

1 and 2 - not acceptable; aac192 / frau320
3- better not perfect; frau192 (the poorest quality sample)
4 - not acceptable; lame256
5 - second best; lame320
6 and 7 - more reasonable; lame192 frau256
8 and 9 - not acceptable; Lossless / aac320 (the two highest quality samples)
10 felt the best, perhaps after 9, I've also compared to 5 -10 felt a bit better. aac256

Some real randomness there! Is this based on the ability to EQ it or just listening?

Your results are pretty typical for most people who take this test. Most people can't detect any differences consistently. A small percentage can tell up to 192, but not beyond that.

The recordings are from a high end label. Can't remember which one, but they are recent recordings. Classical music doesn't really have broad response except with cymbals and kettle drums.

Hope this was fun!


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 23, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Here are your results:
> 
> 1 and 2 - not acceptable; aac192 / frau320
> 3- better not perfect; frau192 (the poorest quality sample)
> ...


That was fun, indeed, thank you!

When I did rough comparison - 192 was the boundary that I thought I could distinguish.
I thought you have some 128 

aac256 had a soft spot, indeed, somehow. I will re-listen to 8 and 9.

it was mostly the direct listening. The files felt spectrally limited altogether, so parametric equalizing affected quite limitedly.

What were the original recordings - time and studio?


----------



## bigshot

I'm afraid I don't remember. I should have written them down. They were chosen by a golden eared audiophile in a classical music group. They came from an HD Audio source I think.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 23, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I'm afraid I don't remember. I should have written them down. They were chosen by a golden eared audiophile in a classical music group. They came from an HD Audio source I think.


That would be really great to know.
If they are really chosen by "golden ear" audiophiles - that would feel a bit strange to me.

The classical recordings are often spectrally limited, unfortunately.

One of the counter examples that surprised me was the Martin Frost's Brahms - BIS-SACD-2063.

That would be one of my primary test pieces for the comparison of file compression.


----------



## bigshot

I actually think the orchestral bit was BIS. Not sure about the choral. Classical music is miked from a distance though. You don't get ultra high frequencies because they don't carry that far, and the sub bass is pretty much when the contrabass or kettle drum is used.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I actually think the orchestral bit was BIS. Not sure about the choral. Classical music is miked from a distance though. You don't get ultra high frequencies because they don't carry that far, and the sub bass is pretty much when the contrabass or kettle drum is used.


I actually enjoy the close miking  - pianos, especially - feels amazing sometimes.

Did not they mike separate instruments in golden Karajan's era? Hearing solo instruments as if in orchestra is the most amazing experience to me.

The orchestral recording was opposite to anything I heard of BIS!

What were the pieces (neither me nor my family could not identify them, I am ashamed to say)?


----------



## bigshot

I don't know the choral, but the orchestral is Rimsky Korsakov.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 23, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I don't know the choral, but the orchestral is Rimsky Korsakov.


I could not find any BIS recordings of Rimsky Korsakov that fit: https://bis.se/composer/rimsky-korsakov-nikolay-andreyevich/

If this was a controlled test, it would be appropriate to know what was exactly tested.

I really would like to identify the source files and compare, especially that "golden ears" and what I heard was quite at odds.

P. S. I would really appreciate if someone else can help identify the files.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Impressive how @bigshot  sismisses audio is uality and refuses to get more storage for flac. Ah but h s drom Hollywood ah his movies these muat be 4K & UHD b cauae his eyes can eiatinguis the 999th shade of black


----------



## sander99

gerelmx1986 said:


> Impressive how @bigshot  sismisses audio is uality and refuses to get more storage for flac. Ah but h s drom Hollywood ah his movies these muat be 4K & UHD b cauae his eyes can eiatinguis the 999th shade of black


Some non-transparent text processing seems to have been applied to your message.


----------



## gerelmx1986

sander99 said:


> Some non-transparent text processing seems to have been applied to your message.


I find it idiotic people whinning on the irrelevance of flac (file size or extra detail that we supposedly dont hear) . Shouldnt be the same for movies? Why not a VHS or DVD 720p quality as is mostly transparent to a Blu-ray


----------



## VNandor

gerelmx1986 said:


> I find it idiotic people whinning on the irrelevance of flac (file size or extra detail that we supposedly dont hear) . Shouldnt be the same for movies? Why not a VHS or DVD 720p quality as is mostly transparent to a Blu-ray


Did you know that the same goes for movies as well? All the movies you've seen or store on your drive have gone through lossy compression. All the precious bits gone, never to be recovered...


----------



## gerelmx1986

VNandor said:


> Did you know that the same goes for movies as well? All the movies you've seen or store on your drive have gone through lossy compression. All the precious bits gone, never to be recovered...


Well is not that is like @bigshot says he can’t afford storage or hear a diff to flac.  UHD movies are huge ca. 50GB vs a divx FHD 2GB. And like our ears, our eyes age too, yet some can “see” 20 million colors..

but yeah video takea place mo.1 vs audio fo most


----------



## bigshot

gerelmx1986 said:


> I find it idiotic people whinning on the irrelevance of flac (file size or extra detail that we supposedly dont hear) . Shouldnt be the same for movies? Why not a VHS or DVD 720p quality as is mostly transparent to a Blu-ray



Transparency with video depends on screen size and seating distance. Here is a chart showing the point of transparency at different distances. With my screen size and seating distance I have no need for 4K. 1080 is the highest discernible resolution. DVDs can look quite good. Not so much VHS. Hope this helps.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 24, 2021)

Also, I've never said that I can't afford storage. I have over 200TB of storage right now in my home. The reason I encode everything to AAC 256 VBR is for convenience and speed. I can fit my entire music library on a 2TB drive and back it up quickly and simply. I don't need to transcode to load music on my portable devices and they load quickly. I can fit a lot more music on my portable devices. On two micro SD cards I have a TB of music. More than I can listen to in several years. I can easily organize music libraries by genre and move files from library to library quickly. I still own the CDs so I have no need for a lossless backup.

And I can do all this with absolutely no impact on the way the files sound. Convenience counts.


----------



## Sterling2 (Apr 24, 2021)

The this vs. that here seems forced, as well as dated. Long, long ago, like mid 1990's long ago the fledging  mp3 was seen as deficient in all manner except as a means to enjoy music via computer library, which history proves was enough, regardless of the awful sound, to begin paving a road to get us where we are today with AAC. I still remember MP3 replacing DAT in my work arena, radio commercial creative and production. Now, that was a valid this vs. that argument, a fabulous sounding medium against a medium that sounded lousy but could be emailed. We all know what won, the medium that could be emailed. But, today there's hardly a soul who can discern any sort of sound divergence between AAC and CD, or FLAC; yet,  since drive space is a vanishing issue, selecting a format for space considerations is just plain unnecessary, we can now go for whatever format we believe just sounds best. It's why I buy CDs and rip to iTunes in ALAC. It's also why I subscribe to Apple Music for streaming enjoyment, AAC sounding as good as any other format being streamed but with a better framework for my accommodation. The bottom line is there's no longer any need for settling on any music format that does not quite integrate to a lifestyle which demands performance as well as convenience.


----------



## bigshot

Convenience is the big factor that audiophiles ignore. They seem to think wearing a hair shirt will improve sound quality.


----------



## gerelmx1986

I used to have from 2004 to 2006  WMA 160kbps CBR it sounded at the time Okay and fine.

2006 to 2010 had mp3 Fraunhofer at 192kbps CBR. Because of the technology inside the DAC of the sony DAPs i used then. The sony DSEE these mp3 sounded transparent to me.

then 2011 got an iPod classic first time i realized mp3 sounded bad. I switched  to AAC 256 VBR. It sounded better than mp3 but the channels seemed to dance around e.g. L and R swapping in real time. That turned me off and decided to go lossless FLAC. My last lossy mp3 album was replaced with flac on 2018


----------



## bigshot

If you had checked off the Joint Stereo box AAC 256 VBR would have been fine.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Aside i noted (i listen ro classicql music only) that with mp3 and Nero AG AAC music sounded 2D, switching to lossless the music sounds holographic.

also mp3 AAc seem to remove aome dun and wlements e. G the clacking noise from some woodwind keys or plucking noise from harpsichord mechanism, making music listening boring.

also when i started with flac had a 420GB hard drive which in 5 months got replaced by 1TB. Which got replac d by end of 2017 (5 years) by 2TB (DSD & 24-bit FLAC frenzy). Which quickly filled up by mid 2018 and since then have had 4TB which until today has 1’66TB free (music 1.4T. Videos, some music clips , HBO Chernobyl and other series plus gay adult films and pics 800GB . Photos like 40GB and documents barely 2GB)


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2021)

Blind, level matched, direct A/B switched, or your impression doesn’t count.

I’ll let others discuss your video collection.


----------



## gerelmx1986

bigshot said:


> Blind, level matched, direct A/B switched, or your impression doesn’t count.
> 
> I’ll let others discuss your video collection.


The differences i hear between 16-bit and 24-bit or DSD from same material can be mostly attributed to the better mastering on the Hi-rrs. Sadly is a trick being played by some labels to make you believe CD sounds bad.
I’ve converted some of these 24-bit to 15-bit and they sound equally good


----------



## Roland P

Mastering is everything. The 'remastered' album of Michael Jacksons Bad sounds like it's clipping very hard. You need lossless codecs to preserve that amount of distortion


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 25, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Blind, level matched, direct A/B switched, or your impression doesn’t count.
> 
> I’ll let others discuss your video collection.


On a subject of tests, I realized, @bigshot, you've only shared the test files privately.
I ask you to share here the file for everyone. Just 9 and 10 can be sufficient. You can label them A and B randomly for an added test/fun.

I really had fun yesterday with 9 and 10...

I really want to understand - how these test recordings correspond to the "audiophile" quality standards and what equipment can be the best to use to fully enjoy them (I will tame my opinion for now).
So I would greatly appreciate if anyone interested could test these files and express their opinion.

It should be important to identify the source - the scientific tests need to have full experimental details, and be accountable and reproducible.
I know now the orchestral piece (got helped), but still can't find the recording.

Then we can have mighty good discussion on transparency - how it can mean different things 

P. S. Edited largely for grammar, added tag, waiting for reply.


----------



## castleofargh

Sharing copyrighted files on the forum can rapidly become a problem.
But the references for the tracks wouldn't hurt. @bigshot only has like 3 albums, so it shouldn't  take long to find the reference.


----------



## PhonoPhi

castleofargh said:


> Sharing copyrighted files on the forum can rapidly become a problem.
> But the references for the tracks wouldn't hurt. @bigshot only has like 3 albums, so it shouldn't  take long to find the reference.


They are ~1-min fragments, and can be easily 70+ years 
But absolutely, whatever is perfectly appropriate only.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2021)

This is a private test. There are multiple versions of it with the samples in different order. Please don't share it. I hand out a different order to each person who takes the test.

The purpose of this test is for you to find out for yourself, not to prove anything to the world.

These are modern recordings from a respected label selected by a golden eared audiophile. I was having a discussion with her in a group about transparency and she swore she could easily tell the difference. I let her select the sample from her own collection. These are tracks she believed were the most difficult to encode without artifacts. I didn't write down what they are from. There's nothing wrong with the samples she chose. But feel free to go ahead and select your own best sample and set up a test file for yourself. I'm quite confident the results will be the same.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> This is a private test. There are multiple versions of it with the samples in different order. Please don't share it.
> 
> The purpose of this test is for you to find out for yourself, not to prove anything to the world.


For a test to be any meaningful, what is tested  needs to be known and fully understood.
This is a scientific forum, right?


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2021)

Feel free to make up your own test to your own specifications.

I'm glad I could get your ball rolling for you. These are the sorts of tests you should be doing yourself and not depending on others to set up for you.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Feel free to make up your own test to your own specifications.
> 
> I'm glad I could get your ball rolling for you. These are the sorts of tests you should be doing yourself and not depending on others to set up for you.


Now, imagine, if the test contains music that is very limited in frequency, dynamic range, etc, than there will be naturally little difference in quality with flac, 320, 192, etc, only peculiarities of codecs.

If you do not share the files publicly - that is where we will leave it.

After all, the most transparent to everything is vacuum.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2021)

I should have determined more carefully your intent in this test. This is a causal test. I didn't realize you wanted such control. Sorry. As I've said several times already, you can design your own test.

The orchestral sample sounds full range to me. And even though choral music doesn't have a wide frequency range, it is very complex and very difficult to encode without artifacting. With data rates this high, the issue is artifacting, not high end roll off. That generally stops around 192 with most codecs, and all of these samples are 192 and above. You can select whatever samples you think are best when you set up your own test.


----------



## KeithPhantom (Apr 25, 2021)

Roland P said:


> Mastering is everything. The 'remastered' album of Michael Jacksons Bad sounds like it's clipping very hard. You need lossless codecs to preserve that amount of distortion


Clipping isn’t solved by just reencoding. Not for what I know.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 25, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I should have determined more carefully your intent in this test. This is a causal test. I didn't realize you wanted such control. Sorry. As I've said several times already, you can design your own test.
> 
> The orchestral sample sounds full range to me. And even though choral music doesn't have a wide frequency range, it is very complex and very difficult to encode without artifacting. You can select whatever samples you think are best when you set up your own test.


You could not have determined my intent.
I started testing distortions of parametric equalizing, they were minimal. Then I was really curious about the difference and really had fun with the comparisons. The difference between 9 and 10 really strikes me.
So what can be wrong with wanting to know the source file - when and how it was recorded.

What do I ask to "control"?

I also really want to know how it sounds best to different people. To me it was the best just using a phone.

The choral music has some fine noise/artefacts - that was most instructive for me in comparing different versions, otherwise it is similar/transparent indeed.

P. S. Sorry it was hard for me to imagine the test with unknown source files...


----------



## old tech

PhonoPhi said:


> For a test to be any meaningful, what is tested  needs to be known and fully understood.
> This is a scientific forum, right?


The problem though with early disclosure is that it lends itself to cheating which is not scientific at all.  Disclosure after the test results are posted is what is required.


----------



## PhonoPhi

old tech said:


> The problem though with early disclosure is that it lends itself to cheating which is not scientific at all.  Disclosure after the test results are posted is what is required.


I asked about the origin of the source file: when and how the original recording was made. I also asked to post just two selected fragments for everyone to listen and express their opinion.

It is about transparency of testing actually.


----------



## castleofargh

If you lack information, you're limited in what you can conclude. It's only one test anyway and it shouldn't lead to grand conclusions about lossy audio. Sadly, too many tests offered online over the years, contained weird issues unrelated to testing the codecs themselfs. That's why I usually suggest to do your own conversion of your own files and try to ABX them in foobar or have someone else help. Even if you mess up somewhere, it will at least inform you if your use is transparent to you. Which IMO is what counts. And for once, it's failling the test that's the most conclusive. As passing could occur for various reasons.

I agree that if an experiment isn't well documented, it won't be worth much. But in this case, you were the subject of @bigshot ’s test. He's the one looking at the results with the hysterical laughter of every mad scientist. Maybe giving you false results is part of it all.😈 Muhahahahhaha.


----------



## PhonoPhi

castleofargh said:


> If you lack information, you're limited in what you can conclude. It's only one test anyway and it shouldn't lead to grand conclusions about lossy audio. Sadly, too many tests offered online over the years, contained weird issues unrelated to testing the codecs themselfs. That's why I usually suggest to do your own conversion of your own files and try to ABX them in foobar or have someone else help. Even if you mess up somewhere, it will at least inform you if your use is transparent to you. Which IMO is what counts. And for once, it's failling the test that's the most conclusive. As passing could occur for various reasons.
> 
> I agree that if an experiment isn't well documented, it won't be worth much. But in this case, you were the subject of @bigshot ’s test. He's the one looking at the results with the hysterical laughter of every mad scientist. Maybe giving you false results is part of it all.😈 Muhahahahhaha.


The point about mad scientists is understood and well taken, Sir!

The ultimate wisdom learned - the emptier the things are - the more transparent they can be in their approach of the state of the full vacuum.
Unless you have a good cable or two, of course, that can change things mightily!
(Today in another forum a person with "the physics degree from UCL" enlightened me that cables need to be measured with an oscilloscope, the resistance values are not sufficient)

No more questions asked.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 26, 2021)

I'm going to note that none of these complaints were made until he failed to identify any of the samples.

My test is designed to help people determine their threshold of transparency. It doesn't do any good at all if a person really doesn't want to know and has already made up their mind. I don't care. It's their loss, not mine. Pearls before swine and all that.

And I don't give false results. I don't have to. Above 192, most lossy codecs are either completely transparent, or very close to it. I won't share the key because I want to continue to let people take this test. I don't want to have to prepare new samples every time. If you think the results are incorrect, set up your own test. Again I don't care because it will come out the same.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 26, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I'm going to note that none of these complaints were made until he failed to identify any of the samples.
> 
> My test is designed to help people determine their threshold of transparency. It doesn't do any good at all if a person really doesn't want to know and has already made up their mind. I don't care. It's their loss, not mine.


I am going to note that my failure to identify does not bother me at all, I did not claim any identification abilities. (I have stored and will store in flacs, at least hoping for the new medical/bionic developments in extending human hearing abilities ).

The test on distortion (as originally intended) was clear and instructive - no big distortions, very minor differences with codecs.

What really picked my interest is that in @bigshot  message was a description: "These bits of music were selected by a golden ear audiophile as recordings that are impossible to compress in lossy without an audible difference." Perhaps it was a joke or irony, because what I heard was a very limited recording. Very little past 2-4 kHz (just based on what I heard), limited stereo effects.

But may be my setup is no good at all, so I really wanted a second opinion.
Also investing quite a bit of time in figuring out the orchestral piece, I still hope to find an original recording.

Then it is simpler for me to assume that if a very limited original file is used  - almost any compression will sound the same, 128, 160 - why not, a very good test, also 256 aac sounded curiously the best... (to a reasonable extent I agree that the most useful information is in the mids).

In absence of any further information, my hypothesis is at least 50% probable 

P. S. I've stated my concern with the files right away before knowing about being right and wrong - not to go further there not instructively for the "science"...


----------



## bigshot

I did you a favor by setting up a test for you. You are welcome.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I did you a favor by setting up a test for you. You are welcome.


My understanding of "transparency" and the limitations of the recordings and tests was greatly enhanced as well, so I am triply and profoundly grateful indeed.


----------



## bigshot

Glad it helped


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> Glad it helped


You are the best!


----------



## gerelmx1986

lossy audio is bad for your health 

http://weltenschule.de/Logologie/info/MP3-Gefahr/MP3-risk.html


----------



## Blackwoof

gerelmx1986 said:


> lossy audio is bad for your health
> 
> http://weltenschule.de/Logologie/info/MP3-Gefahr/MP3-risk.html


So they have no clue how Lossy works works at all?. Since many places use 256kbps VBR for CD quality stereo and more complex samples. Any video game from 1999 ~ now used Lossy audio since months worth of voice/sound effects eat up space since many games on the Switch use 64GB carts.

Weird how we never get blog's how H.264/HEVC hurts your eyes since at 500kbit ~ 16mbit for 1080p video and 96mbit for 4K.


----------



## bigshot

Most internet audio and video uses lossy audio. So does streaming. It's absurd what some sites peddle.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> Most internet audio and video uses lossy audio. So does streaming. It's absurd what some sites peddle.



Many don't like being told at 256kbps VBR with a strong encoder it find for anything you throw at it.


----------



## bigshot

A lot of people believe what they want to believe, even if they know inside they are wrong.


----------



## castleofargh (May 8, 2021)

gerelmx1986 said:


> lossy audio is bad for your health
> 
> http://weltenschule.de/Logologie/info/MP3-Gefahr/MP3-risk.html


As I was reading, it felt less and less like research, and more like one of those ”games are the cause of school shootings! Data says no, but admit it would be scary if true. So let's ban violent games anyway!”.
It's almost pseudo science at this point. Yes hearing is a fine tuned system and in the absence of certain variables, we can lose the ability to hear properly even after full hearing is restored. One reason why it's not advised to wait years before getting hearing aids when massive losses start suddenly happening(we’re talking like 30 dB loss or something I think).
But for the same worries to be justified about lossy codecs, I expect that we would have to listen to that type of sound exclusively and non stop for weeks. probably months. That alone is a little silly and might apply to 4 guys in the entire world. Even them will still probably get some amount of normal hearing interaction from noises made around them or by them.

Then, lossy codecs have their main data reduction on quiet sounds within the music. Because that's where auditory masking works the most clearly and consistantly, while a bit is a bit, even stupidly quiet ones. At those levels, the music has usually been processed in all sorts of ways, the playback system will add loads of distortions, and again, ambient noises(the real audio plague) will probably say hello every moment of every day.

I can only talk for myself, but after reading this paper as seriously as I could, I have decided that my lossy library will survive another day.


----------



## PhonoPhi (May 8, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Most internet audio and video uses lossy audio. So does streaming. It's absurd what some sites peddle.


If to follow your logic trying to justify your causes - most food sold are GMO-based.
Furthermore, for the basic nutrients required to sustain the human existence - the concoction of corn floor and soy meal with some microelements is fully sufficient. 

Daring to go further a bit, whiskey is hardly chemically more than vodka contaminated with the additives from burned dry swamps (note that I am not trying to eloquently argue this point in the connoisseur's forums, even if I can scientifically reasonably prove it).

Given all the physical limitations above, it is so great that the high-quality recordings are not much limited by physical resources!


----------



## bigshot

My point was, lossy audio is in so many different things, you’d have to give up media in general to avoid it.


----------



## PhonoPhi (May 8, 2021)

bigshot said:


> My point was, lossy audio is in so many different things, you’d have to give up media in general to avoid it.


Absolutely.

One may not ever get all what an artist intended to express - either by limitations of the expression itself or its recording and digitization..

To me, the "audiophile" records open amazing and unique opportunities, such as listening to every solo instrument or emphasizing string sections when needed in a symphonic performance.

Or instead of listening to piano "as if in a real concert hall" that is effectively as a mono-like sound source, to feel my head immersed inside the piano or having 3-D 2-piano sound, which is as fantastic to me, as "unrealistic".

For the records, with all the tests similar to your file (thank you again) that I have done,  with the recordings of my choice, the conversion of which were done by another person, I can nearly 100% distinguish 128 mp3s, ~75% 160, and at 192 is a borderline that I would not be both comfortable claiming that I can do it and ever having in my library unless I have absolutely no other choice.
Actually, our only family professional recording (my son playing a piano concerto with a youth orchestra) was kindly given to us as 128 and is fully sufficient for the full appreciation, given the piano and orchestral ranges and their interplay in this case.


----------



## omegaorgun (May 8, 2021)

FLAC is superior for sound quality, but it takes up way more disk space.






MP3 is good for mobile use if you need to pack in a ton of tracks on an SD card or streaming with low bandwidth.





Both have their uses, pros and cons. What is the argument here again?


----------



## 71 dB (May 8, 2021)

FireLion said:


> FLAC is superior for sound quality, but it takes up way more disk space.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FLAC supports any PCM bit resolution from 4 to 32 bits and any sample rate from 1 Hz to 65,535 Hz in 1 Hz increments or from 10 Hz to 655,350 Hz in 10 Hz increments. So you don't need to waste disk space for 3381 kbps / 96 kHz files. Typically 16 bit / 44.1 kHz FLAC has a bitrate of around 800 kbps and that is as "superior" sound quality as it gets.

128 kbps mp3 on the other hand is problematic with challenging material and I'd recommend at least 192 kbps for lossy formats.

So, if we compare FLAC and mp3, the reasonable comparison is between bitrates ~800 kbps (FLAC, lossless) and 192-320 kbps (mp3, lossy).


----------



## bigshot (May 8, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> One may not ever get all what an artist intended to express - either by limitations of the expression itself or its recording and digitization.



Hopefully the artist listened to the playback of the mix and approved it. If they did that, then you can get their intent. Fidelity isn't that difficult. Digital audio can easily be human ears, and even inexpensive electronics can be transparent as well. The hard part is the transducers. If you are shooting for the artist's intent, you'll want to get as close to the sorts of transducers the artist used for monitoring as possible. That would be calibrated studio monitors in an acoustically complementary room.

Listening to music on headphones is miles further away from the artist's intent than any file format or DAC might create. For artist's intent, it's speakers all the way. But I don't worry about artist's intent. I want music to sound good to my experience and taste. Again, that is EQ and speakers and a good room.



FireLion said:


> Both have their uses, pros and cons. What is the argument here again?



When an audio codec and data rate reaches audible transparency, you can shove more samples and bits into it, but it won't sound any better to human ears. At a sufficient data rate, lossy audio is indistinguishable from lossless. The only reason for higher data rates is if you plan to do signal processing, and that falls more into the realm of mixing and mastering, not listening for home use. I have a huge music library and it's all encoded at AAC 256 VBR. I've spent a lot of time comparing these files to the original lossless CDs and I can't detect any difference. No one I've ever run across has been able to discern a difference in a controlled test. People think they can in a sighted test, but as soon as they compare blind, all that disappears.

Lossy and lossless can sound identical.


----------



## Blackwoof

71 dB said:


> FLAC supports any PCM bit resolution from 4 to 32 bits and any sample rate from 1 Hz to 65,535 Hz in 1 Hz increments or from 10 Hz to 655,350 Hz in 10 Hz increments. So you don't need to waste disk space for 3381 kbps / 96 kHz files. Typically 16 bit / 44.1 kHz FLAC has a bitrate of around 800 kbps and that is as "superior" sound quality as it gets.
> 
> 128 kbps mp3 on the other hand is problematic with challenging material and I'd recommend at least 192 kbps for lossy formats.
> 
> So, if we compare FLAC and mp3, the reasonable comparison is between bitrates ~800 kbps (FLAC, lossless) and 192-320 kbps (mp3, lossy).


AAC, Vorbis, Musepack and Opus outperform MP3 at 128kbps, there fully transparent at 192kbps and even stuff that would kill MP3 at 320kbps. Since most of them can go above 320kbps on harder and more complex audio. Not all music with 16/44 Flac is 800kbps much of my Metal/electronic(harsh noise) are 1100kbps average with some pushing 1420kbps like on venereology by Merzbow.


----------



## 71 dB

Blackwoof said:


> AAC, Vorbis, Musepack and Opus outperform MP3 at 128kbps, there fully transparent at 192kbps and even stuff that would kill MP3 at 320kbps. Since most of them can go above 320kbps on harder and more complex audio. Not all music with 16/44 Flac is 800kbps much of my Metal/electronic(harsh noise) are 1100kbps average with some pushing 1420kbps like on venereology by Merzbow.


Yes. I was talking ONLY about mp3 and FLAC (because I was commenting FireLion's post about those two). Of course there are FLACs that go far above (but also below) the 800 kbps, because the amount of redundancy is NOT the same on all music. Merzbow is not music. It is noise called music. Noise doesn't have redundancy, hence bitrate close to redbook.   On the other hand dynamic piece of classical music with long quiet sections might compress well for a FLAC of only 700 kbps average bitrate.


----------



## gerelmx1986

71 dB said:


> Yes. I was talking ONLY about mp3 and FLAC (because I was commenting FireLion's post about those two). Of course there are FLACs that go far above (but also below) the 800 kbps, because the amount of redundancy is NOT the same on all music. Merzbow is not music. It is noise called music. Noise doesn't have redundancy, hence bitrate close to redbook.   On the other hand dynamic piece of classical music with long quiet sections might compress well for a FLAC of only 700 kbps average bitrate.


----------



## 71 dB

gerelmx1986 said:


>


406 kbps? That's crazy low, but not impossible.


----------



## gerelmx1986

71 dB said:


> 406 kbps? That's crazy low, but not impossible.


I have  wven lower i think as low as 340kbps but is a very quiet piano sonata. Like this one (very high dynamic range)


----------



## Blackwoof

71 dB said:


> Yes. I was talking ONLY about mp3 and FLAC (because I was commenting FireLion's post about those two). Of course there are FLACs that go far above (but also below) the 800 kbps, because the amount of redundancy is NOT the same on all music. Merzbow is not music. It is noise called music. Noise doesn't have redundancy, hence bitrate close to redbook.   On the other hand dynamic piece of classical music with long quiet sections might compress well for a FLAC of only 700 kbps average bitrate.


Yeah I knew that but I still forget you can't nuke comments like on Reddit/Twitter. That cause Merzbow on that album was brickwalled I've had Noise based music as low as 300 ~ 800kbps when not super loud & much more dynamic.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Lowest kbps for FLAC 16/44.1 the 130 kbps is spoken word and the rest below is music, prob. very short pieces


The highest over 7600 kbps (24-bit 352.8kHz)


----------



## bigshot

Wouldn't the data rate have more to do with high frequency content than it would volume level?


----------



## gerelmx1986

bigshot said:


> Wouldn't the data rate have more to do with high frequency content than it would volume level?


 FLACs kbps are influenced by

Song lengyh
Complexity of material being encided
Bit depth and sample rate


----------



## VNandor

gerelmx1986 said:


> FLACs kbps are influenced by
> 
> Song lengyh
> Complexity of material being encided
> Bit depth and sample rate


And probably number of channels as well.


----------



## bigshot

Yes, but how do you define complexity. I think that would be the amount of high frequencies and randomness, not the volume or number of instruments in the band.


----------



## gerelmx1986

bigshot said:


> Yes, but how do you define complexity. I think that would be the amount of high frequencies and randomness, not the volume or number of instruments in the band.


I think yes the amount of silence vs parts withmuwic. In my experience Harpsichord and organ music are thehardest to compress well with flac (and lossy compression too)


----------



## bigshot

Harpsichords have lots of high frequency harmonics and very little dynamic range. I don’t think volume matters as much unless it’s total silence.


----------



## gerelmx1986

bigshot said:


> Harpsichords have lots of high frequency harmonics and very little dynamic range. I don’t think volume matters as much unless it’s total silence.


The same i think . Has to do more with the silence parts


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Wouldn't the data rate have more to do with high frequency content than it would volume level?


I don't know much about FLAC myself as I don't use it much myself, but I think you get data compression simply "forgetting about" the most significant zero bits even before removing other types of redundancy.


----------



## 71 dB

Out of interest I took a 18 seconds clip of some music by me, scaled it so that the maximum sample is 0 dBFS. Then I saved the file (16/44.1 wav) and it was 3.1 MB as expected. The I saved FLAC of it (level 8 "best", 16 bit). It gave a 1.7 MB file, about 55 % of the wav. That's why experience with FLAC. I tend to get files of that percentage compared to wav. The I bitshifted the waveform by 1 bit (6 dB attenuation) and saved it again as FLAC and now I got 1.5 MB file. I kept bitshifting the waveform and saving the corresponding FLAC. I took the filesizes to Libreoffice and made the curve below showing how the FLAC file size gets smaller as the bit depth used drops. In the end the waveform was almost completely quantization noise so the right-most values reflect that, but the left-most values should be quite valid. We can see, that if for example only the lowest 12 bits are used, the expected filesize is about 1/3 of the wav file size (~470 kbps).


----------



## bigshot

I guess FLAC compression is dependent on different things than lossy compression. Makes sense.


----------



## 71 dB (May 9, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I guess FLAC compression is dependent on different things than lossy compression. Makes sense.


Lossless data compression (such as FLAC) is based on removing _information_ redundancy.
Lossy data compression (such as mp3 is based on removing _perceptual_ redundancy.

Lossless compression is like saving shelf space by throwing away CDs you happen to have 2 or 3 copies of for some reason. Keeping only one copy doesn't make you have any smaller music collection, but you saved shelf-space. Lossy compression is like throwing away CDs you don't really like and don't ever listen to anyway. You lose that music, but you are ok with it and you saved shelf-space!


----------



## peskypesky

71 dB said:


> Lossless data compression (such as FLAC) is based on removing _information_ redundancy.
> Lossy data compression (such as mp3 is based on removing _perceptual_ redundancy.
> 
> Lossless compression is like saving shelf space by throwing away CDs you happen to have 2 or 3 copies of for some reason. Keeping only one copy doesn't make you have any smaller music collection, but you saved shelf-space. Lossy compression is like throwing away CDs you don't really like and don't ever listen to anyway. You lose that music, but you are ok with it and you saved shelf-space!



Good lossy compression (at a medium or high bitrate) is like throwing away cd's that are blank and can't be heard anyway.


----------



## Blackwoof

71 dB said:


> 406 kbps? That's crazy low, but not impossible.






This is the lowest bit rate I got with a lossless codec, It is not rare for a Lossless codec to reach MP3 bit rates.


----------



## Blackwoof

gerelmx1986 said:


> I think yes the amount of silence vs parts withmuwic. In my experience Harpsichord and organ music are thehardest to compress well with flac (and lossy compression too)



That depends on If your hearing can sense the high freq artifacts which Is why I think VBR 160Kbps AAC is transparent to me 99% of the time. 90% of MP3 artifacts are from it struggling with content at 7 ~ 22KHz while Opus/AAC don't.


----------



## peskypesky (May 10, 2021)

Blackwoof said:


> That depends on If your hearing can sense the high freq artifacts which Is why I think VBR 160Kbps AAC is transparent to me 99% of the time. 90% of MP3 artifacts are from it struggling with content at 7 ~ 22KHz while Opus/AAC don't.


My ears are 55 years old, and AAC is transparent well below 160kbps VBR.


----------



## bigshot

The VBR might be the reason for that. I have a couple of recordings that artifact slightly at AAC 160 CBR.


----------



## Ryokan

I downloaded some hi-res albums (around 1761kbps) thinking they would sound better and was disappointed that they didn't, so went back to using 320kbps as the files are much smaller, 120mb compared to around 700.


----------



## bigshot

Quality of sound depends on the quality of recording, mixing and mastering a lot more than it does whether it is lossy, redbook or HD audio.


----------



## Ryokan

As I've come to realise, some of my mp3 files sound better than the same album in flac, because they're different recordings. E.G Rush Subdivisions recorded my Island Mercury Vs flac 1757kbps different label.


----------



## bigshot

Yeah. It's best to talk to record collectors and ask them which specific release of a particular album sounds the best. It can be a CD release, an SACD release, even an LP. It all depends. But if you encode whatever the best version is in high data rate lossy, it's going to sound as good as it possible can to human ears.


----------



## Roland P

This gives some nice info too: https://dr.loudness-war.info/


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> Quality of sound depends on the quality of recording, mixing and mastering a lot more than it does whether it is lossy, redbook or HD audio.


So very true...unless you're talking about something like a 128kb mp3. With low bit-rate lossy, the sound quality will get audibly degraded.

But with some of the newer codecs, like opus, 128kb can sound quite close to FLAC.


----------



## drewbinaj

I could never hear a difference. Spotify 320 streaming is enough for me, and I'm assuming most other people as well.


----------



## athegn1

Try this test:- 

http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html


----------



## peskypesky (May 12, 2021)

athegn1 said:


> Try this test:-
> 
> http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html


lol. they all sound the same.


I can't even hear a difference with the lower quality Spotify:
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify.html


----------



## athegn1

Yes that's what I found; 56% I.e just guessing.


----------



## Ryokan

What is considered to be the minimum bit rate for optimum listening, 256kbps? I've just converted all my flac files to 320kbps for portable listening as it saves me buying a larger card, and I'm not convinced I can hear a difference. I always thought I could tell an Mp3 (256 or below) from a flac but am fairly sure a test would show otherwise.


----------



## bigshot

I use AAC 256 VBR. With MP3 LAME you might want to go to 320 VBR. This is a little beyond the threshold, just to be safe.


----------



## peskypesky (May 14, 2021)

Ryokan said:


> What is considered to be the minimum bit rate for optimum listening, 256kbps? I've just converted all my flac files to 320kbps for portable listening as it saves me buying a larger card, and I'm not convinced I can hear a difference. I always thought I could tell an Mp3 (256 or below) from a flac but am fairly sure a test would show otherwise.


I think LAME mp3 192kbps VBR is pretty much transparent most of the time.

In the past year I've switched from mp3 to AAC and normally a 160 VBR.


----------



## bigshot

I found a weird track that artifacted a tiny bit at 192. It was clean at 256, so to be safe, I set my target at 320, These were all at CBR to make things even. With VBR, 192 might be fine. I wanted to know for sure before I started building my media server, so I chose one notch above transparent and added VBR to that.


----------



## peskypesky (May 14, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I found a weird track that artifacted a tiny bit at 192. It was clean at 256, so to be safe, I set my target at 320, These were all at CBR to make things even. With VBR, 192 might be fine. I wanted to know for sure before I started building my media server, so I chose one notch above transparent and added VBR to that.


Yeah, 20 years ago, when mp3 encoding algorithms were still crude, it was best to use 320. So that's what I was using for the past 2 decades. Not sure why it took me so long to switch to aac, which achieves equal sound quality to mp3 at lower bitrates.

I cannot tell the difference between 160k aac and FLAC. At all. In MANY ABX tests.

In fact, I decided to try even lower bitrates, and I still failed to distinguish....maybe my 55 year old ears are shot.


----------



## bigshot

It isn't your ears, it's about artifacting. There are certain sounds that are hard to encode. Audiences clapping, certain kinds of massed strings. If it artifacts, it is audible. Not a subtle thing. They call these things killer samples.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Ryokan said:


> What is considered to be the minimum bit rate for optimum listening, 256kbps? I've just converted all my flac files to 320kbps for portable listening as it saves me buying a larger card, and I'm not convinced I can hear a difference. I always thought I could tell an Mp3 (256 or below) from a flac but am fairly sure a test would show otherwise.


I’d keep the flacs to be sure


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> It isn't your ears, it's about artifacting. There are certain sounds that are hard to encode. Audiences clapping, certain kinds of massed strings. If it artifacts, it is audible. Not a subtle thing. They call these things killer samples.


I used to hear artifacting on 128k mp3's back in the day. It was pretty obvious. But that was over 20 years ago. I doubt I would hear it on LAME at 192 these days. Maybe if I really TRIED to...but that's not how I listen to music...


----------



## castleofargh

Ryokan said:


> What is considered to be the minimum bit rate for optimum listening, 256kbps? I've just converted all my flac files to 320kbps for portable listening as it saves me buying a larger card, and I'm not convinced I can hear a difference. I always thought I could tell an Mp3 (256 or below) from a flac but am fairly sure a test would show otherwise.


I keep my mp3, but I wouldn't suggest to keep encoding with mp3. AAC does better and now works about anywhere.
It's like vorbis and opus, you don't have to throw vorbis files away, but your next encoding should clearly use opus if you look for the most compression that can still sound nice.


----------



## bigshot

No need for FLAC if you have the cds


----------



## peskypesky

castleofargh said:


> I keep my mp3, but I wouldn't suggest to keep encoding with mp3. AAC does better and now works about anywhere.
> It's like vorbis and opus, you don't have to throw vorbis files away, but your next encoding should clearly use opus if you look for the most compression that can still sound nice.


opus and ogg are not nearly as widely supported as mp3 and aac


----------



## bigshot

Not on Apple


----------



## castleofargh

peskypesky said:


> opus and ogg are not nearly as widely supported as mp3 and aac


Indeed, I was just making a parallel as we have the same relation of retired codec with a junior picking up the flag. All while coming from the same respective houses, so we have little reason to assume that the old codec does better.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Sonos supports only flac 16/44.1 . So when i want to liarwn to the music via sonos speakers i so convert with Fraunhoffer AAC (in my case it does not go above 224kbps VBR)


----------



## Ryokan

Is there a preferred converter or do they all pretty much do the same job? I'm using JetAudio.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Ryokan said:


> Is there a preferred converter or do they all pretty much do the same job? I'm using JetAudio.


I use dbPowerAmp


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> No need for FLAC if you have the cds


A big chunk of my library is the files purchased on-line.
All FLAC. I do still purchase 24/96, if within 15% difference. Those 24/96 sound mightier, at least after a glass or two of shiraz


----------



## gerelmx1986

PhonoPhi said:


> A big chunk of my library is the files purchased on-line.
> All FLAC. I do still purchase 24/96, if within 15% difference. Those 24/96 sound mightier, at least after a glass or two of shiraz


Exactly or ripped CDs from friend or library.

aside whats the point of this excuse when you have up to 16TB platter hard drives and more than 50TB in SSD


----------



## Ryokan

I've noticed the prices of downloads have steadily crept up since they were first offered on sites where they were usually 192kbps. I can often buy a cd cheaper now, or for not much more than a flac download. Downloading illegal copies bought down the price of cds back in the 90's, but now they're heading to where cds were once priced, especially extended versions of popular albums.


----------



## PhonoPhi

gerelmx1986 said:


> Exactly or ripped CDs from friend or library.
> 
> aside whats the point of this excuse when you have up to 16TB platter hard drives and more than 50TB in SSD


Exactly. In my case just two 400 Gb SD cards do (just few grams to always carry with me in a DAP) , and if I ever have more, I am sure 1-2 Tb will become affordable.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Ryokan said:


> I've noticed the prices of downloads have steadily crept up since they were first offered on sites where they were usually 192kbps. I can often buy a cd cheaper now, or for not much more than a flac download. Downloading illegal copies bought down the price of cds back in the 90's, but now they're heading to where cds were once priced, especially extended versions of popular albums.


I bought most of my music at Presto.
The CDs are often at big sales, but with shipping and handling and ripping, downloads are still so easier.
The current model everywhere digital is to force/coerce the "pay per use" subsriptions...


----------



## Ryokan

PhonoPhi said:


> downloads are still so easier.



I think this is why some sites charge a premium, they know people want things 'now', as sometimes I do especially when I discover new music.


----------



## gerelmx1986

I did a test on file sizes
Flac 16/44.1 album 360MB
FDK AAC Q5.0 (VBR target 224kbps) 128MB
Same AAC encoder but CBR 320kbps 160MB
Same AAC but CBR 512kbps 250MB
Mp3 lane VBR V0 (240kbps VBR) 126MB
Lame mp3 CBR 320kbps 161MB
Lame mp3 ABR 320kbps 151MB

mp3 and cvr aac spectrometer graphs look better than aac VBR


----------



## peskypesky

Ryokan said:


> Is there a preferred converter or do they all pretty much do the same job? I'm using JetAudio.


I use fre:ac most of the time...but also foobar2000 at times.  I'm on a PC.


----------



## peskypesky

PhonoPhi said:


> A big chunk of my library is the files purchased on-line.
> All FLAC. I do still purchase 24/96, if within 15% difference. *Those 24/96 sound mightier*, at least after a glass or two of shiraz



nonsense


----------



## peskypesky (May 14, 2021)

gerelmx1986 said:


> aside whats the point of this excuse when you have up to 16TB platter hard drives and more than 50TB in SSD



It all depends on a few factors. The size of your music library (how many albums?), the size of your drives, what else is taking up space on your drives?

For example, I listen to music on DAPs when I'm not at home, or when I'm at home but working in the yard. The DAPs use microSD cards, which can fill up quickly with FLACs.

Second, on my laptop, the solid-state hard drive filled up quickly with OS, apps, etc......so I added a second internal drive. But I'm a video editor and photographer, so that drive started to fill up. I like to have a lot of music to choose from on my laptop, so keeping it in mp3 or AAC makes a lot more sense than FLAC. The aac files are about 1/9 the size of the FLACs and sound identical.

Also, a LOT of people listen to music on their phones. You don't find many phones with terabytes of storage.

So, I would ask, what's the point of filling up drives with FLACs that are about 10x bigger, but sound the same as MUCH smaller files?

It would be like filling up the gas tank on your car with gas that takes up 10x as much space, but doesn't make your car go faster or get better mileage.


----------



## gerelmx1986

peskypesky said:


> It all depends on a few factors. The size of your music library (how many albums?), the size of your drives, what else is taking up space on your drives?
> 
> For example, I listen to music on DAPs when I'm not at home, or when I'm at home but working in the yard. The DAPs use microSD cards, which can fill up quickly with FLACs.
> 
> ...


My libreary all lossless 1.40TB on 3 4TB esternal drives for backup and on DAP i use either 1TB micro SD, i have two with my music and on the smaller sony A25 walkman i use a 400GB micro sd


----------



## sonitus mirus

peskypesky said:


> It all depends on a few factors. The size of your music library (how many albums?), the size of your drives, what else is taking up space on your drives?
> 
> For example, I listen to music on DAPs when I'm not at home, or when I'm at home but working in the yard. The DAPs use microSD cards, which can fill up quickly with FLACs.
> 
> ...



A few other things that might be a factor could be with the file sizes and streaming to multiple spots simultaneously over significant distances and/or through various infrastructures.  You could stream 5 minutes of music using a smaller file much further away before a larger file might start to have issues.  Same idea with whole-home solutions with some areas having some difficulties receiving a signal, or with the spots around the yard, etc.

If you are starting today, sure, go lossless and use those files as the archive; but for some people that have had a large collection of music for many years. it is just not feasible to upgrade everything for no obvious benefit.  Additionally, there is no need to manage or convert to a smaller format, in case you ever run into a situation that might require it.  Lastly, you can fit even more music on the same-sized medium, always.


----------



## gerelmx1986

PhonoPhi said:


> A big chunk of my library is the files purchased on-line.
> All FLAC. I do still purchase 24/96, if within 15% difference. Those 24/96 sound mightier, at least after a glass or two of shiraz


I do even buy SACD and rip yhem to DSD or buy DSD downloads 😃


----------



## bigshot

gerelmx1986 said:


> mp3 and cvr aac spectrometer graphs look better than aac VBR



A measurement isn't going to necessarily represent the effectiveness of psycho acoustic compression. For that, you need a listening test.


----------



## peskypesky (May 14, 2021)

gerelmx1986 said:


> My libreary all lossless 1.40TB on 3 4TB esternal drives for backup and on DAP i use either 1TB micro SD, i have two with my music and on the smaller sony A25 walkman i use a 400GB micro sd


that's nice, but why should I pay $200 for a 1tb microSD card to play FLAC files on my DAP when I can spend $13 on a 128mb microSD card that will hold the same number of albums in aac format that sounds identical?

I'd rather take that extra $187 and buy something else with it. Like maybe a new set of headphones...or more music...or some concert tickets.


----------



## peskypesky

gerelmx1986 said:


> I do even buy SACD and rip yhem to DSD or buy DSD downloads 😃



well, it makes more money for the music companies and the artists...so keep doing it!!


----------



## PhonoPhi

peskypesky said:


> nonsense


Ha-ha! 
In addition to supporting music creators and distributors, the mastering is often different.
So as long as they are available - I will continue to get reasonably priced 24/96 - more fun with more bits (every extra bit is extra fun)

I do miss SACD, but I never acquired the player and do not want to open this pit...


----------



## athegn1

PhonoPhi said:


> Ha-ha!
> In addition to supporting music creators and distributors, the mastering is often different.
> So as long as they are available - I will continue to get reasonably priced 24/96 - more fun with more bits (every extra bit is extra fun)
> 
> I do miss SACD, but I never acquired the player and do not want to open this pit...





peskypesky said:


> well, it makes more money for the music companies and the artists...so keep doing it!!


----------



## athegn1

Based on this:-

http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html

instead of buying hi-res I make a regular donation to a music college.


----------



## PhonoPhi

athegn1 said:


> Based on this:-
> 
> http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html
> 
> instead of buying hi-res I make a regular donation to a music college.


It is a totally perpendicular/orthogonal point. I support a local symphony orchestra, national youth orchestra and music faculty in a local university as well.


----------



## bigshot

I rob from the rich and give to myself.


----------



## peskypesky

PhonoPhi said:


> Ha-ha!
> In addition to supporting music creators and distributors, the mastering is often different.
> So as long as they are available -* I will continue to get reasonably priced 24/96* - more fun with more bits (every extra bit is extra fun)
> 
> I do miss SACD, but I never acquired the player and do not want to open this pit...



Keep it up!  

I used to try to explain to my brother why buying hi-def recordings was a waste of his money, but now I realize:
1: he has a lot of money to waste (he's a doctor)
2: the money he wastes is good for the artists and the music companies

so, I stopped saying anything to him about it.
But I still try to stop him from paying thousands of dollars for audiophile speaker cable and interconnects.


----------



## bigshot

Wives are much better at putting an end to wasteful spending than brothers are.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Because i can lol


2200€ IEMs + 1200€ DAP


----------



## Ryokan

One main reason I filled a player with Mp3's instead of my usual flac files is to extend battery life, though it doesn't seem much different I'm still charging after a days listening.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Ryokan said:


> One main reason I filled a player with Mp3's instead of my usual flac files is to extend battery life, though it doesn't seem much different I'm still charging after a days listening.


Which DAP? My wm1A has Custom FW from @MrWalkman


----------



## Ryokan

gerelmx1986 said:


> Which DAP? My wm1A has Custom FW from @MrWalkman



ZX507. Almost bought a WM1A but this came out and I like the portability. Android really saps the battery though.


----------



## 71 dB

peskypesky said:


> I used to try to explain to my brother why buying hi-def recordings was a waste of his money, but now I realize:
> *1: he has a lot of money to waste (he's a doctor)
> 2: the money he wastes is good for the artists and the music companies*
> 
> ...


1: Most people do not have money to waste, so they should avoid paying extra for hi-rez.
2: Do artists get more royalties for hi-rez? Or do they get a fixed amount of money for each track sold no matter the format/bitrate?


----------



## mammal

So I tried today the online ABX test just to see what the fuss is about. And I failed miserably, not only I was not able to reliable tell the difference between lossless and compressed, re-running the test again gave me a different result, haha. However, when I tried the same test using Bluetooth headphones (SBC codec), they both sounded equally bad, yet again indistinguishable from each other, haha.


----------



## peskypesky

mammal said:


> So I tried today the online ABX test just to see what the fuss is about. And I failed miserably, not only I was not able to reliable tell the difference between lossless and compressed, re-running the test again gave me a different result, haha. However, when I tried the same test using Bluetooth headphones (SBC codec), they both sounded equally bad, yet again indistinguishable from each other, haha.


yep.

the scientists, mathematicians and coders who developed the lossy codes achieved a miracle IMO.


----------



## mammal

peskypesky said:


> yep.
> 
> the scientists, mathematicians and coders who developed the lossy codes achieved a miracle IMO.


I should ask my dog if she can hear a difference, maybe then I will feel better about paying premium for high res, haha.


----------



## peskypesky

mammal said:


> I should ask my dog if she can hear a difference, maybe then I will feel better about paying premium for high res, haha.


oh your dog will DEFINITELY hear a difference.


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> Wives are much better at putting an end to wasteful spending than brothers are.


only one reason I've never married!


----------



## bigshot

Let your dog buy her own hires copy of Three Dog Night or Diamond Dogs.


----------



## mammal

bigshot said:


> Let your dog buy her own hires copy of Three Dog Night or Diamond Dogs.


We trained her to react to who let the dogs out, when we go for a walk, she now dances to it.


----------



## Blackwoof

Did a DBT face of musepack settings at, 128k vs 170k vs 240k. Short story I couldn't tell any difference what i thought was 256kbps was actually the 128kbps version. Amazing what the team got out of a Subband codec with no MDCT layer, Wonder If SBR/other HE trick could be ported over without issues. 

So yeah MPC at 128 ~ 175kbps is pretty much the same quality as Vorbis/AAC but more robust because of It being a Time domain/Subband codec it perfect for Electronic and Classical. Has the best VBR model where if the sample is super hard it will target 360 ~ 900kbps.


----------



## bigshot

Lossy isn't the way it was back in the olden days. A lot of people need to update their views about it.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> Lossy isn't the way it was back in the olden days. A lot of people need to update their views about it.



Yup, these days Lossy audio is transparent at 192kbps. But i stick with V1 Lame for metal/Noise and V3 for less complex(doom metal, ambient, etc). Since most Ambient content i have when done at V1 = 165 ~ 240kbps while V3 = 64 ~ 180kbps. Aeoga has two albums that artifact at 160kbps Apple AAC.


----------



## peskypesky (May 24, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Lossy isn't the way it was back in the olden days. A lot of people need to update their views about it.


What's sad is that even on the HydrogenAudio forum, you have people disparaging lossy codecs. Of course, they can never back up their criticisms with ABX test results.
smh


----------



## Blackwoof

peskypesky said:


> What's sad is that even on the HydrogenAudio forum, you have people disparaging lossy codecs. Of course, they can never back up their criticisms with ABX test results.
> smh



The site a joke at this point they use made up claims why Musepack sucks despite their own tests on the 192kbps multi test, shows to your average joe 160kbps = 5,0.


----------



## bigshot

Forums don't have credibility, individuals do. It's the job of all of us who browse the internet to sort the wheat from the chaff. No one is going to do it for us.


----------



## Blackwoof (May 25, 2021)

Yeah, I just use there wiki for basic info and avoid the forums. Since they don't like It when you show them samples that AAC/Vorbis struggle with, but MPC/Lame at 160kbps are transparent. MPC's limited support mean nothing these days when Android/ios have 3rd party apps that can play it.


----------



## peskypesky

Eddy Cue is Apple’s senior vice president of services and the person who oversees Apple Music. He didn’t mince words when he told _Billboard_ that the sudden proliferation of lossless audio isn’t going to significantly evolve or change how we listen to music. “There’s no question it’s not going to be lossless,” he said when asked what technologies will bring about the “next-gen” of music streaming. Cue firmly stands on the side of the crowd that argues most people can’t hear any difference between CD-quality or hi-res tracks and the AAC or MP3 files that’ve been filling their ears for so long now. He did acknowledge that the higher-bit rate tracks might matter to music lovers with particularly sharp hearing or premium audio equipment, but he was also direct about how niche that group is.

“The reality of lossless is: if you take 100 people and you take a stereo song in lossless and you take a song that’s been in Apple Music that’s compressed, I don’t know if it’s 99 or 98 can’t tell the difference.” Cue revealed that he has regularly done blind tests with the Apple Music team, and they confirm how rare it is for anyone to be able to consistently recognize lossless audio. “You can tell somebody, ‘Oh, you’re listening to a lossless [song],’ and they tell you, ‘Oh, wow. That sounds incredible.’ They’re just saying it because you told them it’s lossless and it sounds like the right thing to say, but you just can’t tell.”

https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/9/22525028/apple-music-spatial-audio-dolby-atmos-hands-on


----------



## bigshot

It's interesting that Apple is introducing something that makes no difference (lossless) at the same time it's introducing a primitive version of what will change the face of home audio in the future (DSPs).


----------



## Steve999 (Jun 10, 2021)

bigshot said:


> It's interesting that Apple is introducing something that makes no difference (lossless) at the same time it's introducing a primitive version of what will change the face of home audio in the future (DSPs).



[Edit—as already noted by @peskypesky above—sorry about that]: There’s an interview with an Apple exec, I think in Billboard magazine, where he states that lossless is just being provided to satisfy a small number of customers, that he cannot tell the difference between Apple‘s lossless and lossy music streaming, and that 98 or 99 percent of e population can’t either. And I think he’s understating things a bit and probably knows it. But it’s refreshing to see some truth in marketing on this, instead of the hi-res / MQA etc. types of gibberish or even perhaps misinformation we see from Amazon, Tidal, to a lesser extent Qobuz, etc.

I read somewhere the idea that Apple and Amazon and Google provide music streaming as yet another magnet into their respective highly profitable ecosystems, rather than as a money-maker. That sounds about right to me.

DSP and Atmos are big moves here by Apple, agreed, and after a day of experimenting with it, I agree it seems like a primitive and even underwhelming beginning.

After a day of playing around with everything, I just turned it all off on my iPad and my Apple TV—the lossless, the spatializer, the Atmos. Maybe I’ll try again later if there‘s been some dramatic progress. But kudos to them for not over-selling or over-hyping the lossless. And it’s there if I want it.


----------



## Blackwoof

The ones that overhype Lossless never show DBT's if they can tell 256 ~ 320kbps. While others think minor amount of tracks that artefact with 320 MP3 renders it a dud don't even try AAC/Vorbis at 256kbps to see if they perform better. Reddit audio subs are full of people suddenly claiming they can tell 320 vs lossless but stop replying when told if they did a ABX before commenting or hide behind that they use $1000+ speakers/Headphones.


----------



## 71 dB

Blackwoof said:


> ... or hide behind that they use $1000+ speakers/Headphones.


At worst this is _"I have thicker wallet than you so ****!"_ -type of bullying.

Almost never do I see online mentioned, that it is not as simple as owning expensive/good quality gear. It might be actually the other way around! Lossy coding is based on the assumption we can't hear, at least easily, what data is missing because of temporal and spectral masking effects of our hearing. Well, low quality speakers/headphones have temporal and spectral issues themselves and it is not guaranteed that auditory masking effects work the way they are _supposed to_. This might lead to the situation where low quality speakers and headphones can make it actually _easier_ to hear artefacts of lossy coding in the music. At least we can't assume high quality audio gear makes it easier. People think just because in general high quality audio gear makes it easier to hear detail, also lossy coding artefacts can be heard more easily. However, perceptual coding artefacts aren't any kind of detail. It is detail supposed to be _masked_ and having all that detail reproduced accurately makes them masked if possible. Having that detail distorted due to low quality gear causes not-so-perfect masking and those coding artefacts can become more noticeable.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 10, 2021)

That's a fine theory, but I don't think it would play out in practice. I would think the alteration of the sound by poor quality transducers would hide whatever small amount of artifacting the compression is causing. I don't see how a nice big glop of garbled sound would make a very small bit of garbled sound more audible.

By the way, there's an interesting discussion on the Head-Fi Facebook group about why audiophiles argue so much. Folks should check it out. There are some really good theories there.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> I don't see how a nice big glop of garbled sound would make a very small bit of garbled sound more audible.


Poorly recorded music can cause codecs to ask for over 256kbps because It just assumes your feeding it something like Noise music or broken FM radio & noisy vinyl rips. I've gotten hounded on Hydrogen audio/Reddit for pointing out that can happen, It got cringy when some HA took it as a personal attack?.


----------



## bigshot

It really isn't the way the music was recorded, it's randomized noise. The surface noise of the 78 is separate from the music itself. 78s with a lot of random pops and clicks and surface noise, which is made of a whole bunch of clicks massed together, is very hard to encode. But if you play back the resulting mess of artifacting on a fancy stereo, it's going to sound just as bad as playing it through a cheap one. Low fidelity artifacts still sound like artifacts.


----------



## peskypesky (Jun 10, 2021)

Blackwoof said:


> The ones that overhype Lossless never show DBT's if they can tell 256 ~ 320kbps. While others think minor amount of tracks that artefact with 320 MP3 renders it a dud don't even try AAC/Vorbis at 256kbps to see if they perform better. Reddit audio subs are full of people suddenly claiming they can tell 320 vs lossless but stop replying when told if they did a ABX before commenting or hide behind that they use $1000+ speakers/Headphones.


Exactly.

The lossless fanboys and high-res fanboys are terrified of ABX testing because they secretly know they would fail to distinguish those files from a 246kb aac.

I have an audiophile brother who spends huge amounts of money on equipment and high-res files....but won't do an ABX test. And yes, he always says that he can tell the difference because he has super expensive equipment.

As a frugal person, I'll never understand people who are afraid of saving money.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jun 11, 2021)

They don't even realise DVD video, TV, Video games all use 192 ~ 448Kbps Lossy audio. They somehow can only tell when they get there Flac/CD encoded to a 256kbps File, Many did this with PS3 which had PCM stereo for everything but couldn't tell 96 ~ 160kbps stereo versions on Xbox 360. Lossless is highly inefficient many Rock/metal/pop average 1mbit just 5 ~ 8% less than Wav file on the CD?.

Vorbis/Opus/xHE AAC can do 384 ~ 512kbps VBR for hard to compress samples, Even MP3 does by using bit reservoir to allow 325 ~ 640kbps frames if needed.

Also Hydrogen audio worse in other direction the whole place is a clown show of "Only use 80 ~ 160kbps, Why would u use over 256kbps?". Then why does Opus, Vorbis, AAC, MPC & etc all allow 512kbps stereo with no lowpass filter, Did they forget with lossless many common genres will be 900 ~ 1390kbps and with most samples 320kbps is not enough. The joint can be Reddit level ignorant acting like lossless compression would give 40 ~ 70% compression on everything, 330 ~ 500kbps is much better than having a single 1+ hour song be 1.1 mbit?.


----------



## 71 dB

Blackwoof said:


> Lossless is highly inefficient many Rock/metal/pop average 1mbit just 5 ~ 8% less than Wav file on the CD?.


CD audio bitrate is 44 100 samples/s * 16 bits/sample * 2 audio channels = 1 411 200 bits/s. If a lossless encoded song averages at 1 000 000 bits/s, the lossless file is  about 71 % of what the wav file ripped from the CD is.


----------



## bigshot

And lossy might be a small fraction of that while not sounding any different to human ears.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> And lossy might be a small fraction of that while not sounding any different to human ears.


True, the difference may be undistinguishable for the best compressed/lossy files, so if one to enjoy them directly - it can be perfectly fine.
For any post-processing, lossless is better to assure that no artifacts of double-processing can occur, so I always buy and use .flacs since I do not want to have two libraries.
With more testing runs, my tentative boundary for distinguishing lossy is ~192, but then using parametric equalizers and up-conversion, the boundary is going up to ~256 (or to state more precisely with my limited evidence (and in the last couple of months I spend at least 20+ hours trying to test), many 192 noticeably "fall apart", while only some 256, and I have not tested any "in-between").
Double-blind tests are really tricky but insightful, with some treble-rich files, 128/160 can sound more appealing but then still largely distinguishable.


----------



## bigshot

I have one library for listening. It's AAC 256 VBR. That is no different for the purposes of listening to music while applying normal equalization and DSPs than lossless. I suppose if I was going to remaster something, I'd need more, but for that I would prefer a pro tools session with 24/96 files tracked in separate channels.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> And lossy might be a small fraction of that while not sounding any different to human ears.


Of course, but something looked off about Blackwoof's math so I "fact-checked" the numbers.


----------



## Jazzme

Flac is way more ahead than 320k, flac is lossless and all mp3 has loss


----------



## 71 dB

Jazzme said:


> Flac is way more ahead than 320k, flac is lossless and all mp3 has loss


Yes, but the question is can _you_ hear the sonic artefacts caused by lossy encoding? Where is the bitrate threshold of no perceptible difference between lossy and lossless? There seems to be some sort of consensus that when the bitrate of lossy formats go higher than 192 kbps, it becomes really challenging to hear the differences.


----------



## bigshot

Things your ears can't hear just don't matter. Audiophools spend more time worrying about sound they can hear than they do the sound they can actually hear.


----------



## peskypesky

Jazzme said:


> Flac is way more ahead than 320k, flac is lossless and all mp3 has loss


But most people, probably 98% or more, can't hear a difference.


----------



## bigshot

I still haven't found anyone in the 1 or 2% who can. I suspect if they exist, even they will admit that the difference is too small to matter.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> I still haven't found anyone in the 1 or 2% who can. I suspect if they exist, even they will admit that the difference is too small to matter.


Yup the only content that trips up 256kbps lossy seems to be Noise based music, But Vorbis/MPC/Lame(Allshort), Opus seem immune to those samples while AAC isn't. But even then I can just encode the problem cases at 256kbps Vorbis with the rest being AAC at 256kbps if needed. With how brick walled, much modern music is when encoded in Flac the average bitrate is 1000 ~ 1415kbps. With TAK codec some albums even reached 1950kbps despite being 16bit at 44.1KHz!.


----------



## bigshot

AAC should be able to handle noise pretty well if you do 320 VBR. It's the only codec I know where VBR allows the data rate to exceed 320. MP3 doesn't do that. But compression artifacts in noise might actually be an improvement!


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> AAC should be able to handle noise pretty well if you do 320 VBR. It's the only codec I know where VBR allows the data rate to exceed 320. MP3 doesn't do that. But compression artifacts in noise might actually be an improvement!



FHG AAC seems to fare even better at 256kbps VBR with the updated encoder used in the EZ converter.


----------



## bigshot

I'll have to pull out my Throbbing Gristle LPs and rip them.


----------



## 71 dB

Blackwoof said:


> With how brick walled, much modern music is when encoded in Flac the average bitrate is 1000 ~ 1415kbps. With TAK codec some albums even reached 1950kbps despite being 16bit at 44.1 kHz!


Dynamically over-compressed brick-walled music uses effectively all the bit depth and that's why lossless endoders struggle to find opportunities of getting rid of redundancy. Sacrificing bit depth can make lossless files smaller as I have demonstrated earlier:







This is how to do it correctly: 

1 - Generate normal 16 bit dither of your choice for the duration of your original track to be (re-)encoded losslessly.
2 - Multiply this dither by 2^n, where n is the amount of bit depth to be sacrificed, for example n = 3 => 2^n = 8.
3 - Add the dither to your track in floating point mode so that signal clipping doesn't happen.
4 - Divide your track+dither by 2^n.
5 - You are good to go. Export as a lossless file.

These steps do not reduce sound quality at all apart from raising the noise floor by 20*log10 (2^n) dB. There is no increased distortion. Only increased noise level, but with "brick-wallet" music that is super loud all the time you don't need much dynamic range, do you? Since the most significant bits aren't used at all, the files are quieter and volume needs to be raised a bit, but it helps they sound typically super-loud to begin with (the motivation for brick-walling).


----------



## Blackwoof (Jun 19, 2021)

71 dB said:


> Dynamically over-compressed brick-walled music uses effectively all the bit depth and that's why lossless endoders struggle to find opportunities of getting rid of redundancy. Sacrificing bit depth can make lossless files smaller as I have demonstrated earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can shave off the bitrate while still being lossless with Wavpack lossy I can cut those albums to 500kbps with forced DNS without any issues. In one case I got Wavpack to compress a HNW album to 480kbps inn lossless mode while FLAC was 980kbps. FLAC not that great at compressing music I've gotten lower better compression with TAK/Wavpack.

Yet TAK can be quite crazy with albums that are 890 ~ 1200kbps under Flac but when done TAK P4m the bitrate is 540 ~ 1090kbps.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Blackwoof said:


> You can shave off the bitrate while still being lossless with Wavpack lossy I can cut those albums to 500kbps with forced DNS without any issues. In one case I got Wavpack to compress a HNW album to 480kbps inn lossless mode while FLAC was 980kbps. FLAC not that great at compressing music I've gotten lower better compression with TAK/Wavpack.
> 
> Yet TAK can be quite crazy with albums that are 890 ~ 1200kbps under Flac but when done TAK P4m the bitrate is 540 ~ 1090kbps.


Well TAK maybe obscures  as well as wavpack. Compared to flac which is the moat wisely supported lossless codec just after apple ALAC followed by Monkey audio  APE.

i ve sone test with ape, while in insane compression and wven high and extra high modes it has slightly better compression than flac, IMHO is not worth of it as ape is very cpu inefficient (intensive)


----------



## 71 dB

Blackwoof said:


> You can shave off the bitrate while still being lossless with Wavpack lossy I can cut those albums to 500kbps with forced DNS without any issues. In one case I got Wavpack to compress a HNW album to 480kbps inn lossless mode while FLAC was 980kbps. FLAC not that great at compressing music I've gotten lower better compression with TAK/Wavpack.
> 
> Yet TAK can be quite crazy with albums that are 890 ~ 1200kbps under Flac but when done TAK P4m the bitrate is 540 ~ 1090kbps.


But aren't these_ file compressors_ not supported by any players? So You need to uncompress them before playing them? Sorry my ignorance on the issue. Never heard of TAK for example. Google tells it means "Tom's lossless Audio Kompressor" which sounds funny. 

Seems like plugins for *Winamp* and *Foobar are currently* available.

I am such a dinosaur. I just listen to CDs on a CD player, or I stream music on Spotify without worrying about the sound quality.


----------



## gerelmx1986

So my comcensus would be (based on file sizes. Not on kbps)
Ape compresses better than FLAC which in turn compresses better rhan MP4a (ALAC)


----------



## gerelmx1986

On modern DAPs i see using lossy codecs as if you gave ypur grand mom an Alienware Gaming laptop for just reading emails, biewing knitting websites or cat videos instead of giving that laptop to a Hardcore gamer to play demanding games


----------



## bigshot

I'm sure that analogy means something, but it escapes me.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> I'm sure that analogy means something, but it escapes me.


It just means that you are using overkill tools for simple tasks. He is arguing that using a DAP for decoding lossy files is overkill.


----------



## bigshot

If lossy is overkill, then what isn't? Low rate lossy?


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> If lossy is overkill, then what isn't? Low rate lossy?


I don't think anyone claims lossy is overkill. I think the claim is modern DAPs are overkill when decoding lossy files. If I am mistaken, someone can correct me.


----------



## bigshot

Ah. Well DAPs and DACs just do their job. There isn't really a range of audible quality there.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jun 22, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Ah. Well DAPs and DACs just do their job. There isn't really a range of audible quality there.


Transparency is the most applicable in terms of not being a limiting stage.
Cables can (and should be) transparent, recordings can (for a given system - DAP/DAC, transducer, listener).

With DAPs, DACs - the applicability of transparency is much more limited.

DACs/DAPs process the signal from digital to some analogue rendering/approximation  (colouring is very common, starting with the "house sound" of major chip manufacturers). Then there are often power limitations to deliver the perfect rendering, so  DAPs/DACs are definitely the bottleneck.


----------



## PhonoPhi

PhonoPhi said:


> ...so  DAPs/DACs are definitely the bottleneck.


This last statement needs to be amended.

Transducers are a more common limitation in a sound reproduction chain.

Then very often, DAPs/DACs and transducers have their specific limitations - that is when the synergy/compatibility can be observed.


----------



## bigshot

Yes, transducers vary. DAPs and DACs should all be transparent. If they aren't, they are defective by manufacture or design. They aren't supposed to sound different. Every DAC chip I have in my collection of players all sound the same. I know I have Wolfson, Apple and Sabre for sure. Probably more.


----------



## InvisibleInk

Some DACs are described as “dry” and clinical (Sabre DACs). Some are described as warm (Burr Brown). Some as “lively” (multi-bit or R2R).


----------



## bigshot (Jun 23, 2021)

Descriptions like that are subjective. Controlled tests are objective. I've done line level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparisons between all of my DACs and DAPs. They all sound exactly the same. I have a headphone amp with a Sabre chip. I have Apple iPods with Wolfson and an iPhone with an Apple chip. I bet if I did some research, I probably have a Burr Brown one here somewhere too. (Oppo BD-103?)

I care about this because I carefully EQ my system. If one player sounds different than another, I need a separate EQ setting. That's chaos. When I get a new source, I compare it to my reference source to make sure it's identical so it matches my calibration. So far, everything I've compared has sounded the same, from a $40 Walmart DVD player up to a $1200 headphone amp. If you know of a current DAC or DAP or disk player that sounds clearly different, I would be interested to hear about it. I'd like to check out the rated specs and see if they match the sound output. Everything I have is 20-20 with inaudible rates of deviation and distortion.


----------



## InvisibleInk

bigshot said:


> Descriptions like that are subjective. Controlled tests are objective. I've done line level matched, direct A/B switched blind comparisons between all of my DACs and DAPs. They all sound exactly the same. I have a headphone amp with a Sabre chip. I have Apple iPods with Wolfson and an iPhone with an Apple chip. I bet if I did some research, I probably have a Burr Brown one here somewhere too. (Oppo BD-103?)
> 
> I care about this because I carefully EQ my system. If one player sounds different than another, I need a separate EQ setting. That's chaos. When I get a new source, I compare it to my reference source to make sure it's identical so it matches my calibration. So far, everything I've compared has sounded the same, from a $40 Walmart DVD player up to a $1200 headphone amp. If you know of a current DAC or DAP or disk player that sounds clearly different, I would be interested to hear about it. I'd like to check out the rated specs and see if they match the sound output. Everything I have is 20-20 with inaudible rates of deviation and distortion.



If you have an iFi DAC, you'll have some version of a Burr Brown chip set.

If we want to A/B two different DACs, then two different architecture types might also help. Schiit's own discrete Modi Multi-Bit (Mimby) versus its standard delta/sigma Modi 3. The amp used with both should be the deadest sounding, cleanest measuring one. Perhaps a Topping A50s?


----------



## bigshot

I test every piece of equipment I buy to insure it’s transparent. Have you done a line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison yourself?


----------



## InvisibleInk

bigshot said:


> I test every piece of equipment I buy to insure it’s transparent. Have you done a line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison yourself?



No, not yet. I think it's a good idea, though.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Finding out if differences -100 dBFS from the fundamental in a DAC is hard when transducers have a SINAD around 60 dB at best. Using transducers to test DACs is not valid since the transducer has a higher magnitude and amplitude of distortion than the digital-to-analog converter.


----------



## castleofargh

so, mp3 and flac...


----------



## bigshot (Jun 23, 2021)

-100dB is not audible when you’re listening to commercially recorded music in the home. DACs are generally of such high fidelity, you have to go outside of normal use by a couple orders of magnitude before any deviation becomes noticeable.

The limiting factor is human hearing, not equipment. If you don’t put deviations into the context of audibility, it’s just abstract numbers that don’t really mean anything.


----------



## Blackwoof

71 dB said:


> I don't think anyone claims lossy is overkill. I think the claim is modern DAPs are overkill when decoding lossy files. If I am mistaken, someone can correct me.


DAP's are dead market when Mobile phones can do everything what a DAP does. I use a LG V20 clearly used but for $100 i got It for I got a $699 Fiio DAP for pennies. Since It Amp can power my ER4S with 6db 105Hz Low shelf without any issues. 

Going back to 170kbps MPC since my 1+ hour albums bloat eat up space without many gains. Don't see the point of Lossless in portable factor when Opus/MPC at 175kbps are fully transparent even hard content.


----------



## peskypesky (Jun 25, 2021)

Blackwoof said:


> DAP's are dead market when Mobile phones can do everything what a DAP does.



Not necessarily. I don't like to use my phone for listening to music when I'm out and about, as it uses up battery life. I prefer to play music on one of my DAPs. And also, my DAP's are smaller and lighter weight than my phone, so I prefer them when I'm exercising.

Further, not all phones have micro sd card slots. Mine doesn't. Google Pixel.

But for most people, their phones have taken the place of DAPs, just as the phones have taken the place of consumer snapshot cameras.


----------



## bigshot

I'd probably rather carry a battery than a DAP.


----------



## peskypesky (Jun 25, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I'd probably rather carry a battery than a DAP.


and what would you do with that battery?

I'm not going to be doing this every time my battery is depleted:


----------



## bigshot

A portable battery that charges the phone. They are USB and you just plug your phone into it. A single battery will do three full charges from dead, and you can run the phone while you’re charging. Smaller than a DAC.


----------



## 71 dB

I was wondering what this thread was originally about and went to read the first post made 10 year ago. Someone had been told it doesn't matter if the music file is FLAC or mp3 unless the music was originally an analog recording. Pretty wild/ignorant claim, but in 10 years this has turned into posts about portable USB phone chargers! So, what should we do about this thread? Let it meander God knows where?


----------



## HipHopScribe

bigshot said:


> A portable battery that charges the phone. They are USB and you just plug your phone into it. A single battery will do three full charges from dead, and you can run the phone while you’re charging. Smaller than a DAC.



This would mean you can't listen and charge at the same time on any phone without a dedicated headphone jack though


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> A portable battery that charges the phone. They are USB and you just plug your phone into it. A single battery will do three full charges from dead, and you can run the phone while you’re charging. Smaller than a DAC.


aha. well that probably makes sense for you and a lot of other people. Unfortunately, my phone is several years old and the battery doesn't last a long time even when fully charged. So I try to minimize draining it.

If I get a new phone I might buy one of those portable batteries. But my phone still works great in every way except long batter life, and I'm a frugal person, so I'm not going to buy a new phone until I absolutely have to. The other issue with my phone is that it doesn't accept micro SD cards, unlike my DAPs, so I would be very limited in the amount of music and audiobooks I could have on it. 

But yes, that portable batter sounds good for people with newer phones.


----------



## peskypesky

HipHopScribe said:


> This would mean you can't listen and charge at the same time on any phone without a dedicated headphone jack though


who the hell would buy a phone without a dedicated headphone jack?


----------



## HipHopScribe

peskypesky said:


> who the hell would buy a phone without a dedicated headphone jack?



Haha I know right, but it's getting hard to find flagship level phones with headphone jacks these. My phone actually does have a headphone jack, but it's pretty weak for anything but IEMs, so I do carry a DAC/Amp with me that I use wired when I'm pretty stationary and via Bluetooth when I don't want to be so tethered to my phone.

Which I guess adds another dimension to this discussion, since I use MP3s for my portable device then occasionally shoot that out over LDAC, and even then I would probably struggle to tell the difference between that and lossless in most cases


----------



## bigshot (Jun 25, 2021)

HipHopScribe said:


> This would mean you can't listen and charge at the same time on any phone without a dedicated headphone jack though


 Bluetooth or a $8 Apple lightning splitter or a mag safe magnetic wireless charger. It's getting so nothing is wired any more.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Bluetooth or a $8 Apple lightning splitter or a mag safe magnetic wireless charger. It's getting so nothing is wired any more.



Why would I carry all that stuff when I could just carry a DAP?

Are you one of those audiophiles walking around with a stack of stuff rubber banded together?


----------



## bigshot (Jun 25, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> Why would I carry all that stuff when I could just carry a DAP?



A battery is smaller than a DAP and it will charge your phone several times.They make slim mag safe batteries that charge wirelessly through the case and attach directly to the back of your phone magnetically. It's not much bigger than just your phone that way. And the battery doesn't even need to plug in. You can use the round silver dollar sized magnetic mag safe charger to charge it and the phone at the same time. (see photo below- that is an iPhone with mag safe battery being charged by a mag safe charger.) The phone and a tiny AirPods Pro case is all you need. That fits in a single shirt pocket.

I recently got an iPhone 12 pro max and it basically does everything and the charge lasts longer than I can use up before going to bed. I can even attach a dongle the size of a quarter that has half a TB of storage on it. That holds a huge music library. I think soon all the separate components are going to be just for people who like complication. For the rest of us, it will all be absorbed into a single phone. I think bluetooth headphones will become ubiquitous too and wired ones will just be for plugging into very old stereo equipment.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> A battery is smaller than a DAP and it will charge your phone several times.They make slim mag safe batteries that charge wirelessly through the case and attach directly to the back of your phone magnetically. It's not much bigger than just your phone that way. And the battery doesn't even need to plug in. You can use the round silver dollar sized magnetic mag safe charger to charge it and the phone at the same time. (see photo below- that is an iPhone with mag safe battery being charged by a mag safe charger.) The phone and a tiny AirPods Pro case is all you need. That fits in a single shirt pocket.
> 
> I recently got an iPhone 12 pro max and it basically does everything and the charge lasts longer than I can use up before going to bed. I can even attach a dongle the size of a quarter that has half a TB of storage on it. That holds a huge music library. I think soon all the separate components are going to be just for people who like complication. For the rest of us, it will all be absorbed into a single phone. I think bluetooth headphones will become ubiquitous too and wired ones will just be for plugging into very old stereo equipment.




I thought the emoji on my original post would make the sarcasm clear - apparently not.  You've been advocating for single device simplicity via a phone for some time so I found it a bit odd that you are now suggesting carrying splitters and extra batteries.

You do seem to want to make your personal use case ubiquitous.  There are many times where it's simply more convenient for me to have a separate DAP - for example, when I'm on a long flight and want to work on my phone or tablet, not having to interrupt what I'm working on to change what I'm listening to, alter EQ,  or search for items to add to a playlist.  Not everyone's use case, but I'm definitely not carrying a DAP simply because I like complication.

For mobile listening, bluetooth is already ubiquitous but I'm not sure I see it being nearly as dominant within home environments.  I'd rather not have the extra weight, complexity, and need for batteries due to the amp being built into the headphones.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jun 26, 2021)

peskypesky said:


> Not necessarily. I don't like to use my phone for listening to music when I'm out and about, as it uses up battery life. I prefer to play music on one of my DAPs. And also, my DAP's are smaller and lighter weight than my phone, so I prefer them when I'm exercising.
> 
> Further, not all phones have micro sd card slots. Mine doesn't. Google Pixel.
> 
> But for most people, their phones have taken the place of DAPs, just as the phones have taken the place of consumer snapshot cameras.


Keep forgetting you can't nuke posts like on Reddit. Been eyeing the Fiio M6 for the same reasons since It supports Neutron player which has PEQ & Musepack support. Since MPC @ 192 pretty much transparent on anything I feed It even some DIY killer samples I made to make MP3, Vorbis, AAC cry at 192kbps. No idea why FHG just didn't make better MP2 encoders with VBR since It here in the UK I've noticed DAB radio channels with 192kbps MP2 blows away AAC, Vorbis, MP3 for pure electronic. Fun fact you can actually play MP2 files on any MP3 since MP3 decoders have backwards compatibility.

Heck we have TwoLAME 0.4.0 which I'm sure many people use In broadcasting since MP2 still quite popular. Cause of It being more robust to common lossy artefacts.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 26, 2021)

I guess the photo I posted was too oblique to see what the battery looks like. This sticks to the back of the phone with a magnet and doubles the battery life wirelessly. You don't have to charge the phone at all on the go. It does it wirelessly on the fly. With my new iPhone and that battery I can last two heavy days of use without charging. You can get bigger ones that could take you half a week or more. If this little credit card sized thing can replace a DAP and stick right to the phone you're already carrying without a plug, that is pretty good in my book. If you're afraid of running out of batteries on your phone because you are using it instead of a DAP, this is the solution. And it's a fraction of the bulk of carrying a separate DAC, and it doesn't require separate charging like a DAP would. You don't even have to use a wire to charge it or your phone. That is pretty doggone sleek.  I'm not anti-accessories. I'm anti-bulky clutter,

A phone. A credit card sized battery. A mini SD card reader the size of a quarter, AirPods Pros with amazing noise cancellation, the ability to answer phone calls without taking out your phone, all in a little case smaller than a tic tack box... and every bit of it fits in your shirt pocket. And that can keep playing every waking hour with a library with half a TB of music while you answer phone calls and surf the web... If that isn't the dream for a portable system, I don't know what is. When I was a kid, it took most of the wall in my bedroom and a half dozen different components to do all that.

The amazing thing is that this is also my photography kit. My mid format film camera, Nikon F3 DSLR and portable Fuji X100T camera are collecting dust because the camera on the iPhone is everything I need and shoots better in low light than any of my cameras. And it is already in my pocket with plenty of battery life.

I should dump my portable stuff on the kitchen table and post some photos sometime. I have a small canvas tote with everything I need to take sound on the road... music, speakers, batteries, cables... all in something smaller than a shoebox. And it doesn't need to be plugged in and runs all day off rechargeable batteries. Some people just have personal portable audio rigs that take up that much room. Mine is my personal audio, speakers that can fill a big room, camera bag, internet access and telephone all in the same space. And if I don't need the speakers, I can pare it back to a shirt pocket. The game keeps changing. There's no need to haul a bunch of stuff around any more.

This is the Apple battery built into an iPhone case. Super slick.


----------



## peskypesky

bfreedma said:


> Why would I carry all that stuff when I could just carry a DAP?
> 
> Are you one of those audiophiles walking around with a stack of stuff rubber banded together?


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> I think bluetooth headphones will become ubiquitous too and wired ones will just be for plugging into very old stereo equipment.



In a couple of decades, maybe. But the fact that Bluetooth headphones have to be charged adds another pain.  I have a nice pair of Bluetooth headphones, but rarely use them because my wired headphones never need to be charged and are always ready to go. I get very annoyed when I pick up my Bluetooth headphones to use and the charge is gone. I'm glad I have them, as they do come in handy at times...but I'm still a wired guy and I think wired headphones and earbuds will be around for a while.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 26, 2021)

I bet in the next year you’ll see a lot of headphone manufacturers introducing high end Bluetooth cans. Look at how fast CDs and DAPs declined. Tech changes fast nowadays. Most people are into streaming and portable, not home systems, and battery life has multiplied just in the last year. My phone has never gotten below a half charge, and the AirPods go for a week. Mine have never run dry of power since I got them.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I guess the photo I posted was too oblique to see what the battery looks like. This sticks to the back of the phone with a magnet and doubles the battery life wirelessly. You don't have to charge the phone at all on the go. It does it wirelessly on the fly. With my new iPhone and that battery I can last two heavy days of use without charging. You can get bigger ones that could take you half a week or more. If this little credit card sized thing can replace a DAP and stick right to the phone you're already carrying without a plug, that is pretty good in my book. If you're afraid of running out of batteries on your phone because you are using it instead of a DAP, this is the solution. And it's a fraction of the bulk of carrying a separate DAC, and it doesn't require separate charging like a DAP would. You don't even have to use a wire to charge it or your phone. That is pretty doggone sleek.  I'm not anti-accessories. I'm anti-bulky clutter,
> 
> A phone. A credit card sized battery. A mini SD card reader the size of a quarter, AirPods Pros with amazing noise cancellation, the ability to answer phone calls without taking out your phone, all in a little case smaller than a tic tack box... and every bit of it fits in your shirt pocket. And that can keep playing every waking hour with a library with half a TB of music while you answer phone calls and surf the web... If that isn't the dream for a portable system, I don't know what is. When I was a kid, it took most of the wall in my bedroom and a half dozen different components to do all that.
> 
> ...




That works for you - fantastic.  Is it ok if it doesn't work for me for the reasons I explained in my previous post?  I'm doing a lot more than "answer phone calls and surf the web" when using my phone.  My phone/tablet is a work device and I'd rather not dump out of a document, spreadsheet or muted video in order to manipulate audio.

The DAP has also paid for itself many times over due to the efficiency gained above.  If I save an average 15 minutes a flight by not having to interrupt my workstream, it has a (pre-Covid) ROI of less than one year.

Honestly, the lengths you are going to to "be right" are getting absurd.  I'm not trying to tell you to alter what you've learned over time works best for you - why are you doing that to others who have spent at least as much time working out their portable audio model?


----------



## bfreedma (Jun 26, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I bet in the next year you’ll see a lot of headphone manufacturers introducing high end Bluetooth cans. Look at how fast CDs and DAPs declined. Tech changes fast nowadays. Most people are into streaming and portable, not home systems, and battery life has multiplied just in the last year. My phone has never gotten below a half charge, and the AirPods go for a week. Mine have never run dry of power since I got them.



I agree that wireless has become ubiquitous for mobile, but don't agree with your prediction that home headphones will be almost universally wireless in any near term time frame.  Powering IEMS is an entirely different challenge than powering large over the ear headphones and their larger and higher power consumption drivers.

The additional weight of the batteries and amplifier(s) in the headset is a problem I don't see being overcome in the next few years.  How do you see this being resolved for larger home based headphones?  For example, how much weight would onboard batteries and amps add up to for your Oppo planars and would that be worth the trade off for home portability?


----------



## HipHopScribe (Jun 26, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I guess the photo I posted was too oblique to see what the battery looks like. This sticks to the back of the phone with a magnet and doubles the battery life wirelessly. You don't have to charge the phone at all on the go. It does it wirelessly on the fly. With my new iPhone and that battery I can last two heavy days of use without charging. You can get bigger ones that could take you half a week or more. If this little credit card sized thing can replace a DAP and stick right to the phone you're already carrying without a plug, that is pretty good in my book. If you're afraid of running out of batteries on your phone because you are using it instead of a DAP, this is the solution. And it's a fraction of the bulk of carrying a separate DAC, and it doesn't require separate charging like a DAP would. You don't even have to use a wire to charge it or your phone. That is pretty doggone sleek.  I'm not anti-accessories. I'm anti-bulky clutter,
> 
> A phone. A credit card sized battery. A mini SD card reader the size of a quarter, AirPods Pros with amazing noise cancellation, the ability to answer phone calls without taking out your phone, all in a little case smaller than a tic tack box... and every bit of it fits in your shirt pocket. And that can keep playing every waking hour with a library with half a TB of music while you answer phone calls and surf the web... If that isn't the dream for a portable system, I don't know what is. When I was a kid, it took most of the wall in my bedroom and a half dozen different components to do all that.
> 
> ...



I can see how this solution works well for you, but it's pretty easy to see where there might be shortcomings for some people, not the least of which being that not everyone wants an iPhone. There are no battery cases for many phones or magnets built in to stick on magsafe chargers.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Blackwoof said:


> Keep forgetting you can't nuke posts like on Reddit. Been eyeing the Fiio M6 for the same reasons since It supports Neutron player which has PEQ & Musepack support. Since MPC @ 192 pretty much transparent on anything I feed It even some DIY killer samples I made to make MP3, Vorbis, AAC cry at 192kbps. No idea why FHG just didn't make better MP2 encoders with VBR since It here in the UK I've noticed DAB radio channels with 192kbps MP2 blows away AAC, Vorbis, MP3 for pure electronic. Fun fact you can actually play MP2 files on any MP3 since MP3 decoders have backwards compatibility.


Honestly, I haven’t cared for mis-bitrate lossy since 2010, when mobile space was a premium. At this point, both MP3 at 320 kbps or AAC at 256 kbps are just small and transparent enough to not care about the other more obscure codecs and not even lossless.


----------



## Blackwoof

KeithPhantom said:


> Honestly, I haven’t cared for mis-bitrate lossy since 2010, when mobile space was a premium. At this point, both MP3 at 320 kbps or AAC at 256 kbps are just small and transparent enough to not care about the other more obscure codecs and not even lossless.


MPC is supported by any decent ios/Android app & PC too. I can tell 256kbps AAC/MP3 with prurient, But with 240kbps MPC It fully transparent. 256kbps is now the sweet spot, yet ironically Lame MP3 still can break.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Blackwoof said:


> MPC is supported by any decent ios/Android app & PC too. I can tell 256kbps AAC/MP3 with prurient, But with 240kbps MPC It fully transparent. 256kbps is now the sweet spot, yet ironically Lame MP3 still can break.


Umm, if you say so, but these kinds of claims usually require empirical evidence.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jun 26, 2021)

KeithPhantom said:


> Umm, if you say so, but these kinds of claims usually require empirical evidence.










At 192kbps Musepack is 2nd place to Opus, this is from a pure subband codec from a trained blind tester. His face off actually lines up with what I hear with all of these codecs. I would rather use 240kbps MPC since I can kinda tell them apart at 192kbps on Electronic music.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Blackwoof said:


> At 192kbps Musepack is 2nd place to Opus, this is from a pure subband codec from a trained blind tester. His face off actually lines up with what I hear with all of these codecs.


If the SD cards are very affordable, and 500 Gb can carry thousands of hours of pure uncompressed 
flacs, why would someone bother with using any lossy files (other than of the past habits/practices)??


----------



## Blackwoof

PhonoPhi said:


> If the SD cards are very affordable, and 500 Gb can carry thousands of hours of pure uncompressed
> flacs, why would someone bother with using any lossy files (other than of the past habits/practices)??


I like to listen to Harsh noise artists like The Rita when I'm on the go but 90% of his stuff when lossless is 1000kbps and it 20 ~ 1 hour single song stuff. MPC @ 205kbps allows me to have more of that on my card since other artists like that can be 1420kbps with flac.


----------



## KeithPhantom

PhonoPhi said:


> If the SD cards are very affordable, and 500 Gb can carry thousands of hours of pure uncompressed
> flacs, why would someone bother with using any lossy files (other than of the past habits/practices)??


Thanks for the xHE-AAC encoder. Was missing that one.


----------



## peskypesky (Jun 26, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I bet in the next year you’ll see a lot of headphone manufacturers introducing high end Bluetooth cans. Look at how fast CDs and DAPs declined. Tech changes fast nowadays. Most people are into streaming and portable, not home systems, and battery life has multiplied just in the last year. My phone has never gotten below a half charge, and the AirPods go for a week. Mine have never run dry of power since I got them.


Not everyone has your gear.


----------



## peskypesky

HipHopScribe said:


> I can see how this solution works well for you, but it's pretty easy to see where there might be shortcomings for some people, not the least of which being that *not everyone wants an iPhone*. There are no battery cases for many phones or magnets built in to stick on magsafe chargers.


I know I don't. I've had Android phones and iPhones and definitely prefer Android.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 26, 2021)

PhonoPhi said:


> If the SD cards are very affordable, and 500 Gb can carry thousands of hours of pure uncompressed
> flacs, why would someone bother with using any lossy files (other than of the past habits/practices)??



I have six music libraries... Rock, 50s Rock n Roll, Jump Blues / R&B, Country, Jazz, Pop Vocals, Easy Listening and Soul. Those comprise one 500 GB mini SD card. The other one is all opera and classical. Everything is AAC 256 VBR and mono is flattened as I rip. My entire music library is more than four times that.

If you have very narrow tastes and a small music library, then lossless is fine. There's nothing wrong with lossless, especially with the way battery life is now. The advantage to compressed is that you can fit more music in the same space with no perceptible loss of quality.



peskypesky said:


> Not everyone has your gear.



PC and Android matches whatever Apple does by the time the next model of Android phone comes out. There's probably already be something like this for Android. I'm just mentioning Apple because that's what I use.



Blackwoof said:


> I would rather use 240kbps MPC since I can kinda tell them apart at 192kbps on Electronic music.



I use 256 VBR with AAC. I found a couple of tracks that artifacted at 192 so I upped it a notch and added VBR to be safe. It's worked perfectly.


----------



## gerelmx1986

bigshot said:


> I have six music libraries... Rock, 50s Rock n Roll, Jump Blues / R&B, Country, Jazz, Pop Vocals, Easy Listening and Soul. Those comprise one 500 GB mini SD card. The other one is all opera and classical. Everything is AAC 256 VBR and mono is flattened as I rip. My entire music library is more than four times that.
> 
> If you have very narrow tastes and a small music library, then lossless is fine. There's nothing wrong with lossless, especially with the way battery life is now. The advantage to compressed is that you can fit more music in the same space with no perceptible loss of quality.
> 
> ...


Using lossy and then bluetooth (iphone aac and SBC) just end up losing more quality as it gets compressed further .

dude what the *** with you? Qll your classical is ripped mono.. are you deaf from one ear?


----------



## bigshot

Toscanini was recorded in mono, champ. And AAC is a codec that is streamable over Bluetooth. It doesn’t have to be re-encoded. And it’s audibly transparent.


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> I have six music libraries... Rock, 50s Rock n Roll, Jump Blues / R&B, Country, Jazz, Pop Vocals, Easy Listening and Soul. Those comprise one 500 GB mini SD card. The other one is all opera and classical. Everything is AAC 256 VBR and mono is flattened as I rip. My entire music library is more than four times that.
> 
> If you have very narrow tastes and a small music library, then lossless is fine. There's nothing wrong with lossless, especially with the way battery life is now. The advantage to compressed is that you can fit more music in the same space with no perceptible loss of quality.


Exactly. I have extremely broad music tastes, and a vast library. Lossy is the way to go for me. ESPECIALLY because there is no audible difference.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> If you have very narrow tastes and a small music library, then lossless is fine.


My music tastes were narrow when I was 20, but not anymore now that I am 50. Three decades of exploration into music genres has left its mark. CD/SACD is my primary music format and I hardly ever rip CDs to my computer. I got used to listening to music that way when I bought my first CD-player back in 1989. Everybody has their own way of doing this. Some people play vinyl records. Some people stream music online. Some people play ripped AAC 256 VBR files on their computer. Some people spin CDs. Some crazy people are back to C-cassettes! I also have some opera/classical DVDs and Blu-rays, but especially opera Blu-rays tend to be really expensive. I have also ripped vinyls on my hard drive because I don't own a turntable so I borrowed my father's turntable and ripped my vinyls. For exploring new music I use free Spotify with adds and sometimes I might listen to music on Youtube.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Toscanini was recorded in mono, champ.


A lot more than just Toscanini was recorded in mono.   

I have never been into old mono recordings myself. I'd say 99 % of my music collection is stereo or multichannel. I have mono jazz (Clifford Brown) and also Elgar conducting his own works (I'm an elgarian) + some other stuff but not much.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> PC and Android matches whatever Apple does by the time the next model of Android phone comes out. There's probably already be something like this for Android. I'm just mentioning Apple because that's what I use.


And vice versa (more so these days), though it would be an improvement if Apple copied Android's real world flexibility and the ability to expand storage space without having to purchase a higher priced model.


----------



## bigshot

You can plug external storage into an iPhone if that’s what you mean by expanding storage space. Real world flexibility sounds like a personal preference.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> I have never been into old mono recordings myself. I'd say 99 % of my music collection is stereo or multichannel.


I can tell you that there is a whole world of music before stereo. Over a half century of music making.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> You can plug external storage into an iPhone if that’s what you mean by expanding storage space. Real world flexibility sounds like a personal preference.



Carrying an external storage device isn’t equivalent to adding a memory card to an existing device.  Could you please decide if carrying extra devices in a mobile setup is “good” or “bad” more consistently as right now, it appears as though you shift your view depending on your personal preferences.  An external battery, dongle, and storage is “good” and a DAP is “bad”?

I’m in the Apple ecosystem as well, but I don’t ignore or minimize its limitations.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I can tell you that there is a whole world of music before stereo. Over a half century of music making.


Of course there is. That's why I commented your post by saying Toscanini is not the only thing in mono. My life will be too short for all music making in history so I can easily make limitations such as not getting much into mono recordings and still have much more music available than I can ever listen to. Having a hard limit would be stupid, so I have some mono recordings, maybe 1 % of my music collection.

I have nothing against mono sound. In fact I often listen to Youtube videos forcing mono sound when it is about speaking and the content creators don't know better to make dialogue mono. When listening to headphones most of the time the channel separation if too large for me so I use cross-feed. I also like dead centered monophonic elements in a piece on music to created stable soundstage. However, I think music benefits from stereophonic/multichannel sound and old mono recordings often aren't high quality to begin with (limited frequency range, high background noise and distortion).


----------



## old tech (Jun 28, 2021)

bigshot said:


> You can plug external storage into an iPhone if that’s what you mean by expanding storage space. Real world flexibility sounds like a personal preference.


Internal storage obviously.  Why would you want to plug  or carry around an external device for such a basic function - unless that is a personal preference...


----------



## HipHopScribe (Jun 28, 2021)

bigshot said:


> And AAC is a codec that is streamable over Bluetooth. It doesn’t have to be re-encoded. And it’s audibly transparent.



I don't think it actually works like that in real world applications. I believe even on iOS AAC files are re-encoded before being transmitted over Bluetooth, probably because they need to mux in other system audio as well. At least that's what SoundGuys found in their testing:

https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/



> The frequency responses are identical for each phone whether playing lossless or AAC file types. *We can also clearly see that none of the phones reach the same 20kHz limit as our AAC input file type. Even Apple’s iPhone doesn’t pass through AAC files untouched. The out-of-band noise floors are also clearly differently shaped in each instance, and none reach as low as our test file.*
> 
> ...
> 
> It’s a similar situation with the noise floor: *Apple’s AAC implementation remains closest to the source material, but even here we can see some an extra -15dB or more of noise added to the signal.* The Samsung Galaxy Note 8 and Huawei P20 Pro perform much the same as before—and are clearly worse than the iPhone 7 again. *Even so, all of these phones re-pass an AAC source file back through the encoder, degrading quality. *Just like with lossless files, the difference lies in how much additional compression is applied to the files on this second pass.



Now this still might not be audible degradation, so it might not really make a difference, but even AAC files probably aren't passing through untouched.


----------



## bigshot (Jun 28, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> Carrying an external storage device isn’t equivalent to adding a memory card to an existing device.



Oh I see. You mean putting a card in the phone itself. No, Apple doesn't do that. I have a little plug that goes into the lightning port. It's about the size of a quarter and it holds 500 GB. I have two of those with different music libraries on each. The little reader takes miniSD cards, but those things are so small and diddly. I hate changing the card, so I just got a second card reader.  I don't want to swap microSD on the road. I'd lose them fast. The quarter sized dummy plugs are the perfect size to keep track of without taking up space. Much better than plugging an external hard drive in! I'm not opposed to stuff that fits in a pocket. I just don't see the purpose of lugging around a backpack with two or three black boxes connected with cables, all with separate batteries and a laptop and big bulky headphones for on the go. I've got it down to a phone, storage the size of a quarter and a pillbox sized set of AirPods.



71 dB said:


> My life will be too short for all music making in history so I can easily make limitations such as not getting much into mono recordings and still have much more music available than I can ever listen to.



I aspire to hear all the good stuff before I die. There are whole genres of music that only exist in mono. Every time I think I've heard everything there is to hear, another great thing pops up. I explore things in flurries. I'll choose something I never listened to before and dive in headfirst. I'll spend six month to a year researching and organizing it all in my head. Then I switch to something else. If I don't understand what I'm hearing, I put it back on the list and come back to it later. I'm not really interested in going all the way to the bottom of any genre. I follow the thread until it starts to weaken, then I move on to something else. There's nothing more enjoyable to me than discovering new music, new art, or new movies.


----------



## Arthur Weston

I’m a FLAC junkie. I couldn’t be more content, but new formats in future have potential.


----------



## Roland P

I used to rip every CD to Wav, but then I wanted album art, which wasn't possible with Wav, so I began using FLAC.
Anyway, in the end, I prefer just playing the CDs... It's too bad CDs are killed in favor of streaming, hi-rez.


----------



## bigshot

Do a blind, level matched, direct A/B switched controlled listening test and get back to me.


----------



## Roland P

Result: 50/50


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I aspire to hear all the good stuff before I die. There are whole genres of music that only exist in mono. Every time I think I've heard everything there is to hear, another great thing pops up. I explore things in flurries. I'll choose something I never listened to before and dive in headfirst. I'll spend six month to a year researching and organizing it all in my head. Then I switch to something else. If I don't understand what I'm hearing, I put it back on the list and come back to it later. I'm not really interested in going all the way to the bottom of any genre. I follow the thread until it starts to weaken, then I move on to something else. There's nothing more enjoyable to me than discovering new music, new art, or new movies.


I have given up hearing all the good stuff before I die long ago. Also, I don't want to hear something I like only once. My favorite music become part of my life and in many ways even define who I am (e.g. elgarian). Yes, a lot of music is only in mono (the reason I have some mono jazz*) but it helps a lot classical music has been widely recorded in stereo and multichannel during the last 60 years of so. I have also done surprising discoveries while thinking I've heard everything there is to hear and so far I have not exhausted stereophonic or multichannel recordings. New music is being created all the time.

Last December I checked out some 80's hit bands. I was a teenager in the 80's, but I didn't listen to music until in high school late 80's. Almost all music in the World just didn't interest me. It didn't occure me one can learn to like music and whatever music I heard passively certainly didn't flatter what music is out there. I was 37 years old when I heard King Crimson for the time in my life in 2008! Anyway, checking out 80's hit bands I discovered Air Supply and to my astonishment I really liked their fresh and honest "ultra-sugary yacht rock". It wasn't easy, but I was able to collect most of their albums on CD for reasonable price. Recently I have collected further Jean-Michel Jarre, who has been really weird case for me since the late 80's, because some of music is awesome while some other music is intentionally banal and stupid. How is one supposed to think about _L'Orchestre sous la pluie_ ? 

What I have learned is that genre is not so important for me. For me what counts is how the artist operates within the genre. Yacht rock as a genre doesn't seem to appeal to me (don't really like it), but Air Supply's music work very well for me. Another example is Carly Simon, whose music I like a lot, but I don't care much about other "similar" artists. I think King Crimson is awesome, but I find Pink Floyd dull. Tangerine Dream is a massive thing for me, but I don't care about Kraftwerk. I really like some modern pop (e.g. Kesha & Katy Perry) but I couldn't care less about many other pop artists. I like Puccini, but I don't like Verdi. It all comes down to how the artist operates within a genre. This means I can discover new favourite music in very surprising genres. If I run out of stuff to explore in stereo someday, I can always go mono. So far no need. Maybe in 10-20 years artificial intelligence is able to re-create pristine multichannel "enhancements" of old noisy mono recordings? 

I totally agree that discovering new music, art and movies is exciting and enjoyable.

* Because my father is a jazz nut and listens to almost only jazz, I heard a lot of jazz home in my childhood. Some of it I liked more (Clifford Brown) so that's why I have some mono jazz myself.


----------



## LongBeforeShort

Back in the old days it was relative easy to find out if the music was ripped to mp3 or the original source. But nowadays i got already big trouble with 128kb with very good gear. But because storage is not a problem and flac Streaming not too expensive, i just use flac all the way, knowing its not really better sounding even on high end gear.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> I have given up hearing all the good stuff before I die long ago.



I'm sorry.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I'm sorry.


It is okay. I am only being _realistic_. We can't experience everything in life. Have you tasted Finnish salmon soup for example?


----------



## bigshot

I watched a show on PBS that had some great Finnish cooking. I just looked up Lohikeitto and it looks great. I make a creamed potato leek soup that my mom used to make that is very similar. I'll try adding salmon and fish stock to it. (Not a big fan of dill though...)


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I watched a show on PBS that had some great Finnish cooking. I just looked up Lohikeitto and it looks great. I make a creamed potato leek soup that my mom used to make that is very similar. I'll try adding salmon and fish stock to it. (Not a big fan of dill though...)


Great! Good luck with it. _Lohikeitto_ may teach you to appreciate dill a little more.


----------



## bigshot

I might substitute Thai Basil. That has a little bit of an anise thing going on, but it isn't as overpowering as dill. Maybe just use a small amount of dill. A little goes a long way.


----------



## 71 dB (Jul 1, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I might substitute Thai Basil. That has a little bit of an anise thing going on, but it isn't as overpowering as dill. Maybe just use a small amount of dill. A little goes a long way.


Sounds like a plan then! Fennel can be also used.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> I use 256 VBR with AAC. I found a couple of tracks that artifacted at 192 so I upped it a notch and added VBR to be safe. It's worked perfectly.


Same with me, I can kinda tell 192kbps AAC/Vorbis, But when I tested Musepack It couldn't find any artifact in my whole archive I moved down to 170 VBR MPC since It couldn't tell either, I'm using a 256GB micro SD. It really amazing how hostile Hydrogenaudio gets with MPC since there going "Ignore him he trolling" since I went through 4 codecs before going with MPC @ 170 VBR.


----------



## bigshot

I’m afraid my equipment doesn’t support that codec, but the file size difference isn’t that great between 170 and 256.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jul 10, 2021)

-


----------



## theaudiologist1 (Jul 9, 2021)

.


----------



## castleofargh

theaudiologist1 said:


> What's the best lossy format based on quality and efficiency? I heard Vorbis at 86kbps is equal to a 320kbps MP3


I'm tempted to delete this off topic post that has nothing to do in a cuisine topic. 

opus is probably the way if your gear wants it.


----------



## Blackwoof

Never liked Vorbis at all, Can't cope with noisy sections in music or just noise in general. Not to mention horrid bit rate bloat like having 12 albums with everything averaging 384kbps while MPC/AAC can be <175kbps, Opus Is no better got 180kbps on Necrophorus ~  After The Silence which is 48 ~ 96 with other codecs. 


Speaking of xHE AAC, If they can get away with launching a sub type codec with no decoders. The same could be done with MP3 decoders by allowing 8 ~ 640kbps, Use --allshort(rename it to heavy) with a new perceptual model to help with it issues since 192 samples seems to be enough to stop any pre echo. Because I'm pretty sure on artists like prurient It's not even using MP3's short blocks fullly?.


----------



## bigshot

You're overthinking this I use AAC 256 VBR. It is perfectly transparent. The difference in file size to other codecs is reasonable. Some are a hair bigger, some a hair smaller. It doesn't matter. You don't have to have the absolute smallest file. Any compressed audio is smaller than FLAC by a huge margin. So use what is convenient for you and set it a notch above transparency and use VBR to make sure that it works perfect.


----------



## Blackwoof (Jul 10, 2021)

bigshot said:


> You're overthinking this I use AAC 256 VBR. It is perfectly transparent. The difference in file size to other codecs is reasonable. Some are a hair bigger, some a hair smaller. It doesn't matter. You don't have to have the absolute smallest file. Any compressed audio is smaller than FLAC by a huge margin. So use what is convenient for you and set it a notch above transparency and use VBR to make sure that it works perfect.


I'm not talking about that I'm saying Vorbis performs worse than AAC/MP3 at 256 VBR. And MP3 is being held back by LAME's poor block switching and decoders thinking 320 frames are enough. Also xHE AAC is a new codec it can do 144 ~ 320kbps as well it not a low bit rate codec, It just that they tried to cover up that It performs like MP3 pre echo wise and got bested by QAAC.

The short version = MP3 still very competitive at 256kbps with custom settings.


----------



## bigshot

Just about all compressed audio is competitive. The differences between the various codecs for a typical song can be measured in kilobytes, while the difference between lossless and lossy is MUCH larger. Don't sweat the pennies, worry about the dollars is my point. As long as it reaches the threshold of transparency, it is doing its job efficiently.


----------



## LongBeforeShort

I am a simple person, i have compared A/B LDAC/APTX/AAC, could not hear a difference and chose AAC 256. That's it. It's already a huge saving compared to FLAC. And even if there is no limit for me i need to look out for, i would still use the same, because it's saving something somewhere else. 

Why breaking a sweat over stuff like that, unless it's your job to make it better?


----------



## omegaorgun

BUT what about MQA? @bigshot


----------



## bigshot

It's hard to know. They make it difficult to do an apples to apples comparison. I would guess that MQA achieves audible transparency, but there are much more convenient codecs out there that sound perfect, so why make it hard on yourself?


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 11, 2021)

FireLion said:


> BUT what about MQA? @bigshot


What about MQA?  It's a more recent lossy audio codec.  I guess the main arguments about whether to save in 320kbps lossy vs larger FLAC ultimately has to do with file size (or situations where you might be transmitting wirelessly at a slower rate).  It could be superfluous for a lot of folks now that memory sizes increase and it's easier to keep a lossless library.  Most differences in audio I hear has to do with mastering and the source sound levels.  I'm knowledgable about video standards: one of the reasons 4K HDR standards have made it to the home market (be it streaming or blu-ray disc) is that another more recent codec spec was standardized that's more efficient and can cram more information (and can be an easier load for home systems vs uncompressed video).  I have an Apple TV: with Apple Music, they're advertising lossless audio with many albums now: and some of the latest are now Dolby Atmos surround.  I'm not sure if I'd be able to tell a difference if their audio stream was Dolby Digital+ with Atmos (but I can't, because there's not an identical master).  I do have UHD movies on disc and their equivalent digital copy: I found I can't compare them as they seem to have different masters (where the disc has louder levels and possibly difference in video quality).


----------



## mauaudiocr

From what I have read and I understand the thing with MQA is that devices charge extra to support MQA and also artists need to pay extra if they want their music to be on MQA, so for those two reasons I prefer to stay with FLAC or 320bps, I am not interested on paying extra for devices that support MQA, I rather spend money on a device that has good flac support.


----------



## castleofargh

Good luck encoding your library in mqa.


----------



## LongBeforeShort

In my opinion, mqa is not only useless, but they charge extra fees for the service and you're not getting flac, if the device doesn't support mqa. Also charging extra cost to support mqa in hardware is just.... I really do hope this gets off the market at some point, we don't even need flac for streaming.


----------



## bigshot

More is not always better. Enough is enough.


----------



## gerelmx1986

Ig you can’t secide on a lossy codec. Go better lossless


----------



## theaudiologist1

gerelmx1986 said:


> Ig you can’t secide on a lossy codec. Go better lossless


haha you're the only other person on the entire planet to know Pachelbel. What player is that?


----------



## PhonoPhi (Jul 17, 2021)

theaudiologist1 said:


> haha you're the only other person on the entire planet to know Pachelbel. What player is that?


Pachelbel, Buxt


theaudiologist1 said:


> haha you're the only other person on the entire planet to know Pachelbel. What player is that?


Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Sweelinck, Frescobaldi are all the essential cultural heritage.

As obvious, as not bothering with any forms of .mp3 and other lossy formats when there are .flacs and plenty of different storage options available.


----------



## Blackwoof

Looks like I made another site got mad that MP3 can be transparent on Its own killer samples with custom LAME settings and even did better than Vorbis at 256kbps?.


----------



## gerelmx1986

theaudiologist1 said:


> haha you're the only other person on the entire planet to know Pachelbel. What player is that?


Sony Walkman NW-WM1A


----------



## PhonoPhi

Blackwoof said:


> Looks like I made another site got mad that MP3 can be transparent on Its own killer samples with custom LAME settings and even did better than Vorbis at 256kbps?.


Do not worry, it is only for lossy files, people can worry about their potential losses: is the transparency absolutely transparent or just 99 or 99.4 or 99.51%

Those who use lossless are trouble free and eternally happy


----------



## gerelmx1986

gerelmx1986 said:


> Ig you can’t secide on a lossy codec. Go better lossless


This one is also good specially 
for the historical organs featured


----------



## Blackwoof

PhonoPhi said:


> Do not worry, it is only for lossy files, people can worry about their potential losses: is the transparency absolutely transparent or just 99 or 99.4 or 99.51%
> 
> Those who use lossless are trouble free and eternally happy


It was Hydrogenaudio. You'd think a site where much of the tuning for LAME was done, Would be okay with it being transparent at 256kbps with custom settings & tricks. It has always been annoying how they can't cope being told there either wrong or being quite ignorant.


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> is the transparency absolutely transparent or just 99 or 99.4 or 99.51%


Audibly transparent sounds 100% identical to human ears as any other transparent file. You can pack more zeros and ones in the file, but it won’t sound any better. All of the recent lossy codecs used for music we’re talking about here can achieve transparency. Some reach it at 192. Others 256 or 320. But once they cross that line, it’s as good as it gets. Transparent is transparent.


----------



## theaudiologist1

PhonoPhi said:


> Pachelbel, Buxt
> 
> Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Sweelinck, Frescobaldi are all the essential cultural heritage.
> 
> As obvious, as not bothering with any forms of .mp3 and other lossy formats when there are .flacs and plenty of different storage options available.


I know all those composers. Unfortunately I couldn't find any SACD's from them.


----------



## bigshot

Lots of great recordings of those composers on the Brilliant Classics label. Inexpensive box sets too.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> Audibly transparent sounds 100% identical to human ears as any other transparent file. You can pack more zeros and ones in the file, but it won’t sound any better. All of the recent lossy codecs used for music we’re talking about here can achieve transparency. Some reach it at 192. Others 256 or 320. But once they cross that line, it’s as good as it gets. Transparent is transparent.


Yeah, these days 256 or 320 is still useful to save space. It really weird how HA now just highly hostile to MP3 despite much of the issues it has go away at 256 ~ 320 with custom settings on top?. Beyond that 192kbps VBR MP3 is transparent to me.


----------



## bigshot

MP3 LAME is different than old school Fraunhofer. They might be conflating the two. Compressed audio today is much better than when it started out.


----------



## Blackwoof

True, It pretty much magic what LAME gets out of MP3.


----------



## gerelmx1986

I know them too from buztehude i have a sacd of his membra jesu nosrri.

frescobaldi have brilliant set. Sweelink have vocal music on glissa and keyboard works on NCA.
Pachelbel have the harpsichord on brillant (i hate simone stella and his crappy instruments of nad quality), organ works on centaur as CD and cpo as SACD.

buxtehude i have organ works on MDG amd the complete koopman set as well trio sonatas on Marco poli/naxos


----------



## Blackwoof

Noticed this lately with Opus the bit rate bloat is quite bad if you listen music with quiet sections or ambient.


----------



## Blackwoof

Just find out if you resample to 48KHz and use V0 LAME it makes samples that choke on pre echo transparent without the bitrate bloat of --allshort. Get even more clear MP3 not as weak as many think It is.


----------



## audiokangaroo

I can't hear much difference between Flac and 320 kbps mp3, but I have the impression that Flac sounds a bit more articulated.
Audio information lacking in mp3 can sometimes be audible.


----------



## bigshot

Do a level matched, direct A/B switched, blind listening test and I bet that articulation disappears.

I’ve set up a listening test that compares ten samples, one each of AAC, Fraunhofer MP3 and LAME MP3, at three data rates, 192, 256 and 320. The tenth sample is lossless. The samples are randomly ordered. Your job is to rank the sound quality and put them in order from worst to best. If you would like to take this test and find out where your threshold is, let me know. I’d be happy to administer it to you. It’s fun.


----------



## Blackwoof

So Lame MP3 at 192Kbps VBR is transparent to me 95 ~ 98% of the time with more complex stuff at 256kbps VBR with 48KHz resample if its pre echo issues. Yet 160kbps AAC/Vorbis are more patchy despite coming close to 192kbps LAME?.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 19, 2021)

When you say 95-98% of the time, is that using a random variety of music samples? Or is there one or more killer sample out of hundreds that you can hear 100% of the time? Because the margin of error for randomness in responses to a test is much larger than 2-5%.

The idea is to achieve transparency with whatever codec you choose. I would determine that by testing with CBR and once I've established a threshold, I would add VBR and perhaps bump it up a notch just to be safe. Then I would just start encoding and not look back. That is what I did at least. I don't see what you gain from splitting hairs around the threshold. It won't save you much file size at all, at least compared to the file size savings of lossless to lossy. Sacrifice a few k to know you are in the safe zone.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> When you say 95-98% of the time, is that using a random variety of music samples? Or is there one or more killer sample out of hundreds that you can hear 100% of the time? Because the margin of error for randomness in responses to a test is much larger than 2-5%.
> 
> The idea is to achieve transparency with whatever codec you choose. I would determine that by testing with CBR and once I've established a threshold, I would add VBR and perhaps bump it up a notch just to be safe. Then I would just start encoding and not look back. That is what I did at least. I don't see what you gain from splitting hairs around the threshold. It won't save you much file size at all, at least compared to the file size savings of lossless to lossy. Sacrifice a few k to know you are in the safe zone.


the only artifact I got was pre echo which 256k at 48KHz VBR fixes, Outside that V2 Lame MP3 sounds as good as AAC/Vorbis it what the 5 ~ 1% ment. Just a bit blown away by HA user who posted "there are folk who like MP3 more over AAC/Vorbis" got mad I was that type as if I'm going listen to trolling. 

I'm nearly 29 I'm already struggling tell any difference hence I just stuck with MP3.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 21, 2021)

I'm asking about the music sample that artifacts. Was it one particular piece of music, or did every piece of music you played with that AAC encoding artifact the same?


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> I'm asking about the music sample that artifacts. Was it one particular piece of music, or did every piece of music you played with that AAC encoding artifact the same?


Aeoga - COAV II, Stahlwerk 9 - The Meal of the Blasphemers (The Profane Mystery). These two show AAC sounding like a signal break up you get when Sat TV has poor signal It takes 256Kbps with QAAC to get transparency. While with Lame MP3 I can do V5 without any artifacts which made me confused since many act like I was nuts.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 21, 2021)

Ah... so it's a killer track. EDIT: I found Aeoga COAV. I guess it wasn't released in the US. I ordered it from France. Thanks.

How does VBR factor in? Does it break up at AAC 192 VBR? And does it play fine at AAC 256 CBR?


----------



## Blackwoof

It breaks at 192k quite a lot of his stuff does, Had no issues at 256k VBR and FHG AAC does better at 192kbps VBR. Brighter death now - Impasse has the same issues under 192k with QAAC, I think It's struggling to tell what is noise and musical sound.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 21, 2021)

With AAC, you can't judge with VBR on. It allows the codec to go above the setting, even beyond 320 if you have it set for that. I always establish the threshold using CBR first. The other thing is that you have to lower the volume a bit before you encode. Hot mastered tracks that aren't clipping in lossless may go into clipping when they are encoded in AAC. When I get the CD from France, I'll set up some test files and share them.


----------



## Blackwoof

Yeah, I used CVBR/CBR at 224kbps on those samples to see if It was 192k & under being the issue.


----------



## Blackwoof

My thoughts after trying hard sample pack from HA.

Lame MP3 = 4.5/5, Could get away with 190kbps VBR but anything pre echo(eig.wv) would need V0 with 48KHz.

AAC = 4/5, Transparent at 160kbps but struggles hard with industrial ambient.

Vorbis aoTuV = 4.5/5, Holds well at 160kbps but anything with white noise to crunchy noise It needs 384kbps to not sound bad.

MPC = 5/5, Despite being subband based It blows other three out the water at 170kbps.

Opus = 5/5, Same as MPC but has horrid bit rate bloat at 160 ~ 224kbps.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2021)

Then it seems you're safe with any codec at 192. I have a killer track that artifacts on a lot of codecs at 192. It isn't totally clean on AAC until 256. I hope Aeoga COAV is good music! It's on a boat to me as we speak.


----------



## Blackwoof

It tribal Dark ambient with a lot acoustic instruments a lot easier to get than the pure electronic style. Yeah, It why I've been using 192 MP3 since if It artifacts I can up to 320 or use Vorbis.


----------



## Foulcher

I do not know if it is considered a "reliable" test but I scored many times 5/6 on the NPR test (after trials because its is asks to tell which file is lossless, i.e. of best quality. Finding différences was not that hard even if they are honestly very subtle, but that does not mean that one sounded better than the other, better is just subjective.). one track have been always impossible to tell aside from "lucky" pull for me.

However, I do not know why, I noticed that I generally set volume a bit higher with AAC tracks than with ALAC ones and that I have more hearing fatigue with AAC. It was not on purpose as I do not that care.

Anyway, from a purely theoritical point of view, I do not see the point of lossy music aside from storage reasons which have been gone for a long time (1 To storage is pretty "small" nowadays and it can hold more lossless music that I might hear for the rest of my life...).


----------



## bigshot

Blackwoof, I got the CD that has a killer track on it... Aeoga COAV. Which track and at what running time does it artifact? I'm going to check it and see where the threshold is.


----------



## Blackwoof (Sep 6, 2021)

It track 2 at 0:00 to 0:45. I still use TVBR 82 but on albums like this I use V4 ~ V1 LAME, Really surprised how well LAME holds up at V5 ~ V4.


----------



## bigshot

thanks!


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> thanks!


Let me know if you found another killer track.  I'm all lossless at this point, other than Apple Music streaming in my car.  The last album you mentioned that challenged your encoder was Sammy Davis, Jr.'s _The Decca Years_ album.


----------



## Blackwoof

sonitus mirus said:


> Let me know if you found another killer track.  I'm all lossless at this point, other than Apple Music streaming in my car.  The last album you mentioned that challenged your encoder was Sammy Davis, Jr.'s _The Decca Years_ album.


Never had the same issues at 160kbps VBR with Opus & Musepack?. Youtube uses Opus as there main codec at 96 ~ 160kbps. I sometimes wonder If AAC & Vorbis can be pushed further at 64 ~ 192kbps because both are struggling on music that even 128 ~ 192kbps Lame MP3 is transparent on?.


----------



## theaudiologist1

Blackwoof said:


> It breaks at 192k quite a lot of his stuff does, Had no issues at 256k VBR and FHG AAC does better at 192kbps VBR. Brighter death now - Impasse has the same issues under 192k with QAAC, I think It's struggling to tell what is noise and musical sound.


can you please tell me the difference between all the AAC versions mainly exhale fdk and fhg? My ancient nokia phone says it supports "eAAC+" and I want to know if it sounds better than MP3 at lower or equal bitrates. Also is AAC free or proprietary?


----------



## SmOgER

AAC generally sound better than MP3, it is not proprietary (AAC@256 ~= MP3@320 ?). Apple is using this codec to this day to stream audio over BT.


----------



## bigshot

AAC is common in compressed video and streaming video too. It's the best choice for people who care about sound quality.


----------



## SmOgER (Sep 10, 2021)

I wonder though is it capped to 256kbps or can it go up to 320kbps over BT5?

PS. Apparently non-Apple phones perform much worse with AAC. Interesting!
https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/
I guess that's why my ears to be honest and despite my critique of the lack for abtX support from Apple can't really tell anything noticeably wrong about the sound quality.


----------



## Blackwoof

---


----------



## Blackwoof

theaudiologist1 said:


> can you please tell me the difference between all the AAC versions mainly exhale fdk and fhg? My ancient nokia phone says it supports "eAAC+" and I want to know if it sounds better than MP3 at lower or equal bitrates. Also is AAC free or proprietary?


Not used them much under 96kbps but for HE AAC, Apple AAC at 80kbps CVBR really holds up well. But Exhale & Opus will sound better than HE AAC at 96kbps almost matching 160 ~ 192kbps VBR MP3.  But LC AAC your better off trying 144kbps Apple AAC as start since FDK/FHG AAC seems struggle with metal music at 128kbps while Apple encoder doesn't?.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 10, 2021)

AAC can go beyond 320 with VBR. Even if it’s slightly different with different players, it’s still capable of transparency.

if an encoder can’t get the best out of a codec, that’s a fault with the encoder.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> AAC can go beyond 320 with VBR. Even if it’s slightly different with different players, it’s still capable of transparency.
> 
> if an encoder can’t get the best out of a codec, that’s a fault with the encoder.


Yup much of the tracks are transparent at 320kbps with QAAC. But HA got super mad when they kept touting Vorbis was as good as AAC at 144 ~ 224kbps, But with both encoders basic white noise based samples would trip it up to the point It needs 400 ~ 510kbps while Apple AAC it transparent on those at 75 ~ 145kbps & with MP3 it's 190 ~ 290kbps?.


----------



## bigshot

The difference in file size between AAC 320 and AAC 192 is small compared with the difference between lossless and AAC. At some point, people are quibbling over pocket change.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> The difference in file size between AAC 320 and AAC 192 is small compared with the difference between lossless and AAC. At some point, people are quibbling over pocket change.


Yeah, That actually why I don't get why AAC & Vorbis able to do 320 ~ 512kbps if needed at any setting was a issue at HA at one point?. Many would just blindly say go use Lossless too stupid to get that most music can be 950 ~ 1380kbps where 384kbps AAC or Vorbis would be a steal.


----------



## bigshot

I think most people only care that the sound is perfect for all kinds of music. They don't care about being a foot over the line as opposed to an inch. They just want to be sure that everything they rip is perfect. AAC 256 VBR is perfect for me. No need to fuss with anything lower than that.


----------



## Davesrose (Sep 11, 2021)

bigshot said:


> AAC is common in compressed video and streaming video too. It's the best choice for people who care about sound quality.


With video, that depends.  There's nothing wrong with AAC from a sound quality standpoint (and it supports multiple channel audio), but it doesn't support 3D audio formats: Dolby Atmos or DTS:X.  Both of them require a meta stream on top of either TreuHD/DD+ or DTS-MA.  Also, when it comes to most common digital audio with streaming, I would say it's DD: I find that is the output with cable and is also the standard with most streaming services.  Dolby used to be found with Adobe Premiere, but it's now left out: as Adobe has decided to stop paying for the Dolby license.  AAC is open source, so that is now the default sound format with Adobe video software. It's easy for distribution, like my niche of 3D animation with a soundtrack.....but when it comes to home distribution, DD+ (5.1 or Atmos) is most common.


----------



## theaudiologist1

AAC has a billion encoders and types I'm confused. The best is QAAC but that reuires installing proprietary apple spyware so the 2nd best is FDK.


----------



## Blackwoof

theaudiologist1 said:


> AAC has a billion encoders and types I'm confused. The best is QAAC but that reuires installing proprietary apple spyware so the 2nd best is FDK.


That why I switched to Vorbis cause It built in too Foobar, It doesn't seem to choke on Ambient like QAAC at 160kbps. I use FHG AAC that Winamp had for samples Vorbis chokes on, Aside from that Vorbis is transparent to me at 160kbps VBR.


----------



## theaudiologist1

Blackwoof said:


> That why I switched to Vorbis cause It built in too Foobar, It doesn't seem to choke on Ambient like QAAC at 160kbps. I use FHG AAC that Winamp had for samples Vorbis chokes on, Aside from that Vorbis is transparent to me at 160kbps VBR.


I would've too, but my nokia only supports MP3 AAC and WMA and on my android I simply put flac.


----------



## Paul Mohr

I didn't read all 80 pages of this so I am probably saying something someone else has said already. I highly doubt any major studios are are recording and mastering music in a lossy format. At the worst a small studio is probably doing 44.1 as a wave file which is lossless. Larger sutdios are most likely doing at least that or better. If you are ripping CD's I can almost assure you it is 44.1 wave files since that is the standard for that format. Especially if it came from a major studio. Now if its some CD a small band paid a small studio to make for them "maybe" it would be less? However they would probably have to ask for it. Maybe to fit more tracks on the CD or something? That being said it doesn't mean the transfer or original recording was good. I have heard some pretty crappy CD's over the years. It has nothing do with the file format or bit rate though. Just poor sound engineers and crappy transfers.

Now could some studios be releasing music in lower quality? Sure, it wouldn't surprise me at all being that everything is turning to streaming or small portable devices. However I highly doubt that is how the music was mastered in the studio, at least not a professional one. Now if you are pulling the music off the internet then yes YOUR original source may very well be an MP3.

Now all that being said, I have listened to various types of formats and bit rates. Me personally if it was done well I really can't tell the difference. I have heard some really great sounding MP3's and some really bad lossless but again, that didn't have to do with the format. Now if it isn't done well or correctly then yes MP3's or whatever can not sound as good. Then again so can better stuff.


----------



## Blackwoof

theaudiologist1 said:


> I would've too, but my nokia only supports MP3 AAC and WMA and on my android I simply put flac.


That why I use my LG V20 over my Sony AW45, I never understood them giving you only 3 codecs and It ones no one use anymore like WMA. I had to send two DAP's back because one had no gapless support and another had a 320kbps lock on Opus/Vorbis, My Sony had that too if a AAC encode reached 495 ~ 500kbps It would just say error?.


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> I think most people only care that the sound is perfect for all kinds of music. They don't care about being a foot over the line as opposed to an inch. They just want to be sure that everything they rip is perfect. AAC 256 VBR is perfect for me. No need to fuss with anything lower than that.



I myself don't care that if my audio files are perfect, because my ears aren't. Perfect audio would be wasted on them. I'm 55 and my high frequency hearing is pretty much nonexistent. So 160kb AAC files sound identical to FLAC's for me. I've done hundreds of ABX tests and never got close to telling the difference.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 15, 2021)

I meant perfect for human ears... But in case you have a friend over to listen to music, you might want to encode to please their ears too!

But the biggest problem with low data rate lossy isn't rolloff of high frequencies, it's artifacting, and that can be heard even with mature ears.

AAC 160 VBR is high enough to be transparent to most people with most music. It's a fine setting for listening to music.


----------



## Tjj226 Angel

I have always lurked on this thread. I wonder how long it will be before the discussion is meaningless. When this thread started, devices only had a few GB and you had to economize on your audio formats. Now most devices have a TB or more in some cases. 

It's going to get to a point where there won't be a good reason not to have all your audio in WAV or DSD 10 billion. Otherwise you would be paying for storage space you wouldn't use.


----------



## bigshot

You don't listen to music on portable devices?


----------



## peskypesky

Tjj226 Angel said:


> Now most devices have a TB or more in some cases.



They do?


----------



## bigshot

I think the Apple 13 Pro Max that was announced this week comes with a 1 TB option. It isn't available yet, and it costs a king's ransom.


----------



## castleofargh

Tjj226 Angel said:


> I have always lurked on this thread. I wonder how long it will be before the discussion is meaningless. When this thread started, devices only had a few GB and you had to economize on your audio formats. Now most devices have a TB or more in some cases.
> 
> It's going to get to a point where there won't be a good reason not to have all your audio in WAV or DSD 10 billion. Otherwise you would be paying for storage space you wouldn't use.


We have options, which is good IMO.
You’re right that the thread is meaningless, because it’s all about personal decisions based on personal priorities and personal hearing(or more often than not, beliefs about personal hearing abilities).
People can and probably should use whatever they want.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 16, 2021)

People should do controlled tests to KNOW what matters to them, not just go by what some golden eared audiophile tells them or what they imagine is true based on looking at numbers they don't even have any context for. Once they know, they can make an informed decision.

Grab one of those memes with the guy sitting at the table with a sign that says "Convince me that you can hear the difference between lossless and high data rate modern current codecs." Paste me into the picture. I am open to the possibility, but in nearly a decade of looking, I can't find anyone who can prove that. And all the published tests tell me the same.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> People should do controlled tests to KNOW what matters to them, not just go by what some golden eared audiophile tells them or what they imagine is true based on looking at numbers they don't even have any context for. Once they know, they can make an informed decision.


If facts about their own hearing abilities were their priority, then yes. But how often do you expect for it to be the case?


----------



## bigshot (Sep 16, 2021)

That's THEIR problem, not mine!

EDIT: Yes, everyone can have their own opinion. But not all opinions are created equal. Some are based on research, testing and understanding the principles involved. And some are based on ego, bias and outright delusion. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. I won't coddle ignorance just to be "nice". They can get a clue for themselves.


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 16, 2021)

bigshot said:


> You don't listen to music on portable devices?


In my opinion artifacting is less harmful in portable playback, because the environmental sounds (other people, traffic, wind, birds, etc.) tend to mask the sound more. Who cares, if a cymbal crash of a Japanese "killer track" has artefacts in it when an angry dog on the street conveniently barked and masked it!

We should not only ask if we can hear artefacts. We should also ask how much artifacting is ok in different listening scenarios. Do they hinder your enjoyment of the music? People (yes, me too) used to listen to (and enjoy!) portable C-cassette players, "Walkmans" in the 80's ja 90's. They had noise, wow & flutter, tape distortion, reduced frequency range etc. Compared to those days, 128 kbps mp3 sounds amazing.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 16, 2021)

I don't know why you need to put up with it. I don't know about you, but I play the same files on my portable rig that I do on my home rig. I just encode at AAC 256 VBR and it sounds perfect on the road and in my living room. The difference in file size between 128, where I might hear artifacting, and 256 where I don't is so small, I don't know why people stress this so much. Just encode a notch or two over the line and don't look back. You don't have to put up with artifacts nor rolloff. Perfect sound everywhere is simple.

Sometimes I think people enjoy theorizing and validating their theories more than listening to high fidelity music. I don't get that at all.


----------



## Chippy1

Sometimes the theory crafting is more enjoyable than the end result and people get carried away. I only personally use high bitrate/lossless on specific albums.


----------



## Tjj226 Angel

peskypesky said:


> They do?



The flagship phones do. Apple is the only one lagging behind. 

And if you have a DAP with some sort of SD card expansion, you can buy 1tb sd/micro sd cards.


----------



## ehjie

Apple 13pro 1tb
usd.1,720
Apple 13pro max 1tb
usd.1,860

I'd rather buy the dx300 +1tb micro sd (usd.165) amazon...


----------



## Tjj226 Angel

ehjie said:


> Apple 13pro 1tb
> usd.1,720
> Apple 13pro max 1tb
> usd.1,860
> ...



Are you talking about the cost of things on a site where people regularly drop used car amounts of money on headphones?


----------



## ehjie

Yes


----------



## bigshot

I use MicroSD cards with my iPhone. I have a TB of music on two of them, but it still isn’t enough.


----------



## Blackwoof

I take everything back QAAC 160kbps VBR is 98.9% with 1.5% being FHG AAC or 320k QAAC. My impression of QAAC vs aoTuV b6.03

1). Vomir & other wall noise artists average 80 ~ 140kbps with no issues, Meanwhile Vorbis needs 395kbps to sound decent?.

2). Blows Vorbis out the water at 32 ~ 96kbps. The Human voice - Is this a palace or a prison It transparent at 96k with QAAC while Vorbis suffers from stereo crush where everything sounds mono.

3). Vorbis VBR method is weird on Kongara by Merzbow & The baron's chamber by Prurient they need 400+ kbps but the encoder sticks to 150 ~ 245kbps with heavy artifacting. MPC/MP3/AAC all shoot past 200kbps even at 160kbps VBR.


----------



## bigshot

I have trouble figuring out what you’re talking about. Would you please restate this in simple layman’s terms? You don’t need to impress us.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I have trouble figuring out what you’re talking about. Would you please restate this in simple layman’s terms? You don’t need to impress us.


Looks like the message is "Vorbis sucks."


----------



## peskypesky

Tjj226 Angel said:


> The flagship phones do. Apple is the only one lagging behind.
> 
> And if you have a DAP with some sort of SD card expansion, you can buy 1tb sd/micro sd cards.


you said "most".

that's incorrect from what I see.


----------



## bigshot

I hang out with people who spend way too much on tech, and I don't know anyone with a 1 TB phone.


----------



## Blackwoof

71 dB said:


> Looks like the message is "Vorbis sucks."


Pretty much this I was too drunk to reply. I groan when HA says Vorbis is transparent at 160kb/s but fails on pure electronic. My four ideas why are.  The bad performance on Vomir/Merzbow hints at them not using tools the codec has to half the bitrate without artifacts, They're wasting bits this is the issue early VBR had. QAAC seems to only reach above 320kbps if It needs to same with Lame/MPC. Opus is not much better HA trying to hide that the codec has window size issues which the dev made the libOpus encoder by throwing bits which shows as bloat and when fed a mono file it still pumps out 128k instead of half the bitrate like other codecs do?.

It would explain why video online using Vorbis would sound bad if It was them filming a storm.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 18, 2021)

I still don't understand anything you're saying. I think I need to be drunker.

If it isn't transparent at 160, try 192. It's not like the file size will be all that different. Lossy codecs aren't a game of limbo, it's just reaching a data rate that works.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> If it isn't transparent at 160, try 192. It's not like the file size will be all that different. Lossy codecs aren't a game of limbo, it's just reaching a data rate that works.


Bitrate shifts are more extreme with Vorbis if a sample is 350kbps at 192kbps VBR it will be 580kbps at 320kbps VBR. It why I switched to AAC since It more efficient than Vorbis even at 256kbps.

It a dead codec since everyone seems to use Opus, MP3, AAC.


----------



## 71 dB

Blackwoof said:


> Pretty much this I was too drunk to reply.


Do not drive or post when drunk.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Blackwoof said:


> Bitrate shifts are more extreme with Vorbis if a sample is 350kbps at 192kbps VBR it will be 580kbps at 320kbps VBR. It why I switched to AAC since It more efficient than Vorbis even at 256kbps.
> 
> It a dead codec since everyone seems to use Opus, MP3, AAC.


What about Spotify?   That is a globally popular streaming service that makes use of Ogg Vorbis, unless they changed this recently.


----------



## Blackwoof

sonitus mirus said:


> What about Spotify?   That is a globally popular streaming service that makes use of Ogg Vorbis, unless they changed this recently.


It is the only one I know that uses It, The rest use either 256k AAC or 320k/V0 MP3. YouTube uses 96 ~ 160k Opus & AAC.

But for DAP/Phones AAC is the 2nd most popular codec people use It rare to see people use Vorbis.


----------



## Blackwoof (Oct 6, 2021)

--


----------



## Blackwoof

It very odd how Lame MP3 V2(192kb/s) is more robust than other codec's I've used only tiny few need to upped to 256kbps(V0).


----------



## bigshot

The difference in file size between 192 and 256 is negligible. It really doesn’t matter as long as it is transparent.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> The difference in file size between 192 and 256 is negligible. It really doesn’t matter as long as it is transparent.


Depends on the content. I mainly focusing on Ambient since If I encode a 1 hour long Steve roach CD at V0 the bitrate is 265kbps with zero quality gains & is larger than a 320k MP3 cause of Its length. I only use V0 if the album actually needs It.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 8, 2021)

I don't want to check every rip. I just pick a rate that I know works for everything and then turn on VBR to make it efficient.

A minute of stereo MP3 at 192 comes in at 1.44 MB. At 256 it's 1.92. At 320 it's 2.4. Lossless is 5.68 MB. The difference in size between lossless and lossy is huge. The difference between one lossy rate and another is tiny. You're talking about a difference of about 60 MB per hour. It would take a LOT of hours for that to add up to anything that really mattered.


----------



## Blackwoof

Just re read HA's MP3 vs AAC face off, They admit that Lame 3.99+ uses the bit reservoir to force bitrates above 320kbps in VBR. Just after they told me that can't be done because MP3 can't read frames at 328 ~ 640kbps like in free frame mode despite the fact foobar shows 330kbps for 0.5 ~ 1 sec when a intro is hard to compress?.


----------



## bigshot

You're talking about stuff that doesn't matter in practice.


----------



## danadam

bigshot said:


> You're talking about stuff that doesn't matter in practice.


Apparently we can't have a month without complaining about HA


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> You're talking about stuff that doesn't matter in practice.


Me using 160kbps AAC = Just set It to 256kps VBR

Me using V3 LAME = Why does It matter if 3.99+ is doing 384 ~ 540kbps through a dirty trick?.

Got love the salt AAC users are showing that LAME MP3 could push the codec further, By exploiting how MP3 goes from 192 samples to 170 when set to 48KHz as well.


----------



## bigshot

The difference in file size is inconsequential. You don't have to find the exact line where it becomes transparent. You just need to choose a setting that is transparent for sure.


----------



## Sterling2

What we all want from any recorded music is lifelike sound. And technology has moved on now to Apple Music Lossless and Hi-Res streaming for sound that really is lifelike when processed by a contemporary DAC. In other words, this thread is kind of meaningless for anyone routing Apple Music via usb to their DAC.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 24, 2022)

ALAC doesn’t stream. And it isn’t transmitted across Bluetooth. AAC sounds exactly the same to human ears and it streams and transmits wirelessly. AAC also has much smaller file sizes than ALAC.


----------



## gregorio

Sterling2 said:


> What we all want from any recorded music is lifelike sound.


Extremely few want that, which is why popular music genres and even some contemporary classical genres started moving away from that in the 1950’s.

G


----------



## castleofargh

I had the same thought. Modern music seems like a pretty strong argument against everybody wanting lifelike sound.
Of course there is nothing wrong with lossless formats or a desire for hifi. All this is really about having options.


----------



## bigshot

If you can’t hear a difference in a controlled listening test, why does it matter?


----------



## Roland P

bigshot said:


> If you can’t hear a difference in a controlled listening test, why does it matter?


It's nice to have a 1:1 rip of your CDs for archiving, in case your CD get scratched or worse.


----------



## bigshot

I have about 20,000 CDs. I've ripped them to AAC and put the lossy files in my media server. The CDs are boxed up and tucked away. Once you've ripped a CD, it isn't going to get scratched because you don't use the CD any more. If you back up your lossy library, you'll never need the CD ever again.


----------



## oakparkmusicguy

bigshot said:


> I have about 20,000 CDs. I've ripped them to AAC and put the lossy files in my media server. The CDs are boxed up and tucked away. Once you've ripped a CD, it isn't going to get scratched because you don't use the CD any more. If you back up your lossy library, you'll never need the CD ever again.



Exactly my system too. But I keep the flacs on my dap… which serves as another backup


----------



## bigshot

Have you ever needed it? My iTunes library is about 2TB plus a backup of that. A lossless backup would be four times that size? Plus a backup of that. We’re at 20 TB now…


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 24, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Have you ever needed it? My iTunes library is about 2TB plus a backup of that. A lossless backup would be four times that size? Plus a backup of that. We’re at 20 TB now…




The cost of the memory compared to the cost of CDs and ripping time is so much not a factor to keep everything as lossless and not to give any second thoughts...

Surely, the personal bias is the strong driving force of subjective opinions  as it is always the case in this "science" forum.


----------



## oakparkmusicguy

I actually don’t have a ton of music. I think my entire flac catalog is only 600-750gb. So having backups of that is not a a big deal.


----------



## bigshot

I guess I just tend to have more music than files.


----------



## ehjie

Roland P said:


> It's nice to have a 1:1 rip of your CDs_* for archiving*_, in case your CD get scratched or worse.


This is what I'm doing to my CDs. 




Nowadays, file storage, both native and cloud are no longer expensive
we can afford the large file formats...


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2022)

Do you transcode to put files on your phone? It certainly isn't good to have big files on a phone. And there's no point putting a file format in the cloud that can't stream. You'd have to download it fully to play it. Bigger isn't necessarily better. I think it's better to have one music library in a format that works for any purpose with no loss in sound quality. The fact that it is a fraction of the size of lossless is a bonus. Makes it easier to back up and load your portable devices quickly with no waiting for transcoding.

I use AAC 256 VBR. It sounds identical to the original CD. It streams over both wifi and bluetooth natively. Never a need to transcode. The file size is very small and loads on my phone quickly. I can play off the cloud using 5G from anywhere in the field. It supports full tagging and album art. It's a format that is supported by just about every player out there. I can put my entire library with almost a year's worth of music on two SD cards to play on my phone on the go. I only need to maintain one copy of my library to play and one for backup. That means when I update to add new music, I only update two libraries, not four. Lossy is more convenient and that is ultimately what matters the most.


----------



## ehjie

On phone, no - I only stream, ie. Apple music, Tidal.  No native files.
On DAP, yes.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> ALAC doesn’t stream. And it isn’t transmitted across Bluetooth. AAC sounds exactly the same to human ears and it streams and transmits wirelessly. AAC also has much smaller file sizes than ALAC.


For streaming analog (AAC, MP3, audiobooks, Internet music streams, etc.) from a Mac to an AirPort Express base station (AX), iTunes does most of the work:


iTunes decompresses those file formats and creates what's essentially a raw, uncompressed audio stream.
That stream is then compressed using Apple's Lossless Compression (ALAC) via a QuickTime codec, encrypted with 128-bit AES1, and then, streamed (via AirPlay) to the AX. ALAC is used over the UDP transport layer protocol to stream two audio channels.
AirPlay uses the Remote Audio Output Protocol (ROAP) to establish the streaming connection type. By default, as you know it is set to 44100Hz @ 16 bits.  at 44.1kHz. This cannot be changed as this is what the AX is expecting.
The AX decrypts the stream, decodes the ALAC stream to an encoded digital audio (PCM) format at the same quality level of the original audio source format, and then, buffers it for up to 2 seconds before it outputs it to either:
An optical transceiver to convert the electrical signal to an optical one before sending it to the innermost part of the AX's audio port, OR
As input to the built-it Texas Instruments DAC to be converted to an analog audio format before sending it to the outermost part of the AX's audio port.




castleofargh said:


> I had the same thought. Modern music seems like a pretty strong argument against everybody wanting lifelike sound.
> Of course there is nothing wrong with lossless formats or a desire for hifi. All this is really about having options.


----------



## Sterling2

castleofargh said:


> I had the same thought. Modern music seems like a pretty strong argument against everybody wanting lifelike sound.
> Of course there is nothing wrong with lossless formats or a desire for hifi. All this is really about having options.


Of course, electronic music is not considerable in terms such as lifelike. I thought those on this forum would have enough intelligence to know that without need to quality it. Now, for acoustic and vocal recordings who would not want an impression of lifelike?


----------



## gregorio

Sterling2 said:


> Of course, electronic music is not considerable in terms such as lifelike. I thought those on this forum would have enough intelligence to know that without need to quality it. Now, for acoustic and vocal recordings who would not want an impression of lifelike?


And I "_thought those on this forum would have enough intelligence to know that_" acoustic music (most classical, most jazz and some/most ethnic) makes up a very small percentage of music sales/consumption. All the other genres are not "lifelike" or even designed to be "lifelike" and even most classical recordings are designed to be an idealised representation rather than a precise "lifelike" reproduction. 

In reality, your statement that "_What we all want from any recorded music is lifelike sound._" is hardly ever true.

G


----------



## Sterling2 (Apr 25, 2022)

gregorio said:


> And I "_thought those on this forum would have enough intelligence to know that_" acoustic music (most classical, most jazz and some/most ethnic) makes up a very small percentage of music sales/consumption. All the other genres are not "lifelike" or even designed to be "lifelike" and even most classical recordings are designed to be an idealised representation rather than a precise "lifelike" reproduction.
> 
> In reality, your statement that "_What we all want from any recorded music is lifelike sound._" is hardly ever true.
> 
> G


In reality you are divorced from reality, since from day one in the history of recorded music lifelike has always been the goal.


----------



## gregorio

Sterling2 said:


> In reality you are divorced from reality.


Sure, me and all the other professional music engineers and producers in the world are divorced from reality, but you know the reality of how music is produced.

Instead of just blindly regurgitating audiophile nonsense and making false assertions, why don’t you try and find out the actual basic facts of music production and it’s history?

G


----------



## bfreedma

Sterling2 said:


> In reality you are divorced from reality, since from day one in the history of recorded music lifelike has always been the goal.



Insults are typically a sign one has run out of facts to debate.  Seems to be the case here...


----------



## 71 dB

Sterling2 said:


> ...from day one in the history of recorded music lifelike has always been the goal.


Do we even have a definition for what "lifelike" means?


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2022)

The goal of recording music isn't to capture something natural or lifelike. It's to create a sound that is optimized to sound *better* than real. Examples include miking techniques and equalization to separate instruments and volume adjustments and compression to improve balance and increase clarity of detail. These are deviations from the way the sound was heard in the studio. If this manipulation is successful, the adjustments don't draw attention to themselves, and the listener is presented with optimized sound that is so much better, they might assume it is natural.


----------



## PhonoPhi

71 dB said:


> Do we even have a definition for what "lifelike" means?



A very good question.
The most pragmatic answer would be: what can be sold to consumers most profitably - the rest, including sound engineers, would be aligned accordingly.


----------



## Blackwoof (Apr 26, 2022)

bigshot said:


> The difference in file size is inconsequential. You don't have to find the exact line where it becomes transparent. You just need to choose a setting that is transparent for sure.


That why It always been 160Kbps AAC if I can't use that It V2(192k) with LAME. At 160kbps AAC, the more complex stuff goes to 220 ~ 320kbps anyways allowing me to fit nearly 6,000 ~ 10,000 of music on a 128GB card. Anything pure voice or audio book I set that to 48kbps HE-AAC also in QAAC.


----------



## bigshot

I found a killer track that artifacts below 192. The way I handled it, I found the baseline of transparency (192) and added one major notch just to be safe (256) and added VBR so the file would be efficient. It's one notch higher than it needs to be, but the file size difference between 192 and 256 is negligible.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> The most pragmatic answer would be: what can be sold to consumers most profitably - the rest, including sound engineers, would be aligned accordingly.


That’s certainly the “_most pragmatic answer_” for what actually happens, what has and does drive production styles/techniques for the vast majority of music recordings but it’s not a good answer for defining what “lifelike” means.

With orchestral recordings we could have a valid discussion about whether “lifelike” means the actual sound that would exist at a particular listening position in a real life performance or if it means what a listener might experience. However, that’s not a valid discussion for   virtually all popular music (including all it’s genres/sub-genres) because popular music started deliberately moving away from “lifelike” even in the late 1950’s. Multi-layering, multi-tracking, heavy editing, heavy distortion and processing, synths and later “samplers” is what “_sold to consumers_” and “lifelike” was simply irrelevant, even largely by the late 1960’s/early ‘70’s, let alone by the ‘80s and later.

“Lifelike”, “real”, “natural” and other related audiophile terms are almost always just derived from audiophile marketing, typically dating back to the consumer release of so called hi-res audio formats. We might as well discuss how “lifelike” Pandora or the Death Star are.

G


----------



## manueljenkin (May 4, 2022)

gregorio said:


> That’s certainly the “_most pragmatic answer_” for what actually happens, what has and does drive production styles/techniques for the vast majority of music recordings but it’s not a good answer for defining what “lifelike” means.
> 
> With orchestral recordings we could have a valid discussion about whether “lifelike” means the actual sound that would exist at a particular listening position in a real life performance or if it means what a listener might experience. However, that’s not a valid discussion for   virtually all popular music (including all it’s genres/sub-genres) because popular music started deliberately moving away from “lifelike” even in the late 1950’s. Multi-layering, multi-tracking, heavy editing, heavy distortion and processing, synths and later “samplers” is what “_sold to consumers_” and “lifelike” was simply irrelevant, even largely by the late 1960’s/early ‘70’s, let alone by the ‘80s and later.
> 
> ...


Most binaural and live recordings do have a life-like character to them (outside of modulations from mic and recording equipment) compared to general commercial music, just by virtue of having little to no processing. Examples are ottmar liebert - La luna, jj Lin - from me to myself, Miranda sex garden, etc.

The life-like, defined here is how close it is to the original sound that was present in the recording ambiance at the position of the mic.


----------



## bigshot (May 4, 2022)

The problem is, good binaural recordings of music are few and far between because they aren't easy to create. And a lot of music isn't designed to be played like that. The mixing board has become a member of the band in a lot of popular music.


----------



## Ryokan

bigshot said:


> I found a killer track that artifacts below 192. The way I handled it, I found the baseline of transparency (192) and added one major notch just to be safe (256) and added VBR so the file would be efficient. It's one notch higher than it needs to be, but the file size difference between 192 and 256 is negligible.



Just interested, why is file size a concern when large memory on SD cards etc is now taken for granted. Couldn't you just use 320BR and be done? 320 is still much smaller than Flac.


----------



## bigshot

320 is fine. Nothing wrong with that. That is two stops about transparent. Like you say, not much difference in file size. If that is easier for you, sure. I use AAC 256 VBR because it's transparent and that is what the Apple Music store uses, but 320 is good too.


----------



## gregorio

manueljenkin said:


> Most binaural and live recordings do have a life-like character to them (outside of modulations from mic and recording equipment) compared to general commercial music, just by virtue of having little to no processing. Examples are ottmar liebert - La luna, jj Lin - from me to myself, Miranda sex garden, etc.


Most commercial live recordings do have a lot of processing, even a lot of classical music live recordings. Although “a lot” is a relative term of course and, there are some exceptions. With binaural recordings, it depends on how the recording was created and of course how the HRTF matches the listeners’. 


manueljenkin said:


> The life-like, defined here is how close it is to the original sound that was present in the recording ambiance at the position of the mic.


At the position of which mic? Virtually all professional/commercial recordings, even of live performances, use multiple mics all over the place. “Close” mics on individual instruments and musicians, slightly less close mics on sections of musicians and distant mics capturing venue ambience and/or audience noise. Obviously that’s not life-like at all, unless you’ve got a dozen ears or more, located many meters apart, all over the place! “Life-like”, when/if desired, is a manufactured illusion according to the subjective opinion of the engineers/producer. 

G


----------



## Blackwoof

Ryokan said:


> Just interested, why is file size a concern when large memory on SD cards etc is now taken for granted. Couldn't you just use 320BR and be done? 320 is still much smaller than Flac.


Why is folk ignoring me using 128GB card to justify overkill bitrates?, because they found at best 4 tracks that artifact. With AAC(Apple/FHG) my sweet spot is 144kbps VBR which matches V3(170kbps) LAME MP3 being transparent. Upping a song to 256kbps VBR that gains zero quality boost is on par with people who defend 24bit / 96KHz+ lossless despite them unable to tell 16 bit / 44.1KHz.


----------



## bigshot

I only have the one file. I don’t maintain a lossless backup, and the CDs I ripped my library from are boxed up in the garage. It took me many years to rip my library. It’s huge. With that kind of an investment of time, I don’t want to have even four files with artifacting. Every file should be perfect. The difference in file size between 192 and 256 is negligible. 256 matches iTunes downloads. It’s a standard.

The discussion here isn’t “Why 256 and not 192?” There’s no real argument there. The discussion is “Why not lossless for everything?”


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> I only have the one file. I don’t maintain a lossless backup, and the CDs I ripped my library from are boxed up in the garage. It took me many years to rip my library. It’s huge. With that kind of an investment of time, I don’t want to have even four files with artifacting. Every file should be perfect. The difference in file size between 192 and 256 is negligible. 256 matches iTunes downloads. It’s a standard.
> 
> The discussion here isn’t “Why 256 and not 192?” There’s no real argument there. The discussion is “Why not lossless for everything?”


Yes, I think Apple already did the work for you in choosing AAC 256kbps VBR.


----------



## Ryokan (May 9, 2022)

Blackwoof said:


> Why is folk ignoring me using 128GB card to justify overkill bitrates?, because they found at best 4 tracks that artifact. With AAC(Apple/FHG) my sweet spot is 144kbps VBR which matches V3(170kbps) LAME MP3 being transparent. Upping a song to 256kbps VBR that gains zero quality boost is on par with people who defend 24bit / 96KHz+ lossless despite them unable to tell 16 bit / 44.1KHz.



My point was with large storage devices generally the norm today why rip close to the point you may experience the odd artifact? 320kbps has you 'covered' and doesn't take up much more space - 170kbps on average for an album. I listen mainly to flac, can I hear the difference between 320? probably not, and some of my recordings on mp3 actually sound better than flac (same album different mastering), but I have the space and know I've got cd quality. Hi-res I agree with you. In the past I used to buy 192kbps and even lower and could often tell the difference from a higher bit rate, but then storage space was an issue.


----------



## Blackwoof

Ryokan said:


> My point was with large storage devices generally the norm today why rip close to the point you may experience the odd artifact? 320kbps has you 'covered' and doesn't take up much more space - 170kbps on average for an album. I listen mainly to flac, can I hear the difference between 320? probably not, and some of my recordings on mp3 actually sound better than flac (same album different mastering), but I have the space and know I've got cd quality. Hi-res I agree with you. In the past I used to buy 192kbps and even lower and could often tell the difference from a higher bit rate, but then storage space was an issue.


I never disagreed with that just saying that I can't just throw V0/320 MP3 or 256 AAC to my DAP, But I'm talking about bleeding edge codecs like Opus which at 128kbps VBR in my testing can rival or be on par with 256 AAC & V0 LAME.


----------



## bigshot

Your DAC can’t handle AAC 256?


----------



## oakparkmusicguy

damn and I've been ripping at 2*.*56. Best sound warbles ever!


----------



## gerelmx1986

My flac server


----------



## Mink

When I ripped CD's on my Mac I would set the bit rate at 256 kbps VBR. Just for piece of mind, not wanting to get rid of too much data. But I could have easily set it on a lower bit rate, say from160 kbps and up.
I have tested it a couple of times, at what bit rate I could hear a decrease in quality and I could tell that anything below 160 kpbs (MP3 and AAC) sounded apparent inferior.
128 kbps still sounded fine, 160 kbps almost indistinguishable from CD quality. 
What I have learned as well is that in some cases a decrease in quality could be preferable to the original CD quality. I am not talking about bit rates below 128 kbps, but 128 kbps to 160 kbps. Contrary to what most people think about compression: sound gets more tinny, harsh and digital, I have found that the sound can get smoother, the highs get rolled-off, but smoother to the point that the compression gets too severe: below 128 kbps, than digital artifacts take over.


----------



## gerelmx1986

I  rip CDs to FLAC 16/44.1, and SACD (with a hacked pioneer)  to DSD


----------



## gerelmx1986

My library is about 62600+ tracks (3500+ albums) is 1.49TB in size (650GB Hi-res).

Yes i have a sony DAP with mere 16GB of space, but with flac 16/44 i can transfer like 32 to 40 albums... thats enough for trios.

At home i keep all as is in backups and in the DMP-Z1


----------



## castleofargh

I was there when k7 tapes stopped needing to be turned around in a walkman.
Most people around me have gotten used to streaming and they look on the verge of panic when they use a DAP and only see like 150 albums. 
A lot of this depends on what we get used to and how we consume audio. If someone tried to get me to only use a turntable or a k7 player today, regardless of fidelity, I’d probably aim at their head with it. Even though back in the days, I felt like a king when using either.
I see this and having a small library on the go the same as having to use 56k internet today. Just kill me now.


----------



## raysounds

The difference between 320kbit and flac isn't noticeable to a normal person and would require high end headphones/speakers for an audiophile to spot the differences.


----------



## bigshot

I doubt high end headphones would make people hear it. Artifacting should be audible on any system if it’s there.


----------



## Blackwoof

bigshot said:


> Your DAC can’t handle AAC 256?


I tried 512k FHG encode It seems to play fine after I tried different firmware?.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I doubt high end headphones would make people hear it. Artifacting should be audible on any system if it’s there.


Lower fidelity can make the artifacting even more audible, because perceptual data reduction is based on auditory masking which doesn't behave as it should if fidelity is low. Unwanted resonances etc. can make stuff that should be inaudible more audible for the listener. Bad headphones don't give protection against artifacting.


----------



## bigshot

Blackwoof said:


> I tried 512k FHG encode It seems to play fine after I tried different firmware?.


I don’t know what that is, but just about all home audio DACs should be able to play AAC 256.


----------



## Blackwoof (May 23, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I don’t know what that is, but just about all home audio DACs should be able to play AAC 256.


I wasn't meaning a DAC I ment my Sony NW-A45 which seems choke on high bitrate AAC-LC, I just use LAME MP3 at V3 ~ V1 instead since I seem to fail to tell MP3 from Flac. Also Q2 with LAME 3.99.5o even better for pre echo rich music without going V0 ~ 320kbps pretty amazing despite the codec being the VHS of lossy codecs.


----------



## bigshot

I can’t imagine something that doesn’t support AAC in this day and age.


----------



## KeithPhantom

raysounds said:


> The difference between 320kbit and flac isn't noticeable to a normal person and would require high end headphones/speakers for an audiophile to spot the differences.


No, the transducers distort way, way more than pretty much every audio electronic devices out there. Until transducer technology doesn't get to the same level as pure electronics, our transducers are going to be the limiting physical factor when spotting differences higher up in the chain.


----------



## bigshot

I'm with you up to the last sentence. You don't hear minute problems upstream with the weakest link in the chain. All transducers are inferior by an order of magnitude to the electronics upstream. Your ears are a limiting factor too.


----------



## castleofargh

I don’t know if there is actual research about compression thresholds and transducers’ fidelity in term of masking. I see some thinking that obviously a better sound system increases our ability to notices lossy stuff(99.9% of people with expensive gears). And some saying it’s basically unrelated. Both are probably right for some specific artifacts, but I’ve never seen it properly tested. Does anybody know of such experiment?

In my case if I want to play pretend I’m a golden ear, I just set everything to 100% on the digital side, use a codec that tends to increase peak a good deal, make sure the DAC has no headroom above fs signal, and then I just let clipping or volume difference do the rest. Even then I don’t necessarily pass on all songs, but I feel strong when I do. ^_^


----------



## 71 dB (May 24, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> I see some thinking that obviously a better sound system increases our ability to notices lossy stuff(99.9% of people with expensive gears). And some saying it’s basically unrelated. Both are probably right for some specific artifacts, but I’ve never seen it properly tested. Does anybody know of such experiment?


Well, this hasn't been researched and that is the "problem." We don't know for sure, but this doesn't mean we can't think. The idea of perceptual audio coding is that we don't hear the _missing data_ thanks to auditory masking. In order for this to work, auditory masking has to happen properly. How to ensure this happens? Well, by using as high quality transducers as possible. People just intuitively think the other way around, because normally higher fidelity makes hearing small detail easier.

For example if low quality headphones have a deep dip at 1000 Hz, that should mask sounds above this frequency, this masking is weaker than it should be revealing data compression, while high quality headphones have a flat response and masking works as planned.


----------



## hakunamakaka

KeithPhantom said:


> No, the transducers distort way, way more than pretty much every audio electronic devices out there. Until transducer technology doesn't get to the same level as pure electronics, our transducers are going to be the limiting physical factor when spotting differences higher up in the chain.



I think headphones and especially IEM's improved a lot today. Old headphones which were considered as flagships back then (HD600/650) are left in the dust by the top performers in the market. The only problem is that they are expensive and the idea of paying 4-5k$ for a headphone or IEM seemed ridiculous to me, but they do perform on a very high level and is still a cheaper route than speakers which could easily be in 5 digit playground.

With older headphones comparing 128kbps vs 320kbps/flac is a flip coin to me


----------



## bigshot

I’ve played around with codecs at different data rates, and it’s been my experience that artifacts aren’t subtle. They stick out like a sore thumb. As you increase the data rate, they don’t fade away. They just become less numerous. Artifacts are either there or they aren’t. If they’re there I can hear them just as well with beater cans as fancy ones.

Some codecs roll off the upper octave at lower data rates. That might not be as easy to hear on cheap headphones that don’t go that high. But artifacting is artifacting.


----------



## 71 dB (May 24, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I’ve played around with codecs at different data rates, and it’s been my experience that artifacts aren’t subtle. They stick out like a sore thumb. As you increase the data rate, they don’t fade away. They just become less numerous. Artifacts are either there or they aren’t. If they’re there I can hear them just as well with beater cans as fancy ones.
> 
> Some codecs roll off the upper octave at lower data rates. That might not be as easy to hear on cheap headphones that don’t go that high. But artifacting is artifacting.


Artifacting happens ALL THE TIME, not just when you hear it. Most of the time you don't hear it thanks to auditory masking. Bigger bitrate just means the artifacting is milder and more often inaudible. The only way to have zero artifacting is going lossless.


----------



## bigshot (May 24, 2022)

I don’t care about inaudible. I just care about the threshold where there’s enough data to render the sound transparently.

My point was that digital error isn’t a subtle thing. It’s not veils over the sound, it’s ugly non natural sounds that stick out like a sore thumb. When you reach transparency you don’t hear any more outer space gurgle or edgy distortion. And as you approach transparency the audible artifacts don’t fade out, they become less numerous.

Artifacting is different than a codec compressing using masking. Masking is a codec operating the way it’s supposed to. Artifacting is when there isn’t enough data to render the sound properly at all. The lack of sufficient data makes the codec just give up and go thpppppp! Error like that is hard to miss.


----------



## 71 dB (May 24, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Artifacting is different than a codec compressing using masking. Masking is a codec operating the way it’s supposed to. Artifacting is when there isn’t enough data to render the sound properly at all. The lack of sufficient data makes the codec just give up and go thpppppp! Error like that is hard to miss.


I hear  thpppppp! stuff if there's data drops (even the compressed data is lost). Lossy sound without data drops isn't that bad to my ears. The highest frequencies are just lacking and especially stereo image gets bad.


----------



## bigshot

I don’t know about other codecs, but at 192 AAC includes the upper frequencies, and switching off joint stereo fixes the problem with stereo.


----------



## 71 dB (May 24, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I don’t know about other codecs, but at 192 AAC includes the upper frequencies, and switching off joint stereo fixes the problem with stereo.


It is easy to do things right when you create the lossy files yourself (I always switch off joint stereo), but when it is a file made by someone else, there is nothing you can do about it. 192 kbps mp3s are transparent enough to my ears if joint stereo is off.


----------



## sonitus mirus

71 dB said:


> I hear  thpppppp! stuff if there's data drops (even the compressed data is lost). Lossy sound without data drops isn't that bad to my ears. The highest frequencies are just lacking and especially stereo image gets bad.


Identifying audible anomalies associated with lower bitrate compression formats is not something that highly revealing speakers will accommodate any better than most other reasonably competent speakers.  Even cheap headphones, and especially IEMs or closed headphones that isolate well, are typically better suited to hearing problematic sections in music that are pushing the encoders to their limits.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> Both are probably right for some specific artifacts, but I’ve never seen it properly tested. Does anybody know of such experiment?


I and many others did such (controlled) experiments back in the mid/late 1990’s. Not published and peer reviewed though. The MPEG group did some and so did many of the large broadcasters and telcos. I certainly had discussions and read research at the time but don’t recall where I read it, most likely AES, EBU, BBC or broadcast bodies. Back then, it was possible to hear the artifacts with high bit rate MP3s on quite a range of material but it was easier/more reliable with high quality gear. The algos are much better now, you can’t hear the artefacts with high bit rates anymore (regardless of gear quality) and the audible artefacts at low bit rates appear audible on a variety of gear. Although I’ve not tested this latter scenario much with different gear, so I’ve got no reliable evidence. 


71 dB said:


> For example if low quality headphones have a deep dip at 1000 Hz, that should mask sounds above this frequency, this masking is weaker than it should be revealing data compression, while high quality headphones have a flat response and masking works as planned.


You would need a fairly deep and narrow dip at a particular freq (say 1kHz) but also very accurate response just outside that dip. I’m not sure if such cans exist, low quality cans tend to be low quality throughout the range or at least over quite broad bands. 


hakunamakaka said:


> I think headphones and especially IEM's improved a lot today. Old headphones which were considered as flagships back then (HD600/650) are left in the dust by the top performers in the market.


They haven’t really improved “a lot”. Generally, headphone and speaker distortion is still several orders of magnitude greater than that found in even relatively cheap amps or DACs. 


bigshot said:


> I’ve played around with codecs at different data rates, and it’s been my experience that artifacts aren’t subtle. They stick out like a sore thumb. As you increase the data rate, they don’t fade away. They just become less numerous. Artifacts are either there or they aren’t. If they’re there I can hear them just as well with beater cans as fancy ones.


That’s not how lossy codecs work. Artefacts do not become less numerous and as for being audible, they do effectively just fade away but they are always there, even with high bit rates when they’re inaudible.


bigshot said:


> Artifacting is different than a codec compressing using masking.


No it’s not. …


bigshot said:


> Masking is a codec operating the way it’s supposed to. Artifacting is when there isn’t enough data to render the sound properly at all.


There is never enough data to “render the sound properly”, so there are always artefacts. The freq bands that will be masked are encoded with far fewer bits, resulting in a distortion of the reconstructed signal/sound (lossy compression artefacts). With high bit rates you should never hear these artefacts even though they’re relatively large. With low bit rates, you have to get “creative” to so massively reduce the amount of data, such as applying a LPF (to simply discard a fair amount audio freqs), use even fewer bits in the masked bands and take more risks with the size of the masked bands. So, the artefacts are even larger and become more audible. 

G


----------



## bigshot

You’re defining artifacting more broadly than I am.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> You’re defining artifacting more broadly than I am.



Wikipedia:

“A *compression artifact* (or *artefact*) is a noticeable distortion of media (including images, audio, and video) caused by the application of lossy compression.” And:

“Technically speaking, a compression artifact is a particular class of data error that is usually the consequence of quantization in lossy data compression.”

G


----------



## bigshot (May 25, 2022)

Yes. We are on the same page on that part of the definition. Although, if I understand your definition, you would say that not all artifacts are noticeable.


----------



## gregorio (May 25, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Although, if I understand your definition, you would say that not all artifacts are noticeable.


No, I would not say that and it wasn’t my definition, it was Wikipedia’s.

I would and effectively have said: Lossy artefacts are noticeable, though not audible at higher bit rates.

G


----------



## bigshot

Right. At higher data rates by your definition, artifacts are inaudible. That is where our definitions differ. I use the term to describe specific audible distortion caused by error at low data rates. I don’t use the term to describe inaudible error.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Right. At higher data rates by your definition, artifacts are inaudible.


Again, it is NOT my definition, I’ve made it quite clear it’s quoted from Wikipedia.


bigshot said:


> That is where our definitions differ.


No, that’s where YOUR definition differs from the actual definition.


bigshot said:


> I use the term to describe specific audible distortion caused by error at low data rates. I don’t use the term to describe inaudible error.


Again, Wikipedia states: “_A compression artefact is a noticeable distortion of media …_” - It does NOT state: “A compression artefact is a distortion noticeable by bigshot …”!

If you want to make up your own definitions of accepted terms based on what you personally “notice”, you’d be better off in the cables subforum.

G


----------



## bigshot (May 25, 2022)

No it’s fine. I understand what you’re saying and I agree using your definition. I’d explain my definition, but you’d keep going back to yours and applying that and not understanding what I’m saying. It’s OK. What you’re saying is correct. You don’t have to understand what I’m saying. Been down that road before and it doesn’t lead to mutual understanding.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> I understand what you’re saying and I agree using your definition. I’d explain my definition, but you’d keep going back to yours and applying that and not understanding what I’m saying.


Again bigshot, it’s not my definition and therefore the issue is not between my definition and your definition, it’s between your definition and THE definition.

What you stated makes logical sense according to your definition (of what you can hear) but it’s factually incorrect. Just as it would be factually incorrect for me to state air molecules don’t exist because I can’t see them.

G


----------



## bigshot

I understand.


----------



## hakunamakaka

gregorio said:


> They haven’t really improved “a lot”. Generally, headphone and speaker distortion is still several orders of magnitude greater than that found in even relatively cheap amps or DACs.



In my books they did improve quite a lot and sits in it’s peak for roughly 10years now. I don’t know any vintage HP that can deliver on levels as susvara,abys1266,utopia… headphone audiophile marked was not  huge back than and electronic music was nearly non existing so there was little importance for quality bass. I view older flagships as good mid tier hp’s. IEM’s are actually moving fast now and gap between high end stuff and consumer products is widening. Not many years ago nearly all iems sounded fierly similar , either bad or just ok


----------



## gregorio

hakunamakaka said:


> In my books they did improve quite a lot and sits in it’s peak for roughly 10years now. I don’t know any vintage HP that can deliver on levels as susvara,abys1266,utopia…


Stax Lambda’s had astonishingly low distortion nearly 40 years ago and as far as I’m aware none of the HPs you mentioned get close in that regard. The $6k Susuvara’s for example have a measured distortion of up to about 0.5%, while the $9 Apple dongle has a distortion measurement of DAC and amp combined of about 0.001%, orders of magnitude less distortion than nearly all HPs, even TOTL ones! 


hakunamakaka said:


> headphone audiophile marked was not huge back than and electronic music was nearly non existing so there was little importance for quality bass.


No, quality bass has always been important, although more so in the digital age, which allowed higher lvls and more accurate bass than vinyl. Much/Most electronic music does not have quality bass. It typically has a very loud bass but not an especially high quality bass.

G


----------



## Singleton

gregorio said:


> Stax Lambda’s had astonishingly low distortion nearly 40 years ago and as far as I’m aware none of the HPs you mentioned get close in that regard. The $6k Susuvara’s for example have a measured distortion of up to about 0.5%, while the $9 Apple dongle has a distortion measurement of DAC and amp combined of about 0.001%, orders of magnitude less distortion than nearly all HPs, even TOTL ones!
> 
> No, quality bass has always been important, although more so in the digital age, which allowed higher lvls and more accurate bass than vinyl. Much/Most electronic music does not have quality bass. It typically has a very loud bass but not an especially high quality bass.
> 
> G


However on the other hand in the world of Power Amplifiers (A dying amplifier category that is rapidly being replaced with Integrated Amplifiers) for example an Epicure M1 Power Amp from 1975 has a low THD of 0.2% @ 20 Hz to 20 kHz for a RRP of $649.00 while a NAD C 268 Power Amp from 2020 has a THD of 0.03% @ 20 Hz to 20 kHz for a RRP of $999.00 shows that even in the power amplifier category that THD of 0.2 is low back in 1975 and now its improved quite a lot to 0.03 and lower for an aging speaker amplification technology that is. If anyone is on the hunt for a new Power Amp or want to experience the world of Modern Power Amps better get one now before they are all discontinued and replaced with Integrated Amps.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Even though out of topic, something even more important than nonlinear distortion is linear distortion, a topic where we can't agree what is the benchmark to follow when it comes to headphones.


----------



## Singleton

KeithPhantom said:


> Even though out of topic, something even more important than nonlinear distortion is linear distortion, a topic where we can't agree what is the benchmark to follow when it comes to headphones.


I agree as there isn't a proper universal Industry standard for benchmarking linear distortion in the world of Headphones. However in the world of Speakers and Amplifiers that's a whole different kettle of fish.


----------



## Singleton (May 25, 2022)

On the topic of 320 FLAC vs 320 MP3 I've realised after A/B'ing So Say We All (Battlestar Galactica Live) Album in 320 FLAC and 320 MP3 format; that to me 320 FLAC sounded slightly less compressed, slightly more detailed and slightly brighter than 320 MP3 however 320 MP3 sounded slightly warmer and slightly richer than 320 FLAC to my ears while listening with a pair of dB Technologies MINIBOX K 70 speakers using balanced cables hooked up to a Swamp Industries SM11 3 Channel USB Mixer/Audio Interface and then to my PC.

Disclaimer: This is based on my Audio setup and my results will be different to your results due to the variations of Audio setups.


----------



## bigshot

Was your comparison sighted? Your description sounds like it might be expectation bias.


----------



## Singleton (May 26, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Was your comparison sighted? Your description sounds like it might be expectation bias.


Its done initially blind then subsequently sighted. I have taken onboard that expectation bias can occur so I asked my Brother who does audio and video editing work for a second opinion and he was in the room with me during the initial blind and subsequent sighted comparison session as well and his results matches my results.


----------



## bigshot

How many blind comparisons did you do?


----------



## hakunamakaka

gregorio said:


> Stax Lambda’s had astonishingly low distortion nearly 40 years ago and as far as I’m aware none of the HPs you mentioned get close in that regard. The $6k Susuvara’s for example have a measured distortion of up to about 0.5%, while the $9 Apple dongle has a distortion measurement of DAC and amp combined of about 0.001%, orders of magnitude less distortion than nearly all HPs, even TOTL ones!
> 
> No, quality bass has always been important, although more so in the digital age, which allowed higher lvls and more accurate bass than vinyl. Much/Most electronic music does not have quality bass. It typically has a very loud bass but not an especially high quality bass.
> 
> G



Stax lambda can’t compete against  electrostats today. Piercing treble, no bass and weak soundstage. It’s detailed sound, but not worth the shot even for 400$ as used to me.

I’m with headphones since teens and never came across on any vintage headphone which had good bass reproduction for modern  music. Actually they are bested in every category against todays flagships.

There was no money to be made with headphones back than. Poor logistics, no availability for materials or precise manufacturing. 

The holy grail of headphones - HD600 was released for a whopping 450$, which if we consider inflation would match the price for the cost of Utopia today. It wouldn’t be a fair fight if we compared them against each other. 

I see lots of potential for further growth in that area as portable gear is getting more popular


----------



## gregorio

hakunamakaka said:


> Stax lambda can’t compete against electrostats today.


Yes they can. …


hakunamakaka said:


> Actually they are bested in every category against todays flagships.


I’ve already stated this assertion is false and provided the distortion figures of a flagship of today (0.5%), which is way higher than the distortion of the nearly 40 year old Lambdas (around 0.07% if I remember correctly).

Just repeating the same falsehood, contrary to the objective facts, with no supporting reliable evidence will NOT get you very far in this subforum. I would have expected you to know that by now, considering the amount of time you’ve been posting to this subforum!

For the record, I’m not saying there has been no improvements in transducers over the last 40 years or so, just that they have been relatively minor, more along the lines of “tweaks”. They have not “_improved a lot_” and nearly all of them still produce way more distortion than even today’s cheap amps and DACs.

G


----------



## gregorio

Singleton said:


> to me 320 FLAC sounded slightly less compressed, slightly more detailed and slightly brighter than 320 MP3 however 320 MP3 sounded slightly warmer and slightly richer than 320 FLAC to my ears while listening …


Do you just mean FLAC, rather than 320 FLAC? I’ve not heard of 320 FLAC.

What you describe is more indicative of different masters than of the difference between FLAC and 320 MP3. Did you create the MP3 from the FLAC yourself or did you download the different versions? 



Singleton said:


> Disclaimer: This is based on my Audio setup and my results will be different to your results due to the variations of Audio setups.


Why would the results be different? Wouldn’t it be slightly more detailed,  brighter or warmer/richer on other setups if that difference existed in the files being reproduced?



Singleton said:


> I have taken onboard that expectation bias can occur so I asked my Brother who does audio and video editing work for a second opinion and he was in the room with me during the initial blind and subsequent sighted comparison session as well and his results matches my results.


But you seem not to have “_taken onboard that expectation bias can occur_”.  Expectation bias occurs in all human beings, so your brother matching your results doesn’t indicate anything more than that you are both human beings.

If you really want to take onboard that expectation bias occurs, then please try an ABX test which eliminates that likelihood. There’s free software available, an ABX plugin for Foobar2000 for example. 

G


----------



## hakunamakaka

gregorio said:


> Yes they can. …
> 
> I’ve already stated this assertion is false and provided the distortion figures of a flagship of today (0.5%), which is way higher than the distortion of the nearly 40 year old Lambdas (around 0.07% if I remember correctly).
> 
> ...


ok gatekeeper


----------



## gregorio

hakunamakaka said:


> ok gatekeeper


Why should I and others have to keep acting the “gatekeeper” with you? 

Again, you been posting to this subforum for ages, how is it possible you haven’t learned in all this time that you’ll be challenged if you post falsehoods?

G


----------



## dondadpie

I have tested this quite a bit on different systems, and really can't tell the difference. Would be interested to see the difference on a big club system, if there is one


----------



## gregorio

dondadpie said:


> Would be interested to see the difference on a big club system, if there is one


Big club systems are usually pretty poor as far as fidelity is concerned. For starters they’re usually mainly mono, sacrifice accuracy for volume and have very uneven freq response, typically heavy on bass and mids, weak everywhere else.

G


----------



## Singleton

gregorio said:


> Do you just mean FLAC, rather than 320 FLAC? I’ve not heard of 320 FLAC.
> 
> What you describe is more indicative of different masters than of the difference between FLAC and 320 MP3. Did you create the MP3 from the FLAC yourself or did you download the different versions?
> 
> ...


 I've downloaded the different versions from the same online digital music distribution website and the reason as to why the results could be different is due to the high variability of the following variables: the Computer Motherboard used, the Computer Motherboard BIOS version, the Computer Motherboard Firmware version and the Computer Operating System version used as any updates and changes to these variables have the potential to affect the performance of the Audio Driver installed and the sound quality that is being outputted.

 I'll take onboard your suggestion and thanks for critiquing and providing your input as this helps me improve my audio experiments and its results. I agree that we are all human and its super difficult to remove all biases including confirmation bias. Will reconduct my experiment.

 If you have anymore suggestions on how to reduce confirmation bias please reply to this post. I'm openminded and will consider any suggestions on how to improve the ways I conduct audio experiments.


----------



## sander99

Singleton said:


> I've downloaded the different versions from the same online digital music distribution website


They could still come from different masters. The only way to be sure that you compare the same master in different formats is by converting yourself.


----------



## gregorio

Singleton said:


> I've downloaded the different versions from the same online digital music distribution website and the reason as to why the results could be different is due to the high variability of the following variables: the Computer Motherboard used, the Computer Motherboard BIOS version, the Computer Motherboard Firmware version and the Computer Operating System version used as any updates and changes to these variables have the potential to affect the performance of the Audio Driver installed and the sound quality that is being outputted.


As sander99 says, you must create the MP3 yourself from the FLAC. How, when, from which master and if any other processing was applied before encoding are all common variables that could easily affect your results, especially given that your description of the differences match these variables but don’t really match the artefacts of MP3. Next on the list after this probability would be a test methodology  fault. A very, very distant last place on the list would be the motherboard, bios, OS variables you listed.

MP3 was released in 1992 and was designed to work on cheap consumer devices of the day. For context, the neural engine in a current iPhone can apparently perform 1,500 gflops (billion operations per sec) while the world’s most powerful super computer in 1992 cost about $30m and could perform 22 gflops. Something would have to be very seriously wrong with your computer for any of the variables you listed to have any affect on the decoding of MP3s. 


Singleton said:


> I agree that we are all human and its super difficult to remove all biases including confirmation bias. Will reconduct my experiment.


Yes, it can be extremely difficult, not only to remove confirmation bias but to remove any clues the brain can pick up from the test procedure. However  …


Singleton said:


> If you have anymore suggestions on how to reduce confirmation bias please reply to this post.


Not beyond the suggestion I mentioned previously, an ABX test. The free software not only eliminates confirmation bias but also many of the difficulties and clues with blind and double blind testing.

G


----------



## RMesser9

Lossless and 320kbps MP3 sound identical to me. I even can't tell much of a difference between 256 and 320. I still use 320 though


----------



## bigshot

Nothing wrong with that. The difference between 256 and 320 is much smaller than the difference between 320 and lossless. You don’t have to squeeze every last drop out, just be efficient.


----------



## Blackwoof

Just did a A/B with LAME never expected It to hold up so well at 160kbps VBR, If not better than Vorbis/AAC in few areas like ambient & Vomir. With LAME 3.99.5o at Q2 + 48KHz SOX resample it transparent at 192kbps on pre echo rich music.


----------



## EMINENT

I tried one of these tests online the other day and got 2 out of 6 right. Between uncompressed wav, to 320 mp3 and 128 aac.

This was not conclusive to me as I believe I would have to test the same file that I am used to hearing compressed down to the differing amounts to form a conclusion. I don't believe my transducer is limiting. Maybe this has the opposite effect and the sh!ttier the can the worse it sounds?


----------



## gregorio (Jun 15, 2022)

EMINENT said:


> I tried one of these tests online the other day and got 2 out of 6 right. Between uncompressed wav, to 320 mp3 and 128 aac.


Yep, that’s entirely in line with the expected result that everyone else gets.


EMINENT said:


> This was not conclusive to me as I believe I would have to test the same file that I am used to hearing compressed down to the differing amounts to form a conclusion.


It doesn’t make any difference if you are used to hearing it. What can make a difference is training to identify the difference but even then you still won’t be able to hear the difference between wav and 320 MP3, only with 128 AAC and only with certain types/pieces of music.


EMINENT said:


> I don't believe my transducer is limiting.


The transducers are easily the weakest part of the reproduction chain, with way more noise/distortion than even relatively cheap DACs, amps and cables.  In this case however, the limiting factor is human hearing. This is completely deliberate of course, lossy codecs are designed to achieve their compression using “psychoacoustic models”, they remove the audio data that the human ear cannot hear.


EMINENT said:


> Maybe this has the opposite effect and the sh!ttier the can the worse it sounds?


A sh!ttier can is always sh!ttier, it just tries to convert an analogue signal into a sound wave, it doesn’t know if that analogue signal has come from a wav or an MP3 and plays the wav less sh!tty. The only possibility would be if: The sh!itty cans produce an audible amount of inter-modulation distortion specifically in response to freqs >16kHz and you have a wav with a significant amount of >16kHz content and you compare it with a 128kbps MP3 (which has all the >16kHz content removed). In which case, you’d get audible IMD with the wav but not with the MP3. Apart from this potential but unlikely scenario, you’ll be more likely to hear the difference between wav/320 MP3 and 128 MP3 with better cans, as the audible differences may not be audible above the noise/distortion of the sh!ttier cans.

G


----------



## bigshot

I wish my ears heard as well as my cans sound!


----------



## 71 dB

EMINENT said:


> I tried one of these tests online the other day and got 2 out of 6 right. Between uncompressed wav, to 320 mp3 and 128 aac.


If you don't hear any differences, the probability of getting a correct answer _by luck_ is 50 % or 0.5. 
Since every sample can be answered wrong or right, the amount of possible rows of answers is 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 64.
There is only one way to get all of the right: The probability to do so by luck is 1/64 = 1.5625 %
The same goes for getting nothing right: The probability is also 1/64 = 1.5625 %
If you figure out how many ways you can get 2 correct answers you get 15 way (probability = 23.4375 %)
Intuitively getting 3 correct and 3 incorrect out of 6 randomly is the most probably outcome of all and the math(s)
does agree: there are 20 ways to do so giving us the probability of 20/64 = 31.25 %.
The probability of getting 2, 3 or 4 correct answers is (15+20+15)/60 = 50/60 = 83.33...%

In general you use "n choose k" formula n! / (k! * (n-k)!) to calculate the number of ways to get k correct answers out of n tries and the formula:

Pk = (0.5^n * n!) / (k! * (n-k)!) 

gives the probability of getting k correctly out of n. As a graph it looks like this:






If you can hear differences, the probability of getting correct answers is larger than 50 % and the results disagree with the estimated probabilites above. For example, if the differences are so easy to hear you get always everything correctly, the probability of getting 6 right answers becomes 100 %. If a small difference can be heard with considerable effort, you probably get 70 % correct and the graph above becomes this:





So, most of the time you should get 4 or 5 correct out of 6. If the difference is a bit easier to spot and the probability of getting a correct answer is 90 %, the graph looks like this:





The bigger the difference, the more the graph is "skewed" to the right approach the situation were the probability of 6 correct answers out of 6 is 100 % which make perfect sense. The generalized formula to calculate probabilities is 

Pk = (p^k * (1-p)^(n-k) * n!) / (k! * (n-k)!),

where p is the probability of correct answers (e.g. 0.8).


----------



## Blackwoof

For 160kbps VBR - all codecs 

LAME 3.100 at V3 : Pretty much transparent 99% of the time, Only some tracks need V0(48KHz) cause of pre echo.

QAAC at Q82 :  Would be 100% if I didn't need to use FHG AAC to cover stuff Apple AAC chokes on?. 

Opus 1.3 at 150kbps : It pretty much 160kbps CVBR but It seems bloat hard on pure synth based ambient reaching 195kbps when others are 48 ~ 115kbps. 

Musepack at Q4.9 : Reaches 100% despite not being MDCT based no idea why Streaming & Broadcasting ignored this codec?.

Vorbis at Q5 : 85% at best gave up ABX'ing since it so bad at handling pure noise when AAC/MP3 have no issues?. Starting to wonder if the dev's are lying as I'm not the only one who noticed that both 3rd party & main encoders just cover issues by using high bitrate(350kbps). No idea why Spotify picked this codec when LAME MP3 at V3 & V0 would've been good enough?.


----------



## Sterling2

These days Apple Music seems to deliver AAC and ALAC files which I cannot distinguish from SACD, so for now I am quite satisfied with Apple Music from  an M1 iMAC to Parasound 2.1 Preamplifier via usb.


----------



## Blackwoof

Sterling2 said:


> These days Apple Music seems to deliver AAC and ALAC files which I cannot distinguish from SACD, so for now I am quite satisfied with Apple Music from  an M1 iMAC to Parasound 2.1 Preamplifier via usb.


Yeah I use AAC as It has near MP3 level support unlike Musepack, Since I can switch to a DAP without being locked out if my phone failed.


----------

