# MP3 Debate: 320CBR vs V0



## keanex

I see a lot of people on the forums posting that 320 CBR should be the preferred listening format, assuming you don't want to use FLAC/WAV/Other lossless. When I read about this I always wonder why people choose 320 CBR over other "better" formats, such as the various Lame V# presets. I'm not going to get too much into transparency, so for the sake of things I'll just compare 320 to V0. 
   
  For those unaware of what V0 is, V0 is the highest preset you can choose from the Lame encoder for variable bit rate mp3. It's largely considered the "smartest" of choices due to it's transparency as well as reduced file size in comparison to CBR rips, there's a reason why it's the most popularly downloaded format on any private torrenting site, aside from 320 CBR on electronic sites but that's for another reason. Now why is V0 better than 320? Here's some comparisons:
   
  -Both are mp3, so they can both be used on every single audio players you'll use.
  -Both are transparent, meaning aside from the rare few who can hear frequencies above 20k, then you can not and will not notice a difference between this and FLAC/Wav/Other lossless.
  -Both are capable of reaching 320kbps.
   
  That's about where the similarities end though. V0 surpasses 320 in everything else. The V0 preset allows the music to reach 320kbps, but only when needed. For instance, that song you're listening to with 30 second of silence? With 320 CBR you're getting 320kbps of silence, which is completely unnecessary, it simply wastes space. With V0 it dynamically changes the kbps of the song depending on how complex the actual sounds coming through are, so you're not wasting space on 320kbps silence, where it may go to 128kbps. 
   
  To give another view, think of it like this: Wav=320 CBR, Flac=V0. Wav is a constant 1,411kbps stream, like 320 CBR is a constant 320kbps stream. Flac is the exact same information bit for bit of the Wav, but compresses it smartly to allow it to dip below 1,411kbps, much like V0 does.
   
  Keep in mind though, lossy to lossy transcodes are bad. Transcoding a 320 CBR, or any other lossy format (mp3, ogg, aac, etc) to a better or worse preset will cause artifacts and lost information each time, degrading the music regardless. The only music that should be transcoded are lossless formats, like Flac/Wav, to mp3/aac/ogg.
   
  I hope that makes sense, I'm very tired but I would love to hear other's rebuttals.


----------



## keanex

Up. I would love to have someone who listens to 320 to explain why.


----------



## yifu

Ideally, digital audio should be restricted to 24bit 96Khz FLACs. However, i find any lossy format 192bps or above adequate enough.


----------



## keanex

FLAC is only relevant if you're capable of hearing frequencies over 20k.


----------



## yifu

Thats the theory at least. But in my AB testing the mp3 version sounded fuller and more satisfying, while the 24bit flac version sound dull in comparison. You should try it sometime as i was really shocked by the difference. FLAC is not better, just different, acoustically.
  
  Quote: 





keanex said:


> FLAC is only relevant if you're capable of hearing frequencies over 20k.


----------



## keanex

I don't see how that's even possible to be completely honest. Have you done ABX testing, not AB?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





yifu said:


> Thats the theory at least. But in my AB testing the mp3 version sounded fuller and more satisfying, while the 24bit flac version sound dull in comparison. You should try it sometime as i was really shocked by the difference. FLAC is not better, just different, acoustically.


 

 I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of variables involved in this comparison that we do not yet know and thus it is hard to know what to make of your test. It could just be a simple preference for the lossy version or it could be that the comparison did not ensure that all other relevant variabes were adequately controlled. Questions to ask include:
   
  1) Was the tested sighted or unsighted ?
  2) What was the media player or software used for the test ?
  3) Were the tracks compared the same i.e both from the same artistic work ?
  4) Were they 2 different versions downlaoded or was the FLAC converted and downsampled  - this is v. important !
  5) How did you ensure that the volume levels for both tracks were the same ?
   
  and so on.....i.e what did you do to make sure the comparison was only on the codec


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





keanex said:


> That's about where the similarities end though. V0 surpasses 320 in everything else. The V0 preset allows the music to reach 320kbps, but only when needed.


 

 And that's the catch. The encoder needs to decide on what bitrate is high enough for each frame. Since the decision is based on some psychoacoustic model the results aren't always "perfect".
  320 CBR _guarantees_ that every frame will be encoded in the highest possible (mp3) quality. VBR on the other hand makes a trade-off between quality and space.
   
  While both might yield transparency in many cases there'll always be some killer samples and I'm pretty sure that the number of such samples is higher for VBR. Nevertheless, I'd say that both are fine and VBR is definitely more useful on a portable player with limited space.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





keanex said:


> FLAC is only relevant if you're capable of hearing frequencies over 20k.


 

 I'd be careful with such a statement.
   
  If you're rip your CDs _yourself_ and encode them with the latest lame for example, with high bitrate etc., then most tracks in your music collection should indeed be transparent.
   
  However, I know a lot of people that have "gathered" mp3's from various places over the years ranging from 128 (or even lower) to 320 kbps, encoded with outdated or simply poor encoders, with corrupted tags and mp3 header errors and so on... nobody know what really happened to those files and that's why some of them sound like crap.
   
   
  Go the FLAC route and you won't have to touch ripped CDs anymore, simply convert from flac to anything you want, anytime.


----------



## Roller

Quote: 





xnor said:


> And that's the catch. The encoder needs to decide on what bitrate is high enough for each frame. Since the decision is based on some psychoacoustic model the results aren't always "perfect".
> 320 CBR _guarantees_ that every frame will be encoded in the highest possible (mp3) quality. VBR on the other hand makes a trade-off between quality and space.
> 
> While both might yield transparency in many cases there'll always be some killer samples and I'm pretty sure that the number of such samples is higher for VBR. Nevertheless, I'd say that both are fine and VBR is definitely more useful on a portable player with limited space.


 


  Thank you xnor! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I was afraid that no one would point out that the dynamic bitrate is always more prone to audio glitches that, while being more or less noticeable, will be there, while CBR on the other hand is just like its own name, constant 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  But while there are good mp3s out there, I'll take ogg for lossy and flac for lossless any day


----------



## keanex

Quote: 





xnor said:


> And that's the catch. The encoder needs to decide on what bitrate is high enough for each frame. Since the decision is based on some psychoacoustic model the results aren't always "perfect".
> 320 CBR _guarantees_ that every frame will be encoded in the highest possible (mp3) quality. VBR on the other hand makes a trade-off between quality and space.
> 
> While both might yield transparency in many cases there'll always be some killer samples and I'm pretty sure that the number of such samples is higher for VBR. Nevertheless, I'd say that both are fine and VBR is definitely more useful on a portable player with limited space.


 


  If you're looking for fidelity, you're already "losing" by using mp3, as V0 is transparent and no one in their right mind would ever begin to think they could ABX 320 CBR and V0. Also based on your assumptions FLAC would also follow the same problems since it's also VBR, which is not the case. The encoder does just a fine job.


  Quote: 





xnor said:


> I'd be careful with such a statement.
> 
> If you're rip your CDs _yourself_ and encode them with the latest lame for example, with high bitrate etc., then most tracks in your music collection should indeed be transparent.
> 
> ...


 

  
  While transparency is subjective, I would be willing to bet 99% of people couldn't ABX V2 from Flac consistently. The ones that you're talking about are surely encoded with FHG and are also probably transcodes since the average user doesn't know what he's doing. A properly encoded V2 from a lossless source will be transparent to most people.


----------



## monterto

For me, I found that listenning to my walkman with my monster turbines, V0 is transparent (that's the word right?). I keep a library of FLAC files on my desktop for archiving though.
   
  Once I get my new DAP I'll be doing plenty of tests to find that perfect encoding option once again...


----------



## keanex

For actual on the go, outside noise is a factor always, as are microponics. I'd bet most people would be fine with V4 on the go to be honest. I've also never understood the concept of archiving, it makes no sense to me.
   
  Edit: Never made sense assuming you're on private torrent trackers. If you're archiving you're own CDs then that makes sense to me.


----------



## Coltrane

Its very simple. The number one factor effecting one's enjoyment of musical fidelity is perception. What you perceive IS essentially what is real, as far as one's brain is concerned. 320 is guaranteed to provide better perception. Done and done.
   
  The human mind is a absolutely pathetic instrument when it comes to objective reasoning. In this thread alone we have heard someone argue that mp3 better than FLAC, because one time he probably thought it sounded different. Is such an opinion demonstrably absurd? Of course.
   
  320 is the guaranteed best bitrate, so your brain can rest while listening. Its identical to V0, of course. But can you really trust your brain to not think about that stuff while listening? Of course not.
   
  (V0 listener here. No 320 or Flacs.)


----------



## Satellite_6

"-Both are transparent, meaning aside from the rare few who can hear frequencies above 20k, then you can not and will not notice a difference between this and FLAC/Wav/Other lossless."
   
  This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!
   
  "To give another view, think of it like this: Wav=320 CBR, Flac=V0. Wav is a constant 1,411kbps stream, like 320 CBR is a constant 320kbps stream. Flac is the exact same information bit for bit of the Wav, but compresses it smartly to allow it to dip below 1,411kbps, much like V0 does."
   
  v0 is NOT bit by bit the same as 320 so this analogy is irrelevant.
   
  "Ideally, digital audio should be restricted to 24bit 96Khz FLACs."
   
  No, that's a waste of space.
   
  "FLAC is only relevant if you're capable of hearing frequencies over 20k."
   
  no, it's always relevant but it contains more information than lossy files.
   
  "320 is the guaranteed best bitrate, so your brain can rest while listening. Its identical to V0, of course. But can you really trust your brain to not think about that stuff while listening? Of course not."
   
  It is not identical to v0, as explained by xnor.
   
   
   
  I used to use 320, but recently I've been using a special flavor of v0.


----------



## keanex

"This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!"
   
  Can you hear above 20k? If not FLAC is worthless to you.
   
  "v0 is NOT bit by bit the same as 320 so this analogy is irrelevant."
   
  Can you prove it's not bit for bit the same? And before you talk about transcoding 320->V0->320, that whole logic is completely flawed to begin with because lossy to lossy transcoding will always produce artifacts and lost data.
   
  "no, it's always relevant but it contains more information than lossy files."
   
  More information that almost every adult here is incapable of hearing.
   
  V0 is the exact same as 320. It never sacrifices data. Want proof? Get a recording that actually uses the full 320kbps and run it as V0. It will run a constant 320kbps since it's what's needed.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





keanex said:


> If you're looking for fidelity, you're already "losing" by using mp3, as V0 is transparent and no one in their right mind would ever begin to think they could ABX 320 CBR and V0. Also based on your assumptions FLAC would also follow the same problems since it's also VBR, which is not the case. The encoder does just a fine job.


 
   
  As I wrote before, there are certain samples where even the 320 CBR version has audible artifacts. ABX tests between 320 CBR and V0 have been done before and will be done in the future period. No, those people are not out of their mind, but people who think they are probably are. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  You can argue as much as you want but 320 CBR provides the highest possible quality / lowest risk of artifacts. But you're right, to the average human ear probably even V2 sounds as transparent in most cases.
   
  Regarding FLAC, a small hint: you're comparing apples and oranges.


  Quote: 





keanex said:


> Edit: Never made sense assuming you're on private torrent trackers. If you're archiving you're own CDs then that makes sense to me.


 
   
  So you don't buy your music? Bohohooo...
   


  Quote: 





keanex said:


> "This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!"
> 
> Can you hear above 20k? If not FLAC is worthless to you.
> 
> ...


 
   

  a) FLAC is perfect for archiving or further signal processing at playback so stop saying it's worthless, seriously...
  b) Yes I can easily prove that it's not the same, without transcoding of course since I have the original (FLAC) tracks and not some pirated crap.
  c) ARCHIVING
  d) Wrong. The encoder can only _estimate _when 320kbps is needed.


----------



## Satellite_6

Quote: 





keanex said:


> "This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!"
> 
> Can you hear above 20k? If not FLAC is worthless to you.
> 
> ...


 

 You need learn a lot more about lossy files before you make a thread about this, I'll leave it at at that.
   
  Who said I was transcoding? I would never do that.


----------



## TheGomdoRi

OP's statements are pretty elementary and are *readily available on the internet* I don't see a reason for "_*rebuttals*_" as all this information has been extensively discussed on HA and is backed with scientific data. If a person likes to use 320 CBR instead _of v0 _*do they really have to justify their reasoning to others?*
  If they do attempt to justify, there isn't much to discuss really, people like yourself will jump on them and pull facts from HA. It's a losing battle from the beginning.
   
  That being said, I honestly feel like the OP is a troll - as he made his initial post and nobody responded and wanted to draw some attention.


----------



## keanex

Quote: 





xnor said:


> So you don't buy your music? Bohohooo...


 
   

   
  I buy plenty of music, but I'm not going to go through the process of ripping it when it's already on a site that regards quality quite high.
   
   


> a) FLAC is perfect for archiving or further signal processing at playback so stop saying it's worthless, seriously...
> b) Yes I can easily prove that it's not the same, without transcoding of course since I have the original (FLAC) tracks and not some pirated crap.
> c) ARCHIVING
> d) Wrong. The encoder can only _estimate _when 320kbps is needed.


 


  Archiving is pointless like I said, unless you're archiving your own CDs.
  Prove it then, and I sense some anger here. Btw the site I use enforces the absolute highest quality when ripping flac, fyi. Also Wav is the original, FLAC is the compressed form, fyi.
  Redundant, read point A.
  Okay.


  Quote: 





satellite_6 said:


> You need learn a lot more about lossy files before you make a thread about this, I'll leave it at at that.
> 
> Who said I was transcoding? I would never do that.


 

  
  "I'm not going to actually post an argument, but I'll claim you're wrong."
   


  Quote: 





thegomdori said:


> OP's statements are pretty elementary and are *readily available on the internet* I don't see a reason for "_*rebuttals*_" as all this information has been extensively discussed on HA and is backed with scientific data. If a person likes to use 320 CBR instead _of v0 _*do they really have to justify their reasoning to others?*
> If they do attempt to justify, there isn't much to discuss really, people like yourself will jump on them and pull facts from HA. It's a losing battle from the beginning.
> 
> That being said, I honestly feel like the OP is a troll - as he made his initial post and nobody responded and wanted to draw some attention.


 


  Bolding, underlining, and italicizing random sentiments doesn't help you get your point across any better, whatever point you're trying to make.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





keanex said:


>


 


> Archiving is pointless like I said, unless you're archiving your own CDs.
> Prove it then, and I sense some anger here
> Redundant, read point A.
> Okay.


 
   
  a) Please learn to read replies in their entirety. With playback processing I mean DSPs like crossfeed, equalizer, replaygain (mp3's often contain a lot of clipping samples, FLAC files cannot) and so on.
  And simply imagine the lame mp3 devs release an update that improves file size / quality, well, with FLAC files you can process and re-encode your entire music collection with the updated encoder. Two clicks in foobar2000 and you're set. Couldn't be simpler, I do this regularly after new encoder releases or changes to my music collection to keep my portable player(s) up to date.
   
  b) http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70598
   
  "-b 320 ... audibly a little bit better than V0"
   
  Of course you could also analyze the resulting files for differences in frequency response, amplitude statistics (min/max RMS power, peak amplitudes ...) and so on.
   
   
  Well, there's a certain border that needs to be crossed until people mention the word "troll" around here. Think about it and good luck.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





keanex said:


> "This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!"
> 
> Can you hear above 20k? If not FLAC is worthless to you.
> 
> ...


 
   

   
  1.  V0 is a lame variable bit-rate setting. 320k is a fixed bit-rate setting. The settings produce two different files with different bit-rates.  Please read the LAME manual.
   
  2. MP3s sacrifice data, they are removing the least audible sounds from the music to compress the file. The difference between the settings is the algorithm used during compression.
   
  3. People have set up tests on the forums using files compressed using LAME, versus lossless files. If you search a little in the Sound Science forum you'll find them.


----------



## RPGWiZaRD

I personally find VBR -v0 to be the sweetspot for quality/size ratio and brings optimal listening experience as I don't seem to be able to hear difference between 320 CBR and VBR -v0 even if I try to focus, however between VBR v2 and v0 or CBR 320 kbps I hear a very noticable difference usually. I don't know why but FLAC often sounds less "full/meaty" in the sense some headphones are more warm/forward as opposed to cold/laid-back sounding but the difference is rather negliable if any. I see the argument from a future point of view why storing flac can be a great thing though but from quality/size point of view LAME MP3 VBR v0 is the sweetspot for me.


----------



## ThumperSD

How do I convert a file (lossless) to v0 LAME mp3 with dbpoweramp? I already have the LAME mp3 codec but I dont see "v0" anywhere
   
http://img233.imageshack.us/i/capture6r.jpg/


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





thumpersd said:


> How do I convert a file (lossless) to v0 LAME mp3 with dbpoweramp? I already have the LAME mp3 codec but I dont see "v0" anywhere
> 
> http://img233.imageshack.us/i/capture6r.jpg/


 

 You chose CBR. You want variable bitrate (VBR) instead (target checkbox). Highest VBR quality is V0 which could also be displayed as ~245 kbps (on average).


----------



## ThumperSD

Ah I never knew VBR was V0/V1/V2 etc. I thought V0 was VBR when I read the OP but I did not see any mention of VBR (CBR was used) anywhere so I thought the bitrate was constant. I guess that's because theres many versions of VBR. Thanks for clearing it up.
   
  I made a thread about CBR vs LAME VBR on OCN a few months ago but got no real answers. I was thinking of switching to VBR but just stuck to CBR.


----------



## Currawong

If you're using a DAP (iPod etc.) I'd just save the space and use V0, or even V2.  There was a 128k VBR vs. lossless test here some time ago where many people had trouble telling them apart. It was easy for me with a high-end system but it was amazing how good a 128k file could be.


----------



## keanex

Quote: 





currawong said:


> If you're using a DAP (iPod etc.) I'd just save the space and use V0, or even V2.  There was a 128k VBR vs. lossless test here some time ago where many people had trouble telling them apart. It was easy for me with a high-end system but it was amazing how good a 128k file could be.


 


  Yup, that thread gave me a chuckle when people with $500 headphones weren't certain.


----------



## Currawong

Quite a bit of it is the music and the rest experience. It's less noticeable with highly compressed pop and more so with "audiophile" classical and jazz recordings to give the extremes of what is available.


----------



## EnOYiN

I'm using v3 on my portable player and I don't think I'll ever be able to hear the difference between lossless and v3 when I'm sitting a train with some kids screaming in the chair next to me. I suppose I could even go with v5 or lower without a problem. It depends on how and where you use a portable player I think.
   
  I'm using a Creative Zen> HD25-II.


----------



## monterto

I use my portable DAP when I'm home too, so it isn't always really loud around me. I opt for V0 for this reason. If I used it exclusively on a trian etc. I'd probably opt for a lower birate VBR.


----------



## LugBug1

Enjoyed reading this thread, as im always comparing flac, wav, 320mp3, wma. I have to say that I'm always happy with CBR 320. I have a lot of music where I have burned both in WAV and  cbr320 and (because I am obsessive) will quickly check to see which format I'm listening too thinking that it sounds faultless only to find that it is 320 not wav! I have a couple of recordings that are always my first choice for testing new equipment and they are mp3 320.
   
  I've more recently got into flac, but blind tested I dont think I could tell the difference between cbr320. I listen to complex contemporary classical music and detail is very important for me, but if anything and this may be completely false but flac sounds slightly "duller" than cbr320, not less anything just, "darker" may be a better description.
   
  As for wav, its a brain thing... you tell yourself that nothing is lost in the ripping of cd's so you feel better for it. In reality there is no discernible difference between 320kbs or 1.400mb(or whatever wav is).


----------



## xnor

It's 1411 kbps for 16-bit/44.1 kHz/stereo PCM.
  Anyway,
   
  mp3 is a dead end.


----------



## LugBug1

Quote: 





xnor said:


> It's 1411 kbps for 16-bit/44.1 kHz/stereo PCM.
> Anyway,
> 
> mp3 is a dead end.


 


 thanks for that! very informative.


----------



## Roller

Quote: 





xnor said:


> mp3 is a *dead end*.


 


  x1


----------



## ThumperSD

If space and file size is not an issue, which one is better? I have 120gb on my ipod


----------



## matthewh133

Quote: 





thumpersd said:


> If space and file size is not an issue, which one is better? I have 120gb on my ipod


 

 *Technically* 320cbr is the safer bet, though in practicality you probably couldn't tell the difference.


----------



## Currawong

Likely those people prefering 320 over lossless are preferring the removal of background hiss etc. causing individual notes to stand out more.  For people like me, all the background sounds are part of the experience of listening, so I'd rather they not be removed.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Likely those people prefering 320 over lossless are preferring the removal of background hiss etc. causing individual notes to stand out more.  For people like me, all the background sounds are part of the experience of listening, so I'd rather they not be removed.


 
   
  MP3 encoding does not remove background hiss. I have loads of modern solo lute and 1960s opera I have encoded to mp3 and trust me the hiss is very much still there I am afraid. Nice idea though.
   
  In any case recording hiss as opposed to room noise is an artifact of technical limitations it is not part of the music and personally if I could **invisibly** and easily get rid of it I would not want to keep it. It was the absence of noise on DDD recordings that was one reason I got hooked on CD back in 1984.
   
  The way mp3 works is that it attempts to only remove "masked" or inaudible signals. Therefore a good mp3 should be perceptually very close to lossless. Also we have seen that in fact very few people can reliably tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and lossless, those mentioning a preference for mp3 here have not yet demonstrated such reliable detection so this is all a bit speculative...


----------



## LugBug1

> The way mp3 works is that it attempts to only remove "masked" or inaudible signals. Therefore a good mp3 should be perceptually very close to lossless. Also we have seen that in fact very few people can reliably tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and lossless, those mentioning a preference for mp3 here have not yet demonstrated such reliable detection so this is all a bit speculative...


 


 I agree, it is a bit speculative. If mp3 wasn't so convenient in regards to space saving and applications then we would all be using lossless. I think the word "lossless" convinces some people that it is better than mp3 when in my view there isn't any audible difference. "What hifi" did a test not so long ago with the objective of trying to discern if lossless was better quality than mp3 and the results were inconclusive, apart from when they used low bit rate mp3. It is possible that only very high end equipment will show differences, but for most of us who are budget to mid fi then why use up all of our hard drive space on formats that dont sound any better.


----------



## xnor

Another interesting look at the topic at hand:
   

   
  You see the source file on top (which happens to be a flac file 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). It's a few years old hard rock track.
  center: 320 CBR mp3
  and at the bottom V0 VBR mp3.
   
  Both files were encoded with the latest lame encoder. 
   
  To get a better image of the clipped vs. non-clipped samples I had to attenuate both mp3's by 0.2 dB!
  Audacity shows samples greater than or equal to an absolute value of 1.0 as clipped (red), but with the attenuation only samples that are already 0.2 dB above the maximum are marked as clipped.
  Without that temporary attenuation in audacity both mp3 files would be very, very red.
   
  A replaygain analysis shows that the highest peak for the
  320 CBR file is 1.094871
  and for the V0 file it's 1.155641
   
  The bottom-line: I hate clipping, especially with headphones where it can easily be audible and very annoying. Less clipping = better, no clipping = best.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





lugbug1 said:


> I agree, it is a bit speculative. If mp3 wasn't so convenient in regards to space saving and applications then we would all be using lossless. I think the word "lossless" convinces some people that it is better than mp3 when in my view there isn't any audible difference. "What hifi" did a test not so long ago with the objective of trying to discern if lossless was better quality than mp3 and the results were inconclusive, apart from when they used low bit rate mp3. It is possible that only very high end equipment will show differences, but for most of us who are budget to mid fi then why use up all of our hard drive space on formats that dont sound any better.


 

 I ripped my CDs to mp3 over several years, when I started hard disk space was pricey, even though I can pick up a 1 TB drive cheaply now, the prospect of re-ripping 800 CDs just for the one or two (to date I have one mp3 CD rip that is distinguishable by me (20/20 in DBT) from uncompressed but that is a highly saturated source to begin with) I might be able to tell the difference on does not seem a good use of my declining time. If I was starting from scratch however I would probably go lossless except for my DAPs


----------



## keanex

If you hate clipping then you should avoid albums that are mastered terribly. That flac looks almost like a Wavves album from years ago, which is intended to be mastered loud as possible since it's Noise Rock. There's no format that is going to make a terribly mastered album sound good, and from the looks of it, whatever track that is lacks any dynamic range anyway.


----------



## xnor

Many metal and rock recordings that are just a few years old can look like this. Iron Maiden, Dream Theater, Deep Purple, Scorpions, ... you name it. Undeniably what we see is the result of the loudness war. 
   
  Just because some samples are close to clipping doesn't actually mean that I can hear a *tick* or clipping noise. But the mp3 encoder seems to clip (> 1.0) like every other of those samples.


----------



## keanex

My point is, those records are going to sound like crud regardless because they are products of the loudness wars. A properly recorded album won't clip in mp3.


----------



## Roller

Nice to see some more palpable things about how lossless really has no comparison. Btw, any new improvements on the codec itself? I mean if higher compression can be achieved, and if that is the case, how much more would the burden be to decode it on the fly.
   
  What about some background on how compressed formats came to the point they are right now?


----------



## Mad Max

With MP3 encoding, there is sometimes a loss of soundstage depth and air, making the music seem more upfront when it is originally more spacious and laid-back.  I've also noticed with a couple of albums a loss of ambiance and cues(?) in the music resulting in a change of the music's mood and atmosphere or screwing up of harmonics, especially in the treble. 
  Then there's the occasional dynamic compression for some tracks.  Lastly, sometimes artifacts creep in anyway even if you are using cbr 320 or vbr -v0.  I haven't bothered to fully investigate the pattern of the artifacts, but they seem to occur more with higher frequencies and strong impacts, though I think I heard artifacts in a couple of tracks that contradict this observation.
   
  Well, these are all small differences, but they stack up, at least with my desktop rig, and for portable use MP3 vbr -v0 and -v1 are a-okay and quite compact.  =]


----------



## xnor

Quote:


keanex said:


> A properly recorded album won't clip in mp3.


 
   
  Hah, you wish!


----------



## Roller

No love for ogg 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Far superior to mp3, when talking solely about lossy formats, despite not being supported by apple products.


----------



## Cataphract

Assuming LAME as an encoder, there are a few instances where 320 audibly artifacts and V0 does not, and there are even rarely times when both V0 and 320 artifact but V2 does not. But 320kbps will be better the vast majority of the time.


----------



## ChipnDalebowl

-V0 all the way.  The LAME devs have practically made a living tuning vbr settings, so I would say they are more tested to prevent issues than the cbr settings.  Not that it likely matters - probably 90% of all humans could never hear a difference between an mp3 at that bitrate and lossless.  I can't even manage -V5 let alone even getting close to the bitrates around -V0.


----------



## googleborg

for the no difference between flac and mp3 brigade, i will/can ABX .flac from .mp3 anytime, anyplace, anywhere.  yay mr T!
   
  for mp3, i would use VBR as i'd only use mp3 when space is a concern.  i _really _doubt i could abx VBR from 320.


----------



## keanex

Quote: 





googleborg said:


> for the no difference between flac and mp3 brigade, i will/can ABX .flac from .mp3 anytime, anyplace, anywhere.  yay mr T!
> 
> for mp3, i would use VBR as i'd only use mp3 when space is a concern.  i _really _doubt i could abx VBR from 320.


 


  I would love to see this.


----------



## Argyris

keanex said:


> I would love to see this.




Yeah, me too. The last time I tested I managed to root out V1 70% of the time on my "killer sample" (the Mellotron 8 Choir part in the middle of "Dancing With The Moonlit Knight"), but I dropped to 50% (or, in other words, complete guessing) for V0. The AAC format fared a lot better, with my transparency point being 192kbps VBR. I use 256kbps AAC for everything now--overkill, but still smaller than V0.

I came down off my high horse after this test, and I'm quite happy. I can compress my music in peace without having to worry that I'm missing anything I'll ever notice. I don't deny that perhaps there are some people who can reliably discern between a known "killer sample" and lossless, but I always like to see proof, as I have extraordinarily perceptive hearing and I sure can't.


----------



## xnor

^ Me too.


----------



## keanex

I would use AAC, as it is slightly better than LAME currently, but that would require me to download in FLAC and then transcode to AAC as opposed to just downloading V0 already transcoded from the FLAC. I do always rip in FLAC though following strict standards.


----------



## grokit

Lossless may be debatable for listening quality compared to the better compression algorithms, but as this and so many other threads demonstrate it is clearly better for archiving. As has already been pointed out, you can convert from FLAC/ALAC to any compression protocol without any loss in quality.


----------



## RPGWiZaRD

Between AAC, MP3 and FLAC I often find some general subtle differences that is heard more clearly depending on the recording and genre etc but I find AAC has the "warmest/smoothest/fulliest" with the most forward vocals sound of them all and MP3 somewhere in-between and FLAC often has a slightly wider soundstage and is the "coldest" sounding of those but has the best clarity usually. I generally prefer a warmer sound as to me it sounds more realistic/speaker like (cuz I think aprox 50% of headphones are too cold/bright/analytical sounding compared to IRL) so I often tend to prefer AAC 256kbps when it comes to sound quality but since it's the least popular format of the 3 that makes me not using it too often.


----------



## gmiossi

Old thread, but I just stumbled across it.
   
  Look, the fact of the matter is that the output (even outside of high/low frequency ranges) is _not_ bit-identical between lossy and uncompressed audio. Now, will anyone _notice_ those differences? That isn't as simple to answer as "yes" or "no" - it depends entirely on the hearing of the person in question, but more than that (and I've seen nobody in this thread mention this), it depends on your equipment.
   
  If you have a very high quality audio pathway (high quality DAC/AMP) running to a very revealing pair of high-quality headphones like Etymotic ER4Ps, k701s, etc then you will *definitely* notice differences between 320/v0 and FLAC. Anyone who doesn't have major hearing loss and has spent a lot of time with a pair of ER4s would have to testify to this. I've done a lot of ABX testing personally with such a setup. I can't _always_ tell with _all_ songs, but normally FLAC has a warmer, smoother characteristic to its sound while the MP3s come across as harsher. It depends on the song, how it was originally mastered (poorly mastered music sounds bad enough to begin with that it's harder to tell .. though sometimes mp3 compression added to an already almost-intolerable recording pushes it past the point of sibilance with revealing headphones), etc. Sometimes mp3 sounds distinctly, flagrantly _bad_ on revealing headphones, while sometimes it's much more subtle. It's usually not a blatant difference, though, and with less revealing headphones I'm more hard-pressed to notice a difference. But I've spent enough time listening with headphones like the ER4Ps that I _know_ that the sound _is_ different - it's just harder to pick out the difference with headphones that are less revealing. Heck, even cheap headphones are still going to output a more authentic sound from a FLAC source... they just do a poor enough job representing sound in general that the minor differences between mp3 and flac will be lost in all the other distortion that's occurring.
   
  When you're getting to the point that you're spending significant amounts of money to improve your listening setup, the minute differences in the sound between MP3 and FLAC suddenly become significant. After all, more storage is dirt cheap, while other things you might do to try to improve sound even marginally can sometimes cost thousands of dollars. Why would you forgo even the occasional, minor, benefit to your sound quality when you can easily have guarantee bit-perfect output from FLAC?
   
  In short, if you don't have a high-end listening setup (or possibly for portable listening) then sure, use v0/320 mp3s - the difference between them and flac will be insignificant enough that it won't really matter. If you have a high-end setup, there's still little difference, but there's enough that it's foolish to spend big bucks on minor upgrades when you have one that's easily addressed like mp3 vs flac.


----------

