# 192 kbs and 320 kbs, is there really a difference?



## Clincher09

I've always ripped my files in 192 kbs audio format, but some people will only accept 320 kbs. Is there really an audible difference? If I ripped all my music in 320 would there be a noticble difference in sound or will I just be using up more space? What about 192 kbs and windows lossless? 

 Also, is there a sound difference between mp3 and wma?


----------



## ezzieyguywuf

best way for you to get an answer is to rip some songs that you are familiar with in all the diff formats and bit rates that you're concerned about. Then, listen to them from a decent source with some good headphones, and see for yourself :-D


----------



## jonathanjong

x2 on trying for yourself.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

...You're kidding.

 ABX via *foobar2000*; it's pretty much the only fair and legit way you can find out for yourself.


----------



## immtbiker

Try it for yourself.

 If you don't hear the difference, then besides saving hard drive space, you will save a lot of money on audio equipment.


----------



## ezzieyguywuf

i don't know what abx is, but if you're gonna be listening off of a portable player, wouldn't it make more sense to test off of that?


----------



## MoonShine

I cannot hear a difference (I thought I could for a long time, but no... it was placebo).


----------



## LnxPrgr3

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Clincher09* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've always ripped my files in 192 kbs audio format, but some people will only accept 320 kbs. Is there really an audible difference?_

 

I would say:
MP3 and WMA are very different, especially at lower bitrates, and
192kbps is not "transparent" to me for MP3
By LAME -V0 (VBR, averages around 256kbps), I can still hear a difference on some music, but it's subtle enough that I don't mind for portable use. I actually thought it was transparent until I did an ABX test... how's that for backwards?

 You definitely should test for yourself though -- no sense in wasting space on quality you can't hear on your setup!


----------



## Logistics

An unfortunate part of this is that Windows XP (if you're using it) handles audio poorly. This is a well known problem. Comparing tracks over XP and then switching to your portable could yield different results. Make sure you are using Kernel Streaming or ASIO when you do an A/B comparison in XP.


----------



## tongson

Like what others said compare them yourself. Personally I can hear the difference between 320 and 192 MP3.

 For what its worth I can not tell the difference between FLAC lossless and 320Kbps MP3 lossy ripped CDs.


----------



## BigTony

Remember tha MP3 doesn't just chop the music up, it also 'shapes' it - i.e. to make it more listenable and sound nice (i.e. it adds some eq.). Modern music has been mastered to take this into account (ITunes is a major port of call for people wanting new music) so you'll find that modern CD's will should quite 'nice' when compressed. The bigger differences will be found listening to 'older music', i.e. before the Loudness Wars - here the MP3 artifacts are much more apparent.
 But with the price of HDD's 1GB = 25 cents, why do people still consider louesy MP3? I Bought a 1TB HDD for 145, it holds 1,500 CD's as FLAC, and there is still from for a few hundred more.

 BT


----------



## alexpea

Bit-rates are the number of "sound-measures" of sinus-waves done by the digital sampler along a certain time-frame. There is no unlimited number, so ALL digital sound has square edges - meaning not EVERYTHING is sampled. Now, as far as audible differences are concerned - it all depends on how good the track is recorded. If a producer used lousy microphones, lousy soundcard and hardware (for example) and in general did a bad recording. Maybe used some already compressed audio-clips in his production. Then different bit-rates would not be audible. But if you listen to a GOOD recording, and try to convert it into different formats, the audible differences can be noticed. All depending on your ears and your gear. The higher the bit-rate, the less musical information is lost.


----------



## Nocturnal310

Sadly, i can easily tell/feel the difference & i can also feel the difference between 320 kbps & FLAC.

 but i dont mind 192 kbps.

 and if its 128 kbps..thats when i turn ON X-fi

 Hint: the main difference in 192 & 320 kbps is in the Psycho-acoustic modelling... i read on the MP3 encoding & the guy behind the project explained how the perceivable soundstage also changes.


----------



## poo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nocturnal310* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hint: the main difference in 192 & 320 kbps is in the Psycho-acoustic modelling..._

 

The main difference to me is significant distortion and sound quality that does no justice to the original music... no hint required.


----------



## QQQ

There's a difference.


----------



## Nocturnal310

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The main difference to me is significant distortion and sound quality that does no justice to the original music... no hint required._

 

the people who were behind the MP3 project said that.


----------



## LostMoogle

I used to be not able to tell. Then Ifound a song where it made a huge difference. I suppose it also depends on the song too. Sometimes when I rip into lossless and compare it to a 320kbps, I can't tell the difference and other times I can tell immediately. It really depends on the music.


----------



## scompton

While I can't hear the difference, I believe everyone should do their own test. Supposedly, where the difference is most noticeable is cymbal crashes.


----------



## jordanross

I'd have to say I hear the difference as well. As time goes on an my ears "mature" I can hear substantial differences. I ripped a few songs in three different formats: mp3 128K, 320K and I used Apple Lossless. I choose the 320 over the 128 every time, as for the lossless I can hear differences but I think My set up needs some improvement before i'll really hear the difference.


----------



## 71877

Looking at the place where this topic is posted, shouldn't we discussing what (as measured and 'showable' findings preferably) the differences are rather than if we can hear the difference, which is rather subjective?

 Wasn't there some program that 'visualised' the forms of compression? If so, then we should 'see' the differences, if there are any (which could depend on the record as alexpea said).


----------



## scompton

The developers of lossy formats use psycoacoustics to make the difference as hard to hear as possible, even when there is a noticeable difference in a visualization. There are a lot of things that are measurable but not audible. Blind listening tests are a very acceptable way to tell if something is audible.


----------



## uraflit

depends on music, encoder, audio gear, and individual ears...

 all in all, if you use -v 0 LAME MP3, there will only be slight nuances (which are enough for some!) that will be heard using more expensive equipment and with scrutinizing ears.

 which is why my minimalistic setup is fine for me =]


----------



## Luminette

your hearing may be flawed, or your ear training may just be very adept and you don't know what to look for / you don't listen to your music that closely

 or your system may just not be resolving enough

 or some combination of things..




 but the differences are there, and many people hear them

 Lossless for me.


----------



## LnxPrgr3

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BigTony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Remember tha MP3 doesn't just chop the music up, it also 'shapes' it - i.e. to make it more listenable and sound nice (i.e. it adds some eq.)._

 

I can't speak for other encoders, but LAME's only "eq" is a very high frequency rolloff -- at 192kbps, it's set to 19kHz. It is not going to change the overall tonal balance.

 Are you thinking of noise shaping? MP3 does shape the _distortion_ it causes, but the goal is to avoid _any_ audible change, not to try to create a pleasing change.


----------



## krmathis

Why not git it a try yourself?
 Only you can tell if there are an audible difference, using your audio files, gear, ears, ...


----------



## progo

Haha, on some other forum this would actually be a good topic, but since we're here at the SS troops...

  Code:


```
[left] $ flac -cd ORIGINAL.flac | lame -b 192 - 192.mp3 $ flac -cd ORIGINAL.flac | lame -b 320 - 320.mp3 $ ls -lh total 23M -rw-r--r-- 1 progo progo 3,2M 2008-09-04 15:47 192.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 progo progo 5,3M 2008-09-04 15:47 320.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 progo progo 14M 2008-09-04 15:46 ORIGINAL.flac $ md5sum * 72a771ad99a4e19b8ba931541b540d7b 192.mp3 03a525704ff07688ad2787fe49f94b31 320.mp3 aacdc64bbc923959c9d73ffe1f97f221 ORIGINAL.flac[/left]
```

Conclusion: since their hashes differ, the contents of files differ as well. It is thus different.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *progo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Conclusion: since their hashes differ, the contents of files differ as well. It is thus different._

 

True!
 But the audio data may be 100% identical, and the MD5 hash may still be different. So MD5 is not useful at all when comparing audio files.


----------



## progo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_True!
 But the audio data may be 100% identical, and the MD5 hash may still be different. So MD5 is not useful at all when comparing audio files._

 

So true. If I'm not mistaken, GoldWave (windows app) can export audio files to text files (having one sample, or two, on a row) .. that could do the job. Too bad Audacity cannot do that.


----------



## scompton

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *progo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Conclusion: since their hashes differ, the contents of files differ as well. It is thus different._

 

Of course they're different with different bit rates. It only matters though if you can hear a difference. Doing ABX tests, I can't.


----------



## LnxPrgr3

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *progo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Haha, on some other forum this would actually be a good topic, but since we're here at the SS troops..._

 

Ah, but you forget the science of psychoacoustics...


----------



## sunseeker888

People think 320kbps = 1411. Nope. And yeah, I can certainly tell the difference between 192 and 320 also. 

 Lately, I've been trying to stay away from digital altogether, save for SACD.


----------



## Clincher09

Oh man, too many choices. Is there some special program you guys use to rip CD's? I just use WMP and I'll do a test with 192 WMAs and 320 MP3's and Lossless. 

 Though my setup isn't anything complicated, a Samsung P2 with either a pair of Sennheiser HD485's or soon to be Denon C551k's.


----------



## scompton

EAC and dbPowerAmp are good for ripping. EAC is free and not as easy to use and a little slower. Not that EAC is hard to use but dbPowerAmp is simple. Just one default setting should be changed in dbPowerAmp. With EAC you need to go through a configuration wizard.


----------



## poo

Not sure if this would work... but bear with me and let me know what you think.

 What if I were to create 2 files, both the exact same section of music from the same disc; one encoded at 320kbps and the other at 192.

 I would then convert the files back to .wav and join them into one file so that one would play first, then the other.

 I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which.


----------



## progo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which._

 

I can't see a reason why not. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Should be legible here, where DBT is allowed.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not sure if this would work... but bear with me and let me know what you think.

 What if I were to create 2 files, both the exact same section of music from the same disc; one encoded at 320kbps and the other at 192.

 I would then convert the files back to .wav and join them into one file so that one would play first, then the other.

 I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which._

 

Great Idea - go for it.

 I would suggest - take a track and first rip it to WAV then edit it down to a suitable non copyright infringing fair use size then encode it twice once as 192 and once as 320. Then you are sure that the two segments will be the same size when you decode them back to WAV and also avoid alignment problems.

 I would also suggest that (if possible) you set the low pass filter to be the same on both rips so there is no more obvious roll-off on the 192 copy, iirc they should be about the same anyway.


----------



## LnxPrgr3

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What if I were to create 2 files, both the exact same section of music from the same disc; one encoded at 320kbps and the other at 192.

 I would then convert the files back to .wav and join them into one file so that one would play first, then the other.

 I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which._

 

Sounds reasonable, but I'd imagine I'd be able to open the file in audacity and tell you which is which fairly quickly, without listening to the file 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would also suggest that (if possible) you set the low pass filter to be the same on both rips so there is no more obvious roll-off on the 192 copy, iirc they should be about the same anyway._

 

It can still be pretty obvious: 192kbps vs. 320kbps. Both were done with LAME, with the lowpass on the 320kbps reduced to match the lowpass LAME chooses for 192kbps (19kHz).


----------



## poo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LnxPrgr3* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sounds reasonable, but I'd imagine I'd be able to open the file in audacity and tell you which is which fairly quickly, without listening to the file 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah I thought of that too, but I can't think of any way to prevent it. I guess we have to hope that most people interested would have the decency to do the 'test' fairly and look at the wave forms later... It's a shame it can't be totally 'blind' though...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah I thought of that too, but I can't think of any way to prevent it. I guess we have to hope that most people interested would have the decency to do the 'test' fairly and look at the wave forms later... It's a shame it can't be totally 'blind' though..._

 

FooBar's ABX comparator would work - it does not identify the files - just ask folks to post screen shots of their tests...


----------



## Steve999

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Clincher09* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've always ripped my files in 192 kbs audio format, but some people will only accept 320 kbs. Is there really an audible difference? If I ripped all my music in 320 would there be a noticble difference in sound or will I just be using up more space? What about 192 kbs and windows lossless? 

 Also, is there a sound difference between mp3 and wma?_

 


 It depends on what codec and encoder you're using, how good your ears are, if you've trained your ears to hear artificats, etc.

 You can go to hydrogenaudio.org to get the very best and most reliable information on the subject. Most of the information here is not reliable and is not adequately supported.

 The differences are subtle enough so that ABX testing with a specialized software is the only way to go. You can go to hydrogenaudio for this. If you can hear the difference, more power to you. 192 kbps is getting in the range where many many people cannot hear a difference using most codecs, but a few truly can. The difference is generally much more subtle than say the differences between two pairs of speakers or two headphones, IMHO.

 There are differences between the artifacts produced by WMA and MP3, but at some point they both dimish to the point of being inaudble.


----------



## Suntory_Times

Is it just me, I always found the differences to be extremely clear.


----------



## Clincher09

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve999* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It depends on what codec and encoder you're using, how good your ears are, if you've trained your ears to hear artificats, etc.

 You can go to hydrogenaudio.org to get the very best and most reliable information on the subject. Most of the information here is not reliable and is not adequately supported.

 The differences are subtle enough so that ABX testing with a specialized software is the only way to go. You can go to hydrogenaudio for this. If you can hear the difference, more power to you. 192 kbps is getting in the range where many many people cannot hear a difference using most codecs, but a few truly can. The difference is generally much more subtle than say the differences between two pairs of speakers or two headphones, IMHO.

 There are differences between the artifacts produced by WMA and MP3, but at some point they both dimish to the point of being inaudble.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Ok, well I really don't have a specialized music setup, just a nice DAP and nice headphones, and I have lame but I don't know if WMP uses that to rip music. Basically would it just be a waste of my time to re-rip all of my CDs to 320 to maybe hear a subtle difference?


----------



## Edwood

Of course there is a difference.





 128kbps worth of difference.


----------



## jonathanjong

Yeap, I can hear a difference. Not between 128 and 192 though, I don't think.

 Tangentially, I think this talk of using some objective (allegedly more scientific) measure instead of listening tests is kind of besides the point. I mean, we care about what we can hear. Whether or not 192 and 320 and lossless differ on some measure is irrelevant unless the difference is audibly discernible by the listener. Indeed, when it comes to the 129/192/320/lossless difference, I think the only thing that matters is whether _you_ can hear a difference. Hard disk space is cheap.


----------



## berniebennybernard

Just a quick question, EAC or dBpoweramp for encoding MP3's and recommended codec? I've been using dBpoweramp for the last couple of years, but the highest for VBR LAME is 240kbp. So I assume for 320kbps, it should be CBR?

 Also, how does Helix fare against LAME?


----------



## steviebee

When I use 320 LAME in DBPA, yes it's CBR.


----------



## Steve999

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Clincher09* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, well I really don't have a specialized music setup, just a nice DAP and nice headphones, and I have lame but I don't know if WMP uses that to rip music. Basically would it just be a waste of my time to re-rip all of my CDs to 320 to maybe hear a subtle difference?_

 

You're asking the right question now. Only you can answer it. You made a good choice to rip at 192 kbps to begin with. If you have some super-favorite recordings you could re-do them at a higher bitrate just as part of the hobby, but if you have a ton of recordings I personally wouldn't spend a lot of time on it, but it's a value judgment really, your call. I ripped a lot of stuff between 160 and 220 kbps, and it all sounds great. I used lame, itunes, some old thing called music match jukebox, etc. With the way prices on hard disk space have gone down, if I were doing it today, I'd rip a little higher, but I did most of it 4 or 5 or 6 years ago, and it sounds fine to me. 160 kbps is generally transparent for most people for most music. Based on what you're saying, since you haven't worried yourself over learning what artificacts sound like, on the off-chance you are one of the statistical few who could hear the difference, the chances that the actual difference between 192 kbps wma and 320 kbps lame mp3 would be concerning to you are relatively low.

 This large double-blind test, for example, suggests that of 8 codecs tested at 192 kbps, all were transparent (indistinguishable) from the original samples:

Audio quality of encoders at 192 kbit/s - SoundExpert

 In that test, 5 or above means transparent (inaudbile artificats). They use a controversial methodology to exaggerate differences that would otherwise be inaudible. But you get the idea, I think. Notice that wma at 192 kbps did quite well. Notice the big difference between wma at 160 kbps (not transparent but very good) and wma at 192 kbps (transparent).

 Here's an enlightening thread from hydrogenaudio.org from a distressed person who discovered he could not tell the difference between lame 160 kbps and lossless on double-blind testing:

Help with listening tests - Hydrogenaudio Forums

 As you can read, he is hardly alone. The watchword is indeed "subtle." The contributors to that thread know their stuff.

 So, would I re-rip after having spent time on encoding in 192 kbps wma? Nope. If it were 128 kbps? Probably I would re-rip. But the ground between 128 kbps and 192 kbps is pretty substantial. At hydrogen they won't set up big tests above 128 kbps anymore because encoders have improved so much that now too few people can tell the difference so the tests are too difficult to administer. Can some small percentage of people tell the difference? Absolutely.

 There are such things as what they call killer samples, which are snippets of challenging recordings, that result in tripping up encoders so you can hear differences, but these are fleeting instances and rarely occur in normal music, and would even more rarely be ascertained by a normal person.


----------



## eightbitpotion

I see a continuing trend among hi-fi enthusiasts- they keep trying blind-tests. I agree that blind-tests are the science of percentage, but ultimately I think of it as this: If the higher-quality can be grasped, why settle for less? I'd rather have too much quality and not need it than needing it and not having it. Also this dumb crap about how it sounds better through certain SOFTWARE players and different OSes is simply ignorance- if it's digital...It's either 0 or 1...aka it either works or it doesn't (that's how digital works), however I currently switched to foobar because of the crossfeed plugin and upconverter etc... If you're comparing it to 'portable players' then you're REALLY just comparing the DACs...not the operating system or media player. If I switched from a soundblaster live to a emu 1212...there would be a difference.

 On a side-note, just because you can't 'hear' the difference doesn't mean that it doesn't affect your perception of the sound. Naturally I cannot tell you when the 40k kicks in, but does it change how you perceive a high-pitched instrumental sound? I think it really just comes down to two things- 1. if it doesn't bother you, why worry? and/OR 2. if you can rip higher than needed..... why not?

 My two cents.


----------



## paaj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eightbitpotion* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the higher-quality can be grasped, why settle for less? I'd rather have too much quality and not need it than needing it and not having it._

 

x2
 no point to intentionally degrade your music (hearable or not) in this hobby of ours...


----------



## Publius

I think this issue is a lot less clear cut than most people want to accept.

 For some music containing problem samples, it is well-agreed that _all_ (or almost all) listeners will be able to tell the difference between 320kbps and lossless. In that situation, there very well may be an audible difference between 192kbps and 320kbps, although neither one may be transparent.

 At the other extreme, for very run-of-the-mill signals, something as low as 128kbps may provide adequate transparency.

 What's important to take from this is that there are very few samples that have much of an audible difference between -V2 and 320, so you're really buying yourself much less of a margin of safety than you may realize.


----------



## Sotiris

try to listen a 192kbps song at high volume.u will listen a lot of distortion!if u listen the same song at 320kbps there will much difference independent the quality of the speakers


----------



## ezzieyguywuf

Sure, if you blast your music you will hear some distortion at a lower bitrate, but who blasts their music all the time? If you want to continue hearing that distortion, you'll want to save your hearing, and you do this by listening to your music at reasonable levels. When you go ahead and put your music back to a reasonable level, more than likely you will no longer hear the distortion.

 I'm not saying theres no difference: the other day I did some quick tests between FLAC and ogg q6 on my Cowon D2 through my Livewires and was able to tell the two track apart every time. That being the case, the difference to me is only noticeable when I am exclusively music listening: i.e. when I'm listening to my music at work (which if a lot of the time, actually) or between classes, the difference in audio quality is negligible. Therefore, I decided that for portable usage, a sligh loss in audio quality is preferable in order to save space and carry more music. I must add, though, that I recently purchased an external HDD and re-ripped my entire music collection to FLAC, so that when I am "stationary" listening to my music, I can hear it uncompressed. Of course, now I need to invest in a quality DAC, but thats a diff story...

 ...
 ...
 ..

 ....

 oh gawd, headfi, what happened to my wallet?!?!


----------



## Clincher09

Ok, so I'll probably rip the cds I haven't yet in lossless. Is windows lossless any good and does it work on the samsung p2?


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Clincher09* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, so I'll probably rip the cds I haven't yet in lossless. Is windows lossless any good and does it work on the samsung p2?_

 

 Quote:


 Supported audio: MP3, WMA, WMA-DRM, AAC (via firmware update) 
 

No it doesn't support lossless.
 Can't Rockbox it either :/

 In terms of 192 v 320 mp3, yes there is a difference, partculiarly with complex music.


----------



## Sotiris

when we are talking about capacities of 16G and 32G i dont think that we should worry to encode in 192 in order to gain storage.


----------



## ezzieyguywuf

well, really it depends on the extent of your music collection, and how much of it you like to carry. I like taking all my music with me, and when encoded @ q6 ogg it just barely fits on my 8gb cowon D2 + 16gb SDHC = 24 GB storage. I have about 1.5 gigs left for additional music. So, in my case, storage space does matter.


----------



## scompton

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sotiris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_when we are talking about capacities of 16G and 32G i dont think that we should worry to encode in 192 in order to gain storage._

 

You must have a small music library. I never do critical listening with my iPod so I have 128kbps VBR AAC on it. I can fit 1/3 of my library on my 80 GB iPod. I hate having to decide what to delete every time I buy a new CD.

 Even if I did do critical listening on my iPod, I'd still use 128kbps since I've never heard the difference between it and lossless.


----------



## immtbiker

But...remmeber that we were also talking about "storage". And 500Gig HD's have come down to $100. With prices this low, it is worth it to store all of your music (or most anyway), in flac or alac, so that it can be re-ripped to wav at anytime to be brought back onto CD's when needed.


----------



## Clincher09

Yeah, I only have maybe 2 gigs of music in my library. I'm sure alot of you think that's crazy, but I don't see the need to carry 80 gigs around with me every day.


----------



## nsjong

I just usually rip it at 256, the middle point. That way, instead of deciding whether you can hear the diff. or not, you can have the comfort of being in between for safety of sound quality.
 (and the fact that my panasonic player is dumb and only accepts below 320)


----------



## paulr

I wouldn't suggest mp3 as an archiving format regardless of bit rate. It doesn't matter if there's no audible difference from the original, since there can still be differences that may come out after (say) conversion to some other format. In other words even if wav and 320 sound identical, wav->128 may give a better 128 result than 320->wav->128. So I would do all my archiving with flac which is around 750 kbps. As the other poster says, hard drive space is dirt cheap these days. For listening on a portable, 128 kbps mp3 has been good enough for me most of the time, even if I can tell the difference from wav if I listen carefully. I have limited space on my current portable (4gb flash) so I usually put 128's on it, but keep the flac's on my computer.


----------



## bordins

You need an accurate measurement equipment in order to verify differences do exist.

 Untrained human ears (brains) are the least reliable equipments !!

 Who care, BTW ?


----------



## uhcmos1

It is not going to change the overall tonal balance.


----------



## Riordan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eightbitpotion* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also this dumb crap about how it sounds better through certain SOFTWARE players and different OSes is simply ignorance- if it's digital...It's either 0 or 1...aka it either works or it doesn't (that's how digital works) ..._

 

this part of your post needs clarification: you would be completely right if bit-perfect reproduction were the norm in home computer audio. it isn't. 

 resampling is a very real issue, and choice of os/audio player/setup HAS an effect in SOME cases. on windows xp systems (as well as win98 ), digital audio data is routinely converted from 44.1 khz (cd standard) to 48 khz (the legacy pc audio standard). with some soundcards, audio data is even resampled twice. old soundblaster cards were the prime offenders.

 whether your computer setup is affected by resampling depends on your combination of hardware (while creative labs cards prior to the x-fi series resample no matter what, there are very cheap sound cards that output bit-perfectly with an open source driver but not with their original drivers) and software (while windows xp kmixer resamples everything, many audio players provide a way around it, by using asio or kernel streaming). 

 now whether the resampling done by card, driver or os is audible or not is a similar question to the one about 192/320kbs mp3s, but sadly cannot be tested as easily by using foobar abx...


----------



## kendal3334

with my ZVM and MX500, i can find some differences between 320K mp3 and WAV, but they appears only on the high frequency.

 with my other stuffs i'm not listening to mp3.......


----------



## 928GTS

I can certainly hear the difference between MP3's in various bit rates and FLAC and I can hear a decent difference between,say,a 160kbps file and one ripped at 320kbps. However,when you're getting music from sources besides CD sometimes you just don't have a choice. 

 If I booted up a filesharing program or bittorrent I'm not going to spend an extraordinary amount of time searching for the highest quality rip I can find. I'll give it my best effort,sure,but in the end I want to listen to music and enjoy myself. 

 I'm eventually going to buy a drive and devote it entirely to FLAC recordings just so I can have that reference quality there should I desire it.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kendal3334* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_with my ZVM and MX500, i can find some differences between 320K mp3 and WAV, but they appears only on the high frequency._

 

No wonder, since 320Kbps files run through a low-pass filter during encoding.


----------



## chadbang

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not sure if this would work... but bear with me and let me know what you think.

 What if I were to create 2 files, both the exact same section of music from the same disc; one encoded at 320kbps and the other at 192.

 I would then convert the files back to .wav and join them into one file so that one would play first, then the other.

 I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which._

 

I recently tested myself (and my new Kef 103.2 reference speakers). I took Pink Floyds "Wish You were here" and ripped it into Lame at 256Kbs. Then I burned it back to a cd as a wav/aiff file (I'm on a Mac and we use .aif not .wav). 

 I could easily hear the difference between the original cd and the 256k file. The mp3 lacked air and bass roundness compared to the original.

 But I only rip to Mp3 for my ipod, so the difference is probably -- _probably_ -- moot. But comparing the 2 formats on a $2k system, yeah, no problem telling the difference. So many of the guys here who say they can hear the difference are probably the guys with the good portable rigs. They're not being snobby audiophiles, the just have killer portable systems.


----------



## milkweg

I've done ABX in foobar with 192kb/s mp3 and lossless wav on myself and a friend and we both failed to tell the difference. This was on HD595 headphones via an EMU 0404 used as a DAC and amp with a conection to an X-Fi via SPDIF coax. I used both classical and rock music too. Perhaps that equipment is not resolving enough to tell the difference?


----------



## Seamless Sounds

Our hearing threshold goes up to about 20khz. A 192kbps gets chopped off at around 16khz. A 320kbps goes up to 20khz, the human hearing threshold.

 I've done some tests on myself. The 4khz that was chopped off is extremely quiet. All you hear in this region is a tweetering sound, like a very high pitch whistle. However I was able to isolate the high frequency (>16khz) from the lower frequency (<16khz) and compared both 320kbps and 192kbps (at frequencies greater than 16khz). Since it's so quiet, I upped the volume. The difference is like night and day. The 192kbps sounded lifeless like a dog limping while the 320kbps sounds fuller like a dog running with spirit. Of course if your cans are more treble oriented or totally flat (no huge drops in the high frequency end) then you could probably hear the difference.

 Soundstage is also different. I took snapshots of both songs at different bitrates. The top pic is 320kbps and the bottom is 192kbps.













 At first I thought stereo imaging wouldn't be affected much. Apparently when it's encoded, it's altered somewhat.


----------



## knights

i can hear dif between 128, 192 and 320.. but i failed in 320 vs. loseless... im using v0 VBR mp3 by lame3.98 via foobar...

 source: miniONE notebook + ibasso boa + sen eh-350


----------



## indianbraker

im pretty sure 98% of people cant hear the difference between 320 and lossless.....i guess the ones with 10k in equipment but i have never been able to tell the difference myself.


----------



## Currawong

How about seeing the difference?

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f15/lo...-p-7-a-225356/


----------



## milkweg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HeadFi Fanatic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Our hearing threshold goes up to about 20khz._

 

Most people over 30 can not hear above 17k. That's a fact and not opinion. In the UK they are testing a method to keep teenagers from loitering outside certain stores by playing high frequency tones that only younger people can hear just for that reason.

 I just ordered a pair of BeyerDynamic DT-990 so will run the test again with those headphones too. I still expect I will fail to tell the difference because I am 50 years old so my ability to hear really high frequencies is poor unless I really crank the volume. I have a test cd that will play all the frequncy tones and have tested my ears with that and can only hear above 17k if I turn the volume up really loud which is way above the level I listen to music at and even then it is very faint. Headphones are tuned to roll off the high frequencies anyway so they don't hurt our ears because of how close the headphone speaker is to the ears compared to stereo speakers.

 Seeing the difference has nothing to do with hearing the difference. It's like the light spectrum, we can only see a small part of the light spectrum with our eyes.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've done ABX in foobar with 192kb/s mp3 and lossless wav on myself and a friend and we both failed to tell the difference. This was on HD595 headphones via an EMU 0404 used as a DAC and amp with a conection to an X-Fi via SPDIF coax. I used both classical and rock music too. Perhaps that equipment is not resolving enough to tell the difference?_

 

It can be the equipment, or something else. Like:
 * The music. Since some music are harder to lossy compress and keep transparent than others. Ex. low tempo classical vs. metal.
 * Your ability to hear artifacts.
 * and probably more...


----------



## milkweg

I deliberately chose music pieces that would use the full range so it's not that. I tested me and a friend so I guess both of us have poor ability to hear artifacts. I'm not going to sweat it anyway because if I can't hear a difference then there is no difference as far as I am concerned. I will continue to run ABX testing as I add/remove new equipment though to see if that is the reason. DT-990 are far more detailed than HD595 so if I those headphones fail the test too then I doubt I will ever hear a difference.


----------



## Nikita

Yes.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nikita* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes._

 

Straight to the point...


----------



## obobskivich

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nikita* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes._

 

i like this point, because its true, there is really a difference between two files with different bitrates 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 now if there is a perceptable increase in quality, thats subjective, and depends on the person, the equipment, source media, encoder used, etc 
 generally, the difference is "minor" for most people, at least from everything I've heard people say on head-fi (as in, most people say they don't notice a difference or a large difference, or links/whatever is provided to again support that), personally I agree with the subjective, variable nature of it, nothing is going to be fully black and white, so why should we attempt to whittle it down?


----------



## milkweg

Yes, I agree. So people should stop lying and say they hear a night and day difference between 256kb/s mp3 and a flac file.


----------



## melomaniac

neighbors and spouses, is there really a difference?


----------



## Currawong

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *melomaniac* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_neighbors and spouses, is there really a difference?_

 

Yes, especially when you're sleeping with them.


----------



## chef8489

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, especially when you're sleeping with them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What if they are sleeping with each other and ask you to join?


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *melomaniac* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_neighbors and spouses, is there really a difference?_

 

There sure are!
 Some a tall, some are short, some are skinny, some are round, some are old, some are young, .... you get the picture.


----------



## moonboy403

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've done ABX in foobar with 192kb/s mp3 and lossless wav on myself and a friend and we both failed to tell the difference. This was on HD595 headphones via an EMU 0404 used as a DAC and amp with a conection to an X-Fi via SPDIF coax. I used both classical and rock music too. Perhaps that equipment is not resolving enough to tell the difference?_

 

I did a comparison between 128/160/192/320kbps of the same song using my W5000 and the difference was definitely there. Going from 128 to 192, the difference was HUGE. Bass tightened up considerably. The bad echoing of the 128 was gone. Clarity and details also increased.

 However, going from 192 to 320 is a different story. The difference wasn't very dramatic, but I noticed that the 320 is more dynamic. The 192 sounded flat.

 I had my roommate listen to them and he came to the same conclusion.


----------



## Bobofthedead

Well, I'm not sure about 192 and 320 kbps, but I can tell a difference between 128 and 320 kbps even with an iPod Nano and Senneheiser CX300s jammed in my ears, not the most of resolving of headphones. The difference, to spout a cliche, is not quite night and day, but is definitely cloudy twilight and decent midday. The 128s sound thin, without a back, so to speak: the lack of timbre leaves the music feeling hollow and lifeless; whereas the 320 kbps mp3s are more dynamic and have better timbre and detail: in short, they have more life.


----------



## Meliboeus

on my modest system i came to the conclusion that the rise in quality from 128 to 192kbps is substantial, music at 128k sounds compressed, percussions lack impact, there's still some noticeable improvement from 192 to 320k, however in most of the cases i was not able to tell apart cd quality ( or lossless flac ) and 320 kbps mp3s, but it depends on the tracks....just my 2 cents


----------



## Headphile808

Theoretically, a 320kbps file holds 30% more information than a 192kbps file. Audibly, bass definition & overall soundstage & detail benefit although differences is not as a apparent as it is on paper. 
 Happy Holidays
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Headphile808


----------



## krmathis

Yes!


----------



## fameh

Totally agree, noticeable difference from 192-320. And you don't need a very good headphones for that. Obviously with them you will find the difference bigger! On my desktop system is much more perceptible than on ipod+senn cx300. There is sometimes only a small difference.

 Personally, in 192 vs 320, i feel basses and medium frequencies not very far but i feel highs much brigther, brilliant and detailed. More spatial sound 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Obviously a good rip process is important too, not just the final bitrate


----------



## xz123

So... who can prove it? Like, with a blind test?

 Look at hydrogenaudio, for example. Except for rare cases ("problem samples" etc.) the consensus there is (afaik) that with current codecs even 128 is in most cases transparent.


----------



## smuh

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fameh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Totally agree, noticeable difference from 192-320. And you don't need a very good headphones for that. Obviously with them you will find the difference bigger! On my desktop system is much more perceptible than on ipod+senn cx300. There is sometimes only a small difference.

 ...snip...

 Obviously a good rip process is important too, not just the final bitrate _

 

Same here. Can hear the difference with my Stax, but it also depends on the music I listen to...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xz123* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So... who can prove it? Like, with a blind test?
 ...snip..._

 

Well, I can hear it and low bitrate mp3's really annoy me as it just sounds like a bad recording to me. And there are numerous threads that show what kinda difference there is. I prefer FLAC, just to make sure I get the whole thing, even if I am not able to tell the difference between 192KBps MP3 and FLAC.

 I just don't feel good listening to my music with the idea that I could be missing something


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xz123* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So... who can prove it? Like, with a blind test?

 Look at hydrogenaudio, for example. Except for rare cases ("problem samples" etc.) the consensus there is (afaik) that with current codecs even 128 is in most cases transparent._

 

Where the key word is *most cases*!
 hence in some cases there are an audible difference, and hence the answer is quite clear.


----------



## xz123

Yeah, but that's not the same as in "I hear the difference! My 128kbps tracks sound ****ty". That'd be more like "_Some_ of my 128kbps tracks sound ****ty". (Which is acceptable and my experience, too)

 @smuh: abx please.

 (although I understand the need to use flac just to make sure you don't miss a thing)

 --

 I got all my music in ogg vorbis -q 6.5. Seems enough for me.


----------



## Vladislav

I have 3 letters for you - ABX.

 What you think you hear, what you 'feel' is irrelevant if you want to talk science. 

 I've worked in sound research for years and people don't hear as well as they think they do. As far as I remember the only times we got amazing results were from people who were clueless about their abilities. People who boast about their hearing were most likely in general range.

 Unless you ABX mp3 192 and mp3 320 and can get a consistent, solid 80+% then you can't tell the difference, plain and simple. I would guess that one out of a hundred people might actually pass this test but not other 99 (unless it's some really rare strange sample that's too obvious).

 If you want to talk Placebo then obviously all of us would rather listen to FLAC since it sounds 'better'.

 Don't fool yourself, until you ABX you can't comment on how you can hear. Mind plays tricks on you.


----------



## Pio2001

Don't forget that for many people, 192 kbps means 192 kbps CBR, which is probably ABXable against 320 kbps.
 All Hydrogenaudio tests are done with VBR.


----------



## LostOne.TR

For some of my music, I believe I can hear the difference, for a considerable amount of others, I'm pretty sure I can't (or even if I could, the effort it would take to pay attention to such a thing, wouldn't allow me to enjoy the music). For a few, I bought the CDs because the mp3s I had didn't sound that good. When I got the CD, I found out it wasn't that much the fault of the mp3 =/.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xz123* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, but that's not the same as in "I hear the difference! My 128kbps tracks sound ****ty". That'd be more like "Some of my 128kbps tracks sound ****ty". (Which is acceptable and my experience, too)_

 

So true!
 But if one (1) person can prove (ABX test) that he can hear an audible difference between 192 and 320Kbps, then that is enough to say that there is an audible difference.

 Not anyone is able to hear it, but thats another discussion.


----------



## scompton

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So true!
 But if one (1) person can prove (ABX test) that he can hear an audible difference between 192 and 320Kbps, then that is enough to say that there is an audible difference.

 Not anyone is able to hear it, but thats another discussion._

 

But that's why I'm an advocate of doing your own ABX tests. Even if 1 in 10 can hear a difference in a track and I can't, I don't want to waste the space on my portable player. Since I've never heard a difference between 128kbps VBR and lossless, I'm content to have all 30,000 tracks from my library on my iPod. I don't advocate that for everyone, just those who can't pass an ABX test. They're easy to do and I was very surprised that I couldn't hear the difference. I also advocate having a lossless archive.


----------



## thatguyoverthere

well, there are 90 something posts I didn't read, but if you want to test it correctly, make 2 copies of a song with identical metadata (name, artist, etc...) Then listen on shuffle. If you have an iPod, you can press the center button twice and give the song a rating on the fly. Use this to determine if you can, without knowing, hear a difference.

 I did this for 3 songs. On all 3 I could tell 128Kb/s from 196, but not 196 from higher. I also only have CX500s, though. Maybe with better headphones I could.

 Personally, I think it's very much headphone dependent.

 And I'd be amazed if anyone could not hear the difference between, say, 128 and 320. I found it very striking.


----------



## powertoold

I'm a skeptic with anything audio related, but I think with a good Stax system, you would be able to tell the difference. Once you go high-end, you'll realize that CDs have a lot more information than just the sounds: there's space, position, timbre, tone, etc. 

 Once I get a good Stax system, I'll have someone blind test me


----------



## scompton

I've done most of my ABX tests with an SR-Gamma and I've never heard the difference between 128 and lossless.


----------



## powertoold

Wow, I was playing with the ABX Comparator, and it's difficult to tell the difference between 100kbps VBR (encoded from FLAC) and FLAC.

 Can anyone actually tell the difference with some certainty?

 I've only tried Beethoven 9th - Molto Vivace with my laptop.


----------



## powertoold

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *thatguyoverthere* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_well, there are 90 something posts I didn't read, but if you want to test it correctly, make 2 copies of a song with identical metadata (name, artist, etc...) Then listen on shuffle. If you have an iPod, you can press the center button twice and give the song a rating on the fly. Use this to determine if you can, without knowing, hear a difference.

 I did this for 3 songs. On all 3 I could tell 128Kb/s from 196, but not 196 from higher. I also only have CX500s, though. Maybe with better headphones I could.

 Personally, I think it's very much headphone dependent.

 And I'd be amazed if anyone could not hear the difference between, say, 128 and 320. I found it very striking._

 

Or you can just use ABX Comparator!


----------



## sahwnfras

I really cant believe this has gone to 11 pages. I mean for everyone reading this wondering whats better here is what to do.
 1. Rip from a CD a 192 track
 2. Rip from a CD a 320 track
 3. Listen
 4. Realize they both suck in comparison to the CD

 Really people just listen for your own ears, if you cant tell the diff good for you and save some space. You could argue all day on the internet but that will never chage what you hear in your own ears.


----------



## powertoold

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sahwnfras* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really cant believe this has gone to 11 pages. I mean for everyone reading this wondering whats better here is what to do.
 1. Rip from a CD a 192 track
 2. Rip from a CD a 320 track
 3. Listen
 4. Realize they both suck in comparison to the CD

 Really people just listen for your own ears, if you cant tell the diff good for you and save some space. You could argue all day on the internet but that will never chage what you hear in your own ears._

 

Use the ABX Comparator and you'll be surprised at the little difference at regular safe volumes, even at 64kbps VBR compared to FLAC. I can tell 100% between 64kbps VBR and FLAC, but I have to listen for a while!

 It's interesting how people perceive "differences" with audio. I guess many of the people here who claim they can tell the difference through "testing" got it right a few times in a row and then concluded they can hear some difference! Do 10 tests of the ABX Comparator, then come back and tell us your results!


----------



## scompton

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *powertoold* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, I was playing with the ABX Comparator, and it's difficult to tell the difference between 100kbps VBR (encoded from FLAC) and FLAC.

 Can anyone actually tell the difference with some certainty?

 I've only tried Beethoven 9th - Molto Vivace with my laptop._

 

From what I've read, cymbal crashes are one of the sounds where it's easier to hear the difference. That said, I've not heard it. Somewhere on Hydrogen Audio, I saw some sample tracks that are supposed to be easier to hear the difference. I saw them before doing ABX tests and haven't been able to find them since.


----------



## powertoold

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *scompton* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From what I've read, cymbal crashes are one of the sounds where it's easier to hear the difference. That said, I've not heard it. Somewhere on Hydrogen Audio, I saw some sample tracks that are supposed to be easier to hear the difference. I saw them before doing ABX tests and haven't been able to find them since._

 

I don't doubt that there are audible differences (100kbps VBR vs FLAC), but in terms of being able to notice them when you're normally listening, it's not worth it if you have a small capacity MP3 player. 

 I'd definitely use FLAC for peace of mind, but otherwise, I think those claiming to hear differences haven't been truly tested. 

 This is an interesting discussion on the perception of audio differences. A lot of people will go around claiming differences in file compression, source, cables, power cables, you name it, but in the end, I'm not sure if any of these people have done any critical testing. Perhaps a lot of the "differences" we hear about on Head-Fi are caused by wanting to hear a difference - in other words, a placebo effect. I know that I've fallen victim to this many times.


----------



## scompton

I listen to lossless on my computer because I have it. I want the lossless archive. I almost always listen to my iPod in very noisy environments, like the subway or mowing the grass. I think that even if I could hear the difference, I'd still use 128 on my iPod because the background noise would overwhelm any subtle difference.


----------



## sahwnfras

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *powertoold* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Use the ABX Comparator and you'll be surprised at the little difference at regular safe volumes, even at 64kbps VBR compared to FLAC. I can tell 100% between 64kbps VBR and FLAC, but I have to listen for a while!

 It's interesting how people perceive "differences" with audio. I guess many of the people here who claim they can tell the difference through "testing" got it right a few times in a row and then concluded they can hear some difference! Do 10 tests of the ABX Comparator, then come back and tell us your results!_

 

Meh, you know what i really havent tested extensivly. But from times i have tested, i wasnt impressed. And really if i found that i couldnt notice a diff i still wouldnt change. It would be to much work to rip it all, and/or convert it.

 Im a ease of use kinda guy, CDs are easy and sound great.


----------



## powertoold

I think it's easiest to tell the difference with jazz, since it extends to both frequency extremes with the cymbals and bass. 

 Using my iBasso D2 Viper and FreQ Shows, I could easily tell the difference between 100kbps VBR and FLAC by listening to the cymbals, but at 130kbps VBR and FLAC, there was absolutely nothing obvious that I could tell. I think with a Stax system, I would be able to hear more of the high frequencies and tell the difference. It's funny too! At times, I thought I figured out something different - for example "one is sounding more open and spacious!", but it turns out they're the same - oh the glories of deceiving and nonexistent audio differences. 

 I know people will come in here thinking "it's this guy's source" or whatever 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 EDIT: Ok, woohoo! I found a track where I could tell the difference between 130kbps VBR and FLAC. I lost at 190kbps


----------



## moonboy403

I can usually hear a difference between 128kbps and 192kbps and up especially during busy passages or when there's very heavy bass and high highs.


----------



## powertoold

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *moonboy403* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can usually hear a difference between 128kbps and 192kbps and up especially during busy passages or when there's very heavy bass and high highs._

 

Test it with ABX! The differences are not obvious at all!

 Plus, I doubt you can hear a difference between 128 and 192 (VBR) since they are so close in bitrate, and both are taken through the pass filter, so they lose some of the highs.


----------



## sdfx

Interesting how this is 12 pages. I do for VBR (Rarely have) 128, 160, 192, and some cases 256? for what I rip or download. For CBR usually 192-320. After 192 for most songs not really a difference, but it also depends on the type of music IMO. For example, Vivaldi's Four Seasons versus Pendulum's Blood Sugar. In Four Season's I'm sure you would notice a difference in CBR, but as for VBR not really, though the instrumentals will be easier to tell apart, less sibilance in some cases, it can be more airy and clear in general. Blood Sugar is just drum n bass so it doesn't really differ in CBR or VBR. The type encoder say Lame, Xing, and what not also play a difference in the quality for mp3s.

 If you can't find a difference in SQ for either VBR or CBR pick the more space efficient VBR and smaller Bit rate. For peace of mind like me I just pick like 192, 256, or 320.


----------



## No Smoking

I just used audacity to rip a coldplay viva la vida flac to 128kb and 320kb. Then I randomised the list in foobar and changes the names and repeated such that I had no idea which song was which. I was able to tell which one was FLAC however I wasn't able to hear a difference between 128kb and 320kb. For anyone interested the section of the song I was using was between 1min49sec to 2min.

 Edit: I accidently ripped it at a constant bitrate rather than VBR.


----------



## royalcrown

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *No Smoking* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then I randomised the list in foobar and changes the names and repeated such that I had no idea which song was which._

 

If you're using foobar, you can just use the ABX comparator built into the program. I don't have foobar on the computer I'm using, so I'm saying this from memory, but I believe you select the songs, right click -> utils -> ABX; something along those lines.


----------



## powertoold

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *royalcrown* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're using foobar, you can just use the ABX comparator built into the program. I don't have foobar on the computer I'm using, so I'm saying this from memory, but I believe you select the songs, right click -> utils -> ABX; something along those lines._

 

A lot of people don't have ABX installed because it's an optional utility during the installation.

 Go download the newest foobar, and when it's installing, check out the optional plug-ins and choose ABX Comparator and freedb tagger. After this, you can select two songs (by holding down the control key), right click one of the songs, then go to Utils -> ABX Two Tracks.


----------



## MCC

There certainly is a difference. I can tell with 100% accuracy on an ABX the difference between 192k and 320k (both lame cbr q0). It's still possible for me to tell between 256k and 320k, but only on certain recordings. That comparison takes much more critical listening than I usually have time for these days.

 VBR is a different story altogether though. I haven't tried 192 VBR in an ABX, but I suspect that it would be difficult to distinguish from 320CBR on many recordings. More complex/deep/well recorded music will stretch the limits of what MP3 can accurately encode with a given bitrate, so these tracks would be most likely to show 320k to be superior.

 Plus, there's always the negative subconscious effect that low bitrate MP3s seem to have (at least for me). Anything 128k-192k can give me a headache if I listen too long, but better encodings never give me problems.

 It never hurts to encode things in the best quality you can- storage is dirt cheap these days, and a lossless library means you'll never have to re-rip. Even if you can't tell the difference now, you might later after some upgrades.

 Edit: I use my HQ collection to feed my portable collection, where I use Lame v2. The difference is non-existent for me with my portable equipment, but at least I have a good collection to take from should this change.


----------



## melomaniac

if instead of playing a whole song/piece, you just A/B a section, it should be quite clear, even on a system that is not otherwise revealing


----------



## scompton

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MCC* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It never hurts to encode things in the best quality you can- storage is dirt cheap these days, and a lossless library means you'll never have to re-rip. Even if you can't tell the difference now, you might later after some upgrades.

 Edit: I use my HQ collection to feed my portable collection, where I use Lame v2. The difference is non-existent for me with my portable equipment, but at least I have a good collection to take from should this change._

 

The argument that storage is cheap is made frequently without the qualification of your edit. Yes storage is cheap for computers, which is why I'm slowly reripping everything to lossless for an archive. However, storage is not cheap on portables. Except for Archos players, large capacity isn't available for any price, new. Unfortunately, Archos players don't meet my other requirements such as gapless playback. If my 160GB iPod dies, I'll have to go back to deciding what music to not have on my iPod and I hate doing that.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *melomaniac* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if instead of playing a whole song/piece, you just A/B a section, it should be quite clear, even on a system that is not otherwise revealing_

 

I've never used a longer clip that 30 seconds and I've used as short a clip as a single cymbal crash, and I've never heard the difference with my Stax SR-Gamma. Part of it probably has to do with age, part to lousy memory for subtle differences in sound, and part not training my brain on what to listen for. Although the last 2 shouldn't have been a problem with a single cymbal crash.

 There was a thread last year with Dave Mathews and Guns & Roses samples and directions for using a Java based ABX software that produced tamper proof results. If memory serves, one person who participated in the thread, passed the ABX test.


----------



## Earwax

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xz123* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So... who can prove it? Like, with a blind test?

 Look at hydrogenaudio, for example. Except for rare cases ("problem samples" etc.) the consensus there is (afaik) that with current codecs even 128 is in most cases transparent._

 

Did you try it yourself? 

 For me, 128 isn't tranparent. Even on a crummy built-in sound card and a CMOY amp I can ABX 128 vs. Flac easily. I didn't notice artifacts, but the 128 is flat, less air or soundstage. ( Now, 192 vs. Flac is much harder for me - I'll have to try that one again later... ) 

 [Edit, I'd better qualify that, 128 CBR is easy. 128 VBR not nearly so easy, but still discernable.. I don't think I want to even try 198 VBR now.] 

 It bothers me that hydrogen audio dosn't take into account the type of equipment being used. Claiming transparency based on tests with "stock" sound card setup isn't the same as if it was acheived with high quality DAC and headphones.


----------



## powertoold

I think the best way to go if you're worried about disk space is 160kbps VBR. I don't think you would be able to tell much difference from 320 or FLAC.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *powertoold* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the best way to go if you're worried about disk space is 160kbps VBR. I don't think you would be able to tell much difference from 320 or FLAC._

 

Depends who you ask, and which gear he/she listed to.
 Cause some of us can hear an audible difference between 320Kbps lossy and lossless. Hence 160Kbps would be even less transparent.

 To each their own of course.


----------



## digger945

I just did a back and forth clicking on Funkytown by Lipps, one 128 and the other 192, about 4 or 5 seconds of the beginning of each(iTunes).
 Easily distinguished the difference, no problem. Didn't have to listen hard or strain to hear it either, and I really don't think I have all that good hearing!
 I really don't think my equipment is anywhere near top of the line either.
 I'm gonna do a 192/320 comparo now.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digger945* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just did a back and forth clicking on Funkytown by Lipps, one 128 and the other 192, about 4 or 5 seconds of the beginning of each(iTunes).
 Easily distinguished the difference, no problem. Didn't have to listen hard or strain to hear it either, and I really don't think I have all that good hearing!
 I really don't think my equipment is anywhere near top of the line either.
 I'm gonna do a 192/320 comparo now._

 

Is this an ABX or just a back and forth comparison?


----------



## krmathis

Damn unresponsive forum...


----------



## krmathis

digger945. Using an ABX application I presume?
 Some claim to hear an audible difference, so its no surprise if you do.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is this an ABX or just a back and forth comparison?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_digger945. Using an ABX application I presume?
 Some claim to hear an audible difference, so its no surprise if you do._

 

He says he did this via iTunes, so it's really not a valid testing method to go by. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digger945* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*I just did a back and forth clicking on Funkytown by Lipps, one 128 and the other 192, about 4 or 5 seconds of the beginning of each(iTunes).*
 Easily distinguished the difference, no problem. Didn't have to listen hard or strain to hear it either, and I really don't think I have all that good hearing!
 I really don't think my equipment is anywhere near top of the line either.
 I'm gonna do a 192/320 comparo now._


----------



## b0dhi

Between 128 and 192 I think the difference is big enough to tell just by comparing ad hoc, but for the 192/320 test I suggest using an ABX tool (ideally the Java one from the Public ABX thread, since it's very well designed).

 My own experience is that for extremely subtle differences, such as differences between high bitrate VBR and lossless, the differences are well below the threshold of suggestibility. Even for samples I can tell apart with p < 0.001, it's just as easily possible to literally hear what I expect to hear. You definitely need an objective feedback mechanism such as ABX to train yourself to work with these subtleties IMO.

 I think a lot of people become disheartened when they can't tell the difference in an ABX at first and then give up. The brain isn't used to doing such a precise analysis of the audio coming from the ears, so it takes some training and a lot of concentration to get it happening. With some effort, though, I think most people can do it.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He says he did this via iTunes, so it's really not a valid testing method to go by. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ooops, I missed that text in his post.


----------



## digger945

^Yea I wasn't trying to do some formal test, I just noticed that I had the same song on iTunes in both 128 and 192 formats, so I just clicked on one and listened for about five seconds, then clicked on the other one and listened for about five seconds, back and forth, over and over.
 The difference is very noticable, with the 192 track having much more information, echo, decay, you can hear the cow bell much differently.

 Just curious, but why exactly is it that iTunes is not a valid testing method?
 If not then what is?


----------



## digger945

What is an ABX application?


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digger945* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is an ABX application?_

 

An application allowing you to perform a blind test.
 For audio you input sample A (the lossless source) and sample B (the lossy file). Then you play back the stream, determining if sample X (random A and B) equals A or B. Then make a score for you, based on how you pick the correct one and hence how likely it is that you guess the answer.

 Read more: ABX test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Depending on you OS you may want to check out these applications:
http://www.rarewares.org/files/other...-java-0.5b.zip
ABC/HR Audio Comparison Utility


----------



## digger945

Ahhh I see. Thanks for the link.
 That would work well if the person being tested were able to have control over the player so they could switch back and forth quickly.
 I would imagine that the differences are much more apparent with music that the listener is intimitely familiar with.

 Good reading.


----------



## Kicksonrt66

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digger945* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ahhh I see. Thanks for the link.
 That would work well if the person being tested were able to have control over the player so they could switch back and forth quickly.
 I would imagine that the differences are much more apparent with music that the listener is intimitely familiar with.
 ._

 

The only one I've used is winabx. You can set begin and end marks to compare a short passage, and certainly if you set the test up yourself you can use familiar music. 

 If you are training yourself to tell the difference you might want to start with some classic cases known to expose problems like "castinets" 

 Here are a bunch of samples considered "obvious," with descriptions of the artifact and the sample available in "bad" (perhaps Xing 128kb/s), "good"(lame insane), and lossless.

Artifact Training Page


----------



## scompton

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digger945* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ahhh I see. Thanks for the link.
 That would work well if the person being tested were able to have control over the player so they could switch back and forth quickly.
 I would imagine that the differences are much more apparent with music that the listener is intimitely familiar with.

 Good reading._

 

The Java based one does what you want ABC/HR Audio Comparison Utility

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kicksonrt66* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only one I've used is winabx. You can set begin and end marks to compare a short passage, and certainly if you set the test up yourself you can use familiar music. 

 If you are training yourself to tell the difference you might want to start with some classic cases known to expose problems like "castinets" 

 Here are a bunch of samples considered "obvious," with descriptions of the artifact and the sample available in "bad" (perhaps Xing 128kb/s), "good"(lame insane), and lossless.

Artifact Training Page_

 

Thanks for the samples


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digger945* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ahhh I see. Thanks for the link.
 That would work well if the person being tested were able to have control over the player so they could switch back and forth quickly.
 I would imagine that the differences are much more apparent with music that the listener is intimitely familiar with.

 Good reading._

 

Thats how its supposed to be performed.
 You start with a WAV (PCM) audio clip you know well, and encode it with a lossy encoder. Then feed these two clips into the ABX application.
 Its then time to perform the blind test. Testing if you can hear an audible difference between them, re-listening to sample X as many times needed to tell if its sample A or B thats the source of it.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depending on you OS you may want to check out these applications:
http://www.rarewares.org/files/other...-java-0.5b.zip
ABC/HR Audio Comparison Utility_

 

Thanks for those links. I just noticed that Java ABCHR has an annoying random delay when you trigger any of the A/B/X samples with keyboard. The delay is, I'm guessing, around 20ms but because it's random it really gets in the way >_< The 2 native Windows utilities (Winabx and ABCHR-ff123) don't have seem to have a random delay.

 I wonder if it would be worth adding an ASIO output to ABCHR-ff123. Might also be useful to have audible feedback so you know whether you got it right without having to open your eyes and break your concentration. *adds to to-do list*


----------



## krmathis

^ The pleasure is on my side. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I have mixed impressions with the Java ABC/HR application as well. On Mac OS X (which I run) it create a popping noise each time I switch audio streams. Which takes away my concentration on the sound, and make the comparison worthless.
 I worked with the developer some years back, but sadly we found no real fix.


----------



## powertoold

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depends who you ask, and which gear he/she listed to.
 Cause some of us can hear an audible difference between 320Kbps lossy and lossless. Hence 160Kbps would be even less transparent.

 To each their own of course. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well, if someone were worried about disk space, he is most likely trying to use a portable player 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 These days disk space is rarely a factor for desktops, so it'd be a bad idea to rip to MP3s.


----------



## b0dhi

If anyone else is interested, I modified ff123's program a little to make it easier to ABX. Changes: -
It now gives you a high tone if your attempt is correct and high tone followed by a low tone if you're incorrect.
I removed the "Next trial" button. The "next trial" now begins as soon as you make a selection.
I changed the keyboard shortcuts to be the same as ABCHR-Java. This is to make it easier to do the ABX with eyes closed. q, w, e plays A, B, X and a, s selects A, B, respectively.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/abchr-mod.zip


----------



## powertoold

Hey krmathis, can you tell the difference with ABX p < 0.05 between 320kbps and lossless with your systems?


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *powertoold* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, if someone were worried about disk space, he is most likely trying to use a portable player 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 These days disk space is rarely a factor for desktops, so it'd be a bad idea to rip to MP3s._

 

But it still depends who you ask and which rig they use.
 Cause some rigs are more transparent than others, and our ability to hear artifacts vary a lot.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *powertoold* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey krmathis, can you tell the difference with ABX p < 0.05 between 320kbps and lossless with your systems?_

 

Never tried with this system.
 Cause as mentioned above Java ABC/HR are borked on Mac OS X, and I have so far found no other ABX application...

 ..and I don't really care either. Cause I did not find LAME transparent some years back, and switched to lossless. Not turning back.


----------



## thomasshi

I have lots of mp3s encoded by LAME 3.92 alt-preset-extreme setting, the rate is about 250kbps. I must say they sound as good as 320kbps to me on ipod/rockboxed sansa paired with head-direct RE2. 

 The resons could be:
 1. there is no audible difference between VBR 250 and CBR 320
 2. my player/earphone combination is not good enough to allow me tell the difference.

 Whatever the reason is, I do not care much, since mp3s are for on-the-go use only. I have enough hard-drive space for lossless formats like Flac/Ape. 

 It is true that I can save 60-70% of the space if I change everything to VBR mp3. But I do not want to spend lots of time doing so. My rockboxed sansa E270 + 8G microSDHC holds about 40 CDs in Flac, and it takes just a few minutes to transfer files from my computer.


 On my home setup of Head-direct EF1 with Senn HD600, I can tell the difference between Flac and those mp3s. Mp3 lacks some fine details and soundstage accuracy. Again, these differences are not perceivable on my sansa/RE2.


----------



## powertoold

Has *anyone* been able to tell a significant difference (10/10+ correct on ABX) between 320kbps and FLAC on any system?

 Or even 192kbps VBR and 320kbps?


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *powertoold* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Has *anyone* been able to tell a significant difference (10/10+ correct on ABX) between 320kbps and FLAC on any system?

 Or even 192kbps VBR and 320kbps?_

 

I'm not sure if people can tell 320 vs lossless. I haven't tried it yet, but even if someone can't pass an ABX, that doesn't mean there is no difference to them. It's possible that lossless has a different effect on the brain than 320kbps, but that the listener doesn't have the ability to consciously discern between the two. What one doesn't know can still have an effect on them.

 Yes, people can tell 192 vs 320.


----------



## Figlio Perduto

sadly, i mean i'm not running on an amazing system, just a macbook, yamaha receiver and the D2000, but i can't tell the difference between most (imported from cd) 160kbps and flac on a lot of music i have, the majority actually. If i had a better setup i may. 128kbps for sure. stuff that i don't import myself from cd and get by "other means" i can tell the difference between 160kbps and 192kbps, but after 192, i cannot. saves me space i suppose. even SADDER, for state of mind i keep all albums dear to me in 320kbps or lossless, hah. oh our stateofminds.


----------



## saintalfonzo

When you can get a 1TB external for around $100 and portable mp3 players hold well over 100 gigs why would you bother going lower than 320Kbps mp3? Even if you can't tell the difference on your present rig, maybe you will be able to with stuff you buy in the future. You might as well store everything in lossless and avoid regretting it in the future.


----------



## Figlio Perduto

well hard drive space is the least of my worries, and honestly if i even remotely thought i was going to make a big upgrade down the road i would definitely be hurrying along and going 320kbps across the board. but i am now where i intend to be for the rest of my headphone life. im not a reference listening type of person (but i do listen closely), i dont care to pinpoint flaws in the mastering of a recording or if that is EXACTLY how bjork intended me to hear that bass note, it is for me about the music and the "fun" of it. and i came to headfi because i do love sound and wanted amazing sound, and i feel that i have that. if anything gets upgraded i may get a portable amp for my ipod, but for now that is rather enjoyable unamped with the D2000. the D2000 in itself was the upgrade ive been looking for for quite some time and i get everything i could have ever hoped for out of them, 192kbps files and all.


----------



## scompton

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *saintalfonzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When you can get a 1TB external for around $100 and portable mp3 players hold well over 100 gigs why would you bother going lower than 320Kbps mp3? Even if you can't tell the difference on your present rig, maybe you will be able to with stuff you buy in the future. You might as well store everything in lossless and avoid regretting it in the future._

 

My library almost fills my 160GB iPod at 128kbps. The argument that storage is essentially unlimited is a bogus argument for some. I'm slowly reripping my CDs to lossless for an archive, but it will never be on my iPod that way. Before I'm finished, I hope 2TB disks are available.

 iPods don't really like the large files anyway.


----------



## TheSatelliteGuy

I started at 192. I imported 200 cds. Thought it was great. I then learned that cd quality was 320. I was impressed with the sound. I re imported all those cds and was impressed. Then I learned about lossless(990). I was now hearing things that I had no idea was on the recording. I have a lot of sound equiptment and I own 4 Imods. I believe that better quality equiptment is necessary to reveal all the improvements. Thats cans, cables, amps and mods. Two years ago I discovered that cds are delivered with a coating that is a dry lubricant that is necessary in manufacturing. It is a pretty thick coating. It also has a effect on the music. The coating is so thick that when I buy used cds that have noticeable surface scratches and I remove the coating the scratches disappear. You would think you would have to polish them off but they were in the protective coating. When this coating is removed the sound improves in a unreal way. I now refer to music quality with the coating intact as mud. If you are now listening to cds with this coating you are in for a big correct that, huge surprise. There are two easy ways to remove this coating. Polishing it in a scratch removal machine like a JFJ easy pro(i own one, pain in the butt) or use Xtreme Cables Online Store products. I have done 500+ cds with this product and every audiophile and plain music enthusiast that has A/B this process has a jaw drop. You cannot hear the real sound that is on a cd without this step. There are many other things that can be done to improve SQ but this is a mandatory step. The coating keeps the laser from reading all the info fast enough and you are actually listening to 30 to 50 % error correction. Think of it this way, if you are looking at a oil painting with sun glasses on and then you take the glasses off. You will see more. 2 to 10 K cd players have technology that helps correct this problem but is a waste of money if you don't have it. I don't care if you are listening on a $100 boom box or a $10k accuphase you will be blown away at the improvement. Now when this improvement is done do some comparisons in bit rate and you will not settle for mud. You will pick the higher rate. I have about 1200 songs on my 80gig imod and it is maxed out and people are blown away by how revealing the sound is. The optical enhancer works well also. This is one product you won't return for your money back.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheSatelliteGuy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Two years ago I discovered that cds are delivered with a coating that is a dry lubricant that is necessary in manufacturing. It is a pretty thick coating. It also has a effect on the music. _

 

Can you point to a citation for this, I have never heard of this, and evidence that it does affect the laser reading the CD - not anecdote and not audio sales chatter please. Some before and after measurements or level matched blind listening tests, thanks.


  Quote:


 The coating keeps the laser from reading all the info fast enough and you are actually listening to 30 to 50 % error correction. 
 

Can you provide some evidence for this *extraordinary* claim ?. How are you measuring the error correction rate ?


  Quote:


 2 to 10 K cd players have technology that helps correct this problem 
 

Sorry, what technology apart from the robust error correction that is fundamental to all CD playback do these uber players have ?. Error rate is pretty much a non issue in CD playback.


----------



## Figlio Perduto

haha this will never end....

 i also here that if you break your CD into exactly 51 (equal) pieces and glue them back together you will get a sound that is actually the sound that the artist and or band had in mind when they were ABOUT to record the album...


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Figlio Perduto* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_haha this will never end....

 i also here that if you break your CD into exactly 51 (equal) pieces and glue them back together you will get a sound that is actually the sound that the artist and or band had in mind when they were ABOUT to record the album..._

 

lmao

 Not sure if this has been posted before but this paper was very interesting. The authors find a large difference in brain activity (EEG and PET) between music with ultrasonic content vs music without ultrasonic content. This makes me really curious to listen to a good SACD or DVD-a system. Although it would need to be a speaker system, because the authors suggest that the ultrasound perception mechanism may not be through the ears (similar to the way low frequency can be perceived via bone conduction).

 If true, this means that comparing 320kbps vs lossless CD audio would be like trying to tell which of two muddy (but slightly differently muddy) windows were muddier. I'd be curious to know if someone has compared 320kbps vs SACD/DVD-a. 

 Also, the authors show that the brain activity lags behind the stimulus by tens of seconds, which explains why previous studies failed to show that people could hear it (the sample length for a typical ABX test tend to be 30 seconds or less).


----------



## chadbang

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *scompton* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My library almost fills my 160GB iPod at 128kbps. The argument that storage is essentially unlimited is a bogus argument for some. I'm slowly reripping my CDs to lossless for an archive, but it will never be on my iPod that way. Before I'm finished, I hope 2TB disks are available.

 iPods don't really like the large files anyway._

 

128kbs? Eeek. Do yourself a favor, downsize collection, upgrade sample rate. I dont hear that much difference between 190kbs & 320kbs, but I sure as hell can pick out a 128kbs mp3.


----------



## chadbang

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheSatelliteGuy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are two easy ways to remove this coating. Polishing it in a scratch removal machine like a JFJ easy pro(i own one, pain in the butt) or use Xtreme Cables Online Store products. I have done 500+ cds with this product and every audiophile and plain music enthusiast that has A/B this process has a jaw drop. You cannot hear the real sound that is on a cd without this step. ... The optical enhancer works well also. This is one product you won't return for your money back._

 

Er, right.


----------



## ZenErik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheSatelliteGuy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I started at 192. I imported 200 cds. Thought it was great. I then learned that cd quality was 320. I was impressed with the sound. I re imported all those cds and was impressed. Then I learned about lossless(990). I was now hearing things that I had no idea was on the recording. I have a lot of sound equiptment and I own 4 Imods. I believe that better quality equiptment is necessary to reveal all the improvements. Thats cans, cables, amps and mods. Two years ago I discovered that cds are delivered with a coating that is a dry lubricant that is necessary in manufacturing. It is a pretty thick coating. It also has a effect on the music. The coating is so thick that when I buy used cds that have noticeable surface scratches and I remove the coating the scratches disappear. You would think you would have to polish them off but they were in the protective coating. When this coating is removed the sound improves in a unreal way. I now refer to music quality with the coating intact as mud. If you are now listening to cds with this coating you are in for a big correct that, huge surprise. There are two easy ways to remove this coating. Polishing it in a scratch removal machine like a JFJ easy pro(i own one, pain in the butt) or use Xtreme Cables Online Store products. I have done 500+ cds with this product and every audiophile and plain music enthusiast that has A/B this process has a jaw drop. You cannot hear the real sound that is on a cd without this step. There are many other things that can be done to improve SQ but this is a mandatory step. The coating keeps the laser from reading all the info fast enough and you are actually listening to 30 to 50 % error correction. Think of it this way, if you are looking at a oil painting with sun glasses on and then you take the glasses off. You will see more. 2 to 10 K cd players have technology that helps correct this problem but is a waste of money if you don't have it. I don't care if you are listening on a $100 boom box or a $10k accuphase you will be blown away at the improvement. Now when this improvement is done do some comparisons in bit rate and you will not settle for mud. You will pick the higher rate. I have about 1200 songs on my 80gig imod and it is maxed out and people are blown away by how revealing the sound is. The optical enhancer works well also. This is one product you won't return for your money back._

 













 Even if stuff like this were to work (I'm skeptical), would it even affect CD ripping?


----------



## scompton

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chadbang* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_128kbs? Eeek. Do yourself a favor, downsize collection, upgrade sample rate. I dont hear that much difference between 190kbs & 320kbs, but I sure as hell can pick out a 128kbs mp3._

 

Since I've never heard the difference between 128 and lossless, I see no reason to do this.


----------



## ZenErik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *scompton* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since I've never heard the difference between 128 and lossless, I see no reason to do this._

 

Huuuuuuuuuuuge difference, IMO.

 128 sounds so compressed. Often flangy cymbals (and everything else). Sound stage is tiny... Clarity is down the drain.


----------



## chadbang

well, i wasn't going to argue, but....


----------



## Kicksonrt66

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chadbang* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_128kbs? Eeek. Do yourself a favor, downsize collection, upgrade sample rate. ._

 

AFAIK, mp3 doesn't support sample rates over 48 kHz, and I doubt there's any advantage to upsampling source material (CD) from 44 to 48 just so you can say the rate's higher.


----------



## scompton

He said sample rate, but in relation to 128kbps, so he obviously meant compression rate.


----------



## ZenErik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *scompton* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He said sample rate, but in relation to 128kbps, so he obviously meant compression rate._

 

Seems to be the case. I guess it really depends on one's equipment and ear, but I don't think I've ever talked digital music with anyone before that couldn't tell the difference between 128kpbs and something like 320 or lossless.


----------



## scompton

Here's a thread from a year and a half ago where no one who was willing to take the test could tell the difference.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/pu...r-ears-250237/

 I tried both samples a couple of times and sent in my best result which was exactly 50%. Since I never heard a difference and was totally guessing, 50% is what could be expected.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *scompton* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's a thread from a year and a half ago where no one who was willing to take the test could tell the difference.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/pu...r-ears-250237/

 I tried both samples a couple of times and sent in my best result which was exactly 50%. Since I never heard a difference and was totally guessing, 50% is what could be expected._

 

2 people could tell actually. Those results came in after the OP stopped maintaining the thread. 3 if you include a previous success at the same bitrate by one poster.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_2 people could tell actually. Those results came in after the OP stopped maintaining the thread. 3 if you include a previous success at the same bitrate by one poster._

 

I see only one (you) that completed at least 10 trials using the specified protocol. One person who claimed 14/16 in FooBar failed on the test protocol and the other only did 7/7 which is not enough.

 We do not know however how many folks did this test and did not report their results so we do not know if it was 1/20 or 1/100. 

 Not that this makes your achievement any less impressive.

 Since I am not blessed with your ears I will keep encoding in MP3


----------



## scompton

I stand corrected
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I thought I remembered someone passing it, but with a quick look I couldn't find it. It still shows that numerous people can't tell the difference, which is why I posted in reply to the comment by ZenErik that he's never heard anyone claim they can't hear the difference. I think in reality, more people can't than can. 

 I think some can't hear it because they don't know what to listen for, which could very well apply to me. A big factor in my case is probably my age though. I'm 49 next week. The last hearing test I had, I tested normal, but that's normal for a (at that time) 45 year old. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear the top 4K Hz.


----------



## DW87

I can usually only tell a real difference when listening to more simple electronic music like house or trance. I find more complex music harder to tell a difference for some strange reason.


----------



## Nocturnal310

i can tell a difference without comparison...


----------



## milkweg

I've done abx testing on 192kb/s mp3 vs lossless .wav and could not tell a difference, nor could my friend when I tested him. If we failed that then I highly doubt anyone could tell the dif between 192 and 320.

 For the abx test I used both classical and rock music.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've done abx testing on 192kb/s mp3 vs lossless .wav and could not tell a difference, nor could my friend when I tested him. If we failed that then I highly doubt anyone could tell the dif between 192 and 320.

 For the abx test I used both classical and rock music._

 

Actually , there are one or two verified ABX tests here on this forum where folks can tell the difference even between 320 and lossless. My estimate is that approximately 1% of listeners can do this. It is not unreasonable to predict that a small sample can do the 192 v 320 thing. 

 I have never tried seriously but I doubt that I can do it, having 50 year old ears. V0 ~ 245K is good enough for my purposes.

 Having said that "I can hear the difference" < > "In an blind ABX I scored...."


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *scompton* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think some can't hear it because they don't know what to listen for, which could very well apply to me. A big factor in my case is probably my age though. I'm 49 next week. The last hearing test I had, I tested normal, but that's normal for a (at that time) 45 year old. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear the top 4K Hz._

 

Totally agree with you. My hearing isn't special at all, below average for a 25yo if anything (~17Khz is as high as I can go). IMO it's not the ears but how well you use them. I think almost anyone could train themselves to ABX 192 vs 320, if not higher bitrates. I modified one of the ABX programs to give audible feedback for correct/incorrect attempts and to allow one handed operation (no, not for that). It works really well for training. I think there's a link to it somewhere in this thread, or if anyone wants a copy just PM me.


----------



## milkweg

If you have to train your ears to hear it then it is not worth me being concerned about. In this case, ignorance is bliss, as they say.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you have to train your ears to hear it then it is not worth me being concerned about. In this case, ignorance is bliss, as they say._

 

That seems like a reasonable position. Indeed, since it is your preference, it's hard to argue with it. But I would suggest it's also reasonable for someone to decide that it is worth it for them to train their ears to appreciate something of higher quality. By analogy, some folks might wish to train themselves to appreciate fine art or fine wine, or even fine food. To each his own.


----------



## AlanE49

Guys-- I'll preface the comment that follows by saying that I haven't read this whole thread from its beginning to the most recent post, however I didn't see the issue raised in any of the posts I looked at.

 In my view I find that a key line of demarcation tends to be between orchestral music/opera versus chamber or instrumental music. I listen mostly to classical and jazz. Jazz and classical chamber/solo instrumental music are very similar as they both employ smaller instrumental forces. As a general rule of thumb (and admittedly a broad overstatement which some of you will no doubt pounce on), I find that the fewer instrumental voices there are, the easier it is to reproduce them clearly and (somewhat) faithfully. With smaller forces or solo instruments I find that 320k or even 192 VBR works very well, and, psychoacoustically speaking, it's hard to hear a displeasing difference between these formats and CD audio. Conversely, when I listen to symphonic music or opera, the lack of clarity and detail in the lossy formats becomes more discernable, the presentation gets kind of smushed and muddled, and the listening experience suffers accordingly. Have any of you other folks experienced this?

 Alan


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you have to train your ears to hear it then it is not worth me being concerned about. In this case, ignorance is bliss, as they say._

 

Oh I absolutely agree with you. Though the reason I do it isn't to hear more things, it's to better understand what I do hear. Also, it's just interesting to poke at the limits of one's perceptions to see what happens, or what can happen. It's completely optional so far as it concerns the enjoyment of music


----------



## krmathis

One person stating that he/she can't hear a different and proving it with an ABX test don't tell much.
Only that there are no audible difference to his/her ears, using those specific test tracks and his/her audio gear.

 There may still be differences, that others may hear.


----------



## m0ofassa

Factually, there IS a difference.
 There is an audible difference between 192 CBR and 320kbps CBR (general consenus).
 Line becoems blurred at 192 VBR, where people here will say they can hear the difference, but hydrogenaudio will say there is no audible difference. Its your choice who you want to believe (hint: hydrogenaudio).
 That said, I store my stuff in lossless codecs because I can.
 oggenc is better for small-space storage anyway.
 EDIT: if you listen to the middle of the spectrum (grado-fans ahoy) then you can hardly hear the difference. If you are paying a lot of attention to the highs, its plainly obvious IMHO. Also bass articulation. but thats my 2c. some Grado fans will tell you they can hear the difference between 256 and 320 though. But maybe they can. I dont care, to be honest. It doesnt matter, as it is no indication that what they are hearing is different to (or even more so BETTER than) what you are hearing. Maybe people who dont hear it have brains that are better at compensating for the shortcomings of a particular compression.


----------



## numba1

One more time, fellas, THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE between 192 & 320, it is audible even on cx300.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *numba1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One more time, fellas, THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE between 192 & 320, it is audible even on cx300._

 

Then scoring at least 20/20 in blind tests should be utterly trivial for you. Feel free to post the screenshot from your tests.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *numba1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One more time, fellas, THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE between 192 & 320, it is audible even on cx300._

 

Sure! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 ..and you have of course performed an ABX test to back up your statement.


----------



## yeahx

I have heard a difference. It depends on the music, as at least one person said in the start of this thread. I had to check this out because the title is so hilarious!


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yeahx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have heard a difference. It depends on the music, as at least one person said in the start of this thread. I had to check this out because the title is so hilarious! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Perhaps you have, perhaps you imagined it, a DBT to prove this is easy and fun.


----------



## monolith

I've only heard obvious differences with some music. With a lot of music, I'd be surprised if someone could reliably ABX 192kbps from lossless.


----------



## alexpea

It varies from person to person, and environment (barometic pressure) also plays a vital role. The main thing to remember, however, is that downscaling a wav-file is done in relation to the human-average masking perception. A sound can occur, yet not be heard by the human ear - because of audio masking. Basically, what an encoder does, is to remove those sounds that (for the average human ear) can't be heard - because they are masked by another soundsource. Therefore, it veries a great deal from person to person.


----------



## Pio2001

Here is the translation from a post that I made in a french forum :

  Quote:


 In lossy enconding, the quality evolves, from the strongest compression to the weakest, in a rather strange way.

 At very low bitrates, that is below 96 kbps, the more it is compressed, the more it is distorded, and treble-rolled off. The treble loss is done on purpose, because treble are the heaviest frequencies to encode. They are plainly removed before the encoding. Otherwise, the encoder would use 50% of the file for frequencies, if not inaudible, at least very little important in the orchestra, and the remaining 95% of music would have to deal with the 50% remaining room in the file. 

 Between 96 and 140 kbps, according to the hardware and the listening conditions (laptop speakers especially), some people find that the sound is the same as the original. But on a hi-fi system, this is not the case. Distortion is present.

 At 140 kbps, there is a change. The sound becomes perfect for a large part of the instruments, or even for entire tracks. Degradations can still be audible, but they do not affect all sounds. Only given frequecies or instruments. Before the 2000', castanets were well-known for being unencodable into mp3. Since then, encoders have been adapted. 

 From 200 kbps upwards, succeeding an ABX test becomes a real challenge. But it is still possible as long as we purposely choose the musical sample, among tens of others, that gets down the encoder. With mp3 especially, that remains true at high bitrate : everything's perfect, except for a small glitch or click, just in one place, just where it is annoying when we know where it is. The kind of things that we'd better not know if we want to listen in peace, otherwise, we hear is it everytime. 

 But mp3 is hindered by too restrictive technical specifications, like the impossibility for VBR to go above 320 kbps, even for a small time, just where it glitches and where it is needed, or for the impossibility to manage the last frequency band scalefactor independantly from the others, which requires to cut treble a bit agressively in order to avoid filesize bloating when there is just a small sound just in this band that requires all the possible precision. 
 Mp3 has thus been surpassed in quality and reliability by other lossy codecs. Musepack (mpc files. To my knowledge, only Cog can play them on MacIntosh) have been the pioneer in audiophile lossy codecs. The sweet spot is around 170 kbps. A nearly always transparent sound, with still some small glitches, but less than in mp3.

 It is now supplanted by AAC (iTunes or Nero codec, .aac or .mp4 extention), proprietary, and Ogg Vorbis, free.
 ABC/HR tests (large scale ABX tests that allow to rank encoders by quality in a double blind process) on average bitrate, near 140 kbps, have shown that Windows Media Audio Pro was very good also. But, not satisfied with being proprietary, it is also rare, and often confused with WMA standard. Contrary to WMA standard, WMA pro is unplayable on most mp3 players.

 WMA standard is not very good. It has been ranked below mp3 in Roberto Amorim's 2004 128 kbps multiformat test.

 Thus we have, by ascending quality order, around 140 kbps

 -WMA standard
 -Lame mp3
 -AAC, WMA pro, Musepack and Ogg Vorbis, all tied.

 According to Guruboolez' personal ABX tests (a golden ear having performed hundreds of ABX on hundreds of musical samples from all musical styles), Vorbis would be slightly superior to the others since the aoTuV R1 version (from 2005).

 These codecs acheive a quite good transparency since 140 kbps in high fidelity listening. It is still possible to trick them at these bitrates, but it is necessary to know them well. This is less easy than with mp3, where everything that sounds like a pulse train and that "buzzes" is badly rendered, for exemple. 

 From 180 kbps, one has to be an expert in order to ABX them, and choose the music in killer sample directories.
 Beyond, some killer samples still exist, but quality keeps going up with the bitrate. To find a new killer sample is an exploit, appreciated by developers, who are never far away from Hydrogenaudio forums. 

 Musepack, with quality 10, for example (slightly below lossless) have been ABXed only once in the world, to my knowledge, and by one listener. When we have tried to repeat the exploit with the same sample, we failed. 

 To my knowledge, nobody has ever ABXed Vorbis at maximum quality. 

 However, this is not very interesting because between 190 and 400 kbps, all we gain is the elimination of a glitch or a click that affect 1 second among 30 CDs, and not far above, there are lossless codecs. 

 Personnaly, I use Vorbis quality 6 (around 180 kbps). I find Vorbis distortion, when it is audible, nicer to the ear that mp3's, or Musepack's. Mp3 and Musepack gurgle. Vorbis only seems to add hiss, so that subjectively, the sound itself, that is behind, sounds unaffected. 

 Here are my listening test results. Anyway, the whole topic is interesting. Everyone contributes with his own ABX : ABX Just Destroyed My Ego - Hydrogenaudio Forums

 Many blind tests are listed in Hydrogenaudio's wiki : Hydrogenaudio Listening Tests - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

 Big ABC/HR public listening tests are given at the bottom, in "external tests", by Roberto Amorim and Sebastian Mares.

 I recall that comparisons based on spectrgrams, cancellation, or artifact amplification (SoundExpert tests) are not valid for assessing psychoacoustic lossy encoders quality.


----------



## evilking

256kbps VBR with current lossy codecs is so perfect I would have thought the lossy debate was finished. 112.5 megabytes per hour, what usage scenario needs less than this?

 Just listen to it.







 EK


----------



## fyu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *alexpea* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It varies from person to person, and environment (barometic pressure) also plays a vital role. The main thing to remember, however, is that downscaling a wav-file is done in relation to the human-average masking perception. A sound can occur, yet not be heard by the human ear - because of audio masking. Basically, what an encoder does, is to remove those sounds that (for the average human ear) can't be heard - because they are masked by another soundsource. Therefore, it veries a great deal from person to person._

 

I think that's my case. I can't pointout exact differences, but I'm ~98% correct on comparing the few tracks I've compared. (used foobar with the included ABX plugin)
 frankly. I don't think I would notice at all without comparing.


----------



## milkweg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That seems like a reasonable position. Indeed, since it is your preference, it's hard to argue with it. But I would suggest it's also reasonable for someone to decide that it is worth it for them to train their ears to appreciate something of higher quality. By analogy, some folks might wish to train themselves to appreciate fine art or fine wine, or even fine food. To each his own. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I like decent wine but would never spend more than $20.00 on a bottle because I know the difference between a decent $20.00 bottle and the $100.00 bottle is only 1% at best and not 80%. I can apply that to many fine things in life, including audio gear.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like decent wine but would never spend more than $20.00 on a bottle because I know the difference between a decent $20.00 bottle and the $100.00 bottle is only 1% at best and not 80%. I can apply that to many fine things in life, including audio gear._

 

The more $20 bottles of wine you have, the more you appreciate that last 1% a $100 bottle offers.


----------



## milkweg

Well, it is more than I am willing to spend to find out so it will remain a mystery to me. I think the 1% difference is probably just the name though and not the taste.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like decent wine but would never spend more than $20.00 on a bottle because I know the difference between a decent $20.00 bottle and the $100.00 bottle is only 1% at best and not 80%. I can apply that to many fine things in life, including audio gear._

 

Yes, I would say that one's judgments on this type of issue might indeed apply across a number of products or choices, in part just based on simple economics. Putting aside for the moment that what is a 1% difference to one person might be a 50% difference to someone else, if one's financial position is such that they have school loans to pay off (for example), it would seem to be a rational decision not to pay $80 more for a wine that tastes 1% better. On the other hand, if you're Bill Gates, it's a different evaluation.


----------



## milkweg

For a student I think $20.00 is too much for a bottle of wine even. I remember back in 1979 I used to be able to buy a litre of Donini for $3.75.


----------



## gore.rubicon

to the latest generation...no
Music Is Dead: iPods and Young People Have Utterly Destroyed Music


----------



## Quaddy

of course there is, theres a whole 128kbs differential, which is one mans audible feast!


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_of course there is, theres a whole 128kbs differential, which is one mans audible feast!_

 

Indeed!
 When just looking at the bitrate (hence also file size) its that easy. But when talking about audible difference its not that easy. Of course there are a difference, but it may not be audible to some while its highly audible to others.


----------



## TubeStack

Haven't read entire thread, but there's a _huge_ difference between 192 and 320.

 However, as krmathis said, what's audible to one person is not necessarily audible to another. (If a tree falls in the forest...)

 So, the question asks, "is there a difference?" 

 In a philosophical sense, to those who hear it, yes. To those who don't, no. 

 But a more technically-minded approach would argue the difference is there whether one can hear it or not.

 Both viewpoints seem true, to me.


----------



## milkweg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Indeed!
 When just looking at the bitrate (hence also file size) its that easy. But when talking about audible difference its not that easy. Of course there are a difference, but it may not be audible to some while its highly audible to others._

 

Yes, but you make it sound like being audible is a majority when in fact it is a very small minority so you should change that to audible to *some* but not to most. And then you have to add hyperbole by saying "highly" audible to others and I just find that very hard to believe. "Highly" audible I find a very subjective comment and don't believe it for one second because my ears are just not that bad.


----------



## milkweg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TubeStack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But a more technically-minded approach would argue the difference is there whether one can hear it or not.
_

 


 Yes, that is true but if a person can't hear it then it is meaningless. Which is the majority of the population. The same goes for upsampling, technically there is a difference but if one can't hear it then it is meaningless in the real world. I swear some of you that claim to hear a difference are not being honest either because you refuse to take ABX tests.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, that is true but if a person can't hear it then it is meaningless. Which is the majority of the population._

 

I didn't realize there were some study studies done that determined that the "majority of the population" couldn't hear a difference and that only a "small minority" could. Interesting. Can you refer us to the study or studies that concluded that? Also, I'd be curious as to what bit rates were tested also in those tests.


----------



## Pio2001

Some links on this topic. All based on blind tests.

 December 2005, the last multiformat public listening test at 128 kbps (actually around 140) : Results of the public multiformat listening test @ 128 kbps (December 2005)

 All of the 18 samples were rated above 4.0 with all 4 encoders, except maybe one, encoded with mp3, on the following scale :
 1 - very annoying 
 2 - Annoying
 3 - Slightly annoying
 4 - Perceptible, but not annoying
 5 - Imperceptible

 Which means that 128/140 kbps compression was barely perceptible for the group, made of about 30 listeners.

 June 2006 : the ABX Just Destroyed My Ego - Hydrogenaudio Forums thread on hydrogenaudio.

 All of sudden, forumers started ABXing their own encoder. The thread starter could not hear the difference between 64 kbps and the original, while he was, before the test, reluctant to use lossy compression, even at 320 kbps, instead of FLAC, and could not imagine listening to something as a 128 kbps mp3.
 Many listeners could not distinguish between 128 kbps and original. 

 Soundexpert tests with artifacts amplification : Audio quality of encoders at 128 kbit/s - SoundExpert

 Many codecs are rated above 5 in the 128 kbps test, which means, according to their documentation that their distortion can be considered to be outside the hearing ability of the listeners. They used special tricks in order to amplify the distortion on the samples under test. 

 However, these are collective tests, made with many untrained listeners. On the other hand, some tests made by trained listeners show that at 175 kbps, for example, differences are still audible, even without using especially difficult samples : MPC vs OGG VORBIS vs MP3 at 175 kbps - Hydrogenaudio Forums


----------



## PhilS

Pio2001, thanks for the references. Very interesting. I thought it was a little questionable to generalize. I'll have to take some time to read some of the links.


----------



## milkweg

The facts are all over the place so do a little of your own research on the subject. I've already done mine and that is why I give your subjective opinion very little credibility. The facts are: the majority of the population can not tell the difference between 192kb/s and lossless so the chance of hearing the difference between 192kb/s and 320kb/s MP3 is next to impossible for the majority of the population. Even if you claim you can hear a difference it is such a small and negligible amount of difference that these claims of huge differences just make me want to puke because I know they are lies, damned lies and more lies.


----------



## TubeStack

Again, it's a massive difference, simple as that.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The facts are all over the place so do a little of your own research on the subject. I've already done mine and that is why I give your subjective opinion very little credibility._

 

I'm crushed.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Even if you claim you can hear a difference it is such a small and negligible amount of difference that these claims of huge differences just make me want to puke because I know they are lies, damned lies and more lies._

 

Wow, you are something.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I didn't realize there were some study studies done that determined that the "majority of the population" couldn't hear a difference and that only a "small minority" could._

 

Yes, there as many such tests (a few quoted above), or just follow some Hydrogenaudio test threads to see how it's supposed to be done. And most of the tests I've seen are at relatively low or at most mid (192 kbps-ish) rates because above that even trained listeners find it nearly impossible to reliably resolve lossy from lossless. Above 256 kbps a very few of an expert group sometimes can on test samples, but it seems overwhelmingly true to say that 256 and above is essentially transparent in any meaningful sense for the vast majority of the population. Well, except for Head-Fi members, of which so many can 'easily' tell the difference... you know, less 'soundstage' and 'openness'... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I wouldn't go so far as to call anyone a liar just because they say they can easily resolve one high-bitrate lossy format from another (because I think people do at least _believe_ what they are saying, regardless of accuracy), but let's just say that such reports at the very least... well... strain credulity.

 .


----------



## PhilS

Double post somehow.


----------



## imademymark

why do all of these get personal? i think i can- tell the difference between 192 and lossless, but 320 is somewhere in between, and i'm not sure i can differentiate them from lossless/ 192 consistently. 

 i like to think of audiophile experience as a stacking thing, like it all adds up so that when you play lossless, out from a good source, into a good amp, and through good headphones then it sounds wonderful, but if you isolate anyone of the variables and say "ah ha! but how much difference would it make if i remove just a little bit of bytes, or i substitute the amp for a model without certain premium parts can you tell?" then its might not be as meaningful as you might think.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Above 256 kbps a very few of an expert group sometimes can on test samples, but it seems overwhelmingly true to say that 256 and above is essentially transparent in any meaningful sense for the vast majority of the population. Well, except for Head-Fi members, of which so many can 'easily' tell the difference... you know, less 'soundstage' and 'openness'... 
_

 

Well, we'll just go around and around on this, but what some people _hear_ and what people are able to _prove_ they hear under _testing_ _conditions_ may or may not be the same. A number of you accept such tests as infallible. Some of us don't, although they certainly need to be considered IMO. I would also say, however, that that the fact that some people accept such tests does not make me puke.

 I think I will test this for myself under conditions that, for me, are more realistic than what appears to be involved in some of the testing.


----------



## hybris

It's more or less useless to discuss these kinds of things. mp3, loudspeaker cables, it's all the same discussions. 

 Anyone that can hear "massive differences" between 192kbps and 320kbps (assuming a good quality encoder) or a regular loudspeaker cable that have acceptable electrical/impedance qualities compared to a loudspeaker cable that costs the same as a car are helpless victims of placebo. 

 Proper ABX testing is a bit fiddly, but the point can be made even with a simpler test. 

 Bring home a few friends, encode say 30 seconds of a few tracks in 128, 192 and 320kbps mp3 with the lame encoder. Then you put the same track (but with different bitrate) in a playlist several times, say 15 times (each bitrate repeated five times) in random order. 

 Now the rest of you guys who don't know the playlist order try to rate the sound quality, or even guess which bitrate are playing for each of the 15 tracks. 

 I can tell you right now that your results will be completely random, perhaps you're able to place the 128kbps track a few times. So you guys go home and do that test, and come back here and tell us that you still think it's a massive difference. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Then the rest of us can lean back and chant "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hybris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Anyone that can hear "massive differences" between 192kbps and 320kbps (assuming a good quality encoder) . . . ._

 

 Why do the differences have to be "massive"? If there's a difference one can hear, isn't that enough? Isn't it up to the individual to determine, assuming _arguendo_ that they hear a difference, what to do about it (e.g., record in lossless and lose space, etc.)?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hybris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Bring home a few friends, encode say 30 seconds of a few tracks in 128, 192 and 320kbps mp3 with the lame encoder. Then you put the same track (but with different bitrate) in a playlist several times, say 15 times (each bitrate repeated five times) in random order. 

 Now the rest of you guys who don't know the playlist order try to rate the sound quality, or even guess which bitrate are playing for each of the 15 tracks. 

 I can tell you right now that your results will be completely random, perhaps you're able to place the 128kbps track a few times._

 

That test is not very good, IMO. I'll bet lots of people have trouble hearing differences under those conditions. I can see about five different obvious flaws in it -- bascially it doesn't mirror normal listening conditions or the conditions under which people might be able to hear differences.

 I think I'll have two songs that I listen to regularly recorded to my MP3 player at 128 (just to start there). Then I'll listen regularly to those two songs over the next week or so in lossless. Then I'll have my wife play the songs at 128 or lossless (her choice) and see if I can tell the difference. Isn't that a fair test -- one that doesn't involve listening to (1) songs you don't know on (2) other people's equipment or equipment you don't regularly use and (3) flipping back and forth rapidly between songs and (4) not trying to determine just differences but being forced to identify which bit rate is which?


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I'll have two songs that I listen to regularly recorded to my MP3 player at 128 (just to start there). Then I'll listen regularly to those two songs over the next week or so in lossless. Then I'll have my wife play the songs at 128 or lossless (her choice) and see if I can tell the difference. Isn't that a fair test -- one that doesn't involve listening to (1) songs you don't know on (2) other people's equipment or equipment you don't regularly use and (3) flipping back and forth rapidly between songs and (4) not trying to determine just differences but being forced to identify which bit rate is which?_

 

I don't see anything wrong with that as an informal test, assuming that you are playing back the lossy and lossless files on the same player and you do the test enough times to eliminate the chance of guessing (and getting it right two or three times in a row isn't enough, that still carries a very high possibility that you were just guessing correctly.)


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't see anything wrong with that as an informal test, assuming that you are playing back the lossy and lossless files on the same player and you do the test enough times to eliminate the chance of guessing (and getting it right two or three times in a row isn't enough, that still carries a very high possibility that you were just guessing correctly.)_

 

Yes, I'll use the same player and same phones, etc., and keep my phones in my ears so that the only thing that is changing is a different track being selected by my wife or whomever is selecting the track. I also agree about the number of trials.


----------



## ChroniCali

192kbps and 320kbps definitely has a pretty significant difference IMO.


----------



## hybris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why do the differences have to be "massive"? If there's a difference one can hear, isn't that enough? Isn't it up to the individual to determine, assuming arguendo that they hear a difference, what to do about it (e.g., record in lossless and lose space, etc.)?
_

 

It doesn't have to be massive, if it's even audible, that's argument enough to go for the higher bitrate. I was commenting on how people (which several have done in this thread) very often exaggerate how much difference there is. If you have to spend a week to prepare in order to be able to hear the difference between 128kbps and lossless, the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps can hardly be classified as "massive", or even significant (as some people claim) ?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I'll have two songs that I listen to regularly recorded to my MP3 player at 128 (just to start there). Then I'll listen regularly to those two songs over the next week or so in lossless. Then I'll have my wife play the songs at 128 or lossless (her choice) and see if I can tell the difference. Isn't that a fair test -- one that doesn't involve listening to (1) songs you don't know on (2) other people's equipment or equipment you don't regularly use and (3) flipping back and forth rapidly between songs and (4) not trying to determine just differences but being forced to identify which bit rate is which?_

 

Sounds like a fair test, and I'm confident you will be able to hear the difference. But the subject of the thread was 192kbps vs 320kbps, not 128kbps vs lossless.


----------



## insyte

Personally, you have to really concentrate to find the difference, but there is a difference


----------



## TubeStack

I've played the same songs back-to-back, comparing both rates (192 and 320), not knowing which one I was necessarily going to hear, and instantly heard huge differences between the two rates, especially when played over a decent home stereo system (not headphones).

 It was most apparent on loud, guitar-heavy material (Metallica's _Death Magnetic_, ZZ Top's _Chrome, Smoke & BBQ_ set).

 Besides an improvement in detail, clarity, bottom-end, and overall warmth that occurred when the songs were encoded at 320, a general annoying sheen (ie. non-warm, brittle) that encased the music encoded at 192 or lower, disappeared when encoded at the higher rate. 

 Again, this was not over headphones, but a home system, and the difference was clearly apparent.

 No need for others to get angry if they don't hear a difference in their own listening experiences and environments, who cares, really.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hybris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Sounds like a fair test, and I'm confident you will be able to hear the difference. But the subject of the thread was 192kbps vs 320kbps, not 128kbps vs lossless._

 

Yes, but there are suggestions, if not outright assertions, in this thread that people cannot tell the difference between any of the formats, and I thought I would start with what is most likely to be the largest difference, and then go from there if it's worthwhile. Moreover, part of my interest is not just to test the difference, but also to explore some issues about testing itself.


----------



## hybris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TubeStack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've played the same songs back-to-back, comparing both rates (192 and 320), not knowing which one I was necessarily going to hear, and instantly heard huge differences between the two rates, especially when played over a decent home stereo system (not headphones).

 It was most apparent on loud, guitar-heavy material (Metallica's Death Magnetic, ZZ Top's Chrome, Smoke & BBQ set).

 Besides an improvement in detail, clarity, bottom-end, and overall warmth that occurred when the songs were encoded at 320, a general annoying sheen (ie. non-warm, brittle) that encased the music encoded at 192 or lower, disappeared when encoded at the higher rate. 

 Again, this was not over headphones, but a home system, and the difference was clearly apparent._

 

I'm impressed you found any detail, clarity or overall warmth whatever the bitrate on Death Magnetic. The sound is compressed so hard it's actually distorting. If you found a clear difference on 192 and 320kbps on that album I think you need to get a new mp3 encoder.


----------



## hybris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, but there are suggestions, if not outright assertions, in this thread that people cannot tell the difference between any of the formats, and I thought I would start with what is most likely to be the largest difference, and then go from there if it's worthwhile. Moreover, part of my interest is not just to test the difference, but also to explore some issues about testing itself._

 

Go ahead, we're always interested in tests and its results.


----------



## Eleazar

I think the best thing to do would be to hear the artifacts that compressed audio introduces. It's important to train your ears so you know what you are listening for. I would encode a song that you are very familiar with and that preferably has a lot of frequency range, high highs and low lows. I trance song with someone like Sarah McLachlan's voice would be good. You could also try two different well known songs. If you have any choral music or opera you listen to, pick a part with women's soprano. Another kind of music that seems to very audibly produce sound compression artifacts for me personally is Gregorian chant, whether male or female, especially when they sing in unison loudly and the solemn echoing begins. 

 I listen on Pandora.com which does 128 AAC and it is surprisingly awful sometimes.

 Once you get an ear for what poorly compressed sound is, you won't have trouble picking it out from higher kbps encodings. Do realize that on some music it will be more prominent than others, it can actually be difficult to tell a difference with certain music. For mp3's I use hydrogenaudio's suggested VBR settings and the latest stable release of LAME.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eleazar* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the best thing to do would be to hear the artifacts that compressed audio introduces. It's important to train your ears so you know what you are listening for._

 

Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to do. I haven't completed everything yet, as I got interrupted, but my very preliminary reactions were as follows:

 1. At first, the differences between 128 and lossless were not as great as I anticipated.

 2. There really is a "training" issue. As you listen more and more, certain differences between the formats appear, and it's as if each one has a signature that is recognizable once you become familiar with it.

 3. The ability to listen and train sighted seems to me to be a crucial element. Having trained myself knowing what I was listening to has made it much easier to identify the differences blind. Although I haven't completed all the blind testing yet, I think this it is quite apparent that this makes a difference. I seem to recall that this phenomenon was pointed out in the "Null Hypothesis" thread, and I would suggest that this is one of the deficiencies in some of the DBT's that have been undertaken.

 I'll report back more when I have a chance to do some more blind testing.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_3. The ability to listen and train sighted seems to me to be a crucial element. Having trained myself knowing what I was listening to has made it much easier to identify the differences blind. Although I haven't completed all the blind testing yet, I think this it is quite apparent that this makes a difference. I seem to recall that this phenomenon was pointed out in the "Null Hypothesis" thread, and I would suggest that this is one of the deficiencies in some of the DBT's that have been undertaken._

 

All of the ABX software I've seen does account for that factor, i.e. you can listen to an identified 'A' or 'B' as many times as you like before listening to the unknown 'X'.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All of the ABX software I've seen does account for that factor, i.e. you can listen to an identified 'A' or 'B' as many times as you like before listening to the unknown 'X'._

 

The software may do this, but not all of the DBT's I've heard or read about do this (not just talking about DBT's in this area).


----------



## AtomikPi

I have ABX'ed in Foobar all the way from 128 CBR to 320 CBR vs. flac. Honestly, although I could successfully ABX them all (3/3 each - cymbal crashes in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" made this relatively simple) I honestly think even 128 CBR, except for a few minor digital artifacts sounds 95% as good as FLAC. The successively higher bit rates (128, V2, V0) each sounded slightly closer to flac but each sounded extremely similar to each other. I'm still planning on ripping to V0 to be safe, but I wouldn't say you're missing too much with even 128.


----------



## euphoracle

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AtomikPi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have ABX'ed in Foobar all the way from 128 CBR to 320 CBR vs. flac. Honestly, although I could successfully ABX them all (3/3 each - cymbal crashes in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" made this relatively simple) I honestly think even 128 CBR, except for a few minor digital artifacts sounds 95% as good as FLAC. The successively higher bit rates (128, V2, V0) each sounded slightly closer to flac but each sounded extremely similar to each other. I'm still planning on ripping to V0 to be safe, but I wouldn't say you're missing too much with even 128._

 

It also kind of depends on how the encoder is encoding it. I've heard 128 mp3s that sound terrible and others that, as you mentioned, are indistinguishable save some digital artefacts unique to the mp3 compression scheme. I've also heard 128 files that sound better than 192 files. Likewise, I've heard some tapes that sound better than their CD counterparts. There isn't a bold print line determining which format has the highest quality or which medium, for that matter. Truth be told, humans imagine sound. I've done it. We all do it. It isn't fair to compare bitrates when you will obviously be biased by larger numbers.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *euphoracle* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ I've also heard 128 files that sound better than 192 files. Likewise, I've heard some tapes that sound better than their CD counterparts. There isn't a bold print line determining which format has the highest quality or which medium, for that matter. Truth be told, humans imagine sound. I've done it. We all do it. It isn't fair to compare bitrates when you will obviously be biased by larger numbers._

 







 I can't follow this at all. There are exceptions to every rule, of course. I suppose one can find a Honda Civic that drives better than a particular Ferrari, but aren't we talking generally about differences in SQ, everything else being equal?


----------



## euphoracle

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 I can't follow this at all. There are exceptions to every rule, of course. I suppose one can find a Honda Civic that drives better than a particular Ferrari, but aren't we talking generally about differences in SQ, everything else being equal? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No one said that... Are we dealing in a purely theoretical respect? If so, the guy with the hashes is correct, lol.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *euphoracle* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No one said that... Are we dealing in a purely theoretical respect? If so, the guy with the hashes is correct, lol._

 

Thanks, that cleared everything up.


----------



## Gothamm

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *euphoracle* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It also kind of depends on how the encoder is encoding it. I've heard 128 mp3s that sound terrible and others that, as you mentioned, are indistinguishable save some digital artefacts unique to the mp3 compression scheme. I've also heard 128 files that sound better than 192 files. * Likewise, I've heard some tapes that sound better than their CD counterparts*. There isn't a bold print line determining which format has the highest quality or which medium, for that matter. Truth be told, humans imagine sound. I've done it. We all do it. It isn't fair to compare bitrates when you will obviously be biased by larger numbers._

 

you really need to qualify this claim...


----------



## vapman

i just read an article, i need to find the link again. if i find it i will post it, but the premise was 320kbps MP3 can sound more pleasant than CD audio! the reasons it gave were quite good. look at a spectrum analysis of 44.1khz and 96khz audio now, humans can't hear up that high, but when the frequencies are cut out at 44.1khz you end up with very high broken frequencies. with 96khz lossless (or hi-fi analogue formats) every reproducible frequency is intact. the reason why 320kbps MP3 can sound "better" is because it gets rid of the CD Audio's broken frequencies altogether. of course 96khz lossless sounds better, but SACD never really caught on, which upsets me.

 so i will keep playing 320kbps mp3 which i download happily through my AKGs


----------



## mbd2884

It's your ears, you decide.


----------



## dharma

euphoracle wrote:...'There isn't a bold print line determining which format has the highest quality or which medium'...

 here is good overview :
EXPERT ADVICE - New Technology Ribbon Loudspeakers for Superb Home Theater and HiFi Stereo

 also on similar subject look at thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/stu...86/index8.html


----------



## Quaddy

why don't we just ask the oracle, and get the definitive answer once and for all?

 i might ask him what came immediately before the big bang while i am at it!


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_why don't we just ask the oracle, and get the definitive answer once and for all?

 i might ask him what came immediately before the big bang while i am at it!_

 

Shhhhh... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 he's in the walls...


----------



## h.rav

Ever since I use Lossless, I never play lossy again, there is a difference and it can be heard.


----------



## haloxt

I think the noticeable difference between 192 and 320 depends mainly on the kind of headphones you use, many of the people who say there's a huge difference are probably using very transparent headphones and setup.

 Since computers have so much space nowadays, it's not too big a problem to always use lossless and maybe 320kbps. Then when transferring to mp3 players it might be best to just use 128 and cbr (easier than vbr on battery), for increased capacity and battery life. And chances are the headphones and mp3 player won't be resolving enough to really cause compression flaws to detract too much from the sound quality.

 As for kids liking compressed audio better than uncompressed that is not very surprising, high fidelity does not equate listening pleasure (for heathens like kids anyhow). As psychoacoustics improves there will be better DSP effects to make music more palatable on crap gear, and gear that makes crap music more palatable.


----------



## mbd2884

I believe many people are forcing themselves to believe they are hearing a difference. What I've learned from Head-Fi is the mind has more control in what Head-Fiers believe they hear, than their actual ears. Kinda sad I think.

 I have Clapton's 461 Boulevard CD and I can't hear a difference between this and V0 Lame 245 VBR. None at all, I accept the limitations of my ears and instead of acting elitist, just enjoy the music


----------



## haloxt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbd2884* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have Clapton's 461 Boulevard CD and I can't hear a difference between this and V0 Lame 245 VBR. None at all, I accept the limitations of my ears and instead of acting elitist, just enjoy the music_

 

How proud you must be for being humble. Actually I don't think we're being elitist, if someone wants to know if we think there's a difference between 192 and 320 we're automatically called elitist for giving the opinion that there is a difference? If you got nothing better to contribute than insult head-fi members then don't say anything at all, and "Just enjoy the music" has no bearing on this topic FYI. Kinda sad I think.


----------



## milkweg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbd2884* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have Clapton's 461 Boulevard CD and I can't hear a difference between this and V0 Lame 245 VBR. None at all, I accept the limitations of my ears and instead of acting elitist, just enjoy the music_

 

Hear, hear! Some people need to start listening to the music instead of the equipment.


----------



## milkweg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChroniCali* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_192kbps and 320kbps definitely has a pretty significant difference IMO._

 

I am not interested in your opinion or anyone else's about this topic. I want to see ABX test facts and nothing less. Oh, and running the test at least 20 times too because I see someone here who claims he can hear the difference 3/3 times. That is not a valid test as the sample number is way too low and could be just pure luck.


----------



## peanuthead

I absolutely cannot distinguish between AAC 320 vs lossless. Have not tried lower bitrates though.


----------



## CDBacklash

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkweg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not interested in your opinion or anyone else's about this topic. I want to see ABX test facts and nothing less. Oh, and running the test at least 20 times too because I see someone here who claims he can hear the difference 3/3 times. That is not a valid test as the sample number is way too low and could be just pure luck._

 

The general consensus on HAF is that there is an audible difference between 192 CBR and 320 CBR, but not between 192 VBR2 and 320 CBR from what i have read. "lossless" sound from an oggenc is about 160kbps (vbr) which is the lowest currently available to my knowledge.
 Personally I still have most of my files in FLAC or 256 VBR2 because I can (even if I cant hear the difference, I am of the ilk that believes I am "still hearing it"). Mind you, I dont have an actual high definition sound system at the moment (in the process >.<), so I cant comment on whether i can really hear it. I think my position (having higher than i can hear) is similar to a lot of people here.
 Hope this helps


----------



## Bobofthedead

I could tell a vague, possibly psychological difference between 256 kbps CBR aac and ALAC, but that was on Dark Side of The Moon, an album which I have played so many times that the CD laser has burnt a hole through the disc.


----------



## Quaddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bobofthedead* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could tell a vague, possibly psychological difference between 256 kbps CBR aac and ALAC, but that was on Dark Side of The Moon, *an album which I have played so many times that the CD laser has burnt a hole through the disc.*_

 

pics?


----------



## hybris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_pics? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That happened to me once as well, I played macarena on mp3 so many times the actual mp3 file got a hole in it. Weird stuff!


----------



## mbd2884

I have never read a serious testing where someone could tell the difference between 192 and CD, nevermind 320. Whenever they guessed correctly, it was concluded it was purely guessing and by chance.

 Whenever I read Head-Fiers conducting the experiment themselves or with their "wife," who supposedly is unbiased, I just laugh.

 I truly believe, people let their minds dictate what they hear, what they want to hear, not what they actually hear.


----------



## CDBacklash

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbd2884* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have never read a serious testing where someone could tell the difference between 192 and CD, nevermind 320. Whenever they guessed correctly, it was concluded it was purely guessing and by chance.

 Whenever I read Head-Fiers conducting the experiment themselves or with their "wife," who supposedly is unbiased, I just laugh.

 I truly believe, people let their minds dictate what they hear, what they want to hear, not what they actually hear._

 

Let me google that for you Have a read please... not to mention that it is actually our brains doing the hearing. the tiny vibrating hairs in our ear mean jack without the brain.


----------



## Real Man of Genius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CDBacklash* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let me google that for you Have a read please... not to mention that it is actually our brains doing the hearing. the tiny vibrating hairs in our ear mean jack without the brain._

 

??? HA verifies (in general) mbd's statement?
 And yes, it is the brain that causes placebo, not the ears.


----------



## Davawado

really depends on the complexity of the song/audio file. If the song complex then there is a difference, however if the song is simple the difference is minimal to non-existent.


----------



## CDBacklash

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Real Man of Genius* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_??? HA verifies (in general) mbd's statement?
 And yes, it is the brain that causes placebo, not the ears._

 

they say 192 VBR2 sounds the same as lossless, not 192 CBR. big difference..


----------



## Real Man of Genius

Ahh yes, I assumed he meant VBR, my bad.


----------



## CDBacklash

as a side note, lossless is also better to store for conversion reasons and also remastering reasons.


----------



## Vladislav

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CDBacklash* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_as a side note, lossless is also better to store for conversion reasons and also remastering reasons._

 

That is a good point, having lossless as backup is great for conversion into different other formats for different devices. Other than that the whole quality argument is just silly, ABX is trivial to set up yet all the people who can 'hear' the differences refuse to do so. After I spent 5 years in auditory research I can say it with certainty - people are full of s%it and they hear what they are conditioned to hear, be it by experimenter or be it by their ego.


----------



## wnmnkh

This is yet another topic discussed to death is Hydrogen Audio forum.....


----------



## krmathis

^ Indeed!
 With the difference that on HA.org you need to back up your statement with some ABX result, while here its enough just to claim it. In the end its all down to your set of ears, the music played and the gear its played on. And of course which codec/encoder are used.


----------



## ExplosiveDuck

Yeah - I need to do some ABX testing on myself. I did some iTunes testing, with the two songs in the playlist and it on shuffle with my eyes closed and I feel like I heard the difference if I could really concentrate. I could have been chance though, but I "guessed" it over 10 times. (Probability of that isn't even too insane...)

 Anyways, the only difference I could sense was the absolute slightest difference in soundstage from a set of hand drums. (I only listened critically to the first 3 seconds of it.)

 Like, I'm talking about, the SMALLEST, and I would definitely not know it was there if I wasn't looking for it / didn't have something to compare it to. 

 I was comparing .FLAC to 192kbps .mp3 -- Meh. 

 I don't care if I can't hear the difference and point it out between the two, I'm still going to try and get all my music in lossless and listen in lossless. I'm one of those believers in the whole "Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it doesn't effect your brain."

 And people always talk about the placebo effect as if it's some negative thing. If you have an ego and you care about it in terms of being able to hear hi-fi audio, then yeah it's a negative, but if a placebo effect makes me enjoy my music more, then I couldn't care less that it's just a placebo. 

 Oh, and the testing I did was just through iTunes and a pair of HD280's plugged into the headphone jack. 

 I would like to be able to tell the difference between the two, and I feel like if anyone trained themself to they could, but I'm not going to risk ruining my non-lossless listening experience just to be able to pass an ABX test. I really couldn't care less. 

 And if listening to a 192kbps mp3 doesn't "sound" any different to my ears than listening to a lossless, I really don't care, because no one will be able to convince me that it doesn't -feel- different. 

 Laying down knowing I'm wearing a nice pair of amp'd headphones with a good source makes me enjoy certain music better, and that won't change regardless of the "truth" behind what I'm hearing.

 But yeah, I'm going to have a friend test me through my normal little audio chain and i'll post the results. I probably won't be able to tell a difference.

 And most importantly, just because someone can't hear the additional quality / data in the lossless file doesn't mean that it isn't affecting the way they're enjoying / "hearing" their music. This is key when criticizing hi-fidelity audio. I mean, look at that paper that someone posted, it was an interesting read and shows that it still changes our brain activity.

 Here it is again so you don't have to dig for it:

Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology

 Later!


----------



## endless402

i cant tell the difference on headphones but i can definently tell the difference on my speakers


----------



## haloxt

That was a real breath of fresh air, ExplosiveDuck, thanks. Something all people who think there's no difference between between what can't be heard and what can't be heard but removed should read up on Tomatis' audio/vocal therapy which by the way agrees with that study ExplosiveDuck linked when it said excessive ultrasounds are good and excessive infrasounds bad.


----------



## Mayzei

ExplosiveDuck you legend, that's what i would post, if i had the time and could sit at the computer that long. It's just the material things i like such as a gold plated, diamond headphone or interconect. I couldn't care if i don't hear a difference, im enjoying myself. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 xx


----------



## Ham Sandwich

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^ Indeed!
 With the difference that on HA.org you need to back up your statement with some ABX result, while here its enough just to claim it. In the end its all down to your set of ears, the music played and the gear its played on. And of course which codec/encoder are used._

 

And what clip you extract from the music to base your ABX test on.

 Lets say your goal is to determine if you can hear the difference between a 320 kbs LAME MP3 file and a FLAC file in symphonic classical music. You scan the music for the one cymbal hit in the entire symphony and extract a 5 second clip that you use for the ABX testing. You successfully identify preecho in the MP3 clip and are able to score 100% in the ABX test. With those results you can claim that 320 kbs LAME is not transparent for symphonic classical music.

 Bah! All that tells you is that the cymbal crashes are not transparent. What about the other 50 minutes of music? If the ABX test sample isn't how you actually listen to music then what is it telling you?


----------



## ExplosiveDuck

Well, Ham Sandwich, if you can hear a difference in one part of a song, then you can hear a difference in the song. If you can hear preecho on a cymbal crash, then you're listening to two "different" sounds from the same song. 

 What happens when you take a classical track that has 40 cymbal crashes in it, and you can hear a preecho every time in 320 and not in lossless?


----------



## Ham Sandwich

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ExplosiveDuck* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, Ham Sandwich, if you can hear a difference in one part of a song, then you can hear a difference in the song._

 

Technically true.
 But such a test still tells me nothing about whether the artifact can be heard during normal careful listening of the entire symphony.

 When it gets to the point that you have to train yourself to be able to identify the artifacts and listen specifically for those artifacts to the exclusion of the music, is it really an issue for normal listening where the goal is to enjoy the music?


----------



## Suntory_Times

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ham Sandwich* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Technically true.
 But such a test still tells me nothing about whether the artifact can be heard during normal careful listening of the entire symphony.

 When it gets to the point that you have to train yourself to be able to identify the artifacts and listen specifically for those artifacts to the exclusion of the music, is it really an issue for normal listening where the goal is to enjoy the music?_

 

You're an a site dedicated to how you listen to your music. So for various reason many like to be able to do this. I personally don't now much about mp3 compression etc, as I always use the actual cd or vinyl and play straight from that. Though an unqualified opinion, I would say if the compression causes there to be faults that you can hear, then there are faults throughout the entire song as a result (which I would say is bad). Just remember, at the end of the day the most important thing is usually to enjoy your music. Whatever optimizes youre enjoyment is something you should consider doing, anything that doesn't should be avoided. Hence it's all arbitrary when it comes to compression and is likely to be argued as long as music is still played on DAP's and similiar devices.


----------



## dharma

For those who are interested to adopt lossless audio format, but do'nt want to change their equipment (for now):

 MP3HD
 ...'Thomson, the firm that helped invent MP3 in the first place, has come up with a solution - MP3HD, and you won't need to bin your existing kit as the file format will still play on normal MP3 players.

 MP3HD is a lossless format, which means it delivers a perfect digital copy of the original audio - but it manages to do it more efficiently than WAV or AIFF files, which can be massive.

 At the highest quality setting MP3HD files are around 2/3rds of the size of a WAV file, so you can stuff more CD-quality files into your portable player or hard disk.

 Of course, lossless formats already exist in the form of FLAC, WMA Lossless, Apple Lossless and several others, but support for those formats is fairly limited: you can't play an Apple Lossless file on a Sony smartphone, or a FLAC file in an iPod'...


 on plus side:
 ...'MP3HD has been designed to solve that problem, and it works on anything that can play MP3s. *If the program or device supports MP3HD you'll get full CD quality; if it doesn't, you get a 320Kbps MP3*'...

 on minus side (at least this moment):
 ...'So what can you actually play MP3HD on? *So far* the answer is WinAmp, WinAmp and WinAmp. At the time of writing there isn't a single hardware player that supports MP3HD, and the software is limited to a solitary WinAmp plugin and an MP3HD command line encoder'...

 ...'MP3HD is also up against several other lossless formats: TTA, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, WMA Lossless, FLAC and Apple Lossless.

 Of those formats, three in particular are going to make MP3HD's life difficult: FLAC, which is the format of choice for audiophiles on Bittorrent; WMA Lossless, which is baked into Windows Media Player; and Apple Lossless, which works on iPods, in iTunes and in AirTunes.

 For MP3HD to take off Thomson needs to persuade FLAC users to switch, Windows Media Player users to install yet another codec (when it arrives) and Apple to add MP3HD support to iPods and iPhones. If that doesn't happen'...


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dharma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_on plus side:
 ...'MP3HD has been designed to solve that problem, and it works on anything that can play MP3s. *If the program or device supports MP3HD you'll get full CD quality; if it doesn't, you get a 320Kbps MP3*'..._

 

Yes, you get a 320kbps (or whatever you chose when encoding) MP3 _but with a file size equaling lossless_. If you're willing to accept a lossless filesize why not just go with FLAC (or Apple Lossless or whatever) and be done with it? MP3 HD seems like a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## dharma

We can say it another way: MP3 seems like a solution in search of a problem

 and all other lossy formats too!!!


----------



## logwed

FLAC ftw!!!!!


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ExplosiveDuck* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, Ham Sandwich, if you can hear a difference in one part of a song, then you can hear a difference in the song. If you can hear preecho on a cymbal crash, then you're listening to two "different" sounds from the same song. 

 What happens when you take a classical track that has 40 cymbal crashes in it, and you can hear a preecho every time in 320 and not in lossless?_

 

^ Exactly!
 Even the slightest artifact on a single cymbal crash in a whole song mean that you're not listening to the same audio data. Aka -> you hear a difference.

 Of course one can decide to still use lossy encoded audio, but he/she may run into samples where its not transparent.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^ Exactly!
 Even the slightest artifact on a single cymbal crash in a whole song mean that you're not listening to the same audio data. Aka -> you hear a difference.

 Of course one can decide to still use lossy encoded audio, but he/she may run into samples where its not transparent._

 

The intent of my comment was more about how ABX listening tests can become completely artificial to the actual music.

 Curiosity got the better of me and I just did a quick listening test of my own to find out what pre-echo sounds like. I tried the ElectroDrip sample here and the florida_seq sample here. I tried them both at 112 kbps CBR and -V0 VBR using LAME. I couldn't hear a pre-echo in the ElectroDrip sample even at 112kpbs. I did hear a reasonably obvious pre-echo in the florida_seq sample at 112 kbps but was unable to hear any pre-echo at -V0 VBR.

 Both samples are electronic sounds. Anyone know of a good pre-echo listening sample that has natural cymbals and/or natural percussion?

 I now have an idea what pre-echo sounds like. I also realize that hearing pre-echo at -V0 is going to be very difficult for me if I can even manage to hear it at all. My hearing isn't that great to begin with.


----------



## mbd2884

For myself, I cannot hear the difference between 245 VBR V0 Lame and CD. So I listen to that, easier to back up and store the music and very fast to rip form my CDs.

 I no longer care if someone wants to argue if there is a difference, like krMathis said, it's your ears, you decide, that it.


----------



## rRav3n

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbd2884* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I no longer care if someone wants to argue if there is a difference, like krMathis said, it's your ears, you decide, that it._

 

i personally would agree with this in the sense that if you can tell the difference between what ever sq setting you use and some other, then good for you

 but in it's simplest, if it makes a person enjoy there music more cause it is in flac, over 320 kbs, then let them

 it is pointless telling some one, to have there music in a format when it wont make them enjoy it any more or less.

 ExplosiveDuck's post just sums things up really
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5583377-post257.html

 stop arguing bout it and just let a person enjoy there music in a format that they feel is best for them.


----------



## superpiper

My two peneth,

 Intresting thread, one of the few I managed to read all the way through.

 There is a lot of chatter, here about abx, bit rates, artifacts, figures, etc, most of you are applying mechanical/statistical testing-measuring techniques to an organic instrument (the brain!)
 The two do not sit happily together.

 I've recently re-ripped my entire iPod to 320 cbr 
 (from 192 vbr) because I had accidently ripped a favorite album to 320 cbr and was stunned by the difference. However, I am working away at the moment and am able to listen to music a lot more critically.

 I use a 5.5g iPod, silver LOD, mini^3 amp , Denom iems

 I can no longer listen to 128cbr. This rate sounds dead/wooden, artifical
 192vbr is good, but does not stand up well to critical listening.
 320cbr sounds very good and is approaching my limit wrt lossless.
 I would use lossless but my iPod is only 30gb

 I remember when I built my amp, I looked around for opinions on the subjective sound quality improvement I could expect . The one Answer that stands out was from somebody who said "rather than an immediate effect on sq, he found that he would "miss" the amp if he went back to hp out.
 Same thing for bit rates, listen to a full album with effort with the rip rates you want to compare for a more personal result

 Audio is more subtle and organic than numbers and figures can describe

 But I will say this, for those who cannot hear improvement above 128 cbr, either visit the quacks, go shopping, or take the wrapper of the speakers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 128cbr sucks

 But I will say


----------



## pdupiano

i would question just how dynamic you can get with portable stuff. Your average joe can and do notice differences in music between lossless and 192 or 128 when they first connect their ipod to a decent home rig (not headphones). But i would go along the lines that portable equipment may not significantly reproduce the difference.

 The things to catch with people who claim big differences between formats, are hearing parts to the song they never heard before. as far as i know you will hear everything from 192kbps onward (check stereophiles article regarding lossy files). The difference is really in the dynamics not in the actual notes being played. It is certainly valid to argue that some parts of the song seem muffled or they just seem to lack something when dealing with lossy files, just be wary of individuals who make bold claims regarding hearing notes never been there before. 

 And lastly, if you have to "critically" listen to your music to really notice the difference, well then um.. yeah I'm just gonna leave it at that before I get banned for flaming.


----------



## superpiper

Quote:


 

 And lastly, if you have to "critically" listen to your music to really notice the difference, well then um.. yeah I'm just gonna leave it at that before I get banned for flaming. 
 

Jeysus, grow up.

 There is a hell of a difference between listening on a plane, or a subway, and sat in a nice quiet hotel room

 ***


----------



## robojack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbd2884* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For myself, I cannot hear the difference between 245 VBR V0 Lame and CD. So I listen to that, easier to back up and store the music and very fast to rip form my CDs.

 I no longer care if someone wants to argue if there is a difference, like krMathis said, it's your ears, you decide, that it._

 

 Similar situation here, I performed a very epic test this weekend, and found (to my horror) that 245 VBR V0 Lame and FLAC sounded virtually the same! There was no artifacting or any discernable accoustic difference, even though I did encode the 245 VBR V0 Lame mp3 directly from the FLAC in foobar. I also flunked the ABX test (using Michael Jackson's "You Are Not Alone"), while using my Darkvoice and HD650s and Westone 3's. Double whammy right there.

 This is quite an eye-opener for me. All these years of touting how great FLAC is over MP3s, I feel quite humbled that I'm unable to hear any difference between the two (when properly encoded). Maybe I should get my hearing checked... or maybe my equipment needs further upgrading? Sigh


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


 This is quite an eye-opener for me. All these years of touting how great FLAC is over MP3s, I feel quite humbled that I'm unable to hear any difference between the two (when properly encoded). 
 

Welcome to reality. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And no need to feel humbled, most of those claiming to hear a difference wouldn't do any better than you.


----------



## CodeToad

The easiest way to hear the difference between VBR0 and FLAC is on live or otherwise "spatial" recordings where there are reflections and reverberations off the environment. Spatial information seems to be the first casualty of compression, so, you hear the faithful reproduction of notes but lose the "space" around the instrument.

 If I listen to techno I can't tell the difference but when I listen to say, Pink Floyd Pulse, I can usually pick off the VBR0.

 If I listen to something like Goldfrapp, I can hear a huge difference between something encoded with WMP at CBR320 and LAME VBR0. The CBR's are sibilant.

 LAME is a wonderful piece of software.


----------



## Real Man of Genius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Welcome to reality. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And no need to feel humbled, most of those claiming to hear a difference wouldn't do any better than you._

 

True. I had a similar humbling experience when I did some ABX'ing.
 Now I can fit much more on my portables and I enjoy the music just as much!

 Recording quality is so much more important.


----------



## superpiper

I am again away from home at the moment and thus i have been able to get some quality listening time with my now updated MP3 library. (from 192 vbr - 320 cbr)

 I have to so say, its like i have a new bunch of records on my ipod.

 instrument presentation has vastly improved, attack and decay are much much better.
 The presentation of the musuc is now more 
 "seperate instruments making a organised sound"
 rather than 
 " a homogenous noise sounding like organised sound"

 I have ALAC tracs on the IPOd, and i was wondering, does the IPOD actually handle 320cbr better than lossless? ie, is the chip and codec better designed for lossy?

 I'm wondering, because 320cbr sounds really wonderfull


----------



## Telix

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *robojack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Similar situation here, I performed a very epic test this weekend, and found (to my horror) that 245 VBR V0 Lame and FLAC sounded virtually the same! There was no artifacting or any discernable accoustic difference, even though I did encode the 245 VBR V0 Lame mp3 directly from the FLAC in foobar. I also flunked the ABX test (using Michael Jackson's "You Are Not Alone"), while using my Darkvoice and HD650s and Westone 3's. Double whammy right there.

 This is quite an eye-opener for me. All these years of touting how great FLAC is over MP3s, I feel quite humbled that I'm unable to hear any difference between the two (when properly encoded). Maybe I should get my hearing checked... or maybe my equipment needs further upgrading? Sigh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I think this is the case for 99.9% of the population, to be honest - especially people who insist on using lossless files for listening rather than archiving (which is what I use it for). The amount of research and development that has gone into LAME is pretty extraordinary. I spent a few hours a/b/x'ing V2 vs FLAC and simply could not do it. I switched to 192 vs FLAC and was able to a/b/x it better, but it still wasn't 100% of the time. I may have not found the most obvious song for a/b/x'ing but I was using 3 tracks a friend claimed he could tell the difference with.

 While I can hear to about 18khz, I still couldn't hear a difference between them. It might be a matter of not knowing just exactly what to listen for, but if it means I can use V2 instead of FLAC for my listening files, I'm fine with it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Ultimately, like things related to vision, an individuals' ability to hear details and nuances is going to vary as well. And, I think, it's a skill that can be developed. For example, this test: Munsell Hue Test was very easy for me to get 100% on, but that's also because I spent many years working in the design field, where color is exceptionally important. While I don't think it's particularly difficult to get 100%, some others may due to minor or severe color blindness or the inability to simply SEE the differences correctly. My "trained" eye has developed the ability. Additionally, individuals who are professional taste testers, or quality control in a brewery, for example, frequently have extremely honed palates, and are able to sense "off" flavors in much less concentration than the normal person. 

 In that manner, it makes sense to me that the ability to gain the ability to hear to a greater ability is something that can be developed as well. I just don't know how to do it!

 Sorry for the philosophizing! Heading to work to rock out with the STX!


----------



## nirvanaxp

Most people can't tell the difference between mp3 files at the higher bitrates so just go what sounds good. I will recommend vbr recording because it gives you more bits when you need them.


----------



## stokitw

Of course there is difference.
 However, it does not mean that music from lossy file is always being less preferable.
 The distortion cuz by the lossy compression sometimes makes the music different in a preferable way.
 I remember that there is one song I was so touched when I listened in my old rip as 224kbps mp3.
 When I listen to the CD and the new lossless rip, however, the much clearer and well presented sound somehow kill the touching part of that song.


----------



## knights

no matter what bitrate, lossy is still lossy... no matter if i can hear the dif or not, the percption to the sound is still loosy... if you have good-best gears and able to grasp lossless, why settle for lossy format... go straight to the top if you can afford it...


----------



## jung

I want VBR 400kbps, not 200kbps, nor lossless, and never CBR.

 I don't care how many people can not ABX. If only one person in the whole world can ABX, it is one too many.

 But lossless is only a mathematical illusion, not a physical reality. The real physical world is quantum and random. There is no such thing as an exact physical copy.

 So VBR with high enough bitrate, maybe 400 to 500 kbps, will be physically the same as the original. Not an approximation, not just not ABX'able, but the same, in physical sense.


----------



## hybris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want VBR 400kbps, not 200kbps, nor lossless, and never CBR.

 I don't care how many people can not ABX. If only one person in the whole world can ABX, it is one too many.

 But lossless is only a mathematical illusion, not a physical reality. The real physical world is quantum and random. There is no such thing as an exact physical copy.

 So VBR with high enough bitrate, maybe 400 to 500 kbps, will be physically the same as the original. Not an approximation, not just not ABX'able, but the same, in physical sense._

 

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You say there is no such thing as an exact physical copy, and in the next sentence you claim that 400kbs VBR is physically the same as the original? Make up your mind


----------



## jung

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hybris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You say there is no such thing as an exact physical copy, and in the next sentence you claim that 400kbs VBR is physically the same as the original? Make up your mind 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

High bit rate lossy compression can be exactly the same as lossless, in the physical sense, not just in the sense of whether there is audible difference.

 The physical performance is the target. Lossless compression is an approximation of that physical reality. A high bit rate lossy compression can be no worse than lossless, not farther away from the performance.

 When digitized, dithering must be applied. The best dithering is random in nature, like the quantum randomness of the real physical world. So there are countless different ways of arranging the bits for dithering. These differently dithered bits will not be the same bit for bit, but they are equal representations of the physical reality. So bits can be changed, by high bit rate lossy compression, but the result can be equal to lossless in the above physical sense. 

 Another example, a performance is recorded in HiFi analog. Then it is digitized into two sample rates, 44/16, and 96/24. The 44/16 is then lossless compressed to 900kbps. 96/24 is lossy compressed to 500kbps. The lossy 500kbps 96/24 can be closer to the analog master than the lossless 900kbps 44/16.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_High bit rate lossy compression can be exactly the same as lossless, in the physical sense, not just in the sense of whether there is audible difference._

 

No, since there is data loss they cannot be the same physically. They may be the same perceptually or even functionally but not physically.


  Quote:


 The physical performance is the target. Lossless compression is an approximation of that physical reality. A high bit rate lossy compression can be no worse than lossless, not farther away from the performance. 
 

A lossless compression is not physically the same as an uncompressed file but when uncompressed the data is bit for bit identical, arguing whether they are in fact the same bits is missing the point


  Quote:


 When digitized, dithering must be applied. The best dithering is random in nature, like the quantum randomness of the real physical world. So there are countless different ways of arranging the bits for dithering. These differently dithered bits will not be the same bit for bit, but they are equal representations of the physical reality. So bits can be changed, by high bit rate lossy compression, but the result can be equal to lossless in the above physical sense. 
 

No , *dithering always operates on the low bits*, you trade off some extra non correlated noise against quantization error, and so while the distribution is random there are finite limits to what changes can happen.

 Also, the conversion to lossless or lossy compression operates after all this has happened. Dithering is not relevant at that point unless you are also downsampling as well which is not the same thing as just lossy vs lossless compression

  Quote:


 Another example, a performance is recorded in HiFi analog. Then it is digitized into two sample rates, 44/16, and 96/24. The 44/16 is then lossless compressed to 900kbps. 96/24 is lossy compressed to 500kbps. The lossy 500kbps 96/24 can be closer to the analog master than the lossless 900kbps 44/16. 
 

Exactly wrong. With the first case as long as you sample at fs2 and have a dynamic range of < 96db 16/44.1 will capture all the information you need to accurately recreate the waveform. However you do not get any more actual information in the 24/96 but you then slash its data content by a factor of 9. 

 Even mathematically you are wrong. A 24/96 recording has 4608000 bits per second and a 16/44.1 has 1411200 bits per second. The 24/96 has 3.26 times more data , however all the data from the 16/44.1 is retained when losslessly compressed, for the 24/96 file almost 90% of the data is thrown away , any really high frequencies caught by 24/96 gone - too expensive to retain, then there is the peceptual coding aspect this includes two forms of masking one removes frequencies that are too low to be heard above the dominant ferquencies and the temporal masking removes proximal stimuli , both of which fundamentally alter the waveform. In short the lossy compression must be less accurate than lossless compression.


----------



## jung

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, since there is data loss they cannot be the same physically. They may be the same perceptually or even functionally but not physically.

 In short the lossy compression must be less accurate than lossless compression._

 

First let's define "lossy", so that we are talking about the same thing. I think most people agree that "lossy" means after the codec, the bits are not completely identical to lossless. So lossy does not necessarily mean that data are lost, but just bits are different.

 Then back to dithering. As I said, dithering is absolutely necessary. And the best dithering is random. So after dithering, there is not just one bit arrangement that is the best, but there are numerous different bit arrangements that are the best, as good as, equal to, all the other in the same group. 

 So let's look at two different dithered result, A, and B, both from the best dithering method, but with different dithered bit results. So A and B are equal, in the absolute physical sense, but they are different bit for bit.

 Then let's assume we apply a high bit rate lossy codec on A. The result is not bit identical to A. But for some reason let's assume it is identical to B. So the lossy codec can produce a result that is physically equal to lossless, but not bit to bit identical.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly wrong. With the first case as long as you sample at fs2 and have a dynamic range of < 96db 16/44.1 will capture all the information you need to accurately recreate the waveform. However you do not get any more actual information in the 24/96 but you then slash its data content by a factor of 9._

 

We are interested in the absolute physical reality. The analog master has information beyond the frequency and quantization limit of digitization. So it needs to be filtered during both 96/24 and 44/16. But for 96/24 less is filtered out than for 44/16. So 96/24 is closer to the analog master than 44/16.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even mathematically you are wrong. A 24/96 recording has 4608000 bits per second and a 16/44.1 has 1411200 bits per second. The 24/96 has 3.26 times more data , however all the data from the 16/44.1 is retained when losslessly compressed, for the 24/96 file almost 90% of the data is thrown away_

 

You would not say that lossless throw away 30% of data, why would you say that lossy throw away 90%?

 Let's modify the example to show it more clearly. Let's say the lossless 44/16 result in 900kbps. Now let's assume a lossy 96/24 results in 900kbps, too. With a good lossy codec, the 900kbps 96/24 must have more information than the lossless 900kbps 44/16. A good lossy 900kbps 96/24 must be closer to the analog master than a lossless 900kbps 44/16.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_. So lossy does not necessarily mean that data are lost, but just bits are different._

 

You misunderstand. Lossy compression throws away data it has to !, the codec decides what data can be imperceptibly thrown away and then throws it away, like really high frequencies and frequencies that cannot be heard de to masking. It is not like a zip file where the data is simply re-coded in a more efficient form, data is lost by definiton, that is why it is called lossy, and once gone you can never he it back.


  Quote:


 So let's look at two different dithered result, A, and B, both from the best dithering method, but with different dithered bit results. So A and B are equal, in the absolute physical sense, but they are different bit for bit. 
 

No, they are not the same in the absolute physical sense if the bits are not the same they are not the same, they may not be audibly dfferent but that is not the same thing at all.

  Quote:


 Then let's assume we apply a high bit rate lossy codec on A. The result is not bit identical to A. But for some reason let's assume it is identical to B. So the lossy codec can produce a result that is physically equal to lossless, but not bit to bit identical. 
 

You really are not grasping the concept of lossy encoding nor of what it means to be physically identical. 

 To be identical in any meaningful way two digital files have to terminate with identical bit patterns, they can be different but perceptually indistinguishable , but that is not the same thing.


  Quote:


 We are interested in the absolute physical reality. The analog master has information beyond the frequency and quantization limit of digitization. So it needs to be filtered during both 96/24 and 44/16. But for 96/24 less is filtered out than for 44/16. So 96/24 is closer to the analog master than 44/16. 
 

In absolute terms if there is real frequency information above 22khz then yes that is so.


  Quote:


 You would not say that lossless throw away 30% of data, why would you say that lossy throw away 90%? 
 

Because it does. Lossless throws away nothing it merely re-encodes it in a more space efficient manner. Lossy does throw away data, it leaves sufficient data to recreate a waveform that is more or less perceptually identical to the original but you go from ~ 1.14mbps to 245kbps or whatever level you choose , by any interpretation data is lost. Now if you had said musical information that would be closer to the mark, but words are important.

  Quote:


 Let's modify the example to show it more clearly. Let's say the lossless 44/16 result in 900kbps. Now let's assume a lossy 96/24 results in 900kbps, too. With a good lossy codec, the 900kbps 96/24 must have more information than the lossless 900kbps 44/16. A good lossy 900kbps 96/24 must be closer to the analog master than a lossless 900kbps 44/16. 
 

Try this, let us hypothesize that our analog souce has frequencies up to 200khz and a dynamic range of 50 bits and two channels. So we have a datastream of 40Mbits/second - so the 16/44.1 captures 2.85% of it and the 24/96 captures 11.52% so far so good - now a lossless encode of this throws away nothing so we still have 2.85%. However the lossy encode of the 24/96
 turns 4608000 bps into 900000bps so the final data is in fact 1.28% of the original.


----------



## patates

lossy means data is lost. hence the name...


----------



## jung

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You misunderstand. Lossy compression throws away data it has to !, the codec decides what data can be imperceptibly thrown away and then throws it away, like really high frequencies and frequencies that cannot be heard de to masking. It is not like a zip file where the data is simply re-coded in a more efficient form, data is lost by definiton, that is why it is called lossy, and once gone you can never he it back._

 

If we can not agree on what is lossy codec, as opposed to lossless, then we can not have this discussion meaningfully.

 My point is that bits can be different, but the result can still be equal, physically. See below.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, they are not the same in the absolute physical sense if the bits are not the same they are not the same, they may not be audibly dfferent but that is not the same thing at all.

 You really are not grasping the concept of lossy encoding nor of what it means to be physically identical. 

 To be identical in any meaningful way two digital files have to terminate with identical bit patterns, they can be different but perceptually indistinguishable , but that is not the same thing._

 

Let me clarify the terms I use. 

 Mathematically identical, means that all bits are identical. The normal sense of lossless codec.

 Physically equal, means that two digital files are equally related to the original physical reality, e.g., the analog master. The two digital files can be not bit identical, but still equally related to the physical analog master, using the best scientific instruments available, not just human perception. 

 E.g., different dithered results, A and B, are physically equal, even though not bit identical. B does not contain less information than A, nor does A than B. A and B are physically equal.

 Then after a lossy codec on A, suppose the result happens to be bit identical to B, but not bit identical to A. Since B is physically equal to A, so the lossy codec does not throw away any information, 0%.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because it does. Lossless throws away nothing it merely re-encodes it in a more space efficient manner. Lossy does throw away data, it leaves sufficient data to recreate a waveform that is more or less perceptually identical to the original but you go from ~ 1.14mbps to 245kbps or whatever level you choose , by any interpretation data is lost. Now if you had said musical information that would be closer to the mark, but words are important.

 Try this, let us hypothesize that our analog souce has frequencies up to 200khz and a dynamic range of 50 bits and two channels. So we have a datastream of 40Mbits/second - so the 16/44.1 captures 2.85% of it and the 24/96 captures 11.52% so far so good - now a lossless encode of this throws away nothing so we still have 2.85%. However the lossy encode of the 24/96
 turns 4608000 bps into 900000bps so the final data is in fact 1.28% of the original._

 

A 44/16 wave file has 1411kbps of bits, but not 1411kbps of real data information. If it does, then lossless compression is not possible. Suppose a lossless codec can compress it down to 900kbps, then the original wave must have less than 900kbps of data information. Among the original 1411kbps, lots of bits are redundant, not real data information. So if a lossy codec compresses it down to 900kbps, it can be keeping all 100% of the original data information, throwing away 0%, exactly the same as the lossless codec. We don't say that it throw away 30% of real data information just because it compresses 1411kbps down to 900kbps.


----------



## ilney

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 E.g., different dithered results, A and B, are physically equal, even though not bit identical. B does not contain less information than A, nor does A than B. A and B are physically equal._

 

Yes. If A and B contain sufficient information to trace back to the master. The only way I can see this happen is that A and B are both lossless. 

 For example: 

 The master source = XXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYY (18 slots)

 A = 9*XYYYYYYYYY (12 slots)
 B = XXXXXXXXX9*Y (12 slots)

 Then A and B are equivalent.

  Quote:


 A 44/16 wave file has 1411kbps of bits, but not 1411kbps of real data information. If it does, then lossless compression is not possible. Suppose a lossless codec can compress it down to 900kbps, then the original wave must have less than 900kbps of data information. Among the original 1411kbps, lots of bits are redundant, not real data information. So if a lossy codec compresses it down to 900kbps, it can be keeping all 100% of the original data information, throwing away 0%, exactly the same as the lossless codec. We don't say that it throw away 30% of real data information just because it compresses 1411kbps down to 900kbps. 
 

Now let's use that example.

 Suppose the 96/24 is the master, i.e = XXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYZZZZZZZZZ (27 slots)

 A 44/16 sample = XXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYY (18 slots)

 A lossless resulted from the 44/16 sample: A = 9*XYYYYYYYYY (12 slots)

 A lossy resulted from the 96/24 master: B = XXXXYYYYZZZZ (12 slots)

 Suppose that [Z] is useless information, then it's obvious that A is a better file and B (Suppose that there is absolutely no perceivable difference between 44/16 and 96/24).


----------



## hybris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If we can not agree on what is lossy codec, as opposed to lossless, then we can not have this discussion meaningfully.

 My point is that bits can be different, but the result can still be equal, physically. See below._

 

It's hard to agree when you obviously have no idea how lossy encoding works. And I must say it's really hard to grasp what you mean with this "physically equal" term you keep throwing around. The closest I can get is that you appear to think that if it sounds the same it's "physically equal". That's most likely not true. Your ears are not an instrument of absolute fidelity.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let me clarify the terms I use. 

 Mathematically identical, means that all bits are identical. The normal sense of lossless codec.

 Physically equal, means that two digital files are equally related to the original physical reality, e.g., the analog master. The two digital files can be not bit identical, but still equally related to the physical analog master, using the best scientific instruments available, not just human perception. 

 E.g., different dithered results, A and B, are physically equal, even though not bit identical. B does not contain less information than A, nor does A than B. A and B are physically equal.

 Then after a lossy codec on A, suppose the result happens to be bit identical to B, but not bit identical to A. Since B is physically equal to A, so the lossy codec does not throw away any information, 0%._

 

A lossy encoded file can and will never be "equally related" to the physical original analog master, and not with a file that's just dithered either. If it is, it's a really poor lossy encoder, and will hardly compress at all. Based on what you are saying it appears that you think a lossy encoder doesn't do much except dithering (how else could a lossy file be equal to "B" which is a dithered original audio stream). 

 That is not the case.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A 44/16 wave file has 1411kbps of bits, but not 1411kbps of real data information. If it does, then lossless compression is not possible. Suppose a lossless codec can compress it down to 900kbps, then the original wave must have less than 900kbps of data information. Among the original 1411kbps, lots of bits are redundant, not real data information. So if a lossy codec compresses it down to 900kbps, it can be keeping all 100% of the original data information, throwing away 0%, exactly the same as the lossless codec. We don't say that it throw away 30% of real data information just because it 
 compresses 1411kbps down to 900kbps._

 

That is theoretically correct, but a lossy encoder that compresses a wave file to 900kbps most likely WILL NOT retain all the physical data(that was never the design goal of the encoder), and slightly beside the point you will find the fact that is essentially stupid to use a lossy encoder if you don't want to compress more than what a lossless encoder can achieve. Why? Because it will remove data, while you could have avoided that using a lossless( = removes no data) encoder. It is correct that it will not remove 30% of actual (useful) audio data, but it will not be lossless.


 I must say I have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say here. Lossy encoding will never result in a "physically identical" (whatever that means) result as the original. It may (and often will) sound the same, and that's what matters. But it's not physically the same, as DATA IS LOST.


----------



## Currawong

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If we can not agree on what is lossy codec, as opposed to lossless, then we can not have this discussion meaningfully._

 

Everyone _knows_ what the terms mean, but you seem to be trying to re-define English. 

 Lossy = _Data has been lost_
 Lossless = _No data has been lost_

 I suspect that you've seen lower bit rates on lossless files compared to the original and assumed that it means data has been lost, when the bitrate is only the average rate of data per second. While compressed, it's obviously lower as less data has to be sent to result in the same amount of information.

  Quote:


 My point is that bits can be different, but the result can still be equal, physically. See below. 
 

This is impossible, period. Bits are different = different data. You're saying that 1 can equal 0 or 0 can equal 1. 



  Quote:


 Let me clarify the terms I use. 

 Mathematically identical, means that all bits are identical. The normal sense of lossless codec.

 Physically equal, means that two digital files are equally related to the original physical reality, e.g., the analog master. The two digital files can be not bit identical, but still equally related to the physical analog master, using the best scientific instruments available, not just human perception. 
 

Since data is lost, with ANY lossy compression, the analogue output after decoding will result in sounds (detail) lost. It is _impossible_ for it to be otherwise. Lossy and lossless digital can't be defined relative to the analogue original. By its very nature, digital encoding removes part of the analogue signal. You're confusing the issue trying to define things in terms of the analogue original. 

  Quote:


 E.g., different dithered results, A and B, are physically equal, even though not bit identical. B does not contain less information than A, nor does A than B. A and B are physically equal.

 Then after a lossy codec on A, suppose the result happens to be bit identical to B, but not bit identical to A. Since B is physically equal to A, so the lossy codec does not throw away any information, 0%. 
 

Both are impossible. Both do not happen, period. Not in this universe anyway.


----------



## spanimal

320 mp3 earnt my respect when I failed a blind test with with lossless using hd595 and yamaha receiver. Different story with 650 and xcan valve amp. First to go is the full body midrange under complex passages.

 192 is unworthy of audiophile status


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jung* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If we can not agree on what is lossy codec, as opposed to lossless, then we can not have this discussion meaningfully._

 

Its hard to agree when you clearly have no idea how lossy and lossless encoders work. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As 'Currawong' say:
 Lossy = Data has been lost
 Lossless = No data has been lost


----------



## HeadLover

320KBS with full stereo and 44.1 KHZ and so on, can sound really good!
 But
 Still the lead goes for the lossless format like FLAC.

 Beside, 320KBS take a lot of space, and so does FLAC, but FLAC is better, so why will I use 320KBS ?!

 As much as I see it, it is 192KBS - 256KBS in VBR MP3 (or what ever VBR format) when someone don't have enough space ans still want some kind of quality.

 And full LOSSLESS format like FLAC when you don't have space problems (like most of us now days) and want to know you have a full BIT PERFECT quality (as the original CD)


----------



## haloxt

I have a severe space problem so I can't enjoy flac... I love flac dearly but my main source of music is a 20gb mp3 player with optical out so I just use 192kb vbr ogg. The reason I use an mp3 player as source is that bill gates has given me too many hours of misery trying to make the computer digital output sound as good as my mp3 player's. I actually prefer 192 vbr out of my mp3 player than flac out of my current computer usb software's output. And now that mbd2884 and others using the same gear as me found out that usb-audio makes the computer sound much better, I am still unable to use it because no matter how much I try/crash I can't get it to work on vista -_-. I have a theory that the bad economy is entirely due to "lost work time" due to vista.


----------



## mbd2884

Why is there such huge debate over lossy vs lossless in this thread when the question is over 192 and 320, which both are lossy?

 But yeah it's a pity Haloxt you are unable to get it to work, cause the only reason I would use the ASIO4All is if I had no available ASIO drivers to use. Good luck!


----------



## fuzzy1969

anyone know how lossy compression deals with harmonics?


----------



## yepimonfire

Quote: 





clincher09 said:


> I've always ripped my files in 192 kbs audio format, but some people will only accept 320 kbs. Is there really an audible difference? If I ripped all my music in 320 would there be a noticble difference in sound or will I just be using up more space? What about 192 kbs and windows lossless?
> 
> Also, is there a sound difference between mp3 and wma?


 
  no, most likely you will not hear a difference, but i do 320 anyways because i feel better about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 assuming you are using a recent algorithm, mp3 becomes transparent at 160kbps, wma is a slightly better codec then mp3 but only good at higher bitrates because the artifacts screw with the low end a lot, i personally do not like wma because of this. AAC is the best codec when it comes to transparency, it is very difficult to tell the difference between 128kbps AAC and the CD, i use AAC at 320kbps when ripping to lossless. when it come to which codecs reach transparency at lower bitrates first it goes in this order from my own experience, MP3, WMA, OGG, then AAC.


----------



## ramicio

The difference between 192 and 320 in MP3 is very audible.  With AAC probably not.  I have my whole FLAC library compressed to 192 AAC for my iPhone.  It sounds fine to me.  I used to use 192 for MP3 and it sounded horrible.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> The difference between 192 and 320 in MP3 is very audible.  With AAC probably not.  I have my whole FLAC library compressed to 192 AAC for my iPhone.  It sounds fine to me.  I used to use 192 for MP3 and it sounded horrible.


 


  Have you done ABX tests to verify?  192 kbps MP3 sounded horrible?  The difference was very audible?
   
  We are in Sound Science and not the phoolery part of head-fi.  We're easy going here, but if you'd have said the same over at HydrogenAudio you'd be instantly banned due to about 8 different TOS violations just with that one post.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I kid obviously, but where's the evidence to back up such statements?  What are you listening with?  Which MP3 codec?  How are you hearing such obvious differences?  Do you spend all of your time listening to killer samples meant to trip up lossy codecs rather than listening to real music?


----------



## ramicio

[size=medium]This was years ago with the Frauenhofer MP3 codec.  I don't need ABX tests to tell me that there are compression artifacts.  I don't buy into ABX testing and yes I have had problems over at HA, a site I don't care for.  I didn't just listen for bad samples, it was in all my music and I could not stand it.  I like hearing all parts of music, and lossy codecs tend to kill the high frequencies, which is mathematically proven.  I was even disgusted by 320 kbps MP3.  Next time I backed up everything I went to 192 kbps AAC which was better, but I could still tell not all the information was there, even with inexpensive equipment.  The last, and current, time I did everything I just kept it FLAC.  16,000 songs (almost 1,700 are 24/96 and 24/192) still leaves me over 150 GB of free space on a 750 GB drive, a luxury I didn't have in the past.  Pretty much everything I got that was a vinyl rip I have deleted from the HD directory I have and have just gone with Redbook rips.  Anything left in the HD part of my collection is DVD-Audio.  I had convinced myself that vinyl was better but I had just EQ'd the hell out of my sound card so Redbook stuff would clip, and quiet vinyl stuff would tend not to.  I use lossy for my phone because I don't ever listen to stuff loud, like at home, and it's always in a more noisy place, so artifacts won't be as audible as just sitting down, relaxed, and listening with a lot of focus.​[/size]


----------



## fuzzy1969

Theres a newer fraunhofer encoder 'IIS' a lot of artists i listen to are using it.


----------



## Confispect

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> [size=medium]This was years ago with the Frauenhofer MP3 codec.  I don't need ABX tests to tell me that there are compression artifacts.  I don't buy into ABX testing and yes I have had problems over at HA, a site I don't care for.  I didn't just listen for bad samples, it was in all my music and I could not stand it.  I like hearing all parts of music, and lossy codecs tend to kill the high frequencies, which is mathematically proven.  I was even disgusted by 320 kbps MP3.  Next time I backed up everything I went to 192 kbps AAC which was better, but I could still tell not all the information was there, even with inexpensive equipment.  The last, and current, time I did everything I just kept it FLAC.  16,000 songs (almost 1,700 are 24/96 and 24/192) still leaves me over 150 GB of free space on a 750 GB drive, a luxury I didn't have in the past.  Pretty much everything I got that was a vinyl rip I have deleted from the HD directory I have and have just gone with Redbook rips.  Anything left in the HD part of my collection is DVD-Audio.  I had convinced myself that vinyl was better but I had just EQ'd the hell out of my sound card so Redbook stuff would clip, and quiet vinyl stuff would tend not to.  I use lossy for my phone because I don't ever listen to stuff loud, like at home, and it's always in a more noisy place, so artifacts won't be as audible as just sitting down, relaxed, and listening with a lot of focus.​[/size]


 


  Interesting...


----------



## ramicio

For me lossy codecs ruin the sounds of cymbals/hi-hats in rock music and blend and mush them together.  For real acoustic instruments, that is.  Digitally-made ones such as those in pop, electronic, and rap don't seem to suffer as much. I doubt a digital cymbal has as broad as spectrum as a real acoustic cymbal.


----------



## Confispect

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> For me lossy codecs ruin the sounds of cymbals/hi-hats in rock music and blend and mush them together.  For real acoustic instruments, that is.  Digitally-made ones such as those in pop, electronic, and rap don't seem to suffer as much. I doubt a digital cymbal has as broad as spectrum as a real acoustic cymbal.


 


  So what codec/bit would suggest....?


----------



## ramicio

For lossy or what?


----------



## Confispect

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> For lossy or what?


 


  Period. Your preference.


----------



## Satellite_6

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> The difference between 192 and 320 in MP3 is very audible.  With AAC probably not.  I have my whole FLAC library compressed to 192 AAC for my iPhone.  It sounds fine to me.  I used to use 192 for MP3 and it sounded horrible.


 

 Try LAME!


----------



## MCC

I've moved on to AAC 300k for my collection when space is a constraint (laptop), as I've noticed lack of "space" with LAME MP3s. I have yet to pass an ABX between Nero AAC 300k and FLAC but I can tell 256k LAME MP3 from FLAC under ABX given the right music.
   
  My main collection is currently 80.1% FLAC.


----------



## ramicio

My preference would be lossless.  It's insane to use a lossy library for PC playback with all of the storage space so cheap anymore.  I don't see how LAME is going to be any better than the creators of MP3.  To me, to change the MP3 algorithm is straying from the standard that was created.  Anyway lossy is inferior.


----------



## Satellite_6

The standard that was created is ancient. . . LAME is definitely superior to FHG. Also, AAC is not significantly better or worse than mp3 according to blind listening tests, and my ears. :-/
   
  My preference is also lossless and I have a lossless copy of ALL the music I care about, I only use lossy for DAPs: 320kbps mp3's encoded with LAME + mp3gain. . .


----------



## ramicio

Standards are standards.  If you don't follow them or update them without going through the proper channels then you are creating something that doesn't confrom anymore.  You can say to yourself that a pound is 17 ounces and do all your own math that way, then go to sell something that is supposed to be a strict pound and you will be wrong.  AAC is a much better compression scheme than MP3.  It's good enough that I can deal with 192 kbps AAC over 320 MP3.


----------



## Ham Sandwich

Standards for things like MP3 encoding aren't defined that strictly.  There isn't a one and only one way to do things.  The standard is more in terms of here's what the inputs need to be, here's what the outputs need to be, do some smart  stuff in between so that the outputs meet the specs.  Otherwise how would Google be able to supply a better JavaScript engine than the standard JavaScript implementation?  There's leeway and room to improve on what the standard implementation is.
   
  There's plenty of room for LAME to be able to do improvements.  And there's even room for LAME to implement some non-standards conforming stuff like a custom field to allow for gapless playback.


----------



## Zangetsu

hard to say. i second trying it


----------



## Satellite_6

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> Standards are standards.  If you don't follow them or update them without going through the proper channels then you are creating something that doesn't confrom anymore.  You can say to yourself that a pound is 17 ounces and do all your own math that way, then go to sell something that is supposed to be a strict pound and you will be wrong.  AAC is a much better compression scheme than MP3.  It's good enough that I can deal with 192 kbps AAC over 320 MP3.


 
  I'm sorry but you simply don't understand the nature of encoders. They are constantly changing and being improved. Your statement is irrelevant in this situation. 
   
  AAC is not a a much better compression scheme than mp3. 
   
  I don't think I've ever some across anyone who likes other mp3 encoders over LAME, it is essentially accepted as the standard for mp3 (among audiophiles at least) and other encoders like FHG will give you inferior results.


----------



## fuzzy1969

I think the newer fraunhofer encoder might be an improvement over the original as they were involved from the start developing the original mp3 encoders and a lot of new artist releasing their mixes are using it.


----------



## yepimonfire

this is true, AAC is significantly better then MP3, AAC sounds nearly transparent at all bitrates above 160kbps. ABX tests on AAC at 256kbps show random non-musical information removed, almost like white noise. AAC also no matter what bitrate you use retains crispness, especially in the high frequencies, MP3 ruins high frequencies at lower bitrates.


----------



## ramicio

An encoder is NOT a standard.  MP3 and audiophile should not even be regarded in the same sentence.  How can you even say AAC is not a much better compression scheme than MP3?  I also dislike how people measure what the codec throws away and then somehow can say that it's not musical information just by looking at its graphical representation.  It's the same kind of crap as people saying anything greater than 16/44.1 is just adding non-musical information...


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> An encoder is NOT a standard.  MP3 and audiophile should not even be regarded in the same sentence.  How can you even say AAC is not a much better compression scheme than MP3?  I also dislike how people measure what the codec throws away and then somehow can say that it's not musical information just by looking at its graphical representation.  It's the same kind of crap as people saying anything greater than 16/44.1 is just adding non-musical information...


 

 The MP3 standrad just tells you the format of frames, headers and so on, the psychoacoustic algorithms for deciding what information to discard are a matter of implementation, from tests done LAME is better at making those decisions than earlier FHG encoders, certainly early FHG encodes could be very poor, though this may have improved, I have not used FHG since 2000.
   
  I use MP3 daily in my office rig and at home and in mobile settings, but I consider myself a music lover and not an audiophile. I have about $5K worth of kit and do not consider MP3 a waekness. For the vast majority of cases and the vast majority of listeners a modern LAME encode at VBR 0 or 320 is *perceptually transparent*, but since you refuse to put your golden ears to the test no amount of rational discourse will ever persuade you on this.
   
  The psychoacoustic algorithms decide what to discard using concepts such as *masking* which models what frequencies will not be missed as they would not normally be heard in the context of the given signal, by and large this modelling is pretty good. Also a lot of high frequency data is discarded as it is less audible and at much lower levels than data in the 0 - 5K range.
   
  As for 16/44.1 vs high res, well *there is no controlled listening test data to date that indicates that in normal listening that the difference between high res and red book encoding schemes is audible *and there is a peer reviewed published paper that sugests that it is not normally audible. You may have more data in a high res encode but the information recreated on playback may not be effectively different, i.e the waveform reconstructed my not be functionally different or perceptually different.


----------



## ramicio

Go back to HydrogenAudio with this "subjective" ABX nonsense.  I've already said I could hear the difference, and yes I have heard LAME encodes.  Still artifacts.  Lossy codecs and psychoacoustics are for noisy environments, not quiet headphone listening.  Satellite radio is like 64 kbps AAC which is crap for personal listening, but it sounds fine in a car.  Things to fool senses are based on the brain, not the senses itself.  There was an article this week about the size of an area of the brain having an effect on how optical illusions fool people or don't.  The same thing applies to sound.  Our ears are dumbed down because we live in a noisy world and our brains ignore so much.  It's called selective hearing.  Someone can be nagging at you and you learn to ignore it like there was never even a sound at all.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> Go back to HydrogenAudio with this "subjective" ABX nonsense.  I've already said I could hear the difference, and yes I have heard LAME encodes.  Still artifacts.  Lossy codecs and psychoacoustics are for noisy environments, not quiet headphone listening.  Satellite radio is like 64 kbps AAC which is crap for personal listening, but it sounds fine in a car.


 

 You maintain you can hear a difference but you provide no actual evidence for this. The subjective forums are full of folks stating _I can hear a difference between 320 and lossless_, yet when put to the test many people fail to be able to do so. Anyone can say they hear a difference, actually doing it is another matter. On most samples I cannot tell the differences, on a few (very few) I can.
   
  When did you last try DBTing a VBR 0 or 320 rip vs a wav file ?
   
  I could provide you with some samples at 320 or VBR 0 if you like ?


----------



## ramicio

I ABX'd between a 24/96 wav and a 16/44.1 wav in fb2k.  ABX tests don't tell you which is better or worse, just that there is a difference.  That's why it is a stupid tool.  I don't need to provide evidence...this isn't the court of law.


----------



## Satellite_6

You don't have to have evidence to have an opinion but so say statements that are widely considered to be untrue and tell people they are true without any evidence is not logical. Keep your evidence-less opinions to your self.


----------



## ramicio

They're wildly considered to be untrue by people who take the bare minimum philosophy of life in general, which doesn't lead to progression.  They are already looking to replace the CD with Blu-ray here now.  Are we supposed to still stick with 16/44.1 then because a lot of people think it sounds good enough.  Everything is based on math and measuring stuff rather than listening.  And even then they base things off that you can't tell which one is better, just different.  It's nonsense.  Let technology progress.  With storage growing we are getting closer and closer to being able to store an analog wave in insane resolution digitally, so it will look analog even on the computer and not all squared off.


----------



## Satellite_6

There are blind tests that indicate which files are better: the way they work is one must successfully ABX two tracks and after the ABX one is allowed to chose the one they think sound the best. I forget what these tests are called.
   
  Progress is great and all but at some point it is not worth continuing. . . i.e. blu-ray discs look absolutely amazing, do we need anything better than 1920x1080? Very doubtful. CD quality is also extremely high quality (as long it's not to messed up in the mastering process) and does not need to be replaced. It is certainly beyond good enough for me. 
   
  The fact is the newer formats were supposed to be all that and replace mp3, but none of them has really proven to be any better, ergo mp3 is still everywhere and it hasn't been replaced. They _are_ more modern and technically superior in some ways, but they just don't give better results because mp3 (assuming you are using LAME) does it's job more than adequately.


----------



## ramicio

1080p looks good enough because everyone had SD since TVs came along.  It is still far from film or 4k+ digital cinema.  I was talking about Blu-ray going audio-only, or at least accompanied by music videos.  Tom Petty's album "Damn The Torpedoes" came out on Blu-ray.  I have no idea if it is audio-only or not.  Lossy is prominent because the majority of people using the internet still don't have fast broadband and people want instant music.  Anyone who thinks MP3 was invented to be an end-all format for music is mistaken.  Compression is made to reduce bandwidth for telecommunications.  I really would like to know how everyone is differentiating what is measured as musical information or non-musical information.  That sure sounds opinionated to me.


----------



## MCC

Everyone has their own opinions on compression and that's fine. After comparing MP3 and AAC directly I decided that AAC retains more of the ambiance of the music on certain specially picked songs and decided to switch. 256k AAC was indistinguishable from FLAC for me and I bumped it to 300k for peace of mind. This is nothing to fight over- only personal preference.
   
  Of course, CD audio itself is quite limited when compared to vinyl.


----------



## Confispect

Quote: 





mcc said:


> Everyone has their own opinions on compression and that's fine. After comparing MP3 and AAC directly I decided that AAC retains more of the ambiance of the music on certain specially picked songs and decided to switch. 256k AAC was indistinguishable from FLAC for me and I bumped it to 300k for peace of mind. This is nothing to fight over- only personal preference.
> 
> Of course, CD audio itself is quite limited when compared to vinyl.


 
  Interesting I'll have to try AAC.


----------



## MCC

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Confispect* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Interesting I'll have to try AAC.


 

 Just be sure to use the Nero AAC encoder- I recall reading reports that Apple's encoder doesn't do as good of a job.


----------



## ramicio

Vinyl is limited compared to CD, plus is wears out so you can't just make a backup.  Believe me, I went on a vinyl binge and recorded them.  Then I eventually had enough of the sound and went back to CD and deleted my vinyl rips.  Now I'm trying to get rid of everything vinyl that I own.


----------



## Satellite_6

Quote: 





mcc said:


> Everyone has their own opinions on compression and that's fine. After comparing MP3 and AAC directly I decided that AAC retains more of the ambiance of the music on certain specially picked songs and decided to switch. 256k AAC was indistinguishable from FLAC for me and I bumped it to 300k for peace of mind. This is nothing to fight over- only personal preference.
> 
> Of course, CD audio itself is quite limited when compared to vinyl.


 
  . . . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 really? 
   
  Well after this I'm going to stop posting. . . to refute one more thing said in this thread tho: the iTunes AAC encoder is thought to be very good, one of the best. 
   
  If anything is better than mp3 it's probably Vorbis, not AAC, but that's just a guess. 
   
  The conclusions of people in this thread are absolutely ridiculous and not based on any facts, so readers be warned.


----------



## MCC

Quote:


satellite_6 said:


> . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 A blind ABX test is a blind ABX test. That is fact. What is there to debate? And I did say that only in very select situations was I able to tell the difference. I'm not making a blanket statement that Nero AAC is always better than LAME MP3.


----------



## ramicio

Vorbic > AAC > MP3.  I like the Nero AAC encoder.


----------



## blockhead

I can't ABX (foobar) AAC 256kbps vs FLAC/WAV. I encoded my CD collection in Q7 Vorbis/.ogg which was one level over what I found transparent.( not sure why I did this just some old-fashioned idea of having a safety margin.)
  Seems people who test always have different results from those who "just know" there is a "massive" difference. I'm not disrespecting anyones personal preference/opinion. I mean what could I possibly have to gain from convincing someone one way or the other. I can understand the philosophy of why not have the best quality if storage isn't an issue. I do encourage people to test it for themselves though as I was surprised how much my preconceived notions had affected my judgement.


----------



## Justin Uthadude

Sadly though, I fear those same loudness loving engineers that make our CDs will eventually be making 24/96 media and we'll be having this same discussion. More resolution isn't ALWAYS better once you can no longer hear it.
   
  By the way,
  If you don't believe in A/B'ing the music to compare the difference, how do you know 24/96 trounces CD? Does 16/44.1 disgust you and 24/96 is way better? Seriously, I have friends with great ears and I can sometimes fool them between a wav file and a 320k mp3.
   
  Quote: 





			
				ramicio said:
			
		

> /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> .....I don't buy into ABX testing ......
> I was even disgusted by 320 kbps MP3.  Next time I backed up everything I went to 192 kbps AAC which was better....​


----------



## Justin Uthadude

edit


----------



## Justin Uthadude

edit


----------



## ramicio

I just said a few posts back that I took an vinyl rip of 24/96 and downed it to 16/44.1 and could tel the difference most of the time.  I did the same for a 24/192 DVD-Audio rip.  There are no rules in ABing of what you have to listen to, and I chose select parts of the songs.  Yeah, more resolution won't do any good if everything is loud, but loudness is the industry's art, not the artists' art.  Take a look at how many older artists are on labels, but then release AWESOME HD masters to buy and download off of their sites...so they release them independently.  We will be seeing more of this, but it will take a while for mainstream artists to do it because all they know how to do is sing and dance for 1 or 2 albums and then get addicted to drugs, go to jail, or fulfill their contracts through reality TV shows.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> I just said a few posts back that I took an vinyl rip of 24/96 and downed it to 16/44.1 and could tel the difference most of the time.
> 
> *Was that 9/10 or 8/10 - this is important, most also includes 6/10 which is not significant. Do you have the samples still, it would be interesting to look at them. I have to say I am still skeptical, why, well there was a peer reviewed published study that used 60 audiophile listeners and over 500 trials and apart from the extra noise when listening really loud none of the subjects could detect the difference between DVD-A/SACD and the same downsampled to 16/44.1 - which may mean that you have exceptional ears or there is a methodological problem such as insufficient trials or poor downsampling method. I am sorry to appear picky on this , but what you are saying is at odds with current research.*
> 
> I did the same for a 24/192 DVD-Audio rip.  There are no rules in ABing of what you have to listen to, and I chose select parts of the songs.  Yeah, more resolution won't do any good if everything is loud, but loudness is the industry's art, not the artists' art.  Take a look at how many older artists are on labels, but then release AWESOME HD masters to buy and download off of their sites...so they release them independently.  We will be seeing more of this, but it will take a while for mainstream artists to do it because all they know how to do is sing and dance for 1 or 2 albums and then get addicted to drugs, go to jail, or fulfill their contracts through reality TV shows.


----------



## Confispect




----------



## ramicio

How is anything over half not significant?  The controlled tests are propaganda to keep CD around and not move technology forward.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





ramicio said:


> How is anything over half not significant?  The controlled tests are propaganda to keep CD around and not move technology forward.


 


 Are you being serious ?
   
  Do you have any knowledge about probabilities, 6/10 is absolutely not significant, 60/100 is , it is all about the likelihood of obtaining a given result by chance. 6/10 is very likely by chance while 60/100 is much much less so, the more trials you run the better the strength of the statistical tests.
   
  As for your last sentence, this does not seem likely given the large players who are continually attempting to get folks to part with money to get yet another music format, this is by no means new - LP, Quad, Compact Cassette, 8-Track,VHS, CD,DAT,R-DAT, DCC, Minidisc, HDCD, SACD, DVD-A, Blu-Ray audio the list goes on and on.....


----------



## ramicio

CD itself is only around anymore because of audio.  Games are larger than CD-ROM anymore.  I can't think of any instance where the CD medium is useful anymore.  They don't even make CD-ROM or CD-RW only drives anymore.  How many different 120mm discs do we need?  How many different wavelength optics do we need to keep cramming into read heads?  It's getting ridiculous.  It's not like a new format on say DVD would be bad, DVD has been here for a while, and it's basically the same technology, just shorter wavelength, so it's not like much would need to be adapted.  24/96 would have plenty of room on DVD5, and artists wouldn't need to put out 2 discs for longer albums.  24/192 would be a little over 2 hours on DVD9.  It's not going to hurt the sound to upgrade.  They could even make tighter standards on what could be called the format, and even bring loudness into it, so if artists want loud music, then it won't constrain to the format and therefore they won't be able to label it as such.  Even metadata could be added to have a loud version or a normal version to apply DRC, or even 2 different versions entirely!  I could understand if they were trying to push a whole new medium entirely, which could be good depending on what it is.  Flash memory could be viable.
   
  People bitch about HD video having film grain which they didn't see on DVD.  They'd see it if they were watching it on film.  People just get adapted to lower-res stuff, and when a new format comes out that blows the old one away, they are going to see the physical imperfections of what the cameras themselves can't hide.  Ya don't bitch about film grain in the theater, why do it for home video?


----------



## fuzzy1969

dvd5 is also sacd single layer format which has been around a while


----------



## jbluzb86

For me 192 KBS has more relevant effect in classical and rock music. But relatively slow songs quality is barely noticeable.  
   
  But on some poorly mastered records dynamics are lost due to compression. You can actually hear it in music loosing difference in soft and loud sounds.


----------



## cuznsteve

iTunes was in AAC Encoder, and 256......it offered a b unch lower kbps but hoigher was  288 kpbs and 320 kbps, ...isnt 320 better than 256? bit rate and  setting switches to costom but is iTunesPlus better? and VBR, is this really truly better than say High Efficiency? (settings) see iTunes, Edit, Prefrences, Advanceed, under General.get back to me ---email...thanks.....cuznsteve


----------



## CyberGhost

logistics said:


> An unfortunate part of this is that Windows XP (if you're using it) handles audio poorly. This is a well known problem. Comparing tracks over XP and then switching to your portable could yield different results. Make sure you are using Kernel Streaming or ASIO when you do an A/B comparison in XP.


 
  
 THANK, YOU!
  
 What a difference, I've been listening to foobar through DirectSound on XP for years! Some tracks sounded clear but harsh, so I thought it was just the way the track was encoded, recorded or that my equipment simply could not handle it. I think I deleted couple of tracks and chose a less harsher version because of this.
  
 Saw your post, got Kernel Streaming plug in, I repeat... what, a, difference! The clarity went up, the harshness is gone! Amazing! Thank you sir, thank you!
  
 For the future, does Windows 7 or 8 have these problems?


----------



## adisib

cyberghost said:


> For the future, does Windows 7 or 8 have these problems?


 
  
 No. After windows XP they added WASAPI for lower-latency audio, and services for prioritizing CPU resources for time-sensitive data like audio, and I believe XP only had 16 bit audio processing which was increased in Vista. Windows Vista and onwards can play bit-perfect audio no worse than Mac's OS. People generally prefer to play their music in Vista Onwards using WASAPI's exclusive mode, so that the Windows mixer is bypassed entirely and no outside sounds can interfere with music. Kernel streaming is no longer needed.


----------



## blades

clincher09 said:


> I've always ripped my files in 192 kbs audio format, but some people will only accept 320 kbs. Is there really an audible difference? If I ripped all my music in 320 would there be a noticble difference in sound or will I just be using up more space? What about 192 kbs and windows lossless?
> 
> Also, is there a sound difference between mp3 and wma?


 
  
 I've done many bias controlled tests.  In my tests 320 and 256kbps MP3 sound the same as an original CD.  192 begins to show some sonic degradation and 128 is really noticeable.  Below that MP3's sound awful to me.  MP3 and WMA are comparable.  What matters is not so much the encoding but rather the amount of digital compression.


----------



## CyberGhost

adisib said:


> No. After windows XP they added WASAPI for lower-latency audio, and services for prioritizing CPU resources for time-sensitive data like audio, and I believe XP only had 16 bit audio processing which was increased in Vista. Windows Vista and onwards can play bit-perfect audio no worse than Mac's OS. People generally prefer to play their music in Vista Onwards using WASAPI's exclusive mode, so that the Windows mixer is bypassed entirely and no outside sounds can interfere with music. Kernel streaming is no longer needed.


 
 Thank you for the explanation adisib!


----------



## nicholars

clincher09 said:


> I've always ripped my files in 192 kbs audio format, but some people will only accept 320 kbs. Is there really an audible difference? If I ripped all my music in 320 would there be a noticble difference in sound or will I just be using up more space? What about 192 kbs and windows lossless?
> 
> Also, is there a sound difference between mp3 and wma?


 
  
 If you honestly cannot tell the difference between a 192kbps and a 320kbps you either have very cheap headphones (although it should still be noticeable) or hearing loss, I can 90% of the time notice a quite big difference between FLAC and 320kbps (although 320 sounds decent), anything under 320kbs I instantly notice it sounds bad, anything 192kb or under is just poor.


----------



## cswann1

If you honestly can tell the difference...I truly feel sorry for you.  And I would bet a large amount of money in a true blind comparrison test you'd identify the higher bit-rate files roughly 50% of the time.


----------



## cjl

nicholars said:


> I can 90% of the time notice a quite big difference between FLAC and 320kbps (although 320 sounds decent), anything under 320kbs I instantly notice it sounds bad, anything 192kb or under is just poor.


 
 Have you tested yourself recently? 320 is pretty much audibly transparent (meaning that there is no audible difference between 320 and FLAC) if encoded properly.


----------



## nicholars

cjl said:


> Have you tested yourself recently? 320 is pretty much audibly transparent (meaning that there is no audible difference between 320 and FLAC) if encoded properly.


 
  
 As I said 320kbps sounds decent, but FLAC seems better, anything under 320kbs starts to sound quite bad, 256 is sometimes acceptable but 192 and lower is just bad. I don't need to test myself because I do it all the time when listening to music, I put a track on, think "hmm this sounds bad I bet it is low bitrate" and it always is, if you have decent equipment and headphones it becomes painfully obvious the difference between anything under 320kbps to the point I do not listen to hardly anything under 320kbps, most of the time I listen to FLAC... The differences with FLAC and 320kbps are more subtle and more noticeable on good headphones / equipment, 320kbps is decent though I don't mind listening to that, but with broadband these days I have no idea why people encode at anything lower than 320kbps. Not sure I could 100% tell the difference between flac and 320 every time in blind A/B but I could tell the difference between 320 and 192 or 128 every time.


----------



## castleofargh

Quote:


> ...I don't need to test myself...


 


> ...if you have decent equipment and headphones...


 
  
 typical.
  
  


> The differences with FLAC and 320kbps are more subtle and more noticeable on good headphones / equipment, things like frequency extension, detail, seperation, sibilance etc.


 
 that also tells a lot about your actual expertise on 320mp3...


----------



## nicholars

castleofargh said:


> Quote:
> 
> typical.
> 
> ...


 
  
 mmm thanks for the derogatory tone in your post.... To be honest everything I said is 100% correct... Not really interested in arguing about it, but as I already said 320kbps is fine and can not always be A/B from FLAC, 128 and 192 are just bad, 256 is sometimes *ok*, FLAC does sound noticeably better than 320kbps most of the time with good recordings, using more expensive headphones the differences become a lot more obvious, sorry but what I have said is 100% correct and you probably don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Brooko

nicholars said:


> mmm thanks for the derogatory tone in your post.... To be honest everything I said is 100% correct... Not really interested in arguing about it, but as I already said 320kbps is fine and can not always be A/B from FLAC, 128 and 192 are just bad, 256 is sometimes *ok*, FLAC does sound noticeably better than 320kbps most of the time with good recordings, using more expensive headphones the differences become a lot more obvious, sorry but what I have said is 100% correct and you probably don't know what you are talking about.


 
  
 Actually he does know what he's talking about Nicholars. Lame has got to the point that at 256 kbps and above it's pretty much transparent at this stage (there are a few "killer" tracks that will defeat the encoder - but these are few and far between).  aac is even better - at aac256 it is definitely transparent. If encoded properly without introducing encoding artifacts.  The idea that you can easily tell suggests that:
  
 [a] Last time you tested was years ago with an inferior encoder
* You are not being entirely honest
 [c[ You are not human
 **please note - I am not being derogatory here - I'm merely stating fact as we know it within tested human limitations**
  
 The problem with saying "I don't need to test myself" is that actually you do.  Here's a how to - http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.  The software is free.  All it costs is time.  As humans, we need to remove as much bias as we can - so that means unsighted, volume matched.  Fortunately the link I've listed gets you started.
  
 Of course you are free to state that there is no need for you to do it, and that you can easily tell. But your in Sound Science, and we equally have the right to ask for proof.
  
 If you want a real laugh - go and make those claims over at hydrogenaudio. The replies would be interesting ......
*


----------



## RRod

nicholars said:


> mmm thanks for the derogatory tone in your post.... To be honest everything I said is 100% correct... Not really interested in arguing about it, but as I already said 320kbps is fine and can not always be A/B from FLAC, 128 and 192 are just bad, 256 is sometimes *ok*, FLAC does sound noticeably better than 320kbps most of the time with good recordings, using more expensive headphones the differences become a lot more obvious, sorry but what I have said is 100% correct and you probably don't know what you are talking about.


 
  
 He probably agrees with what many of the rest of us are thinking: either you have the most super ears in the world, or you're not doing a legitimate comparison. The actual differences (that is, the subtraction of the two waveforms) between 320 and FLAC are almost always well below the RMS of the music, which means differences will be at best subtle and only detectable in the most pathological situations. So when you say 320 is "decent", which indicates an obvious difference in sound quality you're hearing on a wide variety of tracks, it sounds fishy.


----------



## nicholars

I did say that 320 and FLAC I probably would not be able to A/B, and that 256 is *ok*.. but definately anything under that sounds significantly worse. Maybe a lot of my lower bitrate Mp3's are just badly encoded...
  
 But then hydrogen audio objectivists say that all dacs sound the same... Which is certainly not the case


----------



## RRod

nicholars said:


> I did say that 320 and FLAC I probably would not be able to A/B, and that 256 is *ok*.. but definately anything under that sounds significantly worse. Maybe a lot of my lower bitrate Mp3's are just badly encoded...
> 
> But then hydrogen audio objectivists say that all dacs sound the same... Which is certainly not the case


 
  
 You said: "FLAC does sound noticeably better than 320kbps most of the time with good recordings, using more expensive headphones the differences become a lot more obvious". So how does it sound "noticeably better" if you don't think you could ABX it? And the differences between well-implemented DACs should be even finer than the difference between FLAC and 320.


----------



## Brooko

nicholars said:


> I did say that 320 and FLAC I probably would not be able to A/B, and that 256 is *ok*.. but definately anything under that sounds significantly worse. Maybe a lot of my lower bitrate Mp3's are just badly encoded...
> 
> But then hydrogen audio objectivists say that all dacs sound the same... Which is certainly not the case




They actually say that similarly spec'd DACs sound the same when implemented properly. In controlled tests (again volume matched with someone else doing the switching) I'm inclined to agee with them. Once the level of resolution exceeds our human ability to discern difference (ie beyond our audible thresholds), then claimed differences usually turn out to be placebo related. At least in my experience that is the case.


----------



## nicholars

rrod said:


> You said: "FLAC does sound noticeably better than 320kbps most of the time with good recordings, using more expensive headphones the differences become a lot more obvious". So how does it sound "noticeably better" if you don't think you could ABX it? And the differences between well-implemented DACs should be even finer than the difference between FLAC and 320.


 
  
 Well it just seems to sound better, maybe I am imagining it, maybe it does, I don't know exactly other than FLAC just seems to sound better than 320kbpsmost of the time, but not "night and day"... But as I said 320kbps is fine as well and maybe it is more the quality of the encoding on some Mp3's.... Some 320kbps seem to sound as good as FLAC, some don't... I was mainly saying that 192 or 128 sounds a lot worse, I already said 320 is good and 256 is ok, also you edited my post to make it look different to what I actually said.... Also what you said about DAC's is not true... Anyway I don't want to waste any more time discussing it so lets leave it at that.


----------



## RRod

nicholars said:


> Well it just seems to sound better, maybe I am imagining it, maybe it does, I don't know exactly other than FLAC just seems to sound better than 320kbpsmost of the time, but not "night and day"... But as I said 320kbps is fine as well and maybe it is more the quality of the encoding on some Mp3's.... Some 320kbps seem to sound as good as FLAC, some don't... I was mainly saying that 192 or 128 sounds a lot worse, I already said 320 is good and 256 is ok, also you edited my post to make it look different to what I actually said.... Also what you said about DAC's is not true... Anyway I don't want to waste any more time discussing it with you so lets leave it at that.


 
  
 I copy-pasted a whole, self-contained clause from your post, so I wouldn't call that editing. Also what you said about DAC's is not true


----------



## nicholars

rrod said:


> I copy-pasted a whole, self-contained clause from your post, so I wouldn't call that editing. Also what you said about DAC's is not true


 
  
 Ok well I am happy with my setup and enjoy listening to flacs or 320kbps so I see no problem here, maybe my initial posts were not worded very well... but anyway we are all in agreement that 320 sounds good, lower than 256 doesn't so that's great.... personally I find FLAC's usually sound better, maybe I am imagining it or maybe it is badly encoded MP3 I don't know. DAC's can make a pretty big difference to the sound tbh, I had the same skeptical "objectivist" opinion on dacs until I tried a load of DAC's and A/B them and found quite obvious differences, especially the D1050 I got recently is very obviously better than anything else I was using before it.


----------



## RRod

nicholars said:


> Ok well I am happy with my setup and enjoy listening to flacs or 320kbps so I see no problem here, maybe my initial posts were not worded very well... but anyway we are all in agreement that 320 sounds good, lower than 256 doesn't so that's great.... personally I find FLAC's usually sound better, maybe I am imagining it or maybe it is badly encoded MP3 I don't know. DAC's can make a pretty big difference to the sound tbh, I had the same skeptical "objectivist" opinion on dacs until I tried a load of DAC's and A/B them and found quite obvious differences, especially the D1050 I got recently is very obviously better than anything else I was using before it.


 
  
 Well we'll leave it at that and saunter off to our respective drinking environments.


----------



## Mambosenior

rrod said:


> Well we'll leave it at that and saunter off to our respective drinking environments.




There are people posting here first...and THEN drinking?!?! Really? (Who let'em in without a breathlizer test to prove they have properly partaken of the juices BEFORE posting?)

(Ahem) moderators, please take note.


----------



## DiscoProJoe

Back in early 2000 when I got the MP3-encoder program AudioCatalyst 2.0 (which was a couple months after getting my first CD burner / ripper), I ripped some songs from some CDs and played around with the encoder. While living in the U.S., I used to have a room stereo system with Dolby/analog 5-speaker surround and a 15" passive subwoofer.  If I played it in "straight stereo" through the two main channels only (with the passive subwoofer running off them), and without any surround effects, I couldn't notice any difference between 160 kbps MP3, and the WAV files ripped from the original CDs.
  
 But if I turned on the 4-channel (or 5-channel) analog surround, I'd notice a slight "swishy" sound in the rear reverb speakers at 160 kbps.  So next, I tried encoding the songs at 192 kbps.  Lo and behold, I couldn't notice _any_ "swishy" sound at all anywhere!  So I chose 192 kbps as my personal standard, which I've stuck with to this day.
  
 I spent three months in 2001 converting my whole CD collection to MP3 onto two sets of CD-Rs, and used MP3-CD players for the next several years until getting my 80 GB iPod Classic in 2008.  (At the beginning of 2015, I had the battery in it replaced and the circuit boards thoroughly cleaned, and it runs like a champ!)
  
 Anyway, after all these years I _still_ use my old, trusty AudioCatalyst 2.0 program for encoding, since it's really fast, trustworthy, and I can't notice any difference in sound quality at my chosen bitrate.  When I download an MP3 at a bitrate higher than 192 that I'd like to add to my music collection, first I'll convert it to WAV (using a really old program called MP32WAV), then back to MP3...at 192 to match the rest of the collection. And this is still without any noticeable difference in sound quality to me.
  
 Two months ago when I visited my parents' house, and looked at the old CDs in my old closet in my old bedroom, I ripped the '80s pop song "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now" by Starship to my laptop, and then plugged in my _brand-new_ V-Moda M-100 headphones to it. I tried listening back and forth between the ripped WAV file and the 192 kbps MP3 file I'd had since 2001, and _still_,...*no noticeable difference to me!*
  
 I breathed a sigh of relief, knowing that I'd made the right choice many years earlier with my longtime chosen bitrate.


----------



## nicholars

Why not just use 320kbps... Its not like hard drives or storage are expensive and I can definitely notice better sound from 320 vs 192...


----------

