# Can you tell the difference between lossless and MP3?



## bigshot

Find out! The details of the great "Talk Classical Lossless vs Lossy Listen Off" are posted here...

http://www.talkclassical.com/24156-great-lossy-listen-off.html

Let me know if you would like FLAC or Apple Lossless and I will send you a download link.

thanks!
Steve


----------



## bigshot

The samples we are testing were selected by our very own millionrainbows. Great sound!


----------



## Arsakes

It's simple: Lossless is divine, MP3 is evil :lol:


----------



## bigshot

That's what they say... Would you like a test file to find out for yourself?


----------



## worov

A Mahler symphony would not sound the same in MP3. Too many instruments.


----------



## Albert7

I can tell a slight difference honestly although this doesn't prevent me from enjoying iTunes downloading. However, I back up the most important CD's from my collections into lossless ALAC format.


----------



## Andreas

It depends on the encoder, the quality settings and bitrate. I remember using the Fraunhofer encoder in the late 90s, with max quality settings and 192 kbit. Took a long time to encode files on my PC but they sounded really good. I wasn't listening to classical back then, but even in pop/rock the level of quality was noticable in things like cymbal crashes, high pitch guitars, etc. Most recently I used the FAAC and WMV encoders, and they're really good, too, in my opinion. Could I hear the difference between hiigh quality lossy files and CD/WAVE/FLAC? Probably not. Maybe on expensive gear.


----------



## DeepR

Nobody can tell the difference between 320 kbit MP3 and FLAC and don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Maybe some animals could tell the difference.


----------



## GodNickSatan

I have a much easier time listening to MP3 than listening to a recording from 60 years ago or more and I can't be the only one.


----------



## brianvds

GodNickSatan said:


> I have a much easier time listening to MP3 than listening to a recording from 60 years ago or more and I can't be the only one.


Yup. Even relatively poor recordings of today are vastly better than the ones I grew up with, which is partly why I'm perfectly happy getting all my music from YouTube.


----------



## Albert7

I used to not care so much whether or not my recordings were encoding into mp3's but as I gotten older, my ears have gotten much more sensitive and now I can tell more of a difference between mp3 and lossless.

Scary thing is that encoding in lossless now that I can hear all of the "defects" in digital recordings but that makes it more realistic to me honestly .


----------



## Muse Wanderer

To my ears there is a difference between lossy and lossless even with high bitrate lossy formats. This applies especially for well recorded recent music heard with high quality headphones.
I spent a whole year listening to a favourite recording of mine encoded at 320mbps. As soon as I listened to a lossless version it was like an epiphany!
The microdynamics, clarity, sound stage and separation of instruments was better in my opinion. Possibly I grew so accustomed to the lossy version that my brain just realised that this was more detailed and lifelike. 
An double blinded A/B comparison may not show these details unless one gIves ample time to get used to both versions.


----------



## Wood

You boys are so in trouble.


----------



## Triplets

GodNickSatan said:


> I have a much easier time listening to MP3 than listening to a recording from 60 years ago or more and I can't be the only one.


Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony first recorded Also Sprach Zarathustra in 1954. Sound quality will blow you away.


----------



## Triplets

DeepR said:


> Nobody can tell the difference between 320 kbit MP3 and FLAC and don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Maybe some animals could tell the difference.


Perhaps you can't tell the difference. How can you speak with such certainty about the other 7 billion people on our Planet?


----------



## Muse Wanderer

Almost all my music is lossless and I listen to lossless on my portable player as well.

Why limit oneself to a lesser format? 

It may not make a difference if an older recording with poor engineering is played but I would still not get the whole package. 

That is why youtube is a no go area for me except for occasional casual background music. It is just too 'painful' for me to listen attentively when the digitalised sound is so substandard as is mostly the case. But that's just me , it surely fits the bill for many other dedicated listeners.


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> Nobody can tell the difference between 320 kbit MP3 and FLAC and don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Maybe some animals could tell the difference.


Well, PERHAPS under perfect conditions of a sound-proofed room with great equipment and well-cleaned ears, but in general, I agree. I'm all about getting good headphones and good recordings, but the bitrate side of the audiophile trend is nothing but placebo effect. And that placebo takes up quite a bit more space too.


----------



## Blake

I haven't been able to. I think there is something to the "placebo effect." There is only a certain range of frequencies the ear can pick up, and what the 320 kbps cuts out is hardly perceptible anyway.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hearing the difference depends greatly on the content of the music. 

Why are we visually biased and aurally ignorant?

Most everyone can SEE the difference in HDTV formats and "refresh rates" (60 Hz/120 Hz/ etc.), and this matters more to those who watch sports and tennis, because there is across-screen movement. There's even a new "Ultra-HD" which is the big deal now.

Make the metaphor between TV and Audio, and you begin to see that "resolution" in audio is similar to refresh rater in tv. The more complex a mix is, the more resolution is required to hear each element and zero in on it.

Simple, solo passages, or pianos, might be much harder to detect resolution if used as a test. Electric guitars and cymbals are bad indicators. The best are voices.

The only reason MP3 and compression was invented was to save data on portable storage listening devices or computer hard drives. That's the only reason to use them. They were not intended for listening on home theatre systems or good hi-fi systems. 

People would complain if DVD sound was done in MP3 format.

All of this subjective squabbling about "I can't tell the difference" is a ridiculous waste of time. The industry needs to go to at least 192 Khz or above, as a standard, and "idiot-proof" the audio formats.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> I haven't been able to. I think there is something to the "placebo effect." There is only a certain range of frequencies the ear can pick up, and what the 320 kbps cuts out is hardly perceptible anyway.


That's wrong for several reasons. Firstly, the quality of good sound is not just a matter of "frequency" or what frequencies the ear is capable of hearing, so just forget that argument. It is worse than useless.

The ears hear _in conjunction with our brain, _and "resolution" is a matter of being able to hear all elements of a complex mix separately, and to "zero-in" on each element spacially, as well as being able to distinguish its "space" in the sound field as an individual entity, without exerting any effort.

A mix done with poor resolution might have just as high a _frequency_ as hi-rez, but it still sounds like "digital mush" by comparison, because of low resolution. It has all the high frequencies, though. Big deal, it matters not one whit.

MP3s are based on "psychoacoustic" principles. They figured out what elements are most important to our listening, and take away data from other things. This means that voices are probably going to sound OK, but the rest of it will suffer.

NUMBERS DON'T LIE. Low-rez means less data, poorer sound. That's simple enough.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> That's wrong for several reasons. Firstly, the quality of good sound is not just a matter of "frequency" or what frequencies the ear is capable of hearing, so just forget that argument. It is worse than useless.
> 
> The ears hear _in conjunction with our brain, _and "resolution" is a matter of being able to hear all elements of a complex mix separately, and to "zero-in" on each element spacially, as well as being able to distinguish its "space" in the sound field as an individual entity, without exerting any effort.
> 
> A mix done with poor resolution might have just as high a _frequency_ as hi-rez, but it still sounds like "digital mush" by comparison, because of low resolution. It has all the high frequencies, though. Big deal, it matters not one whit.
> 
> MP3s are based on "psychoacoustic" principles. They figured out what elements are most important to our listening, and take away data from other things. This means that voices are probably going to sound OK, but the rest of it will suffer.
> 
> NUMBERS DON'T LIE. Low-rez means less data, poorer sound. That's simple enough.


It's not wrong at all. It's all frequencies... nothing more. Thanks for the snarky reply, though.


----------



## senza sordino

I didn't take the test. All I can offer this thread is that I prefer listening to my CDs on my stereo than all the following: YouTube, Spotify connected from my iPad mini to my stereo and my iPod. My original CDs just have a better "sound and feel" 

It's a combination, I'm sure, of lossless digital format, stereo amplifier and speakers.


----------



## KenOC

To answer the question in the thread title: At 128K, yes, pretty much. At 192K, I think I can sometimes on very good recordings. At 256K VBR and above, no, never.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> I haven't been able to. I think there is something to the "placebo effect." There is only a certain range of frequencies the ear can pick up, and what the 320 kbps cuts out is hardly perceptible anyway.





Vesuvius said:


> It's not wrong at all. It's all frequencies... nothing more. Thanks for the snarky reply, though.


This is exactly why I'll be glad when the music industry sets a new standard for sampling frequencies, at least 96 kHz, 192 kHz, and higher. This will render all this subjective stuff irrelevant, and people will once again be able to really appreciate the benefits of good sounding music, not this digital hash they are being fed.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> This is exactly why I'll be glad when the music industry sets a new standard for sampling frequencies, at least 96 kHz, 192 kHz, and higher. This will render all this subjective stuff irrelevant, and people will once again be able to really appreciate the benefits of good sounding music, not this digital hash they are being fed.


I acknowledge that the 320 cuts out information. All I'm saying is that for the casual listener with basic equipment, lossless is really just taking up space. The information shaved off with the 320 is hardly perceptible anyway. But if one has extremely acute hearing and wants to be able to detect the fart of a fly, then go for it.


----------



## TxllxT

All depends on the lower frequencies: when your speakers or headphones are not able to render something below 60Hz, than you will not be able to tell the difference between loss-less & Mp3. Cutting off the low frequencies, that's the trick of making Mp3 files with much less Mb's (--but why do we need those small files nowadays?--). 
When you do have speakers in a room that is big enough for 'releasing' really low frequencies between the walls, then you will for sure immediately notice the difference. For example an organ recording with heavy bass pedaling that blows me out of my seat, in Mp3 this very same recording will sound as lame as lame can be, no matter how loud you turn up the volume. 
Apart from music in the lower frequencies there is also the 'passive' presence of space, that we feel in loss-less (again because this is happening as low + sub-low sound) and that is absent in Mp3. 
But when you drive a car, the inside space is just too small to render anything below 60Hz. So don't worry & be happy with Mp3 in such surroundings. 
On the other hand, when you really want to listen to a music recording on which the below-60Hz frequencies are present, it is worthwhile to invest in excellent speakers (+ in a room that is big enough). The low frequencies happen to 'carry' everything above them like a _basso continuo_, they make you feel the atmosphere.
On the other hand, once you do *hear* the difference between loss-less & Mp3, you will become more and more critical on the recording quality. The defects are being heard too!


----------



## Albert7

Vesuvius said:


> I acknowledge that the 320 cuts out information. All I'm saying is that for the casual listener with basic equipment, lossless is really just taking up space. The information shaved off with the 320 is hardly perceptible anyway. But if one has extremely acute hearing and wants to be able to detect the fart of a fly, then go for it.


What would a fart of a fly sound like during John Cage's 4' 33"?


----------



## Haydn man

I don't think I can tell any difference between MP3 and lossless.
I do know a bad recording when I hear one, and so do feel quality matters to a certain extent. That said the performance quality matters more for me as long as the sound is reasonable I am happy


----------



## bigshot

I notice that this thread has been resurrected. I still have the samples on my server. If anyone wants to give it a try, PM me.

I spent a LOT of time putting the test together. If you want to try it, you have to agree not to cheat. This is a listening test. No opening up the samples in an audio editing program and analyzing the waveform. One joker did that last time, and I got so angry I shut down the whole test. I've cooled off now so I'm happy to share this LISTENING test with you. Ears only this time!

The file I will link you to when you request it will be an Apple Lossless file containing ten samples. The samples will be AAC, LAME and Fraunhofer MP3 at 192, 256 and 320. One sample out of the ten will be the original lossless file. It's up to you to determine through careful listening which one is the lossless, or which ones are audibly transparent to you.

The music was selected to be the most complex classical music to encode possible. Half the sample is choral and the other half is orchestral. They are up to date modern recordings with first class sound quality.

Enjoy!
Steve


----------



## bigshot

Triplets said:


> Perhaps you can't tell the difference. How can you speak with such certainty about the other 7 billion people on our Planet?


Because hundreds of formal and informal blind comparison tests back up what he is saying. Beyond a certain bitrate, some lossy codecs (particularly AAC and LAME) achieve audible transparency to any human ear. (Bats and dogs notwithstanding, but they can get their own digital music!)


----------



## Blake

bigshot said:


> Because hundreds of formal and informal blind comparison tests back up what he is saying. Beyond a certain bitrate, some lossy codecs (particularly AAC and LAME) achieve audible transparency to any human ear. (Bats and dogs notwithstanding, but they can get their own digital music!)


So, biggie, you can't tell the difference either? I see you're well into the audiophile world, so it'd be nice to hear some updated opinions. I used to think lossless and ultra-high quality equipment was a large deal, but I'm not so sure anymore.


----------



## Albert7

Vesuvius said:


> So, biggie, you can't tell the difference either? I see you're well into the audiophile world, so it'd be nice to hear some updated opinions. I used to think lossless and ultra-high quality equipment was a large deal, but I'm not so sure anymore.


I sort of agree with this viewpoint in fact. I really think that there is very little difference between high bit mp3/AAC and lossless. However, I do notice that the lossless file does capture everything including audio defects captured on the original CD better LOL. I just don't see the point of websites like HDtracks.com quite yet without an improved mp3 player.


----------



## bigshot

Vesuvius said:


> So, biggie, you can't tell the difference either? I see you're well into the audiophile world, so it'd be nice to hear some updated opinions. I used to think lossless and ultra-high quality equipment was a large deal, but I'm not so sure anymore.


I did very careful comparison tests and found that LAME 320 and AAC 256 were completely transparent for me. My whole music server- almost two years worth of music- is encoded AAC 256 VBR.


----------



## bigshot

If you want to take the test yourself and see what you think, send me a PM and I will give you a download link for an Apple Lossless file where you can compare nine different lossy codecs and bitrates.

Of all the people who have taken the test, the only samples some people seemed to be able to identify was Fraunhofer 192. Most people say they all sound the same to them.


----------



## Guest

I have benefited greatly from realizing that I sacrifice nothing with certain bitrates. By converting all files to more reasonable sizes according to what my ears actually hear, my pocket mp3 player holds ~100 days of music, all accessible anywhere, by my thumb.


----------



## Wood

albertfallickwang said:


> What would a fart of a fly sound like during John Cage's 4' 33"?


Caged on post 27. Well done!


----------



## Wood

Wood said:


> Caged on post 27. Well done!


For the newer members:

http://www.talkclassical.com/32478-there-standards-music-appreciation-3.html#post670900


----------



## millionrainbows

arcaneholocaust said:


> I have benefited greatly from realizing that *I sacrifice nothing with certain bitrates.* By converting all files to more reasonable sizes_ *according to what my ears actually hear,*_my pocket mp3 player holds ~100 days of music, all accessible anywhere, by my thumb.


If you cannot actually hear any difference, then go ahead. You are using MP3's for their intended function: to save space.

I can hear the difference, and it's not based on "bass frequencies" or any kind of frequency, but on resolution.

I really can't believe this debate still rages.


----------



## millionrainbows

TxllxT said:


> All depends on the lower frequencies: when your speakers or headphones are not able to render something below 60Hz, than you will not be able to tell the difference between loss-less & Mp3. Cutting off the low frequencies, that's the trick of making Mp3 files with much less Mb's (--but why do we need those small files nowadays?--).
> When you do have speakers in a room that is big enough for 'releasing' really low frequencies between the walls, then you will for sure immediately notice the difference. For example an organ recording with heavy bass pedaling that blows me out of my seat, in Mp3 this very same recording will sound as lame as lame can be, no matter how loud you turn up the volume.
> Apart from music in the lower frequencies there is also the 'passive' presence of space, that we feel in loss-less (again because this is happening as low + sub-low sound) and that is absent in Mp3.
> But when you drive a car, the inside space is just too small to render anything below 60Hz. So don't worry & be happy with Mp3 in such surroundings.
> On the other hand, when you really want to listen to a music recording on which the below-60Hz frequencies are present, it is worthwhile to invest in excellent speakers (+ in a room that is big enough). The low frequencies happen to 'carry' everything above them like a _basso continuo_, they make you feel the atmosphere.
> On the other hand, once you do *hear* the difference between loss-less & Mp3, you will become more and more critical on the recording quality. The defects are being heard too!


Here we go again with the "frequency response" argument. Most musical bass activity is in the 100-150 Hz range (bass notes, from bass guitars and contrabass viols), so the "60 Hz" argument is pretty irrelevant.


> Apart from music in the lower frequencies there is also the 'passive' presence of space, that we feel in loss-less (again because this is happening as low + sub-low sound) and that is absent in Mp3.


Where did you get that? "Air" or "space" around sounds is part of their sonic signature, and it is called "LOW LEVEL" information...I think this is where you confused it with "low frequency" sounds.

Why does this debate continue? I think everyone would prefer the sound of SACDs, but they are too lazy and cheap to set up 5 speakers and a sub!


----------



## bigshot

High bitrate lossy is completely transparent to all human ears. Golden ears may think they can hear a difference, but they are wrong- they just haven't done a controlled test to find out yet.


----------



## KenOC

I have a friend whose razor blades stay sharp almost forever because he keeps them under a pyramid-shaped crystal...


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Where did you get that? "Air" or "space" around sounds is part of their sonic signature, and it is called "LOW LEVEL" information...I think this is where you confused it with "low frequency" sounds.
> 
> Why does this debate continue? I think everyone would prefer the sound of SACDs, but they are too lazy and cheap to set up 5 speakers and a sub!


So you're distinguishing frequency from information, correct? I had considered it all to be frequency... space being the most subtle.


----------



## bigshot

trazom and BPS are currently doing the listening test.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> If you cannot actually hear any difference, then go ahead. You are using MP3's for their intended function: to save space.
> 
> I can hear the difference, and it's not based on "bass frequencies" or any kind of frequency, but on resolution.
> 
> I really can't believe this debate still rages.


Many people claim they feel effects from placebo experiments. As long as they're fooled, the debate will still "rage".


----------



## Morimur

MP3s are not meant for continuous use or storage. MP3s deteriorate over time; they are useful as demos and not much else. However, If you're not an audiophile and don't much value your digital music files, MP3s are enough.


----------



## Albert7

Morimur said:


> MP3s are not meant for continuous use or storage. MP3s deteriorate over time; they are useful as demos and not much else. However, If you're not an audiophile and don't much value your digital music files, MP3s are enough.


I thought digital files are permanent and backed up should be fine? They don't fall apart like cassettes.


----------



## Morimur

albertfallickwang said:


> I thought digital files are permanent and backed up should be fine? They don't fall apart like cassettes.


Digital lossy files SHOULDN'T degrade, but that doesn't mean they don't. Anyway, MP3 is an outdated format (90s), try MP4, which is still lossy but uses superior algorithms to extract information from audio.


----------



## bigshot

Morimur said:


> MP3s are not meant for continuous use or storage. MP3s deteriorate over time; they are useful as demos and not much else. However, If you're not an audiophile and don't much value your digital music files, MP3s are enough.


Actually, the larger the file size, the more likely a file will be corrupted by data deterioration due to hard drive error. Therefore compressed audio is more stable than lossless for the long term. However, as long as you keep your files backed up, you should never have any problem.

All of my files are AAC 256 VBR. I have the original CDs stashed away in boxes in the garage, but I have never needed to go back to anything I have ever ripped. The AAC file sounds as good as lossless and is infinitely more convenient. Probably more stable too, because my RAID array is backed up and redundant.


----------



## KenOC

albertfallickwang said:


> I thought digital files are permanent and backed up should be fine? They don't fall apart like cassettes.


I have to vacuum up around my stereo every week because of MP3 fragments that have broken off and litter the rug. They evidently leak out of my iPods. You can tell what they are, because if you look at them with a magnifying glass, they appear a bit vague and blurry.


----------



## fjf

This issue pops put once in a while in all audio forums, and leads to endless and pointless discussions. Most humans do not differentiate lossless vs. lossy over 190kbps; when they do is searching for known artifacts on some difficult-to-compress sounds like cymbals. However, many "audiophiles" like bragging about expensive equipment and/or golden ears, and they do by saying that they hear the difference. However, the results from double-blind tests indicates that most likely they do not. 

I store my CDs in FLAC (lossless) because I can afford the expense, and I can transcode to mp3 for portable devices when I have to. But I know I cannot hear the difference.


----------



## bigshot

I've noticed that the people who claim to hear obvious differences are the ones who scrupulously avoid any kind of carefully controlled test.


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> I've noticed that the people who claim to hear obvious differences are the ones who scrupulously avoid any kind of carefully controlled test.


Nobody ever wants testing on HDTV, or on DVD sound. But I guarantee you that if the resolution and sampling rate on DVDs or Blu-ray went down, people would raise hell.

With this line of argumentation, that "nobody can tell the difference," why is there Blu-ray? Huh? Answer me that. Why do we need Blu-ray? Why was it invented and introduced? Why do we need Ultra-HDTV?

I don't need to be tested; just give me audio at 96 kHz or higher as an industry standard, and stop this ridiculous subjective banter.


----------



## millionrainbows

fjf said:


> This issue pops put once in a while in all audio forums, and leads to endless and pointless discussions. Most humans do not differentiate lossless vs. lossy over 190kbps; when they do is searching for known artifacts on some difficult-to-compress sounds like cymbals. However, many "audiophiles" like bragging about expensive equipment and/or golden ears, and they do by saying that they hear the difference. However, the results from double-blind tests indicates that most likely they do not.
> 
> I store my CDs in FLAC (lossless) because I can afford the expense, and I can transcode to mp3 for portable devices when I have to. But I know I cannot hear the difference.


That's perfect, that's the way it should be, and you are using the files properly, as intended, to save space. Nobody cares if you can hear the difference or not. We just want the higher resolution file.

Why do you use FLAC? You have given no real reason. The only reason you transcode it is because of your portable players.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Nobody ever wants testing on HDTV, or on DVD sound. But I guarantee you that if the resolution and sampling rate on DVDs or Blu-ray went down, people would raise hell.
> 
> With this line of argumentation, that "nobody can tell the difference," why is there Blu-ray? Huh? Answer me that. Why do we need Blu-ray? Why was it invented and introduced? Why do we need Ultra-HDTV?
> 
> I don't need to be tested; just give me audio at 96 kHz or higher as an industry standard, and stop this ridiculous subjective banter.


But the question is, could a lot of it be hullabaloo caused by hyperactive imaginations? Have you taken the little test in the OP? No cheating!


----------



## bigshot

millionrainbows said:


> Nobody ever wants testing on HDTV, or on DVD sound. But I guarantee you that if the resolution and sampling rate on DVDs or Blu-ray went down, people would raise hell. With this line of argumentation, that "nobody can tell the difference," why is there Blu-ray? Huh?


Happy to answer that one. It's something I have been researching.

The simple answer is, "because multichannel audio is 8 discrete channels of sound". In order to achieve the same quality as 320k lossy, you would need 2,560k. And lossless for 8 separate channels would be even more. Bitrate matters for multichannel audio and with a large video stream and long playing time, space on the disk can be at a premium. That's why there are so many formats (DTS, Dolby, Master Audio, etc.) Some formats are lossy and some are lossless, just like with music files. They are coming up with Dolby Atmos which adds the vertical dimension all around, so bitrates will have to rise to accommodate four more discrete channels.

High sampling rates are a complete hoodoo though. There is no reason whatsoever for a playback medium to exceed 48. The only "improvement" that high sampling rates offer is inaudible frequencies and audible harmonic distortion created by equipment that was never designed to play back inaudible frequencies.

By the way, bitrate and sampling rate are two completely different things. In your post you started out talking about one and ended up talking about the other. Bitrate is about the depth of the noise floor, or with lossy the ability to render the sound without artifacting, and sampling rate is about the upper frequency limit.


----------



## bigshot

millionrainbows said:


> Why do you use FLAC? You have given no real reason.


The main reason that most people use FLAC or ALAC is to soothe their OCD. There is no audible benefit, but some people lose sleep over theoretical sound that has no real world value. Unfortunately, if you surrender to this impulse once, it's a slippery slope through "cable upgrades" and green marker pens down to snake oil.

The best reason to use an audio format is because of the way it sounds first and convenience second. High bitrate lossy is the best choice if you don't have OCD.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I don't need to be tested


You're right about that. Testing someone who has already admitted to being fooled by a placebo effect is not very worthwhile.

I believe that you hear a difference. I really do. I just believe that it's purely psychological.


----------



## fjf

millionrainbows said:


> That's perfect, that's the way it should be, and you are using the files properly, as intended, to save space. Nobody cares if you can hear the difference or not. We just want the higher resolution file.
> 
> Why do you use FLAC? You have given no real reason. The only reason you transcode it is because of your portable players.


I store flac because that's what's in my CDs. I listen to it because I already have it, and I do not need to transcode. But I do not fool myself. Ultimately I do what I want, same as you. If you can afford to store 24bit 96KHz or higher, and you want to do it, then do so. And if you want to fool yourself, then please do. In a free country we can believe in anything we want, as long as it is not ilegal.


----------



## fjf

bigshot said:


> The main reason that most people use FLAC or ALAC is to soothe their OCD. There is no audible benefit, but some people lose sleep over theoretical sound that has no real world value. Unfortunately, if you surrender to this impulse once, it's a slippery slope through "cable upgrades" and green marker pens down to snake oil.
> 
> The best reason to use an audio format is because of the way it sounds first and convenience second. High bitrate lossy is the best choice if you don't have OCD.


You may be right there :lol: . My OCD wont let me loose info on my tracks!!.


----------



## KenOC

It's interesting that most of those opposed to "lossy" formats in music are probably quite happy to take pictures in JPG format with their fancy cameras. Hmmm...


----------



## Triplets

bigshot said:


> I've noticed that the people who claim to hear obvious differences are the ones who scrupulously avoid any kind of carefully controlled test.


Again, what can be measured with tests may not be relevant to what one is hearing.
People who can't hear any difference between equipment and formats get their panties in knots when confronted with the idea that there may be other people who can hear differences and feel compelled to browbeat everyone into believing that they are the only arbitraters of what each individual can hear or perceive. I don't know why they bother, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.


----------



## bigshot

Triplets said:


> Again, what can be measured with tests may not be relevant to what one is hearing.


A listening test is exactly what I'm talking about... not abstract measurements. Ten samples, nine lossy and one lossless. Try to pick the lossless out of the batch. There have been thousands of tests like the one I am doing conducted over the past few years, and normal folks and golden eared audiophiles alike have consistently failed to discern a difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless. That's hardly surprising because the codecs were designed to be audibly transparent.

It's very easy to claim to have golden ears if one refuses to submit to a test to prove it. It's a lot harder to claim auditory superiority if one actually takes a test and fail. For the life of me, I don't understand why people invest their ego into something as fallible as perceptual ability.


----------



## Albert7

bigshot said:


> It's very easy to claim to have golden ears if one refuses to submit to a test to prove it. It's a lot harder to claim auditory superiority if one actually takes a test and fail.
> 
> There have been thousands of tests conducted over the past few years, and normal folks and golden eared audiophiles alike have failed to discern a difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless. That's hardly surprising because the codecs were designed to be audibly transparent.
> 
> For the life of me, I don't understand why people invest their ego into something as fallible as perceptual ability.


Which is why a website like HDTracks.com doesn't hold much meaning for me at all :|


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> A listening test is exactly what I'm talking about... not abstract measurements. Ten samples, nine lossy and one lossless. Try to pick the lossless out of the batch. There have been thousands of tests like the one I am doing conducted over the past few years, and normal folks and golden eared audiophiles alike have consistently failed to discern a difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless. That's hardly surprising because the codecs were designed to be audibly transparent.
> 
> It's very easy to claim to have golden ears if one refuses to submit to a test to prove it. It's a lot harder to claim auditory superiority if one actually takes a test and fail. For the life of me, I don't understand why people invest their ego into something as fallible as perceptual ability.


Why would anyone take a test with unknown tracks? The entire point of larger files is so you can see the big shiny bitrate number and convince yourself that you're profiting


----------



## KenOC

arcaneholocaust said:


> Why would anyone take a test with unknown tracks? The entire point of larger files is so you can see the big shiny bitrate number and convince yourself that you're profiting


Absolutely true. Why would I want to disabuse myself of something that I quite happily believe? Isn't that what psychologists call "self-destructive behavior"?


----------



## bigshot

arcaneholocaust said:


> Why would anyone take a test with unknown tracks? The entire point of larger files is so you can see the big shiny bitrate number and convince yourself that you're profiting


Ah! But to make it impossible to determine by file size, I pasted all the tracks into a lossless document. It's nice and big now!


----------



## GioCar

bigshot said:


> A listening test is exactly what I'm talking about... not abstract measurements. Ten samples, nine lossy and one lossless. Try to pick the lossless out of the batch....


Actually, being the audible difference between a lossy and lossless audio track very small (if any), a fairer test would be, for example over ten samples, *five* lossy and *five* lossless, then build up some *averages* and *deviations* from a *known population* of testers. I would like to join a similar test, or see the results of it.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

GioCar said:


> Actually, being the audible difference between a lossy and lossless audio track very small (if any), a fairer test would be, for example over ten samples, *five* lossy and *five* lossless, then build up some *averages* and *deviations* from a *known population* of testers. I would like to join a similar test, or see the results of it.


I agree with such methodology. Having 9 lossy vs 1 lossless track is biased towards a false negative result. I would also add that the sample used should be very detailed with several layers of music.

I noticed a subtle change when hearing a flac version of an alternative/electronic album only after my brain grew accustomed to hundreds of listens of the lossy version over more than a year. The change was subtle and did not concern frequency range as the limit of human hearing is encompassed in 320mbps format. The difference was in soundstage, imaging with better separation of instruments, clarity and microdynamics (the small changes in the volume of music). These were very subtle and heard with highly isolating earphones. Many other types of music did not show this change but in complex passages of well engineered records one may notice it only after the brain gets accustomed to both formats.

I understand that my perception was not blinded in any way and that placebo effect cannot be ruled out. A double or triple blind study with randomised samples would be the gold standard. However without allowing oneself to get accustomed to the music, the subtle differences that do not relate to frequency range may be easily missed. Thus a prolonged study that involves months of repeated listens would be preferable.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

I was thinking about these stated studies that were done to compare lossy with lossless formats. I have not done a search for these studies as yet. However I doubt whether the methodology was up to standard and thus the results may need to be viewed with a degree of scepticism.

A study comparing the two formats, say 320mbps MP3 and FLAC, should include a study population of significant numbers. A power calculation to avoid false negative errors from small sample sizes would probably show that the listeners needed may amount to at least 400. 

The listeners need to be chosen in an unbiased manner to avoid selection bias and they also need to encompass many variables in the population especially with respect to age, since advancing age would effect listening quality. Needless to say, the high quality equipment and music used needs to be the same for all listeners. 

A triple blinded cross-over study would be ideal as each individual listener acts as his own control. A listener first listens to a randomised format first and after a time he blindly (i.e. he is not aware of a change on format) listens to the other format. This alternates with time and the listeners indicates whether the music is lossy or lossless. 

After a set number of months with random shifts from lossy to lossless, the results are collated in a blinded manner by the study researchers. This means that the researchers are also blinded to the result. 

Statistical analysis checking for internal validity, i.e indicating that the result did not happen by chance, would give us the probability that the result of this particular study is true. The accepted probability is a 1 in 20 chance of a false result. 

More importantly in order to generalise the result to the wider population, a confidence interval analysis would be needed showing external validity. This is the most important parameter measured. No confidence interval analysis means poor study outcome measure. 

This study would then be a basis for another validation study of even larger numbers confirming the conclusion of the first study.

Of course someone needs to fund these studies  

Now find me such studies and convince me about the validity of the argument that lossy = lossless !


----------



## Whistler Fred

I wonder to what extent the playback equipment affects these experiments. A high end audiophile system may pick up differences between the formats that would be undetectable on mid-range systems.


----------



## xpangaeax

KenOC said:


> I have to vacuum up around my stereo every week because of MP3 fragments that have broken off and litter the rug. They evidently leak out of my iPods. You can tell what they are, because if you look at them with a magnifying glass, they appear a bit vague and blurry.


This really got me :lol:


----------



## xpangaeax

Muse Wanderer said:


> These were very subtle and heard with highly isolating earphones.


Had you always used these headphones while listening to it in the Lossy format?

You mention microdynamics as well. Bigshot - can you go further into how different codecs may affect this? It's unfortunate that it's the same word, but does compressing an audio file (in terms of size) use compression (audio) as a way to minimize the amount of data associated with the file?


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Ah! But to make it impossible to determine by file size, I pasted all the tracks into a lossless document. It's nice and big now!


Exactly! You've taken all the fun away!


----------



## bigshot

GioCar said:


> Actually, being the audible difference between a lossy and lossless audio track very small (if any), a fairer test would be, for example over ten samples, *five* lossy and *five* lossless, then build up some *averages* and *deviations* from a *known population* of testers. I would like to join a similar test, or see the results of it.


I'm not testing people. I'm testing lossy audio formats. The point is to determine which codecs/settings are audibly transparent. You go through the ten and listen for ones that have artifacting. Those are the ones that are not audibly transparent. Most people want to know "how much is enough". This test is designed to help them find that out. At some point, a codec becomes audibly transparent and it doesn't matter any more because no one can hear the difference.

I completely understand why someone would want to increase the odds to 50-50 if they are invested in a particular outcome though. Throwing up dust by spending more time talking about testing methodologies than listening is a great way to obfuscate too.



Muse Wanderer said:


> Thus a prolonged study that involves months of repeated listens would be preferable.


That is another REALLY good way of avoiding the issue altogether. Make it so difficult no one would ever want to go to the trouble.

Studies have shown that direct A/B switched, line level matched sampling is the best way to determine subtle differences between similar sounds... not prolonged comparisons. The best way to introduce error is to rely on auditory memory and to compare samples that have not been level matched. Long term tests are great at introducing error.


----------



## bigshot

Whistler Fred said:


> I wonder to what extent the playback equipment affects these experiments. A high end audiophile system may pick up differences between the formats that would be undetectable on mid-range systems.


With high bit rate lossy, it's not likely to make any difference, because the codecs are designed to match the hearing characteristics of the human ear. A high end system may have specs that exceed the range of human hearing, but human ears still hear what they can hear. Transparent is transparent, no matter how good the system is.


----------



## bigshot

xpangaeax said:


> You mention microdynamics as well. Bigshot - can you go further into how different codecs may affect this? It's unfortunate that it's the same word, but does compressing an audio file (in terms of size) use compression (audio) as a way to minimize the amount of data associated with the file?


Microdynamics is one of those vague meaningless terms that audiophiles use. It doesn't apply to digital audio, because accurate reproduction of dynamics is built into the standard. It isn't something that can be affected. However, subjective listeners who do not do accurate level matching and direct A/B comparisons can be fooled into thinking that dynamics have been altered due to faulty auditory memory (too long a time between samples) and the human tendency to think that slightly louder music has better sound quality, even if the quality is identical.

Dynamic compression is something that is done during mixing and mastering. Lossy formats don't do that. The issue with lossy is artifacting- particular sounds that are too complex to be rendered properly at the given bit rate. If that occurs, the codec gives up and renders a digtal splat or gurgle. As the bit rate rises, the frequency of these errors gets fewer and fewer until transparency is finally achieved.

One bit of psychology that I have discovered by offering this test is that the people who need it the most are the least likely to take advantage of it. Golden eared audiophiles avoid careful testing like the plague. Their intellect throws up all kinds of objections to testing to protect their ego, which is wrapped around their belief that they can hear things other people can't. The thing I haven't figured out is if that reaction is a conscious one or not. They usually get mad and stomp off in a huff before I can figure that out.


----------



## xpangaeax

That was my suspicion. "Instrument separation" is a new weird one I'm seeing in these threads also. It seems like many people need to spend some time in a recording studio to learn what goes into making a recording, and how no piece of equipment can magically add (or in the case against Lossy formats, remove) something to a recording after it has been completed.


----------



## bigshot

I suppose distortion could affect instrument separation, and artifacting is a form of distortion. But that isn't a very precise way of describing the sound of a digital gurgle artifact or a big digital splat.

My favorite high end audio term is PRaT (Pace, Rhythm and Timing). As if an audio reproduction format that is clocked to a sampling rate of 44.1 could possibly affect the tempo of the music. But people believe that nonsense.

One really good way to discern the difference between lossless and lossy is to do a simple null test. You take the source file and the lossy, invert the phase on one of them, and sum them. All sound common to both will be cancelled out. Any difference between the tracks will be all that remains. Try doing that with 256 or 320 AAC. I won't tell you what you'll find. It would ruin the surprise!


----------



## Wood

Is there any audible difference between 128kb mp3 & lossless bigshot?


----------



## bigshot

128 Fraunhofer has clearly audible artifacting. AAC 128, less so but still not transparent. In my comparison test, I found that the point of transparency came at different places for different codecs. In general AAC was the best becoming transparent at 192 CBR. MP3 LAME was up a notch at 256 CBR. And Fraunhofer required 320 CBR to get into that neighborhood. For 99% of recorded music, those settings would be fine. However, I stumbled across one particular recording that had a massed string tone that was *very* difficult to encode without artifacts. It had tiny glitches at those rates. So I bumped my numbers up a notch to AAC 256 and LAME 320 and the troublesome track worked fine. In my server, I use AAC 256 VBR.


----------



## Albert7

Bigshot that was a fabulous explanation!


----------



## Guest

@Bigshot - I remember you starting this last year. Have you posted any findings anywhere?

For me, it really doesn't matter. I am quite happy with 160 kbps VBR mp3. I don't have a high end system - mostly I listen in my car with the stock Honda stereo, or on my iPod - there it is either the standard format of all iTunes-purchased music, or I have converted a CD to mp3. Part of me likes the idea of having all my music in FLAC, but I am then limited by where I can listen - really, only my computer.

So my question is this - in terms of a good tradeoff between audio quality and file size, what is a good format for the general listener that can be used across multiple listening platforms?


----------



## bigshot

When I set up my media server years ago, I realized that I had an awful lot of CDs to rip and I didn't want to ever have to go back and re-rip them. So I set up a line level matched, direct switchable comparison between my Mac and my standalone CD player. My first test was to compare lossless on the Mac with the original CD. That came out as identical. So I took a couple of dozen tracks and encoded them to various codecs and started eliminating the ones with artifacting. I boiled it down to where I suspected the line of audible transparency was and did an awful lot of comparisons of different kinds of music. I spent a solid week on it because it was important for me to know for sure BEFORE I started ripping.

That's just the kind of person I am. I do a listening test with every single piece of equipment I buy. I've spent a LOT of time refining my equalization curves. I don't want a CD player that requires one EQ correction and an iPod that requires a different one. That would be chaos. Luckily, I've discovered that midrange audio components are of extremely high quality and are manufactured to very precise specifications. Every single iPod, Mac, CD/DVD/Blu-ray player and amp I have ever bought has been perfectly identical in sound. And they are all capable of producing sound quality that exceeds the ability of the human ear to perceive sound.

We live in an era of technological excellence. Perfect sound reproduction is a fact. But you have to know how to determine that to demand it. High end audio enthusiasts embrace error in response and say they like the sound of tube distortion. They can have that. I just want accuracy. The best part is accuracy is inexpensive and simple to achieve.

Until you get to the speakers...


----------



## bigshot

DrMike said:


> @Bigshot - I remember you starting this last year. Have you posted any findings anywhere?
> 
> So my question is this - in terms of a good tradeoff between audio quality and file size, what is a good format for the general listener that can be used across multiple listening platforms?


Last year, we had a half dozen or so people who said they couldn't discern any difference at all and one golden eared audiophile who picked the lossless sample, but did in in a way that revealed that he didn't determine it through listening. He used an audio editing program to analyze the waveform. That pissed me off and I shut down the whole test. But someone stumbled into the old thread and asked me for a test to try and they were still on my server, so I revived it. Right now, there are four tests out with people. I figure I will hear back from some of them after the weekend when they have time to go over the samples carefully.

In answer to your question about the best tradeoff... If your players all support AAC, the best format is AAC 256 VBR. It is perfectly transparent across all sorts of audio equipment, from low end to high end. It's MUCH more compact than lossless, and even with a huge library like mine, you can contain everything on a single external hard drive, which makes playback and backup simple. If you don't do AAC, MP3 LAME 320 VBR is just as good.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Last year, we had a half dozen or so people who said they couldn't discern any difference at all and one golden eared audiophile who picked the lossless sample, but did in in a way that revealed that he didn't determine it through listening. He used an audio editing program to analyze the waveform. That pissed me off and I shut down the whole test. But someone stumbled into the old thread and asked me for a test to try and they were still on my server, so I revived it. Right now, there are four tests out with people. I figure I will hear back from some of them after the weekend when they have time to go over the samples carefully.
> 
> In answer to your question about the best tradeoff... If your players all support AAC, the best format is AAC 256 VBR. It is perfectly transparent across all sorts of audio equipment, from low end to high end. It's MUCH more compact than lossless, and even with a huge library like mine, you can contain everything on a single external hard drive, which makes playback and backup simple. If you don't do AAC, MP3 LAME 320 VBR is just as good.


Good to know. I just checked, and it looks as though my iTunes purchases are already AAC 256. Don't know if they are VBR. When I convert to MP3, I use 160 VBR, but I still own those CDs, so I can go back and rip them again to AAC. Looks, though, like the MP3 files I have purchased from Amazon are down in the mid-200 range. I suppose I can live with that - haven't had any complaints up until now. But maybe from here on out I will just do everything in AAC. My car can read not only my iPod, but also AAC files on either a USB drive or burned on a CD, so it is compatible across every platform I use.


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> With high bit rate lossy, it's not likely to make any difference, because *the codecs are designed to match the hearing characteristics of the human ear.* A high end system may have specs that exceed the range of human hearing, but human ears still hear what they can hear. *Transparent is transparent,* no matter how good the system is.


That's weird; you are taking psychoacoustic effects and terms ("transparency", a psychological descriptor) from the subjective realm, and "objectifying" them as if they were an inherent part of the codec. 
That's flawed; you are taking away the realm of subjectivity when it suits your argument, yet you use the subjective listening experience as "proof" of the infallability of your codecs.

It *does* matter, especially if you listen with earbuds, headphones, or through speakers. Playing MP3s through a good speaker system is the best way to detect the deficiencies of MP3 files; they sound horrible.

Headphones, or earbuds, improve bass response (proximity effect) and make imaging better. This all disappears through speakers. Funny how none of you experts have ever mentioned this.


----------



## Varick

I clicked on the link on the first post on this thread, it opened up another thread, but there was nothing to click on. I tried clicking on the tracks listed, but it was just words like the ones I'm typing now, no links to click on.

In other words, I have no idea what's going on (I know, par for course)

V


----------



## bigshot

I'd be happy to PM you a download link and instructions if you'd like to take a crack at the test, Varick. They aren't posted publicly so people can't compare notes.


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> ...Looks, though, like the MP3 files I have purchased from Amazon are down in the mid-200 range.


I believe that's because the bit rate is, in fact variable -- it changes with the demands of the music. When I do my own conversions to 256K VBR, or play Amazon files, my player may show anything from 190K to about 240K, constantly changing as the music plays.

320K is normally constant bit rate, I believe, and the file sizes are considerably larger than 256K VBR. There is no listening advantage to my aging ears.


----------



## bigshot

millionrainbows said:


> That's weird; you are taking psychoacoustic effects and terms ("transparency", a psychological descriptor) from the subjective realm, and "objectifying" them as if they were an inherent part of the codec.


If I do a blind, level matched, direct switched A/B test and determine that it is transparent, and a large group of people do the same and come up with the exact same results, that isn't a subjective result any more. It's an objective one.

My media server feeds my listening room speakers. I play AAC 256 VBR all the time, and all of the comparisons I've done with lossless with my speaker rig shows that they are audibly identical- exact same frequency response from low end to high end. Exact same "imaging", whatever that is.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I believe that's because the bit rate is, in fact variable -- it changes with the demands of the music. When I do my own conversions to 256K VBR, or play Amazon files, my player may show anything from 190K to about 240K, constantly changing as the music plays.
> 
> 320K is normally constant bit rate, I believe, and the file sizes are considerably larger than 256K VBR. There is no listening advantage to my aging ears.


That probably explains it. Thanks.


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> 320K is normally constant bit rate, I believe


I was surprised to discover the other day that AAC 320 VBR can actually exceed 320. I don't think MP3 can do that, but apparently MP4 can.

There is no reason to not use VBR. It can only help, it can't hurt.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

Double post...........................


----------



## Albert7

Personally I think that high bit AAC isn't too far off from Lossless. I can't tell much of a difference between the stuff I buy from iTunes and cd rips. I think that the original source masters are more crucial to good sound.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

bigshot said:


> I'm not testing people. I'm testing lossy audio formats. The point is to determine which codecs/settings are audibly transparent. You go through the ten and listen for ones that have artifacting. Those are the ones that are not audibly transparent. Most people want to know "how much is enough". This test is designed to help them find that out. At some point, a codec becomes audibly transparent and it doesn't matter any more because no one can hear the difference.
> 
> I completely understand why someone would want to increase the odds to 50-50 if they are invested in a particular outcome though. Throwing up dust by spending more time talking about testing methodologies than listening is a great way to obfuscate too.
> 
> That is another REALLY good way of avoiding the issue altogether. Make it so difficult no one would ever want to go to the trouble.
> 
> Studies have shown that direct A/B switched, line level matched sampling is the best way to determine subtle differences between similar sounds... not prolonged comparisons. The best way to introduce error is to rely on auditory memory and to compare samples that have not been level matched. Long term tests are great at introducing error.


To test a hypothesis scientifically the most important determinant is the method used. If the methodology is poor as in this test than the results are not relevant.

I can appraise many medical studies because of my profession. The majority describe methods that are so poor that the results and conclusions are baseless and without significance.


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> If I do a blind, level matched, direct switched A/B test and determine that it is transparent, and a large group of people do the same and come up with the exact same results, that isn't a subjective result any more. It's an objective one.


No, it isn't. It becomes a "belief," just like you say the "golden-eared audiophiles" are guilty of.



bigshot said:


> My media server feeds my listening room speakers. I play AAC 256 VBR all the time, and all of the comparisons I've done with lossless with my speaker rig shows that they are audibly identical- exact same frequency response from low end to high end. Exact same "imaging", whatever that is.


Yes, identical, except for the proximity of your ears to the sound.


----------



## KenOC

Well, I would disagree that a properly done blind (most likely single blind in this case) comparison is a defective methodology. I've never heard of a better test, in any event.

Just to add: If you can detect subtle variances in a direct A-B test, that doesn't mean you should necessarily go for the "better" alternative if there are substantial drawbacks. After all, it's very possible that, without the A-B comparison, you'd be totally unable to tell which you were listening to.


----------



## Varick

bigshot said:


> I'd be happy to PM you a download link and instructions if you'd like to take a crack at the test, Varick. They aren't posted publicly so people can't compare notes.


Yes, could you please. Perhaps I'll find that I'm wasting a lot of hard drive space by uploading all my classical CD's in Lossless.

V


----------



## Rangstrom

My problem is with the tendency of some MP3 supporters to overstate their case (the general look at the very low error rate (for artifacts), no one can hear the upper range anyway, who needs that much dynamic range, bad math and variably controlled experiments) into it all sounds the same conclusion. Let me say that if you are happy with the sound quality of your MP3 setup, great. But I find there are limitations. 

It depends a lot on what you listen to, how you listen to it and your experience with live acoustic sound. If you listen to highly compressed, digitally generated pop music I imagine that MP3 does just fine. If your sound system is an i-pod or a computer sound card your experience is going to be different than from a quality dedicated system. Quality amps, pre-amps and speakers (or headphones) will expose more. In fact maybe too much. So if you are dealing with a crappy (or highly manipulated) sound, it may actually "sound" better as a MP3. In fact, many times "real" live sound can be muddy, harsh, congested or just bad. MP3 treatment of the low level content may clean some of this up. It can sound better, but it isn't accurate. And you miss--maybe a minor issue for some--the slap of strings, the burr of brass, overtones, and air around the instruments. 

I find that the best tests are not large choral or orchestral segments (which in real life can be muddy and were hard to accurately reproduce even with quality Reel-to-Reel) but solo voice or piano or--especially--solo cello. Knowing what is not there mostly comes from experience.

I have works that I know well that I have ripped to mp3 for portable listening and they don't sound the same. Part of that is due to EQ and equipment limitation issues and part is due to programming decisions concerning "disposable" information. Clearly it is a continuing process and I hope that more attention is given to the whole sound picture. Just stop carping at those of us that want high quality sound reproduction.

As an example of an area being explored: I find listening to LPs (and RTR when I get around to repairing my Thorens) "easier" on the ears than DDD redbook. Granted part of the problem came from the use of outdated roll-off standards with early cds, but what is interesting is that ADD redbooks were somewhat in the middle. The discussions I've read focus on the effect of barely audible, or possibly inaudible to the conscious mind, white noise. There is a lot about the interaction of sound waves, the ear and the mind that we don't understand yet.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> It *does* matter, especially if you listen with earbuds, headphones, or through speakers. Playing MP3s through a good speaker system is the best way to detect the deficiencies of MP3 files; they sound horrible.


Do you know they're mp3s when you play them? Placebo. Take a test or leave it be.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> No, it isn't. It becomes a "belief," just like you say the "golden-eared audiophiles" are guilty of.


Except the only beliefs rooted in evidence thus far are from the folks who actually took tests free of placebo effects and bias. And what do you know, no one could tell.

Call it a small sampling pool all you want, but it's certainly a bigger sampling pool than zero (golden-eared audiophile sampling pool).


----------



## GioCar

bigshot said:


> I'm not testing people. I'm testing lossy audio formats. The point is to determine which codecs/settings are audibly transparent. You go through the ten and listen for ones that have artifacting. Those are the ones that are not audibly transparent. Most people want to know "how much is enough". This test is designed to help them find that out. At some point, a codec becomes audibly transparent and it doesn't matter any more because no one can hear the difference.
> 
> I completely understand why someone would want to increase the odds to 50-50 if they are invested in a particular outcome though. Throwing up dust by spending more time talking about testing methodologies than listening is a great way to obfuscate too.
> 
> That is another REALLY good way of avoiding the issue altogether. Make it so difficult no one would ever want to go to the trouble.
> 
> Studies have shown that direct A/B switched, line level matched sampling is the best way to determine subtle differences between similar sounds... not prolonged comparisons. The best way to introduce error is to rely on auditory memory and to compare samples that have not been level matched. Long term tests are great at introducing error.


Bigshot, you are testing people (better: people's reactions to lossy or lossless audio formats) not lossy audio format, otherwise a spectrum analyzer would be enough but anyway, what's the problem in doing what I (and Muse Wanderer in a more complete way) suggested? Your test is quite unbalanced and weak (no offense) and could lead to wrong results... sorry but it seems you are fearing that doing it in the proper way the outcome could be different from what you are expecting...
You are indeed a very knowledgeable guy in the field of sound reproduction, no doubt :tiphat:, so again my question is: do you know of any proper test setup and results? Very honestly, I'd be very interested in knowing it, no polemic.


----------



## bigshot

Muse Wanderer said:


> To test a hypothesis scientifically


I'm not testing a hypothesis scientifically. I am helping people test codecs practically. They are finding out what does and doesn't matter to them. If all ten samples sound the same, they have nothing to worry about using lossy audio at 192 or above and skipping the extra file size and storage of lossless. If some sound better than others, they can determine the line of transparency for themselves. If they can be like the Princess and the Pea and spot the lossless one right away, then they better stick with lossless. (But I haven't found any of those yet, and I don't expect to.)

Personally, I find testing things for myself to be fun. I've got no dog in the fight either way. People are deciding for themselves here. I understand though that people who are invested in a particular outcome might be reluctant to find out for themselves if it seems it might not go the way they want.


----------



## Albert7

Now that I upgraded my audio laptop to a HP Pavilion g7 with 750 gb hard drive, I don't mind encoding into ALAC at this point. There are very subtle differences between AAC (which is better than mp3 in general) and ALAC but to be honest, compression lossy formats don't hamper my enjoyment of the music.

What about classical music internet radio? Think if they broadcast in uncompressed audio that the bandwidth would be killed instantly. Especially over cellular data connections... Spotify and Pandora can't stream unlimited unless you have T-Mobile and then all streaming music is free.


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> Well, I would disagree that a properly done blind (most likely single blind in this case) comparison is a defective methodology. I've never heard of a better test, in any event.


I have a bunch of different files with the ten samples all in different orders, randomly generated. I have a key to the files in a text file somewhere on my hard drive that I wrote up in March of 2013. I'll go look at it when people let me know their results. It's as double blind as I can make it.


----------



## bigshot

Rangstrom said:


> It depends a lot on what you listen to, how you listen to it and your experience with live acoustic sound. If you listen to highly compressed, digitally generated pop music I imagine that MP3 does just fine.


The test samples consist of two modern audiophile quality classical recordings selected by a bona fide golden eared audiophile... one consists of a great deal of detailed inner voicing in a massed chorus and the other is a highly dynamic orchestral excerpt with a frequency response that extends to the very limit of redbook.

I'd be happy to surprise you if you would like to take the test. Just let me know.


----------



## bigshot

albertfallickwang said:


> There are very subtle differences between AAC and ALAC


Are you sure about that?

One other interesting test that no one ever seems to do (which I have done) is to take a music track and rip it to AAC, then convert it back to lossless, then back to AAC, back to lossless, etc. for multiple generations. This is called transcoding, and a lot of people worry that if you rip to AAC, it will mean that transcoding it at a future date to a different file format will degrade the sound.

If you want to try it for yourself, I won't ruin the surprise, but suffice it to say, a lot of people would be very surprised at what happens when you transcode ten generations.


----------



## Albert7

bigshot said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> One other interesting test that no one ever seems to do (which I have done) is to take a music track and rip it to AAC, then convert it back to lossless, then back to AAC, back to lossless, etc. for multiple generations. This is called transcoding, and a lot of people worry that if you rip to AAC, it will mean that transcoding it at a future date to a different file format will degrade the sound.
> 
> If you want to try it for yourself, I won't ruin the surprise, but suffice it to say, a lot of people would be very surprised at what happens when you transcode ten generations.


There is a mathematical difference between AAC and ALAC but psychologically I can't tell a single difference to my ears. How much is due to psychology or just my terrible ears I am unsure.


----------



## bigshot

Mathematical differences can be purely theoretical. The important sound is the sound you can hear. It's more important to know what the human thresholds of perception are than it is to know about inaudible bits and bytes.

I could take a photograph of a tree that captures all of the visible light spectrum. And then I could take a photograph of a tree that captures every kind of light from ultra violet to infra red. One would contain a whole lot more information than the other, but when I look at them, the two trees would look the same to me.


----------



## Varick

albertfallickwang said:


> There is a mathematical difference between AAC and ALAC but psychologically I can't tell a single difference to my ears. How much is due to psychology or just my terrible ears I am unsure.


True. I'm halfway through the youtube video on Audio Myths Workshop. I've always been fascinated by subjectivity vs. objectivity and how we humans, as much as we would like to deny, are so subjective in our tastes and perceptions.

V


----------



## Muse Wanderer

bigshot said:


> I'm not testing a hypothesis scientifically. I am helping people test codecs practically. They are finding out what does and doesn't matter to them. If all ten samples sound the same, they have nothing to worry about using lossy audio at 192 or above and skipping the extra file size and storage of lossless. If some sound better than others, they can determine the line of transparency for themselves. If they can be like the Princess and the Pea and spot the lossless one right away, then they better stick with lossless. (But I haven't found any of those yet, and I don't expect to.)
> 
> Personally, I find testing things for myself to be fun. I've got no dog in the fight either way. People are deciding for themselves here. I understand though that people who are invested in a particular outcome might be reluctant to find out for themselves if it seems it might not go the way they want.


In other words this test can't give us an objective answer.

To know for certain if there is an audible difference between a lossy and lossless format a more refined study is needed.

I am not against a test for the fun of it, but it would be more suitable to have say 50 paired tracks, one lossy and the other lossless. I would then choose which track may be lossless after careful listening to all 50 pieces of music of different genres. Chance would give me a 25 out of 50 correct selections. If I approach say 40 out of 50 selections then it may show that I can hear the difference with adequate probability. That would be a fun test to do. Trying to pick 1 out of 9 tracks is impossible as the differences are too small, if at all present.

By the way I am still not sure that there is an audible difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless. It may well be placebo effect as you stated. I just wanted to share my experience when I changed to lossless using the same high quality in-earphones.

I am happy to change opinion when presented with facts based on sound evidence.


----------



## bigshot

Six tests are being done... I have two more sets left to hand out!


----------



## bigshot

Varick said:


> True. I'm halfway through the youtube video on Audio Myths Workshop. I've always been fascinated by subjectivity vs. objectivity and how we humans, as much as we would like to deny, are so subjective in our tastes and perceptions.


Ethan has files on his website that illustrate the demonstrations he does in that video. They are really interesting, because when you actually hear what -50dB sounds like, you can put spec sheets in a real world context. Digital audio is a very interesting subject, the more you know about it, the smarter you can be about putting together a sound system. Knowledge beats a fat wallet any day of the week.


----------



## bigshot

Muse Wanderer said:


> Trying to pick 1 out of 9 tracks is impossible as the differences are too small, if at all present.


If the differences are too small to hear, they don't matter!

I apologize if I made the test too hard to "win" at. Winning or losing isn't the point here. Neither is creating statistical averages for odds. The purpose of this test is to give people the opportunity to hear nine different codecs and bitrates and a lossless file. They can listen and try to figure them out any way they want. Maybe they will decide they all sound the same. Maybe they will prefer one codec over another. Maybe they will pick out the lossless. Who knows? I'm interested to see what they think.

If you already know that you can't hear a difference between any of them, then you probably don't need to take the test. You already know what you need to know. Everyone else who has compared high bitrate lossy that I know of has come to that same conclusion.


----------



## Centropolis

I have not read all the previous pages so I might have stated the obvious or someone must have mentioned before. But my answer would be depends on the kbps the MP3s are at. If they are 320 or high VBR, probably not...but 128 VS FLACs....on some music yes I do hear a difference. No I have not done a double blinded test to come up with this comment.


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> *I'm not testing a hypothesis scientifically*.* I am helping people* test codecs practically. They are finding out what does and doesn't matter to them. If all ten samples sound the same* (to them),* they have nothing to worry about using lossy audio at 192 or above and skipping the extra file size and storage of lossless. If some sound better than others, they can determine the line of transparency *for themselves.* If they can be like the Princess and the Pea and spot the lossless one right away, then they better stick with lossless. (But I haven't found any of those yet, and I don't expect to.)
> 
> Personally, I find testing things for myself to be fun. I've got no dog in the fight either way. People are deciding for themselves here. I understand though that people who are invested in a particular outcome might be reluctant to find out for themselves if it seems it might not go the way they want.


Yes, but the way you put your ideas forth, you often confuse the subjective with the objective, for example when you say "there's no difference in the transparency of codec A and codec B." It's all very misleading; a subjective experiment disguised, or easily confused with, a scientific test.


----------



## fjf

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but the way you put your ideas forth, you often confuse the subjective with the objective, for example when you say "there's no difference in the transparency of codec A and codec B." It's all very misleading; a subjective experiment disguised, or easily confused with, a scientific test.


For someone who does not believe in double blind tests you are a bit picky with scientific terminology


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> Mathematical differences can be purely theoretical. The important sound is the sound you can hear. It's more important to know what the human thresholds of perception are than it is to know about inaudible bits and bytes.
> 
> I could take a photograph of a tree that captures all of the visible light spectrum. And then I could take a photograph of a tree that captures every kind of light from ultra violet to infra red. One would contain a whole lot more information than the other, but when I look at them, the two trees would look the same to me.


That's a bad comparison, because we can't see those spectrums of light. Why don't you use a real-world example, like DVD vs. Blu-ray in a movie with a lot of cross-screen movement, on screens with varying refresh rates? You'd sure as hell be able to tell the difference then.

Let's deal with a difference that we* KNOW *is audible, hopefully, or you do not deserve to be called a discriminating listener.

*Why not do an audio test using the old Beatles CD edition, and the new remasters?
*
First, see if people can tell the difference in the CD masterings themselves, each played from THEIR OWN original CD sources, then through identical codecs. Then switch the codecs, and see if they can still tell the differences in the CD masterings. This way, people would be listening to the source material instead of the codec.

As a prerequisite, I would hope, for decency's sake, that the people could tell the difference in the CD masterings, or the test would be irrelevant, especially to me, because *I do hear the difference* in these Beatles CD masterings.

C'mon, prove it! I dare you!


----------



## bigshot

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but the way you put your ideas forth, you often confuse the subjective with the objective, for example when you say "there's no difference in the transparency of codec A and codec B."


I think the problem is that you don't understand what "transparent" means...

A lossy codec rearranges the contents of the file, so if you compare the 1s and 0s, you can see the two files are different. But if it achieves audible transparency, that means that by definition it sounds exactly the same... no difference to human ears. So any codec that achieves transparency sounds the same as any other transparent codec.

It isn't a matter of resolution. The resolution of lossy is identical to lossless. It's a matter of the sound being identical within the range of human hearing. The bits and bytes that are being left out of a transparent lossy file are inaudible. They don't add anything to the sound.


----------



## bigshot

By the way, there is a difference between the Beatles remasterings. The first CDs were basically straight transfers off the master tapes. The new remastering has digital editing to clean up splices and studio noise, and has had dynamic compression applied to make them sound a little louder overall.


----------



## Andreas

bigshot said:


> By the way, there is a difference between the Beatles remasterings. The first CDs were basically straight transfers off the master tapes. The new remastering has digital editing to clean up splices and studio noise, and has had dynamic compression applied to make them sound a little louder overall.


And yet they didn't bother removing that ugly distortion sound one second into Think For Yourself.

By the way, I can't hear a difference between the '87 releases and the remasters. Alright, a little more bass and a little lounder, but that's about it. Nothing to warrant buying them all over again. I did it anyway, though. 

The compression isn't really all that bad either, since the remasters are now all on the same level as the '87 versions of Let It Be or Revolver (dynamic range varied somewhat among the '87 releases).


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That's a bad comparison, because we can't see those spectrums of light. Why don't you use a real-world example, like DVD vs. Blu-ray in a movie with a lot of cross-screen movement, on screens with varying refresh rates? You'd sure as hell be able to tell the difference then.
> 
> Let's deal with a difference that we* KNOW *is audible, hopefully, or you do not deserve to be called a discriminating listener.
> 
> *Why not do an audio test using the old Beatles CD edition, and the new remasters?
> *
> First, see if people can tell the difference in the CD masterings themselves, each played from THEIR OWN original CD sources, then through identical codecs. Then switch the codecs, and see if they can still tell the differences in the CD masterings. This way, people would be listening to the source material instead of the codec.
> 
> As a prerequisite, I would hope, for decency's sake, that the people could tell the difference in the CD masterings, or the test would be irrelevant, especially to me, because *I do hear the difference* in these Beatles CD masterings.
> 
> C'mon, prove it! I dare you!


Bad comparison: there is more to mastering than bitrate. The photograph example is perfect. No, we can't see the difference, just like we can't hear the difference unless given data that fools us with a placebo effect. You seem unwilling to address this.


----------



## Centropolis

Andreas said:


> And yet they didn't bother removing that ugly distortion sound one second into Think For Yourself.
> 
> By the way, I can't hear a difference between the '87 releases and the remasters. Alright, a little more bass and a little lounder, but that's about it. Nothing to warrant buying them all over again. I did it anyway, though.
> 
> The compression isn't really all that bad either, since the remasters are now all on the same level as the '87 versions of Let It Be or Revolver (dynamic range varied somewhat among the '87 releases).


I hear differences between the original CDs VS the 2009 remasters. I sold all my original Beatles CDs to fund the 2009 boxset so I don't own the "old" ones anymore.

Just get the mono box.  I have both boxes.


----------



## bigshot

I can hear a difference and I prefer the old ones, so that makes something for everyone!


----------



## bigshot

The first tester turned in his results! He ranked them Good, Better and Best.

Good: frau256 / frau320 / lossless / lame320 / frau192

Better: aac192 / aac256 / aac320

Best: lame192

That looks pretty much random to me. His comment was that if he was given the choice of playing Russian Roulette with a six shooter with one empty chamber, he thought his odds would be better than getting this test correct!

By the way, he is a classical music fan and audiophile and used the following equipment (admittedly pretty high end!) to do the test...

macbook pro-->USB-->V800 dac-->XLR to V200 amp-->HD800


----------



## Andreas

I think - and tests like these affirm it - that audio compression technology has achieved what it initially set out to do: to make the files smaller by getting rid of the things that people can't actually hear.

Now, if only the terminology weren't so unfortunate. We talk about lossy and lossless. Loss is a pretty powerful notion. I think unconsciously, a lossless format will always emanate an aura of completeness and unsavaged integrity that lossy formats don't.

It's been mentioned before that it's mostly a psychological thing. And why shouldn't it be? The psychological reality is a reality in its own right and therefore it matters, even if objectivity, maybe in the shape of listening tests, suggests that it shouldn't.

Speaking of the Beatles, I recently heared an anecdote about Beatles engineer Geoff Emerick. Apparently, one day he realized that someting was wrong with his equipment. He couldn't put his finger on it, but he was sure nonetheless. People came in and said they didn't hear anything wrong. Emerick insisted. When they measured the equipment output, it showed that there was indeed something wrong with some frequencies, but they were way outside the human hearing range.

What to make of such anecdotes? Even if true, Geoff Emerick's surely not what we call the average listener. He probably out-listens most who'd call themselves serious listeners.

Every once in a while, I think about getting a SACD player. The format is still alive in classical music. So far, though, reason has kept me from doing it. I suppose for a headphones/2-channel setup, SACD is pointless, even though one does hear people saying they hear a great difference between CD and SACD.

I think that both, the acceptance of lossy formats and the failure of SACD for a mass market, show that people either don't care about the difference or that they don't hear one. Given that people apparently do care about noticable improvements in the way they experience audio and video (HD video and surround sound home movie theatre systems), the conclusion seems obvious.


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> I think the problem is that you don't understand what "transparent" means...
> 
> A lossy codec rearranges the contents of the file, so if you compare the 1s and 0s, you can see the two files are different. But if it achieves audible transparency, that means that by definition it sounds exactly the same... no difference to human ears. So any codec that achieves transparency sounds the same as any other transparent codec.
> 
> It isn't a matter of resolution. The resolution of lossy is identical to lossless. It's a matter of the sound being identical within the range of human hearing. The bits and bytes that are being left out of a transparent lossy file are inaudible. They don't add anything to the sound.


You are using the terms "transparent" and "resolution" in an objective manner, and I am using the terms subjectively, as they relate to my ear/brain listening experience. In other words, I can HEAR the effects of low vs. higher resolution, as in a mix done at 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, and 48 kHz. The lower sample rates have less "resolution," they sound muddy, grainy, and it is hard to hear separate elements existing in their own "sonic space"; the whole mix is mushy at lower rates.

This is what I mean by "resolution," since it is this "quality" that is lost in listening to the mix; and this directly correlates with 32, 44.1, and 48kHz sample rates. This is acknowledged by the manufacturer of the recorder, and this is why this sampling option exists.

It is well known that "rappers" use low-rez drum samples (8, 16, 32kHz) to get "grainy", dirty, lo-rez effects.

If you are so inflexible as not to be able to correlate "resolution" with a quality of "resolution in listening to a mix", then your objectivity is becoming an over-objectified obstacle to communication, or of judging sound.

I've already proven this to myself in the realm of digital recording. It's self-evident to the manufacturers of these digital recorders; the different sampling rates are available as options for "higher quality" audio, or to save hard drive space. Take your pick.

My point is that RESOLUTION IS AUDIBLE. People might get the wrong idea when they read your answer. If the "resolution" in the two codecs you mention is identical, then this would not be an issue. But a "lossy" MP3 has less resolution to my ears, so the difference is real.


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> By the way, there is a difference between the Beatles remasterings. The first CDs were basically straight transfers off the master tapes. The new remastering has digital editing to clean up splices and studio noise, and has had dynamic compression applied to make them sound a little louder overall.


Well, that would make the test even more valid, because we would accept _as a given_ that the masterings are different. This would be a multi-tiered test.

The different masterings would _*have *_to be still detectable, even obvious, in different codecs, or within one codec. It should be _more obvious than using identical sources,_ and _it would prove that at least the mastering difference is audible._ If they get all the "new/old" masterings correct, but still can't tell the new masterings apart in different codecs, your point would be proven.

The _source material, meaning the songs and music, would be basically the same,_ so this would provide valuable ways to tell differences in codecs, if they exist.


----------



## millionrainbows

Andreas said:


> By the way, I can't hear a difference between the '87 releases and the remasters. Alright, a little more bass and a little lounder, but that's about it. Nothing to warrant buying them all over again. I did it anyway, though.
> 
> The compression isn't really all that bad either, since the remasters are now all on the same level as the '87 versions of Let It Be or Revolver (dynamic range varied somewhat among the '87 releases).


Ha Haaa! I told you! There are no "givens;" subjectivity raises its ugly head again! People can't hear anything!


----------



## millionrainbows

arcaneholocaust said:


> Bad comparison: there is more to mastering than bitrate. The photograph example is perfect. No, we can't see the difference, just like we can't hear the difference unless given data that fools us with a placebo effect. You seem unwilling to address this.


Oh, that doesn't matter now. That's advanced pie in the sky, because people still can't hear the difference in the Beatles masterings. My argument is rendered moot before it ever had a chance to crawl out of the digital swamp.

:lol: Ridiculous!


----------



## bigshot

Andreas said:


> When they measured the equipment output, it showed that there was indeed something wrong with some frequencies, but they were way outside the human hearing range.


I don't doubt that, but I bet he wasn't hearing the superaudible frequencies, he was hearing the effect they had on the audible range. Most equipment, particularly back in the 60s and 70s, weren't designed to deal well with ultra high frequencies. If some electronic component started to go bad and spit out inaudible high frequencies, they would create harmonic distortion in lower octaves. Get rid of the super high frequencies you can't hear and the harmonic distortion you can hear goes away too.

SACDs are wonderful, but for two channel they are a complete wash. Their main advantage is multichannel sound capability. The problem is, the home audio world didn't push multichannel sound, while the home theater world did. So now, video based formats, like DVD-A and BD-A are competing with a very weak market for SACD and beginning to take the lead.


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> I can hear a difference and I prefer the old ones, so that makes something for everyone!


My God! Apparently, I live on another planet!


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> SACDs are wonderful, but for two channel they are a complete wash. Their main advantage is multichannel sound capability. The problem is, the home audio world didn't push multichannel sound, while the home theater world did. So now, video based formats, like DVD-A and BD-A are competing with a very weak market for SACD and beginning to take the lead.


That's fine with me; if the industry wants to go with Blu-Ray, like Neil Young's Archives box set, I'm fine with that, and will kiss my 44.1 CDs goodbye. I just want better digital sound.


----------



## bigshot

millionrainbows said:


> You are using the terms "transparent" and "resolution" in an objective manner, and I am using the terms subjectively, as they relate to my ear/brain listening experience. In other words, I can HEAR the effects of low vs. higher resolution, as in a mix done at 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, and 48 kHz.


If you could prove it objectively, then you could say "I can HEAR". But if you want to talk about subjective impressions, the best you can say is "I THINK I can hear".

By the way, it might help for you to look into how digital audio works. Higher sampling rates and higher bit rates don't increase the resolution in the audible range at all. A 24 / 96 sound file contains the EXACT same data for the sound from 20Hz to 20kHz as a standard 16 / 44.1 does. There is absolutely no difference between them in the audible range. So although you may think you hear a difference subjectively, there is absolutely no reason to believe that you do, unless you are able to hear frequencies that humans can't hear.

Bit rate controls the depth of the noise floor. In general somewhere around 12-14 bit audio reaches transparency for normal music listening. 16 bit is a bit overkill for most purposes, but it allows you to turn the volume up to the threshold of pain without hitting the noise floor.

Sampling rate controls the width of the response. The upper frequency limit is half the sampling rate, so 44.1 goes up to 22kHz, which is as high as humans hear. I have no doubt you could hear the difference between 32kHz sampling rate and 44.1, because 32 would only go up to 16kHz. But you won't hear a difference between 44.1 and 48.


----------



## fjf

I dont. People over 50 usually dont hear nothing over 16 KHz. But this does not matter. Some people dont care to take a honest double blind test and want to believe they have golden ears. There is no point in arguing with them. Let them eat snake oil. Or blue-ray 99999MHz.


----------



## Rangstrom

fjf said:


> I dont. People over 50 usually dont hear nothing over 16 KHz. But this does not matter. Some people dont care to take a honest double blind test and want to believe they have golden ears. There is no point in arguing with them. Let them eat snake oil. Or blue-ray 99999MHz.


That is why I only listen to my SACD recording of Stockhausen's Dog Whistle Quintet.

As I posted above it not about high frequencies (more like the effects of HF harmonics from brass, cymbals, cellos etc). Why do major professional sound studios record at higher sample rates if it all sounds the same? It doesn't. Of course if you are listening to syn this, syn that, drum machine, fix in the mix vocals, you won't notice much difference. If you are listening on a low end computer set up, you won't notice much difference. If you haven't had much experience with live examples of HF harmonics (say a string quartet concert from the first row of the balcony), you won't notice much difference.

If it all sounds the same to you, then you can be satisfied with your current setup. But to call better sound than MP3 snake oil is simply wrong. And to chalk it up to golden ears is silly. Anyone can set up a decent dedicated audio system that will deliver objectively better than MP3 sound for $1k or less (but you probably need to use headphones--good speakers can get pricey).
I was fairly a fairly broke college student--many years ago--but I was able to set up a decent rig. So it isn't golden ears, it is experienced listening on appropriate sound systems and live concerts.

As to the bigshot double blind it is more a gimmick than a true double blind test: from the selections that actually make it difficult to hear the harmonics, to the lack of control over playback (I'm sure they all would sound the same on my computer), to no true control (an independently verified lossless track with complete sound spectrum--as in no garbage in, garbage out). To name a few of the obvious problems. I'm sure he is having fun, but I suspect he is well aware where the snake oil is.


----------



## Rangstrom

Big shot wrote: A 24 / 96 sound file contains the EXACT same data for the sound from 20Hz to 20kHz as a standard 16 / 44.1 does. There is absolutely no difference between them in the audible range. 

I'm not a sound engineer, but I do have an MA in Math with a focus on limits/infinity and from a mathematical perspective this seems unlikely. And seems to be contradicted by the sites i found with a simple google search on "Why record at 96" Here is one sample:

One of the best explanations I’ve ever heard takes a slightly view on the extended frequency range. Rather then arguing that we can hear above 20kHz, it states that the increased sampling rate means that we hear the audio in the frequency range that we are most attuned to (1-5kHz) in far greater definition and detail.

and this:

Whether we record at 96kHz or 44.1kHz, in the end to be heard by the wider world we will normally be dropping the quality to 44.1kHz for CD. So dropping to that 44.1kHz is the main task accomplished during mastering. This is carried out by playing the original digital audio and recording it to the master recorder. So if we have to drop it to 44.1kHz anyway we should record it at 44.1kHz is how people might want to think. But if you actually record something at 96kHz and at 44.1kHz and listen to each, the difference is dramatic. After having this kind of experience, you are forced to think more seriously about the issue.

And more of the same. What am I missing?


----------



## KenOC

Here's a comparo with SACD: "In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and a compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) conversion of the same source material under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_DVD-A

Added: An article about the study, the equipment used, and a lot of interesting stuff.

http://www.mixonline.com/news/profiles/emperors-new-sampling-rate/365968


----------



## Rangstrom

Ken,

Interesting study. It mainly shows that that the number of listeners that can hear a difference is small, but the number may be influenced by the type of music--many did better on the jazz trio, nobody did much with surround sound. Headphones seemed to help. So the test did not show that there is no difference, just that few will notice. I suspect much more study is needed. (also 145 is probably in the dreaded small sample range).

In my experience SACDs sound better than Redbook, but I'm not sure that is due to more careful mastering or to inherent superiority. I continue to buy Redbooks (many of my purchases are recordings from the 30s to the 50s) and I haven't done any of the super highend downloads, mainly because I'm not eager to add a dedicated server/DAC setup to my audio system).


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> Here's a comparo with SACD: "In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and a compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) conversion of the same source material under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_DVD-A
> 
> Added: An article about the study, the equipment used, and a lot of interesting stuff.
> 
> http://www.mixonline.com/news/profiles/emperors-new-sampling-rate/365968


Interesting theories have been made for both camps in here.

On the side that there is an audible difference:

Moorer (co-founder of sonic solutions) claims that humans can distinguish time delays - when they involve the difference between their two ears - of 15 microseconds or less. Do the math, and you can see that while the sampling interval at 48 kHz is longer than 15 µs, the sampling interval at 96 kHz is shorter. Therefore, he says, we prefer higher sampling rates because "some kind of time-domain resolution between the left- and right-ear signals is more accurately preserved at 96 kHz."

On the side that there is not an audible difference:

Winer (engineer and owner of RealTraps) claims that in a typical room, moving one's head or listening position as little as four inches can result in huge changes in the frequency-response curves one is hearing. What could be a 10dB dip in one spot at one frequency could be a 6dB boost a couple of inches away. These wide variations are caused primarily by comb-filtering effects from the speakers and from the various reflections bouncing around the room, which are present no matter how well the room is acoustically treated. Winer blames this phenomenon for most of the unquantifiable differences people report hearing when they are testing high-end gear.
He writes, "I am convinced that comb filtering is at the root of people reporting a change in the sound of cables and electronics, even when no significant change is likely. If someone listens to their system using one pair of cables, then gets up and switches cables and sits down again, the frequency response heard is sure to be very different because it's impossible to sit down again in exactly the same place. So the sound really did change, but probably not because the cables sound different!"


----------



## opus55

^ interesting indeed


----------



## bigshot

Rangstrom said:


> Why do major professional sound studios record at higher sample rates if it all sounds the same?


Because they are doing signal processing in the mix that might need those frequencies. For example, a noise reduction filter might analyze the frequency content to apply dynamic filtering that ducks out for high frequency passages. Or they might shift pitch or apply a harmonizer effect that might shift those inaudible frequencies into the audible range. For playback, they aren't required. Only for signal processing.

It's common for people who think the inaudible is audible to say that someone's ears are not discerning or that their equipment isn't good enough. That is a dodge. I have supervised sound mixes and have worked in professional sound studios and I know exactly what can be heard and what can't.

By the way, the test (which you haven't signed up to take) has a whole section with upper level harmonics... cymbals, triangles, etc.


----------



## bigshot

Rangstrom said:


> Big shot wrote: A 24 / 96 sound file contains the EXACT same data for the sound from 20Hz to 20kHz as a standard 16 / 44.1 does. There is absolutely no difference between them in the audible range.
> 
> I'm not a sound engineer, but I do have an MA in Math with a focus on limits/infinity and from a mathematical perspective this seems unlikely.


The fundamental principle behind digital audio is the Nyquist Theory. It states that the waveform for any frequency can be perfectly reconstructed from two samples. So a sampling rate of 44.1 can reproduce any frequency up to 22kHz perfectly. You can reproduce perfect better than perfect!

When you increase the sampling rate, you extend the upper limit of the frequencies; so therefore, a sampling rate of 96 can perfectly reproduce any frequency up to 48kHz.

Human hearing only extends up to 20kHz, so the difference between 44.1 and 96 is completely inaudible. If a difference can be heard between them, it is probably because the playback equipment isn't designed to reproduce super audible frequencies and is introducing harmonic distortion in the audible range. For playback, higher sampling rates can only sound worse, not better.


----------



## bigshot

Vesuvius said:


> Moorer (co-founder of sonic solutions) claims that humans can distinguish time delays - when they involve the difference between their two ears - of 15 microseconds or less.


I'd love to see a citation on that. A microsecond is a millionth of a second. No sounds in music get anywhere near that brief a duration. Human perception of time as it relates to sound is probably several orders of magnitude slower than that. Also when the waveform is reconstructed from the samples in the DAC, it is dithered and smoothed out, so it is a continuous unbroken wave again. It isn't "choppy stair steps" as audiophools like to say. That guy doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## KenOC

Citation: James Moorer, "New Audio Formats: A Time of Change and a Time of Opportunity." Dr. Moorer has some impressive credentials. Here he is talking about perceptible differences when a sound arrives at one ear before or after the other. Can't raise the article right now.

http://www.jamminpower.com/jam.html


----------



## bigshot

I found the paper where he says that, but he doesn't provide a citation for the paper that established that threshold. I think that paper was written before people really understood how all this worked.

My research into group delay (phase shift) led me to believe that the threshold of perception is 1 to 3 ms (500Hz to 8kHz)
http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm


----------



## KenOC

Well, I have no issue with Dr. Moorer's claim. After all, our sensitivity to the direction a sound is coming from, pretty essential to survival, is based entirely on the perceived difference in the timing of arrival of sound at one ear versus the other. But I don't see what that has to do with the subject at hand, either.


----------



## bigshot

His point was to say that a 44.1 sampling rate falls into a range where people can discern differences in time, but 96 is faster than the fastest thing we perceive. He goes on to say that the way sound reaches each ear at 44.1 is different than the way it reaches it at 96... I have no idea how he arrived at that, because there is a transducer between the samples and your ear doing all of the work of creating physical sound. Also, samples are translated into continuous waveforms in the DAC. They aren't heard by the ear as samples.

I think he hadn't figured out how digital audio worked yet when he wrote that paper.


----------



## KenOC

That doesn't make sense. The sound we hear is 20-20khz regardless of the sampling rate, or whether it's digital or analog. We don't hear the sampling rate, we hear the analog.

In other words, we never "hear" digital music at all. I think that's what you're saying too.


----------



## Bucht

it's useless to ask people around. if you want a reliable answer for this question, a strict controlled double bind experiment must be conducted.


----------



## fjf

Vesuvius said:


> Interesting theories have been made for both camps in here.
> 
> On the side that there is not an audible difference:
> 
> Winer (engineer and owner of RealTraps) claims that in a typical room, moving one's head or listening position as little as four inches can result in huge changes in the frequency-response curves one is hearing. What could be a 10dB dip in one spot at one frequency could be a 6dB boost a couple of inches away. These wide variations are caused primarily by comb-filtering effects from the speakers and from the various reflections bouncing around the room, which are present no matter how well the room is acoustically treated. Winer blames this phenomenon for most of the unquantifiable differences people report hearing when they are testing high-end gear.
> He writes, "I am convinced that comb filtering is at the root of people reporting a change in the sound of cables and electronics, even when no significant change is likely. If someone listens to their system using one pair of cables, then gets up and switches cables and sits down again, the frequency response heard is sure to be very different because it's impossible to sit down again in exactly the same place. So the sound really did change, but probably not because the cables sound different!"


That is called the off-axis response of an speaker. In example:









In the left vertical axis you have loudness, in the horizontal the frequency of the sounds and in the right vertical the deviation of the listener from the 0º axis (just in front of the speaker). You can see easily that in this example the loudness at different frequencies changes dramatically as you move off-axis around the speaker. Most of these changes are caused by interactions and reflections of sound waves with the room. Two people at different listening positions in the same room with the same recording and equipment will hear a different music. Most speakers are directional, and this is a very difficult thing to avoid.


----------



## bigshot

The thing about room acoustics is that you don't need to completely eliminate the effect of the room. You just need to optimize it. Human ears adjust to natural room acoustics, and shifts like that in recorded music mirror the live sound of the room. It doesn't come off as coloration unless it gets very serious.

It is very important to have the speakers pointed clearly at the listening area though.


----------



## robertgale

Picking the right level of compression depends on many factors. You should consider your needs first and foremost. If high quality images are important to your business and customers, then you should consider lossless compression. However, if your website needs to be incredibly fast, you should consider aggressive image optimization. Depending on the CMS you use, you will have certain settings to optimize to ensure that image compression remains under your full control. Do not hesitate to look into tools such as WordPress plugins to help you get the job done.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Responding to the OP, I would say yes, it is possible to tell. It is not night and day, however. But you have to have good hearing, good equipment (preferably headphones), and a good recording. 

I rip all of my CDs as FLAC, because I listen on noise-canceling headphones. The sound is less congested and a bit airier. If you're just listening on a stereo system with a fair amount of background noise, 256kb or higher mp3 will probably be fine.


----------



## larold

I once simultaneously played the download, CD and LP versions of the same recording (Liszt Tone Poems, Mehta and Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra) and I heard a difference between each of them. The differences weren't staggering but noticeable; there was a more vivid sound on the better media.

I'm sure lossless files are probably better, especially for newer music. However, I can't play them on the player I use and I have consistently been frustrated trying to download or otherwise acquire a player that will play them. Consequently I can play MP3 files so I do that when I buy downloads. I also typically convert files to CD for listening and typically don't listen to files on my computer.

I think MP3 files are better today than 10 years ago; I know some of them are remanufactured from original files. I have LPs I owned that were re-released digitally and there was not only a difference in sound (sometimes better, sometimes the same) but sometimes a difference in the way the sound was presented.

When I listen on LP to Bach's Easter Oratorio directed by Antonio Janigro (recorded in the 1950s) the orchestra, chorus and players are generally on the same plane. When I listen to the MP3 the soloists are in my living room and the chorus and orchestra are somewhere down the street. I don't know how they did this but they did.

I recently purchased Stokowski's NBC Symphony concert of Shostakovich's "Leningrad" symphony that was redone by Pristine Audio, a French company that does miracles with old sound. This certainly didn't sound like 1942!

Just goes to show what can be done with sound today regardless of the source material.


----------



## Red Terror

VLC will play lossless files.


----------



## millionrainbows

Different kinds of music are too varied to have any "objectivity test" associated with it. 
"Transparency" is a good example. I can hear transparency in a chamber music recording more easily than I can in a Metallica album, because Metallica's music does not really allow for any "transparency," and it's a subjective term anyway.

Maybe this video, if you take the time to actually watch it, will shed more light:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Sony NW-A45 is the player I use. It will play nearly any format and it only costs about 200 bucks.


----------



## Merl

I can't even tell the difference between mono and stereo these days. Lol. Seriously it all depends on the rip for lossy files. I have some 320cbrs that are over-bright or dull and bassy yet some cracking 192k rips. Some of my best mp3s are vbrs, especially for post-rock and classical music. Interesting that someone mentioned the Pristine XR remastered recordings. Some of these are terrific. I have lossless files of the Klemperer Bethoven cycle (and lossy ones I've converted from the lossless ones - for the car) . Rose has cleaned up the sound, given the recordings a necessary boost to the top end and in the mid range and they sound much better (although Granate disagrees with me). As I said, it's all about the rip.


----------



## Simon Moon

Every year around the time of T.H.E. Show (audio show) in Newport/Irvine, there is a get together with about 15-20 'audiophiles', where we evaluate some aspect of audio. The test is set up with the following parameters: volume of DUT is .5db or less difference, DUT are completely hidden from listeners, person switching DUT has no idea what they are switching between. 

In 2018 we compared DACs at 3 different price points (from less than $500 (Schit Bifrost) , $2000 (Gustard X20) and over $10K dCS Debussy). 

In 2017 was a comparison between mp3 320, 16/44.1 and 24/192.

We don't listen to short samples through headphones. We listen to long samples through a fairly high end system, in a reasonably treated room. 

Almost everyone there was able to hear the difference between mp3 and 16/44.1 (and 24/192). Especially on classical and jazz. All you had to do is listen for ambiance, soundstage and imaging to hear the difference. On a well recorded classical recording, where the size of the venue, soundstage width and depth and instrument placement within the soundstage, were evident on 16/44 and 24/192, on mp3, they were not. 

For example, where the soundstage was detectable as a fairly rectangular space (behind the speakers and past the outside edges of the speakers), the same recording on mp3 the soundstage collapsed. The depth was reduced, and the previously rectangular soundstage became trapezoidal narrowing in the rear. I found this quite easy to notice.

The difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 was harder to hear, but consistently noticeable on some samples. "Jazz at the Pawnshop" was one that I could consistently hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192, but it was a bit difficult. 

I believe for those who only listen to mainstream pop, rock and hip-hop, being able to hear the differences between 16/44.1 and mp3 is probably extremely hard. 


There is an interesting recording on Vimeo and YouTube of a 16/44 recording, down sampled to mp3 320, of just the material that is eliminated by the down sampling process (the stuff mp3's leave out), and you can hear it is made up of a lot of ambient information. I believe it is a Sheryl Crow song. It's actually a kind of cool, spooky recording.


----------



## Larkenfield

I did my own experiments with bit rates. I started at 96 with poor sound quality, moved to 128, then 256, then 320, then to lossless. The higher up I went the more details I could hear and I would notice the details of how certain instruments sounded, such as the percussion or the strings. There were subtle but noticeable differences and is best done using a highly familiar recording. I finally concluded that the higher the bit rate, the greater the details, including the deeper intangibles of the recording that may not seem to be heard consciously but may still be _sensed_ or _felt_-and that's all I really needed to know to decide on the bit rate of what I wanted to hear.

To save HD storage space, I usually listen at 256 though I know that I may be missing out on the greatest resolution of sound. But when I don't want to miss anything I will listen to lossless files.

I am generally not a big fan of blind studies on equipment I'm not familiar with, or unfamiliar recordings, because unless one knows what the sound quality is on the original CD, it's hard to compare different bit rates though evidently it's possible for some listeners with golden ears. However, I think that anyone can prove it to him- or herself about the difference in sound quality by starting at a very low bit rate and hearing its inferiority of sound and how the details of sound are gradually filled and rounded out by raising the bit rates on a familiar recording. One can also hear the changes in the noise floor, with a higher bit rate being quieter and less noisy.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Most of the old people who listen to classical music (and it's the largest audience) can barely hear the frequency of a football referee's whistle. They cannot tell the difference between recordings on lossy and lossless files. Most people lie to themselves about it.


----------



## SixFootScowl

eugeneonagain said:


> Most of the old people who listen to classical music (and it's the largest audience) can barely hear the frequency of a football referee's whistle. They cannot tell the difference between recordings on lossy and lossless files. Most people lie to themselves about it.


Some of us aren't quite that old, but my ears are not that great. I run 128 kbps mp3 and am perfectly happy. I tried 64 kbps and it sounded really bad.


----------



## Simon Moon

eugeneonagain said:


> Most of the old people who listen to classical music (and it's the largest audience) can barely hear the frequency of a football referee's whistle. They cannot tell the difference between recordings on lossy and lossless files. Most people lie to themselves about it.


Just because someone loses their hearing at the upper frequency extremes, does not mean they lose all ability to discern good quality audio and recordings.

There are other aspects of audio that can still be fully appreciated despite some high frequency hearing loss.

For the vast majority of musical instruments, their fundamentals are well below 12Khz (the upper range of most 60 year olds), and even their (musical instruments) harmonics are below 12Khz, with a few exceptions.

See the chart located here -

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Fritz Kobus said:


> Some of us aren't quite that old, but my ears are not that great. I run 128 kbps mp3 and am perfectly happy. I tried 64 kbps and it sounded really bad.


So I watched the video, and the test subject correctly identified the uncompressed WAV file 4 out of 6 times, and the high quality file 5 of 6 times. That said to me that, as long as your hearing is intact, uncompressed files are better than mp3. Which is my own anecdotal experience.


----------



## millionrainbows

Simon Moon said:


> Every year around the time of T.H.E. Show (audio show) in Newport/Irvine, there is a get together with about 15-20 'audiophiles', where we evaluate some aspect of audio. The test is set up with the following parameters: volume of DUT is .5db or less difference, DUT are completely hidden from listeners, person switching DUT has no idea what they are switching between.
> 
> In 2018 we compared DACs at 3 different price points (from less than $500 (Schit Bifrost) , $2000 (Gustard X20) and over $10K dCS Debussy).
> 
> In 2017 was a comparison between mp3 320, 16/44.1 and 24/192.
> 
> We don't listen to short samples through headphones. We listen to long samples through a fairly high end system, in a reasonably treated room.
> 
> Almost everyone there was able to hear the difference between mp3 and 16/44.1 (and 24/192). Especially on classical and jazz. All you had to do is listen for ambiance, soundstage and imaging to hear the difference. On a well recorded classical recording, where the size of the venue, soundstage width and depth and instrument placement within the soundstage, were evident on 16/44 and 24/192, on mp3, they were not.
> 
> For example, where the soundstage was detectable as a fairly rectangular space (behind the speakers and past the outside edges of the speakers), the same recording on mp3 the soundstage collapsed. The depth was reduced, and the previously rectangular soundstage became trapezoidal narrowing in the rear. I found this quite easy to notice.
> 
> The difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 was harder to hear, but consistently noticeable on some samples. "Jazz at the Pawnshop" was one that I could consistently hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192, but it was a bit difficult.
> 
> I believe for those who only listen to mainstream pop, rock and hip-hop, being able to hear the differences between 16/44.1 and mp3 is probably extremely hard.
> 
> There is an interesting recording on Vimeo and YouTube of a 16/44 recording, down sampled to mp3 320, of just the material that is eliminated by the down sampling process (the stuff mp3's leave out), and you can hear it is made up of a lot of ambient information. I believe it is a Sheryl Crow song. It's actually a kind of cool, spooky recording.


At last, a voice of reason. Good post!


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> I did my own experiments with bit rates. I started at 96 with poor sound quality, moved to 128, then 256, then 320, then to lossless. The higher up I went the more details I could hear and I would notice the details of how certain instruments sounded, such as the percussion or the strings. There were subtle but noticeable differences and is best done using a highly familiar recording. I finally concluded that the higher the bit rate, the greater the details, including the deeper intangibles of the recording that may not seem to be heard consciously but may still be _sensed_ or _felt_-and that's all I really needed to know to decide on the bit rate of what I wanted to hear.
> 
> To save HD storage space, I usually listen at 256 though I know that I may be missing out on the greatest resolution of sound. But when I don't want to miss anything I will listen to lossless files.
> 
> I am generally not a big fan of blind studies on equipment I'm not familiar with, or unfamiliar recordings, because unless one knows what the sound quality is on the original CD, it's hard to compare different bit rates though evidently it's possible for some listeners with golden ears. However, I think that anyone can prove it to him- or herself about the difference in sound quality by starting at a very low bit rate and hearing its inferiority of sound and how the details of sound are gradually filled and rounded out by raising the bit rates on a familiar recording. One can also hear the changes in the noise floor, with a higher bit rate being quieter and less noisy.


YES< so much for blind studies! Good post.


----------



## millionrainbows

Simon Moon said:


> Just because someone loses their hearing at the upper frequency extremes, does not mean they lose all ability to discern good quality audio and recordings.
> 
> There are other aspects of audio that can still be fully appreciated despite some high frequency hearing loss.
> 
> For the vast majority of musical instruments, their fundamentals are well below 12Khz (the upper range of most 60 year olds), and even their (musical instruments) harmonics are below 12Khz, with a few exceptions.


This is exactly what Rick Beato is saying.


----------



## Zofia

With small earplugs no with my good headset yes and so can my phone battery


----------



## MatthewWeflen

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Here is the test featured in the "Audiophile or audiofooled" video.

I took it twice with Sony MDR-7506 "studio monitor" headphones plugged into my laptop. I got three right each time, and the ones that were common between them were the Coldplay, Suzanne Vega, and Piano chamber music. My conclusion, if there can be one, is that recordings with cymbals and high hats, human voices, and potentially "congested" live recordings with reverb and many instruments are the ones that benefit the most from uncompressed audio.

But all told, I think the jump from 320kbps MP3 to FLAC for a CD recording is not very big. The point of FLAC is being able to downconvert it if need be. You can never upconvert an mp3 up to lossless.

High-Res formats are more noteceable jumps in quality, though still not night and day over a CD.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Prestomusic says about MP3:
"due to technical limitations in this audio format, MP3s don't support gapless playback, meaning that in segue tracks (e.g. a movement that moves straight into another without a break) you may hear a very brief interruption in the sound."


----------



## Neo Romanza

I've ripped everything from CDs to my SSD Drive using 288 kbps AAC, which sounds great to my ears. Much, much preferred to Mp3, which, even at 320 kbps masks a lot of the details I can hear in 288 kbps AAC. I mainly listen at my computer with a little EQ (in the higher and lower frequencies) and it sounds great. I use the Music app on Apple to organize everything and it does a decent enough job for my own purposes. What's nice is essentially I have my own streaming service, but the difference is this from my physical CD collection. One of the perks for living in the modern age for sure.


----------



## Simon Moon

Of course I can, and as I stated way earlier in this thread, I demonstrated this is a double blind listening session.

People, all one has to do, is, pay attention to things like: soundstage depth, width and height, how defined the image of the musicians are within that soundstage, how noticeable is the hall ambience, and any other attribute that has to do with spatial cues*.

Once you hear the differences, they can't be unheard.

And this has nothing to do with dynamics, frequency response, clarity, etc. And no, typical high frequency loss that occurs as we age, will hardly effect how well these spatial cues are reproduced and perceived. 

*Of course, if one does their listening with $20 ear buds on a smart phone, YouTube, smart speaker, and other devices lacking the basics of reasonable fidelity, then all bets are off on whether some of these differences are quite a noticeable. But all it really takes to hear the improvements of the reproduction of these spatial cues, is a pretty modest system. There are loads of companies making very good audio equipment at low prices these days.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Neo Romanza said:


> I've ripped everything from CDs to my SSD Drive using 288 kbps AAC, which sounds great to my ears. Much, much preferred to Mp3, which, even at 320 kbps masks a lot of the details I can hear in 288 kbps AAC.


How does 288 kbps AAC compare to FLAC?


----------



## Neo Romanza

hammeredklavier said:


> How does 288 kbps AAC compare to FLAC?


Well, of course, FLAC sounds better in terms of having a fuller range and the reason is simple: it's a lossless audio format. At 288 kbps AAC, especially for a lossy format, I still get extremely good sound quality where the details that wouldn't otherwise be there in an Mp3, are heard and there is surprising depth as well. The reason why I didn't go with FLAC is because 1. the Apple music app doesn't support it and 2. the format takes up too much hard drive space. I have two 1TB SSD drives and both of them have different genres on them. Classical music gets its own SSD and right now I have 714 GB being using out of 1TB. I have much less than this on my jazz/rock SSD (only about 400 GB used so far on this drive). Anyway, I hope I answered your question with my yammering.


----------



## jegreenwood

Neo Romanza said:


> Well, of course, FLAC sounds better in terms of having a fuller range and the reason is simple: it's a lossless audio format. At 288 kbps AAC, especially for a lossy format, I still get extremely good sound quality where the details that wouldn't otherwise be there in a say Mp3, are heard and there is surprising depth as well. The reason why I didn't go with FLAC is because 1. the Apple music app doesn't support it and 2. the format takes up too much hard drive space. I have two 1TB SSD drives and both of them have different genres on them. Classical music gets its own SSD and right now I have 714 GB being using out of 1TB. I have much less than this on my jazz/rock SSD (only about 400 GB used so far on this drive). Anyway, I hope I answered your question with my yammering.


My library is not as big, but it is substantial. About a year ago I bought two 512G memory cards (one for backup). I copied and converted my entire library (from FLAC and ALAC) onto each of them at mp3 320K. (Jriver won't convert to AAC - is that still proprietary? I know Apple Lossless is not.) I can connect these to my iDevices using an Apple Card Reader and play music from them using a third party app. So my entire library, along with my iPhone, fits in my pocket.

One can accomplish the same thing with a USB stick and the Apple Camera Converter, but it is more awkward.


----------



## Neo Romanza

jegreenwood said:


> My library is not as big, but it is substantial. About a year ago I bought two 512G memory cards (one for backup). I copied and converted my entire library (from FLAC and ALAC) onto each of them at mp3 320K. (Jriver won't convert to AAC - is that still proprietary? I know Apple Lossless is not.) I can connect these to my iDevices using an Apple Card Reader and play music from them using a third party app. So my entire library, along with my iPhone, fits in my pocket.
> 
> One can accomplish the same thing with a USB stick and the Apple Camera Converter, but it is more awkward.


Well, I don't have my entire classical CD collection ripped (this would be absolutely ridiculous for me to do and even more time consuming), but what I do have on my computer are a lot of options and composers whose music I frequent pretty regularly while there are some other composers I have ripped from my collection that I don't listen to too often but wanted them on when I do want to listen to their music (i. e. Boulez, Xenakis, Feldman et. al.). I tried the JRiver app not too long ago and for my purposes, it doesn't really work that well --- too clunky and difficult to navigate. I'm looking for simplicity in audio playback, which why I use the Music app on my Apple Macbook. I'm not sure if AAC is proprietary now as I have a FLAC coverter app on my computer that will convert this format to 320 kbps AAC. Also, many download sites from what I've read, also support AAC now. Anyway, what I'm currently doing serves its purpose, which is listening at my desk and I'm sure you could say the same for your own setup.


----------



## larold

If you want to know buy an LP, CD, SACD or SHM-CD, MP3 and lossless download of any piece of music and listen comparatively in one setting. I've done this though not with all five versions in one sitting.

I found a difference between the CD and MP3 in terms of lost music signal; it rather sounded like the MP3 version was recorded more distantly. I wasn't able to discern much between the MP3 and lossless.

I have also found MP3s I've bought that sound better than either the LP or CD I owned.

I have also purchased new LPs of music recorded 40 years ago that sounded better than any e-file.


----------



## jegreenwood

Neo Romanza said:


> Well, I don't have my entire classical CD collection ripped (this would be absolutely ridiculous for me to do and even more time consuming), but what I do have on my computer are a lot of options and composers whose music I frequent pretty regularly while there are some other composers I have ripped from my collection that I don't listen to too often but wanted them on when I do want to listen to their music (i. e. Boulez, Xenakis, Feldman et. al.). I tried the JRiver app not too long ago and for my purposes, it doesn't really work that well --- too clunky and difficult to navigate. I'm looking for simplicity in audio playback, which why I use the Music app on my Apple Macbook. I'm not sure if AAC is proprietary now as I have a FLAC coverter app on my computer that will convert this format to 320 kbps AAC. Also, many download sites from what I've read, also support AAC now. Anyway, what I'm currently doing serves its purpose, which is listening at my desk and I'm sure you could say the same for your own setup.


Different purposes. My card is for use with portables only. Listening is through portable speakers or various headphones, mostly noise-cancelling.


----------



## Neo Romanza

jegreenwood said:


> Different purposes. My card is for use with portables only. Listening is through portable speakers or various headphones, mostly noise-cancelling.


Indeed. Mine is setup like a glorified streaming service sans the monthly service fee.


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

I don´t think I can tell the difference between 320 kbps MP3 and FLAC.

One of my favorite recordings, that always blew me away because of how good it sounds, is 320 MP3. I discovered that by accident after listening to it many times.

Edit: that said, when I rip CDs, I always rip them to FLAC. Why risk it ?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Recordings of decca and HMV RCA from the 60s are not inferior to todays best recordings. People who think this tend to have listened to poorly kept LPs or listened on poor systems. 
As for MP3 and lossless etc - I did some testing and it took me a while to distinguish the difference. Being able to tell the difference though does not equate to significantly more enjoyable listening from the better recording - for me at least, since the % difference inferiority may not affect listening pleasure. I do use youtube to listen quite a bit and have a great time listening. I appreciate though that many people want to know they are getting that extra 1% or whatever from the best possible source.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MatthewWeflen said:


> So I watched the video, and the test subject correctly identified the uncompressed WAV file 4 out of 6 times, and the high quality file 5 of 6 times. That said to me that, as long as your hearing is intact, uncompressed files are better than mp3. Which is my own anecdotal experience.


4/6 is nearly 50/50

different does not equate to better

people can distinguish - but how do we measure how much difference it makes to listening pleasure?

there are purely subjective reports of - oh I enjoy FLAC so much more than MP3

if you know you are listening to FLAC and MP3 - confirmation bias and or placebo - it's a better format - so I enjoy it more

we need a way to measure listening pleasure - blind - for different formats

until then I am sticking with MP3


----------



## Monsalvat

PlaySalieri said:


> 4/6 is nearly 50/50
> 
> *different does not equate to better*
> 
> people can distinguish - but how do we measure how much difference it makes to listening pleasure?
> 
> there are purely subjective reports of - oh I enjoy FLAC so much more than MP3
> 
> if you know you are listening to FLAC and MP3 - confirmation bias and or placebo - it's a better format - so I enjoy it more
> 
> we need a way to measure listening pleasure - blind - for different formats
> 
> until then I am sticking with MP3


Well, how could MP3 be better? If I start with a 24/96 file and downsample to 16/44.1 FLAC, I've just lost some information. If I then convert that into an MP3 file, I've lost even more information. I'm getting further away from what the original sounded like. Now, if it's 320 kbps MP3, maybe I can't tell the difference, even in a double-blind test... but there's no way it could be _better_ than the original, right? At best, it would only be indistinguishable, and at worst I _could_ tell the difference. So I would think that in this case, if you could hear a difference, it's because the MP3 compression has degraded the audio and the resulting sound is worse/farther from the original.

I'm not an audiophile or expert though. Just trying to understand you here.

Quick edit to add: in foobar2000 there is an ABX comparator plugin which allows you to do blind A/B listening comparisons. I haven't watched the video so I don't know if this is what they do but I don't know how you could get closer to measuring "listening pleasure" than this... at least this way it is objective, whereas listening pleasure is really a subjective experience.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

PlaySalieri said:


> 4/6 is nearly 50/50
> 
> different does not equate to better
> 
> people can distinguish - but how do we measure how much difference it makes to listening pleasure?
> 
> there are purely subjective reports of - oh I enjoy FLAC so much more than MP3
> 
> if you know you are listening to FLAC and MP3 - confirmation bias and or placebo - it's a better format - so I enjoy it more
> 
> we need a way to measure listening pleasure - blind - for different formats
> 
> until then I am sticking with MP3


I don't begrudge anyone their choice of audio file format. I have 320kbps MP3 files that sound great. I just like the future proofing of FLAC.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Monsalvat said:


> Well, how could MP3 be better?




I phrased that badly. Of course FLAC and lossy etc are better - and many people can distinguish one from another - though frankly most cannot particularly those who don't know what to listen for - and as has been pointed out - if you are listening on PC speakers ear buds or basically not a proper audio system with amps speakers etc - whatever format you use may not significantly impact on your listening pleasure whatever the file format, sampling rate etc etc. My point is even if the bass is that bit tighter - and the sound stage is marginally better defined - slightly sweeter treble - may not significantly increase listening enjoyment.

I probably enjoy listening to CD more than anything else now my record player is sold - and while working I will often put a you tube music video on.

It's all fine and I enjoy all recorded sound formats from a small transistor radio up. Some people need to know they are listening to the best possible source - that is fine - we are all different.


----------



## Monsalvat

PlaySalieri said:


> I phrased that badly. Of course FLAC and lossy etc are better - and many people can distinguish one from another - though frankly most cannot particularly those who don't know what to listen for - and as has been pointed out - if you are listening on PC speakers ear buds or basically not a proper audio system with amps speakers etc - whatever format you use may not significantly impact on your listening pleasure whatever the file format, sampling rate etc etc. My point is even if the bass is that bit tighter - and the sound stage is marginally better defined - slightly sweeter treble - may not significantly increase listening enjoyment.
> 
> I probably enjoy listening to CD more than anything else now my record player is sold - and while working I will often put a you tube music video on.
> 
> It's all fine and I enjoy all recorded sound formats from a small transistor radio up. Some people need to know they are listening to the best possible source - that is fine - we are all different.


All good points. CD (or CD quality FLAC) is my usual choice. I don't have the bookmark on this computer any more but I read a really excellent analysis that argued that anything above that would be beyond the threshold of normal human hearing, and my anecdotal experience agrees. But whatever makes people happy...


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Prestomusic says about MP3:
> "due to technical limitations in this audio format, MP3s don't support gapless playback, meaning that in segue tracks (e.g. a movement that moves straight into another without a break) you may hear *a very brief interruption in the sound.*"


This doesn't bother anyone (eg. when listening to opera recordings)?


----------



## Monsalvat

hammeredklavier said:


> This doesn't bother anyone (eg. when listening to opera recordings)?


It would bother me if I had a significant collection of opera MP3 files. It's one other reason I avoid them. I used to avoid streaming opera until I was able to figure out how to configure my streaming service for gapless playback.


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

Gapless playback is very important to me.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Judas Priest Fan said:


> Gapless playback is very important to me.


Yes, indeed. It's absolutely essential in classical listening. Otherwise, it's just an annoying listening experience.


----------

