Can't distinguish between MP3 and FLAC on my current system

[ford2]

Originally Posted by Menisk

I might be wrong. But I'm not sure if you can still use ASIO in Vista. You might be able to but there is also the option of WSAPI, which foobar also has a plugin for.

And also, don't be too worried about not being able to tell the difference. Once you've been listening to FLACs on a decent system for a few months your ears kinda learn to pick the details out of the music and when you go back to 128k MP3s you'll notice in an instant that the detail you were previously picking out isn't there.

You can use Asio in vista no problems,I still use my RME Digi card even though Vista does not recognise it as such.
Do not believe that old night and day bit to much,what is N & D to one is not to another.
Why not listen to a CD with your eyes closed whilst relaxing,then do the same with the mp3's.
If you can still not pick a difference,get your hearing checked out.

[KingStyles]

I never did a direct comparison before but I picked the right one in the sound test and that was between 128 and 320. Vs flac would be an even bigger gap. You couldnt hear the roll of the highhats in the 128. Like rolling your rrrs, the highhat rings were monotone and didnt vibrate like in the 320. Also the 128 was compressed like you were listening in a sound absorbing room.

[krmathis]

First you say you can not distinguish between MP3 and FLAC, then later on you say "85% of the time I don't notice any difference". Which imply that you can indeed distinguish between them, 15% of the time.
That is probably as high as anyone can get. As transparency varies a lot between different music..

Busted!

[uraflit]

^ wouldnt it be ~50%, since you can literally guess either MP3 or FLAC... 1 of 2 chance!

lolol

[ph0rk]

Originally Posted by Menisk

I might be wrong. But I'm not sure if you can still use ASIO in Vista. You might be able to but there is also the option of WSAPI, which foobar also has a plugin for.

And also, don't be too worried about not being able to tell the difference. Once you've been listening to FLACs on a decent system for a few months your ears kinda learn to pick the details out of the music and when you go back to 128k MP3s you'll notice in an instant that the detail you were previously picking out isn't there.

Or he won't. Not everyone can pick out the mp3 artifacts without training, and modern encoders have been improving their 128kbps encodings for years.

To the OP: don't worry about it if you can't hear much difference (once you're certain you're playing back good samples without any resampling). You enjoying the music is more important than you being able to detect how it was encoded without looking at the tags.

[Prog Rock Man]

Originally Posted by leeperry

when I start spotting mp3 artifacts(like at 0:06 in that test), I just can't enjoy music anymore

224kb or more is acceptable, but they never sound as genuine as lossless...which is the real deal, no wooshy wooshy/distorted sound to ruin my enjoyment

I took the test, listened a few times to each sample and did not bother to find out which is which as that would have been a guess. I would then either kid myself I can hear the difference, or would get annoyed at not being able to tell the difference.

All due respect to you leeperry, your hearing is better than mine. But I would rather be in my position of easier satisfaction and enjoyment than yours of noticeing artifacts and not being able to enjoy a track anymore.

[haveblue]

I can definitely tell the difference between FLAC and 128, but from 192 and up it gets sort of mushy.... Pandora One's 192 sounds fine to me. Can some of you seriously distinguish 320 and FLAC?

[leeperry]

Originally Posted by haveblue

I can definitely tell the difference between FLAC and 128, but from 192 and up it gets sort of mushy.... Pandora One's 192 sounds fine to me. Can some of you seriously distinguish 320 and FLAC?

the brain is a poor measuring tool. hearing a difference between ASIO/KS and DS+Kmixer in an A/B comparison can be difficult(but possible!), you can actually measure KMixer's distortion w/ WaveSpectra

you can also measure 320kbit MP3 distortion against WAV w/ WaveSpectra as well : http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5785853-post42.html

all these figures add up in the end, and if you want the cleanest possible source....mp3 is not an option.

and to answer your question? I haven't really tried, but I've got a pretty transparent setup and lossless just sounds pristine...192kbit sounds like it's missing a lot of stuff in the back, 224 and up sound OK...yet the trebles still sound a tad distorted over lossless. ...why bother?

and the worst the source material(70's acoustic music), the worst it'll come out. distortion and hiss don't compress well.

[backtoreality15]

Originally Posted by ph0rk

Or he won't. Not everyone can pick out the mp3 artifacts without training, and modern encoders have been improving their 128kbps encodings for years.

To the OP: don't worry about it if you can't hear much difference (once you're certain you're playing back good samples without any resampling). You enjoying the music is more important than you being able to detect how it was encoded without looking at the tags.

+1, There's a huge difference between 128 mp3s I've had from the late 90s to the ones I run into now.

[BigTony]

On my music server I have probably only 1% mp3 (which I'm trying to irradicate) these range from 128-320kbps - everything else is in FLAC.
Pretty much everytime I play a song and go.. humm sounds like an mp3.. sure enough it is one - there is something about the artifical bass boost that I seem to be able to pick up without any problem.
On the downside it means that I'll have to hunt down that pesky 1% and replace it all one day.

[ABathingApe]

Originally Posted by backtoreality15

+1, There's a huge difference between 128 mp3s I've had from the late 90s to the ones I run into now.

I concur!

On a side note, even listening to things that are listed as 320kbps may not be truly 320. Back in the day, when using the gnutella network, you'd find lots of 320kbps files that sound like absolute garbage, most likely upconverted from lesser files. And we all know you can't create resolution. Where you get your files is important.

[Dan Lavry]

Originally Posted by ABathingApe

I concur!

On a side note, even listening to things that are listed as 320kbps may not be truly 320. Back in the day, when using the gnutella network, you'd find lots of 320kbps files that sound like absolute garbage, most likely upconverted from lesser files. And we all know you can't create resolution. Where you get your files is important.

I have not listened to many downloads or streaming audio, I mostly listen to CD's, but I did plug my DA11 to the laptop via USB cable and looked around at Pandora on the web.

For now, I think Pandora may be usable for the purpose of quickly LOOKING FOR MUSIC on the web, but when I find music I want to listen to, I will order a CD.

For reference, a CD offers 2(channels) X 16(bits) X 44100(samples per second per channel) = 1411.2 kbps

Pandora offers an upgraded per fee service for $36 a year. They state:
"High Quality 192Kbps audio streams, the highest quality streaming audio available on the internet".

Comparing it to 16bit at 44.1KHz stereo (CD format), we have data that is compressed by 7.35 to 1 ratio. I do not know what the standard free Pandora offers, perhaps 128Kbps???

Of course streaming audio is the slowest. Downloads of music files (non streaming) offers much better audio quality, but it takes time to download and space to store. Both the speed and storage are improving fast, and I can not wait for the day that audio compression will be a thing of the past.

Well, one could adopt a lossless audio compression schemes but the maximum ratio is only about 2 to 1. If you go further, you are taking a bite out of audio quality.

Regards
Dan Lavry

[ABathingApe]

Originally Posted by Dan Lavry

I have not listened to many downloads or streaming audio, I mostly listen to CD's, but I did plug my DA11 to the laptop via USB cable and looked around at Pandora on the web.

For now, I think Pandora may be usable for the purpose of quickly LOOKING FOR MUSIC on the web, but when I find music I want to listen to, I will order a CD.

For reference, a CD offers 2(channels) X 16(bits) X 44100(samples per second per channel) = 1411.2 kbps

Pandora offers an upgraded per fee service for $36 a year. They state:
"High Quality 192Kbps audio streams, the highest quality streaming audio available on the internet".

Comparing it to 16bit at 44.1KHz stereo (CD format), we have data that is compressed by 7.35 to 1 ratio. I do not know what the standard free Pandora offers, perhaps 128Kbps???

Of course streaming audio is the slowest. Downloads of music files (non streaming) offers much better audio quality, but it takes time to download and space to store. Both the speed and storage are improving fast, and I can not wait for the day that audio compression will be a thing of the past.

Well, one could adopt a lossless audio compression schemes but the maximum ratio is only about 2 to 1. If you go further, you are taking a bite out of audio quality.

Regards
Dan Lavry

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your response. I am of course familiar with the bit rates involved with CD-quality, those of which are seen from normal CD -> WAV rips. You did not mention that the compression curve is normally not linear, and varies depending encoder even within formats. Thus not only do recordings feel like they are lacking detail but in certain frequency bands, more detail is lost than in others. Granted, judging by your website and all of your experience you have a huge wealth of knowledge. I do agree with you in the sense that listening to music online then buying is a great way to do it.

[Dan Lavry]

Originally Posted by ABathingApe

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your response. I am of course familiar with the bit rates...You did not mention that the compression curve is normally not linear, and varies depending encoder even within formats. Thus not only do recordings feel like they are lacking detail but in certain frequency bands....Granted, judging by your website and all of your experience you have a huge wealth of knowledge. I do agree with you in the sense that listening to music online then buying is a great way to do it.

Hi,

I could not cover everything in one post. I agree that is some sense, the "compression curve" is not linear, but the whole concept is a bit fuzzy. Such a curve has 2 dimensions (axis). One dimension is very clear – the bit rate in say kbps. One can attach a clear number (such as 128kbps). But how does one quantify the other dimension - audio quality? Is that to be based on an “average listener”? On a listener with exceptional hearing? On a “trained ear”?

As I already said, I can not wait for the day that audio compression will just go away. Newer storage technology is almost there - we already have massive flash ram and hard drives at lower cost, and every year the industry offers much more... The internet speed is also going up fast. It was not so long ago when I upgraded my modem to 56kbps (well, that is the perspective of 64 years old).

Regards
Dan Lavry

[dex85]

i ABXed 192 kbps mp3( 3.98 LAME, CBR, joint stereo) vs flac with 9/10 result on Essence STX. it was with stock op-amps, so your soundcard is capable of revealing the difference. on the other note, it took me more than an hour to do so with 50 seconds long song. afterwards i swore i would never do the ABX again

i didn't pass the 256 kbps. i too think it will come with time as your ears get trained, and if not don't worry about it. just enjoy the music.