Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › MP3 vs Uncompressed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MP3 vs Uncompressed

post #1 of 218
Thread Starter 
I'm curious as to how many people on this list can actually tell the difference between 320kbs MP3 and Uncompressed Wave/Aiff?

I've been doing all sorts of a/b comparisons both on my home system(zu druids/tact) and my portable system(tomahawk/m-audio transit/laptop/beyer dyanamic 770).

I cannot tell the difference I would say I have a pretty good ear.
post #2 of 218
lots of people can....

.... i am not one of them
post #3 of 218
I can sometimes tell the difference, but only when I know which one is the compressed and which one is uncompressed. In a blind test, I can't tell the difference.
post #4 of 218
I can only tell the difference on some Steely Dan recordings (they have pristine symbol decays). But the longer I ABX the two, the worse I become at telling the differences.
post #5 of 218
See http://www.headphones.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=478, in which I confess to having a hard time ABX'ing between lossless and 128kbit AAC
post #6 of 218
I tried to convince my self that I can discern between compressed and uncompressed format...but in the end...I really can not. I RIP everything to 320kbps AAC format and just enjoy the music
post #7 of 218
well its difficult for most people to tell the difference between the bitrate comparison ... thats because

1. if you are using the same song at different bitrates to compare , its more difficult for our ears to pick it up because the music we listen to generally is difficult to differntiate ... test with the Ultrasone or some other CD and it will be clear. also compare 2 songs of different artist at different bitrates and you should be able to tell why one is inferior to the other. It may be that the original rip quality will depend on the mastering quality of the CD also ... if its not good , even 320 kbps will be bad .

2. You have the right kind of equipment to differentiate , sadly most people have crappy setups to really tell the differences

In the end , the difference is more or less marginal when you compare 320 to losless , its only that we as enthusiasts want that extra better and generally over emphasise the difference. compare 128 kbps to losless , thats pretty big margin ... 320 or variable 256 to losless , its there but not so much that we should be bothered by it so much.
post #8 of 218
I do 256ABR MP3 because I was constrained by hard disk sizes when I first started ripping - generally the recordings are that great anyway so between 256 and WAV there is a pretty marginal detail difference. And that is even with teh music I really know well - detail for detail both sound the same when A/Bing. (unless of course there was an encoding error which I just redid).
post #9 of 218
I'd like to think I tell the difference only after long periods of listening when I start to notice kinks present due to lossy encoding.
post #10 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowVlican View Post
lots of people can....

.... i am not one of them

Yea, the ones that fall for the placebo effect can always tell the difference.
post #11 of 218
With trained ears anyone can tell the diffrence, I for one can tell Lossless files have more dynamics, tighter louder bass, and all around better punch and clarity without that dryness you get from mp3.
post #12 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inzane View Post
With trained ears anyone can tell the diffrence, I for one can tell Lossless files have more dynamics, tighter louder bass, and all around better punch and clarity without that dryness you get from mp3.

Then again, when we are listening to MP3s it will most likely be in less than perfect listening situation. Perhaps in a studio some of us could tell, but where I listen to MP3s no way...in fact on the move I can't even hear the difference between 100kbps ATRAC3 and 226MP3.
post #13 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poboy View Post
1. if you are using the same song at different bitrates to compare , its more difficult for our ears to pick it up because the music we listen to generally is difficult to differntiate ... test with the Ultrasone or some other CD and it will be clear. also compare 2 songs of different artist at different bitrates and you should be able to tell why one is inferior to the other.
This really doesn't make any sense at all. If you can't hear a difference when listening to the same source material encoded at different bitrates, but you can hear a difference when listening to different source material encoded at different bitrates, then the difference is undoubtedly due to the source material, and not the encoding. Or at the very least, because of the difference in source material, it is impossible to conclude what difference, if any, is caused by different encoding.

Quote:
In the end , the difference is more or less marginal when you compare 320 to losless , its only that we as enthusiasts want that extra better and generally over emphasise the difference. compare 128 kbps to losless , thats pretty big margin ... 320 or variable 256 to losless , its there but not so much that we should be bothered by it so much.
Yet 128kbps has gotten substantially better in recent years. Modern encoders perform extremely well even at 128kbps. Hydrogen Audio listening tests have shown that LAME 3.97 -v5, which averages around 135kbps, is transparent for most listeners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inzne
With trained ears anyone can tell the diffrence, I for one can tell Lossless files have more dynamics, tighter louder bass, and all around better punch and clarity without that dryness you get from mp3.
Can you tell the difference in a double-blind test?
post #14 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post

Can you tell the difference in a double-blind test?

Yes! like I said with trained ears you know what your looking for and you know when artifacts are added.
post #15 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inzane View Post
Yes! like I said with trained ears you know what your looking for and you know when artifacts are added.
The artifacts are definitely the easiest to spot - I find that they mostly disappear after 192 for me. 226 and above none whatsoever audible with my setup.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › MP3 vs Uncompressed