Quote:
Originally Posted by Poboy  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?
