Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Can I hear the difference between 320kbps & Lossless?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can I hear the difference between 320kbps & Lossless? - Page 3

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by majkel View Post
LAME is overrated, it's second best after FhG but for me significantly worse. First of all - in Joint Stereo mode the imaging is unstable and the soundstage is unclear. When you switch to Stereo mode, it's not enough bits to fully encode the voice timbre - it's incomplete. I don't know how people cannot hear the cold, incomplete midrange in the -V0?
............
It's even better to rip to 256kb/s CBR FhG than --preset-extreme or 256kb/s CBR by LAME.
Please, for your sake (you can start encoding properly), have a read on HA. Go to the link posted above for recommended LAME settings, then try LAME. For starters, you should not be using CBR, as in some places (of a song), it's a waste of available space, and in others, means you don't have the bitrate available that you could.

And you're mistaken about joint-stereo. It doesn't destroy spatial data, simply, if the same data exists in both channels, it makes it unnecessary to have two complete copies of it. Full Stereo results in lower quality, as, for example, at 256kbps, you actually get two channels of 128kbps.
post #32 of 46
Oh, boy, I know these recommendations very well, I've been using LAME in CLI mode only since several years and tried many presets, -q options and other "improvements". The best what you can set is: --CBR -b 320 -q 0, and this is what I referred to.
I know the alghorytm of JS very well, it's a mathematically lossless operation and gives 100% replication of data when used with lossless compression. When you take lossy compression, Mid and Side signals are compressed lossy which means that M and S signals could cause some data loss while L and R signals replication. Have you ever thought about the fact that Side has a very specific nature and it should use a different psychoacoustic alghoritm to compress it?
Quote:
And you're mistaken about joint-stereo. It doesn't destroy spatial data, simply, if the same data exists in both channels, it makes it unnecessary to have two complete copies of it.
I mistook nothing. I'm writing about my aural impressions, not speculating about what could have happened to the data. Again - Joint Stereo is lossless only if the whole compression is lossless. It's due to different compression errors applied to M and S signal compression. FhG seems to have better alghoritms as I prefer their sonic fidelity to both Stereo and Joint Stereo versions of LAME.
I suggest you listen more than read Hydrogen Audio. I really appreciate open-source codecs and think the ogg Vorbis by aoTuV is the best existing lossy codec (comparable or better than AAC) but LAME - sorry, there is too much of self-praise, probably due to placing mathematics above psychoacoustics which was the origin of the mp3 invention.
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
It's very simple to maintain separate lossy and lossless music libraries.
Steve, you're usually the voice sobriety and champion of simplicity on Head-Fi. Maintaining two libraries seems unlike you. What do you gain? The ability to carry more music on the go? I guess the value in that can only be decided on an individual basis, but it sounds as crazy to me as expensive power cords and speaker cables.
post #34 of 46
and put me in the "why not rip to lossless" camp. better to have all the data now. who knows if you'll buy a piece of equipment in the future that resolves enough detail that you'll start noticing a difference. data storage is cheap.
post #35 of 46
Thread Starter 
x2, and with the new iPods 'n such that have 160 GB, forggedaboutit. It's especially a non-issue with me, as I have about 8,500 songs in my library, and I tend to grow only about 300-500 a year. HD innovations have well outpaced my library growth.
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by proglife View Post
Steve, you're usually the voice sobriety and champion of simplicity on Head-Fi. Maintaining two libraries seems unlike you. What do you gain? The ability to carry more music on the go?
I have seven iPods, each one loaded with a different kind of music. The libraries (which are much larger than the iPods) are housed on two external hard drives, and I switch back and forth between them in iTunes. I don't maintain a lossless library, because I already have all that on CD. I originally intended to rip and get rid of my CDs, but all I did was rip and put them back on the shelf. I should have known better... When I decided to put all of my CDs in books, I intended to throw out the jewel cases, but they're all boxed up in my warehouse still. Oh well... I'm a pack rat.

See ya
Steve
post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
I don't maintain a lossless library, because I already have all that on CD.
well that makes sense
post #38 of 46
I still stand by the benefits of a good MP3 library. My H160 also drives my MicroDAC and Darth Beyers in my living room. Not the most detailed cans and Lame V2 is fine for a tiny computerless system. Using same H160 portable with the Triple-Fis, why not have my entire music collection with me?

It is not difficult to keep two libraries. Rip to lossless with EAC, re-encode to Lame in Foobar.
post #39 of 46
While I have no where near bigshot's library size, I have about 2000 CDs and a few legally downloaded lossless albums. I originally ripped everything to MP3 or AAC and now I'm reripping everything to lossless. I have not problems keeping them straight. I just use smart playlists. I have a 80GB iPod so I can't fit my whole library on it even at 128kbps. I have about 120GB of AAC and MP3. So far I've ripped a little over a third of my music in lossless. That's 225GB. No player exists yet that can hold it, plus, as bigshot stated, I've had problems with large lossless tracks stuttering on my iPod, so lossy is what I want on my iPod.

Fortunately, every time I've done an ABX, I can't hear a difference between 128kbps and lossless. Some of it is not knowing what to listen for, but for the most part it's my lousy musical memory. As soon as the second sample starts, the first is wiped from my mind.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by proglife View Post
well that makes sense
I'm in the same camp - if I have a particularly driving need to listen to an uncompressed recording I'll go dig up the CD and pop it into the CDP or computer. I used to have a lossless library, then ran into codec issues so I transcoded to MP3 and kept two libraries, and then gradually I started deleting albums from the lossless group... I have nowhere near as much music as most of you guys (only about 50 albums) but practicality won out over raw quality (especially since the difference, to me, is negligible and the original is right there if I need it).
post #41 of 46
Music that sounds good and is conveniently available to play at a moment's notice wins out over music with theoretically better sound quality any day.

See ya
Steve
post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by majkel View Post
To the OP - congrats! This is no surprise to me and it's nice to know some other people also have no problem in distnguishing the LAME 320kb/s mp3 against lossless.

LAME is overrated, it's second best after FhG but for me significantly worse.
The OP said several times that he did not test LAME-encoded MP3s.
post #43 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Music that sounds good and is conveniently available to play at a moment's notice wins out over music with theoretically better sound quality any day.

See ya
Steve
QFT. The latest advances in digital music and file compression have given us sooooo much EXCELLENT choices (I remember back in the day when the only available choices were mp3 or ATRAC), and I, for one, take advantage of that.

Lossy music will ALWAYS be inferior to the original file. That is a given. But I personally can live with a music file thats has 98% less snappy snare drums or 96.983473% less crisp trumpet solos if it means i can listen to it WHEREVER I WANT, like in the office, in the car in traffic, while jogging, while bored and waiting for my girlfriend to finish her makeup, while walking to the train, etc. Hmmmmm, having 100% transparent and bit-perfect music that I can ONLY CRITICALLY LISTEN TO AND ACTUALLY DETECT at home versus the abovesaid advantages in portability? Im willing to live with that compromise.

Of course, there will always be "audiophiles" who DEMAND that final 2.34472828% push in quality. I have no quarrel with you OR your demands of your music. All Im saying is i personally do not ABX while in the office or while walking, and I rarely even ABX when at home. For me, the advantages of well-compressed music far outweigh its disadvantages.
post #44 of 46

could it be reproduced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheule View Post
I was using the iTunes encoder (iTunes version 7, Fraunhofer)
Could you please provide us with the exact settings you used to encode both the mp3s and the lossless files and the version of the player and abx-er software (ie. decoder)? Even better, could you please provide us with samples of the files where you heard the difference?

Could I humbly ask you decode both files to wavs, match the levels and then do a blind ABX?
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipp View Post
I'm in the same camp - if I have a particularly driving need to listen to an uncompressed recording I'll go dig up the CD and pop it into the CDP or computer. I used to have a lossless library, then ran into codec issues so I transcoded to MP3 and kept two libraries, and then gradually I started deleting albums from the lossless group... I have nowhere near as much music as most of you guys (only about 50 albums) but practicality won out over raw quality (especially since the difference, to me, is negligible and the original is right there if I need it).
The number of CDs you have make it easy to rerip if you need them in a different format. But with 2000 CDs, it's not easy. About 2/3 of my library is AAC. If I bought a player that doesn't support AAC, I'd have to rerip all of those albums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charonme View Post
Could you please provide us with the exact settings you used to encode both the mp3s and the lossless files and the version of the player and abx-er software (ie. decoder)? Even better, could you please provide us with samples of the files where you heard the difference?

Could I humbly ask you decode both files to wavs, match the levels and then do a blind ABX?
FYI, for lossless, there are no settings, and for AAC there are very few, bit rate, sample rate, sample rate, stereo/mono, CBR/VBR, and optimize for voice.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Can I hear the difference between 320kbps & Lossless?