Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › POLL: Can you actually hear the difference between high bit-rate mp3 and lossless?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

POLL: Can you actually hear the difference between high bit-rate mp3 and lossless? - Page 3

post #31 of 112
8/3/08 at 1:40am
Honestly for me, anything above 196kbs all sound the same.

With that in mind, it saves me tons of space on my MP3 players since they're 6g/8g
Reply
post #32 of 112
8/3/08 at 2:07am
yup. anything over 192kbps or -v2 or higher seem to sound all the same to me...

LUCKY ME!
Reply
post #33 of 112
8/3/08 at 2:09am
Home unit yes portable depends on the music.
Reply
post #34 of 112
8/3/08 at 4:01am
I am quite sure I can. At least I did so some years back, using some of the problematic samples on hydrogenaudio.
So for the ease of mind I stay lossless all the time!
Reply
post #35 of 112
8/3/08 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick20 View Post
So if you can't hear it, it's "placebo" then. What if I can tell the difference, are you going to call me a liar?


Like I said in my first post, I thought i could tell the difference but doing a proper 10-15 attempt blind ABX test the results said I couldn't - so perhaps i should of written - Unless *I* can ABX it *I* am fooling myself.


thanks to these posters for saying things better than i can:

mrdeadfolx
Quote:
Well he clearly stated in the post that UNLESS YOU CAN ABX IT, it's placebo. If you can ABX it, that statement is null and void, understand?
Oya?
Quote:
that whatever difference there is between well-encoded MP3s and lossless is negligible in normal listening, even if you can pick it out in an ABX.
ILikeMusic
Quote:
Placebo has nothing to do with the fact that the files are physically different, and BTW no one is saying that they aren't. Placebo is believing that you can hear a difference when you really (i.e. in a blind test) can't perceive one.

Comments claiming that one can hear a difference in the absence of a proper blind test lack credibility.


But in a way, even if 99.99% of the time I wouldn't notice the difference i also agree with krmathis

krmathis
Quote:
I am quite sure I can. At least I did so some years back, using some of the problematic samples on hydrogenaudio.
So for the ease of mind I stay lossless all the time!

Having loaded 100+ hours of mp3s on to a harddrive player - i hardly ever listen to 80% of the stuff on there.
If i was to start again i would stick 20ish hours of music on a flash player in wav format,
i wouldn't miss having to mess about encoding and tagging and I would have the peace of mind that the music was the best i could get.
Reply
post #36 of 112
8/3/08 at 8:18am
If u listen to a limited genres of music u ll find it hard to figure out ..

but if u listen to any kind of music thrown at you then u have a decent chance of telling.

as for me...i cannot enjoy music below 320kbps anymore..Lossless is always my target but on iPod its mostly 320 kbps or VBR.
Reply
post #37 of 112
8/3/08 at 9:39am
Some bands/artists really don't sound all that different between 320kbps and FLAC. Artists like Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, all benefit from FLAC.
Something such as Neil Young does not need to be in FLAC.

However, I find FLAC files have a lot less hiss than 320kbps files.
Reply
post #38 of 112
8/3/08 at 9:54am
It really depends on the codec and the song. Even with the latest LAME, MP3 still messes up the 15-19khz range, easily discernable on tracks with much presence in those frequencies. For tracks with very little or no information above 15khz, MP3 does exceedingly well and (most of the time) I can't tell the difference. Also, dynamic range plays a part. I have a few tracks with unusually large dynamics and odd sound mechanics (intentional noise, vast differences between left and right channels, etc) and MP3 fails miserably.

AAC (I use the Nero version), on the other hand, does impeccably well and has far fewer flaws than MP3. I've only ever managed to ABX one track successfully at 400kbps, but it was created by friend and designed to trip up the encoder...


Background noise is the deciding factor for me. I only use portables outside the home, and the street/car/train/plane make enough noise to cover most imperfections in lossy music, anything above 200kbps is perfect. At home or any other quiet stationary building away from the street, I go lossless.




EK
Reply
post #39 of 112
8/3/08 at 10:01am
I use high bitrate VBR mp3's as I'm over 40, and lucky I can hear at all at this point. Working in subway tunnels, and dodging trains all night blowing their horns, kinda' wreaks havoc on the eardrums' & all.
Reply
post #40 of 112
8/3/08 at 10:33am
Quote:
It really depends on the codec and the song. Even with the latest LAME, MP3 still messes up the 15-19khz range, easily discernable on tracks with much presence in those frequencies. For tracks with very little or no information above 15khz, MP3 does exceedingly well and (most of the time) I can't tell the difference. Also, dynamic range plays a part. I have a few tracks with unusually large dynamics and odd sound mechanics (intentional noise, vast differences between left and right channels, etc) and MP3 fails miserably.
You really ought to do everyone a public service and go help out the guys on Hydrogenaudio. Those poor folks (who are extremely well-trained in finding defects in compressed tracks) are having a tougher and tougher time finding problems in the latest versions of LAME, yet to you the difference is 'easily discernible.' I'm sure they'd love to have your help.
Reply
post #41 of 112
8/3/08 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ds_t View Post
Having loaded 100+ hours of mp3s on to a harddrive player - i hardly ever listen to 80% of the stuff on there.
If i was to start again i would stick 20ish hours of music on a flash player in wav format,
i wouldn't miss having to mess about encoding and tagging and I would have the peace of mind that the music was the best i could get.
You'd want to be using compressed lossless instead of WAV though, for smaller file size and tagging capabilities. (Unless you're the type that believes WAV sounds better/different than FLAC/ALAC etc.; that's a whole different can of worms altogether and one that's not really worth discussing seriously.)

Despite criticisms from the 'lossless has no place in a portable' crowd, I do feel there are legitimate reasons for using lossless on a portable player. One would be large capacity players that can be used as a hard-disk (ie. iPods) to carry music for playback on a PC-based rig, and another would be players with digital-out for use with a DAC-based rig.
Reply
post #42 of 112
8/3/08 at 10:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeMusic View Post
You really ought to do everyone a public service and go help out the guys on Hydrogenaudio. Those poor folks (who are extremely well-trained in finding defects in compressed tracks) are having a tougher and tougher time finding problems in the latest versions of LAME, yet to you the difference is 'easily discernible.' I'm sure they'd love to have your help.
Har-de-har...


"the guys" at HA didn't really care about my findings I posted early last year, even with sample tracks and ABX results. The thread died with a few responses of "well, I don't hear it", "256kbps is mostly transparent", "MP3 will always fail on certain samples" and some other nonsense.




EK
Reply
post #43 of 112
8/3/08 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeMusic View Post
You really ought to do everyone a public service and go help out the guys on Hydrogenaudio. Those poor folks (who are extremely well-trained in finding defects in compressed tracks) are having a tougher and tougher time finding problems in the latest versions of LAME, yet to you the difference is 'easily discernible.' I'm sure they'd love to have your help.
x2
But don't go there until you have performed an ABX test to back up the statement. Or else you will be blocked out by TOS #8.
Reply
post #44 of 112
8/3/08 at 11:10am
Did I hear a difference going from ACC/320 to Apple Lossless? In a New York minute. No comparison - lossless is better.
Reply
post #45 of 112
8/3/08 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilking View Post
"the guys" at HA didn't really care about my findings I posted early last year, even with sample tracks and ABX results. The thread died with a few responses of "well, I don't hear it", "256kbps is mostly transparent", "MP3 will always fail on certain samples" and some other nonsense.
I'd like to see how they dismissed your findings but I can find only one thread you participated in and it wasn't about the above topic, although maybe my search technique is faulty. Can you help guide us to the Hydrogenaudio thread you are referring to?

And considering that the one thread I did find was concerning how easy it is to cheat an ABX test one can see see why they might be skeptical... (just kidding, no inferences there...)

.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › POLL: Can you actually hear the difference between high bit-rate mp3 and lossless?