Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 192 kbs and 320 kbs, is there really a difference?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

192 kbs and 320 kbs, is there really a difference? - Page 10

post #136 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by digger945 View Post
Ahhh I see. Thanks for the link.
That would work well if the person being tested were able to have control over the player so they could switch back and forth quickly.
I would imagine that the differences are much more apparent with music that the listener is intimitely familiar with.

Good reading.
The Java based one does what you want ABC/HR Audio Comparison Utility

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kicksonrt66 View Post
The only one I've used is winabx. You can set begin and end marks to compare a short passage, and certainly if you set the test up yourself you can use familiar music.

If you are training yourself to tell the difference you might want to start with some classic cases known to expose problems like "castinets"

Here are a bunch of samples considered "obvious," with descriptions of the artifact and the sample available in "bad" (perhaps Xing 128kb/s), "good"(lame insane), and lossless.

Artifact Training Page
Thanks for the samples
post #137 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by digger945 View Post
Ahhh I see. Thanks for the link.
That would work well if the person being tested were able to have control over the player so they could switch back and forth quickly.
I would imagine that the differences are much more apparent with music that the listener is intimitely familiar with.

Good reading.
Thats how its supposed to be performed.
You start with a WAV (PCM) audio clip you know well, and encode it with a lossy encoder. Then feed these two clips into the ABX application.
Its then time to perform the blind test. Testing if you can hear an audible difference between them, re-listening to sample X as many times needed to tell if its sample A or B thats the source of it.
post #138 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by krmathis View Post
Depending on you OS you may want to check out these applications:
http://www.rarewares.org/files/other...-java-0.5b.zip
ABC/HR Audio Comparison Utility
Thanks for those links. I just noticed that Java ABCHR has an annoying random delay when you trigger any of the A/B/X samples with keyboard. The delay is, I'm guessing, around 20ms but because it's random it really gets in the way >_< The 2 native Windows utilities (Winabx and ABCHR-ff123) don't have seem to have a random delay.

I wonder if it would be worth adding an ASIO output to ABCHR-ff123. Might also be useful to have audible feedback so you know whether you got it right without having to open your eyes and break your concentration. *adds to to-do list*
post #139 of 350
^ The pleasure is on my side.

I have mixed impressions with the Java ABC/HR application as well. On Mac OS X (which I run) it create a popping noise each time I switch audio streams. Which takes away my concentration on the sound, and make the comparison worthless.
I worked with the developer some years back, but sadly we found no real fix.
post #140 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by krmathis View Post
Depends who you ask, and which gear he/she listed to.
Cause some of us can hear an audible difference between 320Kbps lossy and lossless. Hence 160Kbps would be even less transparent.

To each their own of course.
Well, if someone were worried about disk space, he is most likely trying to use a portable player These days disk space is rarely a factor for desktops, so it'd be a bad idea to rip to MP3s.
post #141 of 350
If anyone else is interested, I modified ff123's program a little to make it easier to ABX. Changes: -
  • It now gives you a high tone if your attempt is correct and high tone followed by a low tone if you're incorrect.
  • I removed the "Next trial" button. The "next trial" now begins as soon as you make a selection.
  • I changed the keyboard shortcuts to be the same as ABCHR-Java. This is to make it easier to do the ABX with eyes closed. q, w, e plays A, B, X and a, s selects A, B, respectively.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/abchr-mod.zip
post #142 of 350
Hey krmathis, can you tell the difference with ABX p < 0.05 between 320kbps and lossless with your systems?
post #143 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by powertoold View Post
Well, if someone were worried about disk space, he is most likely trying to use a portable player These days disk space is rarely a factor for desktops, so it'd be a bad idea to rip to MP3s.
But it still depends who you ask and which rig they use.
Cause some rigs are more transparent than others, and our ability to hear artifacts vary a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by powertoold View Post
Hey krmathis, can you tell the difference with ABX p < 0.05 between 320kbps and lossless with your systems?
Never tried with this system.
Cause as mentioned above Java ABC/HR are borked on Mac OS X, and I have so far found no other ABX application...

..and I don't really care either. Cause I did not find LAME transparent some years back, and switched to lossless. Not turning back.
post #144 of 350
I have lots of mp3s encoded by LAME 3.92 alt-preset-extreme setting, the rate is about 250kbps. I must say they sound as good as 320kbps to me on ipod/rockboxed sansa paired with head-direct RE2.

The resons could be:
1. there is no audible difference between VBR 250 and CBR 320
2. my player/earphone combination is not good enough to allow me tell the difference.

Whatever the reason is, I do not care much, since mp3s are for on-the-go use only. I have enough hard-drive space for lossless formats like Flac/Ape.

It is true that I can save 60-70% of the space if I change everything to VBR mp3. But I do not want to spend lots of time doing so. My rockboxed sansa E270 + 8G microSDHC holds about 40 CDs in Flac, and it takes just a few minutes to transfer files from my computer.


On my home setup of Head-direct EF1 with Senn HD600, I can tell the difference between Flac and those mp3s. Mp3 lacks some fine details and soundstage accuracy. Again, these differences are not perceivable on my sansa/RE2.
post #145 of 350
Has anyone been able to tell a significant difference (10/10+ correct on ABX) between 320kbps and FLAC on any system?

Or even 192kbps VBR and 320kbps?
post #146 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by powertoold View Post
Has anyone been able to tell a significant difference (10/10+ correct on ABX) between 320kbps and FLAC on any system?

Or even 192kbps VBR and 320kbps?
I'm not sure if people can tell 320 vs lossless. I haven't tried it yet, but even if someone can't pass an ABX, that doesn't mean there is no difference to them. It's possible that lossless has a different effect on the brain than 320kbps, but that the listener doesn't have the ability to consciously discern between the two. What one doesn't know can still have an effect on them.

Yes, people can tell 192 vs 320.
post #147 of 350
sadly, i mean i'm not running on an amazing system, just a macbook, yamaha receiver and the D2000, but i can't tell the difference between most (imported from cd) 160kbps and flac on a lot of music i have, the majority actually. If i had a better setup i may. 128kbps for sure. stuff that i don't import myself from cd and get by "other means" i can tell the difference between 160kbps and 192kbps, but after 192, i cannot. saves me space i suppose. even SADDER, for state of mind i keep all albums dear to me in 320kbps or lossless, hah. oh our stateofminds.
post #148 of 350
When you can get a 1TB external for around $100 and portable mp3 players hold well over 100 gigs why would you bother going lower than 320Kbps mp3? Even if you can't tell the difference on your present rig, maybe you will be able to with stuff you buy in the future. You might as well store everything in lossless and avoid regretting it in the future.
post #149 of 350
well hard drive space is the least of my worries, and honestly if i even remotely thought i was going to make a big upgrade down the road i would definitely be hurrying along and going 320kbps across the board. but i am now where i intend to be for the rest of my headphone life. im not a reference listening type of person (but i do listen closely), i dont care to pinpoint flaws in the mastering of a recording or if that is EXACTLY how bjork intended me to hear that bass note, it is for me about the music and the "fun" of it. and i came to headfi because i do love sound and wanted amazing sound, and i feel that i have that. if anything gets upgraded i may get a portable amp for my ipod, but for now that is rather enjoyable unamped with the D2000. the D2000 in itself was the upgrade ive been looking for for quite some time and i get everything i could have ever hoped for out of them, 192kbps files and all.
post #150 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by saintalfonzo View Post
When you can get a 1TB external for around $100 and portable mp3 players hold well over 100 gigs why would you bother going lower than 320Kbps mp3? Even if you can't tell the difference on your present rig, maybe you will be able to with stuff you buy in the future. You might as well store everything in lossless and avoid regretting it in the future.
My library almost fills my 160GB iPod at 128kbps. The argument that storage is essentially unlimited is a bogus argument for some. I'm slowly reripping my CDs to lossless for an archive, but it will never be on my iPod that way. Before I'm finished, I hope 2TB disks are available.

iPods don't really like the large files anyway.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 192 kbs and 320 kbs, is there really a difference?