or Connect
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 17

post #241 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChroniCali View Post
192kbps and 320kbps definitely has a pretty significant difference IMO.
I am not interested in your opinion or anyone else's about this topic. I want to see ABX test facts and nothing less. Oh, and running the test at least 20 times too because I see someone here who claims he can hear the difference 3/3 times. That is not a valid test as the sample number is way too low and could be just pure luck.
post #242 of 372
I absolutely cannot distinguish between AAC 320 vs lossless. Have not tried lower bitrates though.
post #243 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkweg View Post
I am not interested in your opinion or anyone else's about this topic. I want to see ABX test facts and nothing less. Oh, and running the test at least 20 times too because I see someone here who claims he can hear the difference 3/3 times. That is not a valid test as the sample number is way too low and could be just pure luck.
The general consensus on HAF is that there is an audible difference between 192 CBR and 320 CBR, but not between 192 VBR2 and 320 CBR from what i have read. "lossless" sound from an oggenc is about 160kbps (vbr) which is the lowest currently available to my knowledge.
Personally I still have most of my files in FLAC or 256 VBR2 because I can (even if I cant hear the difference, I am of the ilk that believes I am "still hearing it"). Mind you, I dont have an actual high definition sound system at the moment (in the process >.<), so I cant comment on whether i can really hear it. I think my position (having higher than i can hear) is similar to a lot of people here.
Hope this helps
post #244 of 372
I could tell a vague, possibly psychological difference between 256 kbps CBR aac and ALAC, but that was on Dark Side of The Moon, an album which I have played so many times that the CD laser has burnt a hole through the disc.
post #245 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobofthedead View Post
I could tell a vague, possibly psychological difference between 256 kbps CBR aac and ALAC, but that was on Dark Side of The Moon, an album which I have played so many times that the CD laser has burnt a hole through the disc.
pics?
post #246 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaddy View Post
pics?
That happened to me once as well, I played macarena on mp3 so many times the actual mp3 file got a hole in it. Weird stuff!
post #247 of 372
I have never read a serious testing where someone could tell the difference between 192 and CD, nevermind 320. Whenever they guessed correctly, it was concluded it was purely guessing and by chance.

Whenever I read Head-Fiers conducting the experiment themselves or with their "wife," who supposedly is unbiased, I just laugh.

I truly believe, people let their minds dictate what they hear, what they want to hear, not what they actually hear.
post #248 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbd2884 View Post
I have never read a serious testing where someone could tell the difference between 192 and CD, nevermind 320. Whenever they guessed correctly, it was concluded it was purely guessing and by chance.

Whenever I read Head-Fiers conducting the experiment themselves or with their "wife," who supposedly is unbiased, I just laugh.

I truly believe, people let their minds dictate what they hear, what they want to hear, not what they actually hear.
Let me google that for you Have a read please... not to mention that it is actually our brains doing the hearing. the tiny vibrating hairs in our ear mean jack without the brain.
post #249 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDBacklash View Post
Let me google that for you Have a read please... not to mention that it is actually our brains doing the hearing. the tiny vibrating hairs in our ear mean jack without the brain.
??? HA verifies (in general) mbd's statement?
And yes, it is the brain that causes placebo, not the ears.
post #250 of 372
really depends on the complexity of the song/audio file. If the song complex then there is a difference, however if the song is simple the difference is minimal to non-existent.
post #251 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Man of Genius View Post
??? HA verifies (in general) mbd's statement?
And yes, it is the brain that causes placebo, not the ears.
they say 192 VBR2 sounds the same as lossless, not 192 CBR. big difference..
post #252 of 372
Ahh yes, I assumed he meant VBR, my bad.
post #253 of 372
as a side note, lossless is also better to store for conversion reasons and also remastering reasons.
post #254 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDBacklash View Post
as a side note, lossless is also better to store for conversion reasons and also remastering reasons.
That is a good point, having lossless as backup is great for conversion into different other formats for different devices. Other than that the whole quality argument is just silly, ABX is trivial to set up yet all the people who can 'hear' the differences refuse to do so. After I spent 5 years in auditory research I can say it with certainty - people are full of s%it and they hear what they are conditioned to hear, be it by experimenter or be it by their ego.
post #255 of 372
This is yet another topic discussed to death is Hydrogen Audio forum.....
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?