Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind tests have shown that most cant hear the difference between 192kb/s and the original CD recording(320kb/s)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blind tests have shown that most cant hear the difference between 192kb/s and the original CD...

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Whats the fuzz about saying that iTunes' 256 kb/s isn't good enough?
post #2 of 30
Some people can hear the difference and get annoyed by it
post #3 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebottleRon View Post
Replace the word "most" with "some".
well the test said most
post #4 of 30
1. 320kb/s is still compressed MP3, lossy encoding. It is not the original CD sound, of course.

2. I think a lot of people can tell the difference between 192kb/s and original CD, even blind. Maybe not so much with 256 or 320. I think I can hear the difference between Amazon 256 kb/s MP3's and original CDs on some tracks, but I have not done this blind, so it could be placebo.

3. Many of us also believe that it is possible (not proven one way or the other) that typical (short, under pressure) blind tests do not give the same result as careful, slow, long-term listening at home.

4. Disk is so cheap. Why not use lossless FLAC or Apple Lossless and be done with this issue! Yea, some people believe they can tell lossless compressed from uncompressed, but that is pretty far-fetched.
post #5 of 30
Aren't there a whole bunch of threads on this already? Do we really need another one? Oh well, maybe we do.
post #6 of 30
when you say most... they are probably testing people not attuned to the differences(casual listeners). If you test some audiophiles that happen to know mp3 artifacts and know what to listen for, even 320kbps is not transparent
post #7 of 30
post #8 of 30
Most people use iBud. And your point is?

And why use 320kbps, use lame v0.
post #9 of 30
This discussion has been had far too many times.
There's a very simple test.
Get foobar if you don't have it already
Use the abx comparator tool. Make sure you encode with the newest version of LAME (3.98 atm) using slow mode in your encoding tool (I use dbpoweramp). Make sure you use replaygain to eliminate volume imbalance.
There's a very high chance you will fail. With the vast majority of songs I could not pass an ABX at V0.
I would strongly recommend v0 over 320.
Here's the quality comparison chart for future reference:
post #10 of 30
I easily can and have done the test and picked right every time. Its not that everybody cant hear it, its that everybody is not trained to hear it.
post #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingStyles View Post
I easily can and have done the test and picked right every time. Its not that everybody cant hear it, its that everybody is not trained to hear it.
Well first of all, even if you can hear it, there are plenty of well trained people on hydrogen audio who are incapable of abxing 320 from flac, so it's definitely a minority who can distinguish the two.

Second, if you have to "train" to pick the two apart, then what's the point? If you're just decreasing the enjoyment of previously perfectly good files, why would you do that? Just for the satisfaction of being able to claim you can ABX 320 from FLAC?
post #12 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomikPi View Post
Second, if you have to "train" to pick the two apart, then what's the point? If you're just decreasing the enjoyment of previously perfectly good files, why would you do that?
Why study any discipline dealing with the senses (music, art, culinary arts) if you're just going to learn not to appreciate things of lesser quality? It's just better to satisfied with the pedestrian, right?
post #13 of 30
I can enjoy every type of music and every type of compression, but it sounds better with higher bitrates. Why do we spend time to find the best recording of beethovens 5th symphony if all recordings are good. We are trying to capture the vision and emotion that the artist has as closly as we can without being there. Would you go to an art show with dirty glasses or without your contacs in and walk out satisfied that you were able to perceive the full spectrum of what the artist intended. Would you not miss subtle aspects of the art that the artist took many hours trying to bring to your attention that you now cant see. People train there eyes as well to perceive art to see the brush strokes and textures that make this painting of a blue square better than the other painting of the blue square. Would you want to eat at a restaurant if the cook didnt have a good sense of smell and taste. I like the way I cook, but that doesnt mean I wouldnt want a chef to cook for me everyday. Music is the same way, you lose details and staging and dynamics as you go down in bitrate. That doesnt mean you cant enjoy it. It just means you may not be receiving the full vision and skill set of what the artist is trying to portray. Why train your ears? To better appreciate when a artist or recording does something special and is a step above the rest.
post #14 of 30
Hmmm....
1. Original CD recording = 320kbps? When did that happen?
2. The key word is "most cant". Meaning that "some can"...
3. "Most" people do not have a higher end audio rig to reproduce the music.
post #15 of 30
most can/can't who cares.. what matters is if they enjoy listening to their music.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind tests have shown that most cant hear the difference between 192kb/s and the original CD recording(320kb/s)