Dibster
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2010
- Posts
- 74
- Likes
- 10
You can actually hear sub-20hz? I'm jealous.
After listening to FLAC/ALAC I can't go back.
- Thread starter e-bay
- Start date
Spelaeus
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Posts
- 190
- Likes
- 39
There have been several blind tests between LAME encoded mp3s at various bit rates and lossless done in the sound science forums, and I think the results have consistently shown that a decent percentage of people *can* ABX the two. I know I can, and it's really not something that even requires high-end gear. I personally was using the headphone-out of a budget Lenovo laptop > FiiO E5 > Head Direct RE2 (I find it easier on my RE2 than my Alessandro MS1i in most settings despite the better detail on the MS1 due to interference from atmospheric noise).
That said, it's not exactly easy to do so and for me at least requires relatively hefty concentration and switching back and forth many times at vbr or 320kbps, and for casual listening I find LAME 320kbps to be just fine despite the small differences. Indeed, while I'd still prefer lossless, I mostly have 320kbps mp3s on my DAP due to a lack of support for FLAC and the metadata hassles of wav, and that certainly doesn't prevent me from enjoying the music. I'm not even entirely confident that I'd be able to pass an ABX test again on my current laptop, the built-in soundcard is atrocious.
That said, it's not exactly easy to do so and for me at least requires relatively hefty concentration and switching back and forth many times at vbr or 320kbps, and for casual listening I find LAME 320kbps to be just fine despite the small differences. Indeed, while I'd still prefer lossless, I mostly have 320kbps mp3s on my DAP due to a lack of support for FLAC and the metadata hassles of wav, and that certainly doesn't prevent me from enjoying the music. I'm not even entirely confident that I'd be able to pass an ABX test again on my current laptop, the built-in soundcard is atrocious.
Skarecrow77
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Posts
- 191
- Likes
- 57
So, In curiosity, I'm actually about to mp3 encode some tracks for ABXing. The most recent ABX tests I've done were all vorbis (and I've mentioned several times my tests for that). I haven't done mp3 in a long time.
Perhaps I really have been overestimating the quality of MP3. I was under the impression that it's quality-per-bitrate was near (not quite matching, but near) Vorbis and AAC. Maybe I really am wrong, but I'm certainly willing to test.
I'm figuring on doing a small handful of songs (say, 3 or 4) at: 128kbps CBR, -v2 VBR, -v0 VBR, and 320kbps CBR.
I'm using LAMEdrop based on LAME 3.98.4
http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php
Anybody wanna do it with me? Misery loves company?
If I'm really a glutton for punishment, maybe I'll re-do the test again in a week or so when my Beyer DT-880s get here.
I'd like a few song suggestions, especially from people who believe they're able to easily tell the difference. recommend me a tune (and if possible specify some examples in that tune) where you hear differences.
My contribution to the list is: Guns 'n Roses, Use Your Illusion II, Civil War. The relative quietness at the beginning of the song reveals noise floor issues. The guitarwork against that quiet background reveals pre-echo/attack smearing. Additionally, the wall of noise that hits after the opening reveals problems with encoders that can't quite provide enough bitrate for the amount of detail. This has generally been one of the last songs I've been able to ABX (or to put it another way, one of the easiest songs for me to ABX on) in the past when trying out different quality levels of Codecs.
Other suggestions?
Perhaps I really have been overestimating the quality of MP3. I was under the impression that it's quality-per-bitrate was near (not quite matching, but near) Vorbis and AAC. Maybe I really am wrong, but I'm certainly willing to test.
I'm figuring on doing a small handful of songs (say, 3 or 4) at: 128kbps CBR, -v2 VBR, -v0 VBR, and 320kbps CBR.
I'm using LAMEdrop based on LAME 3.98.4
http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php
Anybody wanna do it with me? Misery loves company?
If I'm really a glutton for punishment, maybe I'll re-do the test again in a week or so when my Beyer DT-880s get here.
I'd like a few song suggestions, especially from people who believe they're able to easily tell the difference. recommend me a tune (and if possible specify some examples in that tune) where you hear differences.
My contribution to the list is: Guns 'n Roses, Use Your Illusion II, Civil War. The relative quietness at the beginning of the song reveals noise floor issues. The guitarwork against that quiet background reveals pre-echo/attack smearing. Additionally, the wall of noise that hits after the opening reveals problems with encoders that can't quite provide enough bitrate for the amount of detail. This has generally been one of the last songs I've been able to ABX (or to put it another way, one of the easiest songs for me to ABX on) in the past when trying out different quality levels of Codecs.
Other suggestions?
EddieE
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Posts
- 2,006
- Likes
- 252
What are you suggesting, we all use the same files? Put them up on media fire or something?
I don't know if I have the time to re-encode things at all different bitrates but would be interesting to pin point the "drop off" point where I could definitely tell, so if you want to do the leg work, I'll join in.
I personally have a decent amount of FLAC/LAMEVBR mirrors and a few FLAC/LAME320 mirrors but nothing at all below that quality.
I don't know if I have the time to re-encode things at all different bitrates but would be interesting to pin point the "drop off" point where I could definitely tell, so if you want to do the leg work, I'll join in.
I personally have a decent amount of FLAC/LAMEVBR mirrors and a few FLAC/LAME320 mirrors but nothing at all below that quality.
Skarecrow77
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Posts
- 191
- Likes
- 57
Quote:
What are you suggesting, we all use the same files? Put them up on media fire or something?
I don't know if I have the time to re-encode things at all different bitrates but would be interesting to pin point the "drop off" point where I could definitely tell, so if you want to do the leg work, I'll join in.
I personally have a decent amount of FLAC/LAMEVBR mirrors and a few FLAC/LAME320 mirrors but nothing at all below that quality.
more or less. I wasn't going to set up a dedicated listening test really, just have people recommend a few songs, see if I could... procure a flac/wav version to generate the MP3s with, and let others do the same if they felt so inclined. maybe I will set up a mediafire link if I get the interest and I can find the samples in question.
sonitus mirus
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Posts
- 1,861
- Likes
- 664
For those of you out there that are like me, and work hard at being lazy, I found this site that has a 320 kbps mp3 and a WAV file being used for exactly this type of testing.
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2010/04/sound-test-difference-between-wav-vs-mp3/
If you don't cheat, you might be able to get away with clicking on the links and playing these files directly from the website. (most browsers will display the file names when hovering the mouse over the link) A better option might be to save both files to a folder and use your favorite media player to play back the songs shuffled, where the player randomly plays either of the files. Try that a few times, and if your guesses are right significantly more than 50% of the time...well who really knows what it might mean?
The more guessing attempts made, the more accurate the results.
Next, we can hold a debate on which person has the most neutral saliva for pure tasting, to see which of us might have a golden tongue.
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2010/04/sound-test-difference-between-wav-vs-mp3/
If you don't cheat, you might be able to get away with clicking on the links and playing these files directly from the website. (most browsers will display the file names when hovering the mouse over the link) A better option might be to save both files to a folder and use your favorite media player to play back the songs shuffled, where the player randomly plays either of the files. Try that a few times, and if your guesses are right significantly more than 50% of the time...well who really knows what it might mean?
The more guessing attempts made, the more accurate the results.
Next, we can hold a debate on which person has the most neutral saliva for pure tasting, to see which of us might have a golden tongue.
vert
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Posts
- 526
- Likes
- 39
I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference playing the files from the website. If anyone is in doubt, just feed the files through a high end DAC and you'll get your answer.
sonitus mirus
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Posts
- 1,861
- Likes
- 664
I suppose it depends on how everything is configured. While I can't afford what I would consider to be a high-end DAC, if I click on a link to an mp3 or .wav file, my browser is set to open these types of files using my preferred media player, and all of my computer sound goes through my Nuforce Icon HDP DAC/Amp via the USB connection.
Quote:
Quote:
Skarecrow77
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Posts
- 191
- Likes
- 57
I need a new track. Civil war isn't as good as I remembered for ABX, either that, or it isn't for MP3.
I can't even A/B FLAC vs 128kbps CBR, let alone ABX. no point in trying to guess X when I can't even tell a difference between A and B.
I'm going to see if any of my classical stuff is decently recorded.
I can't even A/B FLAC vs 128kbps CBR, let alone ABX. no point in trying to guess X when I can't even tell a difference between A and B.
I'm going to see if any of my classical stuff is decently recorded.
pp312
Hoping to be taken seriously for once in his life
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2001
- Posts
- 4,099
- Likes
- 247
Quote:
I thought he just said he wasn't in the MP3 camp.
BTW, can someone tell me what RAID is?
baka1969
Chaser of Ghosts
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
- Posts
- 3,443
- Likes
- 87
Quote:
I know ancedotal accounts are subjective. Based on what you're saying, there wouldn't be ANY need for any playback beyond 320 mp3? So anyone that says they prefer FLAC, .WAV, CD quality, SACD or any of the hi-rez playbacks is full of bunk? That's crap. Subtle or significant, I find a difference. I also thnk better equipment rewards better resolution. From from what I have read, there are some that have been saying they can't distinguish the difference are also the ones don't have the best or most revealing equipment. A headphone, amp or DAC that isn't as detailed isn't going to be as adept as equipment that is. I think lower rez music on a higher end rig is a waste of sorts.
If anyone is happy with 320 mp3, that's great. You're not going to convince me that there aren't audible improvements as the resolution increases however.In the end, my ears are what matters the most to me.
mikeaj
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Posts
- 1,639
- Likes
- 110
More precisely, the argument is that there is no real benefit for playback of a lossless FLAC, ALAC, WAV, audio CD, etc. vs. a 320 kbps mp3 (with modern encoding) derived from that. Or perhaps the lossless vs. a modern LAME VBR -V0, or wherever the threshold really is. This isn't a debate over whether or not there's an inherent flaw in 16-bit 44.1 kHz PCM-encoded audio. That's a topic for another day perhaps. The issue is whether or not anyone can actually hear the difference between the lossy transcoded version and an exact copy of the CD original.
If you have playback gear that you think is up to the task, then you could help us out by testing yourself. Convert any CD-quality source material into 320 kbps and perform an ABX test. So far, we have many many people reporting in that they can't pass the test in a properly blinded scenario where the expectation biases are thrown out the window. If you can reliably distinguish the 320 kbps from the source, send in the test results!
On a side note, most of the higher-resolution releases tend to be targeted at a niche crowd: the audio enthusiasts with high-end playback gear and high expectations for sound quality. It's no wonder that on average, these releases tend to be recorded and mastered better than a lot of the standard fare out there, which is often dynamic-range compressed, V-EQed, etc. But that means the majority of the difference in quality (distinguishable by humans or not) may be from the recording and mastering, not the format itself. Of course, the difference in perceived qualities probably has a good deal to do with the expectations of the listeners.
Quote:
It's a Redundant Array of Independent Disks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID. There are different standardized ways to configure hard disks with RAID, denoted by the number after the RAID. They can be configured to increase read/write performance and/or provide forward error correction capabilities to recover all data in case a drive fails. e.g. in a typical RAID 1 configuration, you have two hard disks that contain identical data. Whenever data is written, it is written to both. Therefore if one drive fails, you still have all the data on the other one.
If you have playback gear that you think is up to the task, then you could help us out by testing yourself. Convert any CD-quality source material into 320 kbps and perform an ABX test. So far, we have many many people reporting in that they can't pass the test in a properly blinded scenario where the expectation biases are thrown out the window. If you can reliably distinguish the 320 kbps from the source, send in the test results!
On a side note, most of the higher-resolution releases tend to be targeted at a niche crowd: the audio enthusiasts with high-end playback gear and high expectations for sound quality. It's no wonder that on average, these releases tend to be recorded and mastered better than a lot of the standard fare out there, which is often dynamic-range compressed, V-EQed, etc. But that means the majority of the difference in quality (distinguishable by humans or not) may be from the recording and mastering, not the format itself. Of course, the difference in perceived qualities probably has a good deal to do with the expectations of the listeners.
Quote:
pp312 said:
It's a Redundant Array of Independent Disks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID. There are different standardized ways to configure hard disks with RAID, denoted by the number after the RAID. They can be configured to increase read/write performance and/or provide forward error correction capabilities to recover all data in case a drive fails. e.g. in a typical RAID 1 configuration, you have two hard disks that contain identical data. Whenever data is written, it is written to both. Therefore if one drive fails, you still have all the data on the other one.
blackzarg
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Posts
- 462
- Likes
- 14
All things being equal, I can't tell the difference between FLAC/ALAC and MP3's (typcially 192kbps or higher, VBR). I have received some poorly transcoded MP3's before, but that wouldn't be "all things being equal".
I tend to use ALAC just so I have a lossless copy for backing up, but I convert it for on-the-go.
I buy SACDs, but mostly for ones that come in a surround mix. I listen to mostly classical, and having three channel front soundstage really helps the imaging. The surrounds are nice for reverb and resonance.
I tend to use ALAC just so I have a lossless copy for backing up, but I convert it for on-the-go.
I buy SACDs, but mostly for ones that come in a surround mix. I listen to mostly classical, and having three channel front soundstage really helps the imaging. The surrounds are nice for reverb and resonance.
vert
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Posts
- 526
- Likes
- 39
You can check out a track from William Orbit's My Oracle Lives Uptown in Linn's studio master format 24/44:
http://www.williamorbit.com/blog/wp-cont...024bit.zip
When you click on link it will start the download. It's in wav format.
There's also a comparison page for mp3 vs Linn studio master 24/96. The sample on the page is mp3, and there's a download in 24/96:
http://soundcloud.com/linnrecords/bheki-alyn-cosker-24bit-96khz-flac
I'm listening to the William Orbit track in studio master format and it sounds quite natural. There's an ease and delicacy and you just forget you're listening to digital.
http://www.williamorbit.com/blog/wp-cont...024bit.zip
When you click on link it will start the download. It's in wav format.
There's also a comparison page for mp3 vs Linn studio master 24/96. The sample on the page is mp3, and there's a download in 24/96:
http://soundcloud.com/linnrecords/bheki-alyn-cosker-24bit-96khz-flac
I'm listening to the William Orbit track in studio master format and it sounds quite natural. There's an ease and delicacy and you just forget you're listening to digital.
Users who are viewing this thread
