Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Edit: If my above post is confusing, the jist of what I'm saying is is I think all music is worthy of Flac.
Agreed, hey, if you paid for all those bits on the CD, you'd want every single one of them on your computer/whatever to get your moneys worth. Regardless of whether or not the mp3 is transparent. 
The fluffyhouser 128 320 and lame 128 we're easy.
I failed the lame 320 and I really don't think I will be able to do it even if I kept trying for two reasons. Firstly, I think lame @ 320 has that particular track down no problem, and secondly, I really want to bash my head against the wall because of that track. No offense intended because I think it's a fine song, I just absolutely hate it.
Bleh, audiophile music, makes me cringe. I need to go cleanse my ears, I feel violated.
I'll try it again in the future when I do another run of tests, hopefully with my rig upgraded. It will be a good test to see if better gear can help resolve it or not.
Thanks for taking the time to run the trials. In straight ahead A/B sighted trials, I got stumped on both of the 320s. I've done thorough ABX before and the thought of 20+ trials repeating the same bit over and over doesn't sound too appealing to revisit.
There have also been many moments during casual listening where I went "a-ha!" and thought that I identified an audible compression artifact only to find that the distortion was already on the CD. Mp3 compression does exacerbate any pre-existing distortion to an extent, so I've found it easier to distinguish between lossy and lossless files on lower quality recordings.
[...] so I've found it easier to distinguish between lossy and lossless files on lower quality recordings.
Ah...
hm.
Then again, I feel like I can hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/192 on very high quality recordings... from the A/B comparisons I did at Linn Records website yesterday.
I wouldn't know, I don't have any high quality recordings.....
@anetode
Yeah no kiddin' about the 'not too appealing' bit, I think I've done like a 30 minute ABX trial where I've listened to a certain section a few hundred times.
Much to learn, I still have......
320 vs v0 (Click to show)
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.8
2011/10/05 23:41:05
File A: C:\Users\Alice\Desktop\08 ONE's hope320.mp3
File B: C:\Users\Alice\Desktop\08 ONE's hopev0.mp3
23:41:05 : Test started.
23:41:50 : 01/01 50.0%
23:42:32 : 01/02 75.0%
23:44:03 : 02/03 50.0%
23:44:38 : 02/04 68.8%
23:45:20 : 03/05 50.0%
23:45:29 : 04/06 34.4%
23:45:52 : 05/07 22.7%
23:46:34 : 05/08 36.3%
23:46:54 : 05/09 50.0%
23:47:19 : 06/10 37.7%
23:47:29 : 06/11 50.0%
23:48:10 : 07/12 38.7%
23:48:24 : 08/13 29.1%
23:48:39 : 09/14 21.2%
23:48:47 : 10/15 15.1%
23:49:13 : 10/16 22.7%
23:49:37 : 11/17 16.6%
23:50:18 : 12/18 11.9%
23:50:39 : 13/19 8.4%
23:51:19 : 14/20 5.8%
23:53:20 : 14/21 9.5%
23:53:49 : 15/22 6.7%
23:54:09 : 15/23 10.5%
23:54:43 : 15/24 15.4%
23:55:05 : 16/25 11.5%
23:55:50 : 17/26 8.4%
23:56:01 : 17/27 12.4%
23:57:20 : 17/28 17.2%
00:00:19 : 18/29 13.2%
00:00:31 : 18/30 18.1%
00:00:59 : 18/31 23.7%
00:02:19 : 18/32 29.8%
00:03:39 : 19/33 24.3%
00:04:45 : 19/34 30.4%
00:05:27 : 19/35 36.8%
00:06:27 : 20/36 30.9%
00:06:52 : 20/37 37.1%
00:08:08 : 20/38 43.6%
00:08:27 : 20/39 50.0%
00:09:13 : 20/40 56.3%
00:09:48 : 21/41 50.0%
00:10:01 : 21/42 56.1%
00:10:30 : 21/43 62.0%
00:10:43 : 21/44 67.4%
00:11:02 : 21/45 72.4%
00:11:33 : 22/46 67.1%
00:11:58 : 23/47 61.5%
00:12:59 : 24/48 55.7%
00:13:32 : 25/49 50.0%
00:13:42 : 25/50 55.6%
00:13:58 : 26/51 50.0%
00:14:12 : 27/52 44.5%
00:14:49 : 28/53 39.2%
00:15:06 : 29/54 34.2%
00:15:47 : 29/55 39.4%
00:16:16 : 30/56 34.4%
00:16:39 : 31/57 29.8%
00:16:48 : 32/58 25.6%
00:16:56 : 33/59 21.7%
00:17:13 : 34/60 18.3%
00:17:44 : 34/61 22.1%
00:18:13 : 35/62 18.7%
00:18:22 : 36/63 15.7%
00:18:48 : 36/64 19.1%
00:19:08 : 37/65 16.1%
00:19:22 : 37/66 19.5%
00:19:38 : 37/67 23.2%
00:20:03 : 38/68 19.8%
00:20:14 : 38/69 23.5%
00:20:24 : 38/70 27.5%
00:20:34 : 39/71 23.8%
00:20:41 : 40/72 20.5%
00:20:47 : 40/73 24.1%
00:20:59 : 41/74 20.8%
00:21:24 : 42/75 17.8%
00:21:41 : 43/76 15.1%
00:22:03 : 43/77 18.1%
00:22:12 : 43/78 21.4%
00:22:31 : 44/79 18.4%
00:22:46 : 45/80 15.7%
00:23:44 : 45/81 18.7%
00:24:26 : 45/82 22.0%
00:24:45 : 46/83 19.0%
00:25:53 : 46/84 22.3%
00:26:06 : 46/85 25.8%
00:26:43 : 47/86 22.5%
00:27:10 : 48/87 19.6%
00:27:37 : 49/88 16.9%
00:27:55 : 50/89 14.5%
00:28:39 : 51/90 12.3%
00:29:15 : 51/91 14.7%
00:29:26 : 51/92 17.4%
00:29:50 : 51/93 20.3%
00:30:04 : 52/94 17.7%
00:30:14 : 53/95 15.2%
00:30:30 : 54/96 13.1%
00:31:03 : 55/97 11.1%
00:32:29 : 56/98 9.4%
00:33:06 : 57/99 8.0%
00:33:42 : 57/100 9.7%
00:34:06 : 58/101 8.2%
00:34:23 : 58/102 9.9%
00:34:38 : 59/103 8.4%
00:35:16 : 59/104 10.1%
00:35:37 : 59/105 12.1%
00:36:14 : 59/106 14.3%
00:36:55 : 60/107 12.3%
00:37:03 : 61/108 10.5%
00:37:10 : 61/109 12.5%
00:38:06 : 62/110 10.7%
00:38:58 : 63/111 9.2%
00:39:26 : 64/112 7.8%
00:39:40 : 65/113 6.6%
00:40:37 : 65/114 8.0%
00:40:43 : 66/115 6.8%
00:41:05 : 66/116 8.2%
00:42:32 : 66/117 9.8%
00:43:14 : 66/118 11.6%
00:43:38 : 66/119 13.6%
00:43:57 : 66/120 15.8%
00:44:37 : 67/121 13.8%
00:45:33 : 67/122 16.0%
00:45:54 : 68/123 14.0%
00:46:10 : 68/124 16.2%
00:46:32 : 68/125 18.6%
00:47:22 : 68/126 21.1%
00:48:21 : 68/127 23.9%
00:48:34 : 68/128 26.8%
00:49:13 : 69/129 24.1%
00:49:25 : 70/130 21.5%
00:49:32 : 70/131 24.2%
00:49:55 : 70/132 27.1%
00:50:18 : 71/133 24.4%
00:50:25 : 71/134 27.3%
00:51:00 : 72/135 24.6%
00:51:49 : 72/136 27.4%
00:52:19 : 73/137 24.7%
00:52:52 : 74/138 22.2%
00:53:25 : 74/139 24.9%
00:54:37 : 74/140 27.7%
00:55:29 : 74/141 30.7%
00:56:18 : 74/142 33.7%
00:56:59 : 74/143 36.9%
00:57:28 : 74/144 40.1%
00:57:40 : 74/145 43.4%
00:58:13 : 74/146 46.7%
00:59:37 : 74/147 50.0%
01:00:00 : 74/148 53.3%
01:00:22 : 74/149 56.5%
01:00:39 : 75/150 53.3%
01:00:56 : 75/151 56.5%
01:01:34 : 76/152 53.2%
01:01:52 : 77/153 50.0%
01:02:20 : 77/154 53.2%
01:02:47 : 78/155 50.0%
01:03:52 : 79/156 46.8%
01:03:59 : 80/157 43.7%
01:04:22 : 80/158 46.8%
01:05:02 : 81/159 43.7%
01:05:47 : 82/160 40.6%
01:06:32 : 83/161 37.6%
01:07:25 : 83/162 40.7%
01:08:42 : 84/163 37.7%
01:08:56 : 84/164 40.7%
01:09:37 : 85/165 37.8%
01:10:14 : 85/166 40.8%
01:10:33 : 85/167 43.9%
01:11:05 : 85/168 46.9%
01:11:29 : 85/169 50.0%
01:12:03 : 85/170 53.1%
01:12:06 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 85/170 (53.1%)
Even though I failed, I deserve about two or three gold stars for effort (look at the start and end time). 
I'm not too surprised though, looks like v0 is the way to go folks. They ain't joking by 320 being a waste of bits, as if the track ever calls for it, v0 will just dish out extra bits as needed. I really really don't want to do another 320 vs v0 test again, so don't ask.
I was hoping to catch the differences from the v0 soaring above 320, but clearly that ain't happening since upon post-analysis, the track only went above 320kbps for about 1% of the track. Bullocks.
For these tests, LAME 3.98r was used
Which one? 3.98.4/3/2? Have you tried the 3.99 beta and see if it made any improvements in comparison? I'd also try 3.98.4x since it makes some interesting improvements too:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=91140
lame 3.98.2, looks like I haven't updated in a while.
What do you think would sound better, 3.99 beta or 3.98.4x ??
lame 3.98.2, looks like I haven't updated in a while.
What do you think would sound better, 3.99 beta or 3.98.4x ??
That I don't know off the top of my head unfortunately.
That I don't know off the top of my head unfortunately.
I've checked the change logs, and I think the updates only have to do with the VBR algorithms and mostly bug fixes.
I'll give it a whack sometime in the future, I've wasted all my energy with my last test.
Wow, let's enter 85/170 as the longest negative ABX result anyone ever attempted, into the Guinness book of world records? Now that's dedication.
And thanks for confirming (as much as one test can do) why people use -V0--or lower--instead of 320 kbps for portable use. You know, there's always the odd track out there where the music confuses the psychoacoustic model and maybe some of the wrong bits are thrown away, but these are the fringe cases rather than the norm.
I was hoping to catch the differences from the v0 soaring above 320, but clearly that ain't happening since upon post-analysis, the track only went above 320kbps for about 1% of the track. Bullocks.
I have not looked at the mp3 frame structure, and maybe I should, but I suspect the v0 spiking above 320 is an erroneous interpretation or reading by the software and that it's not going above 320 for that frame, at least in the sense you're thinking. Hopefully I didn't just say something really ignorant. I know above 320 is allowed with free format mp3, but that's not the situation here?
Much to learn, I still have......
320 vs v0 (Click to show)
foo_abx 1.3.4 reportfoobar2000 v1.1.82011/10/05 23:41:05File A: C:\Users\Alice\Desktop\08 ONE's hope320.mp3File B: C:\Users\Alice\Desktop\08 ONE's hopev0.mp323:41:05 : Test started.23:41:50 : 01/01 50.0%23:42:32 : 01/02 75.0%23:44:03 : 02/03 50.0%23:44:38 : 02/04 68.8%23:45:20 : 03/05 50.0%23:45:29 : 04/06 34.4%23:45:52 : 05/07 22.7%23:46:34 : 05/08 36.3%23:46:54 : 05/09 50.0%23:47:19 : 06/10 37.7%23:47:29 : 06/11 50.0%23:48:10 : 07/12 38.7%23:48:24 : 08/13 29.1%23:48:39 : 09/14 21.2%23:48:47 : 10/15 15.1%23:49:13 : 10/16 22.7%23:49:37 : 11/17 16.6%23:50:18 : 12/18 11.9%23:50:39 : 13/19 8.4%23:51:19 : 14/20 5.8%23:53:20 : 14/21 9.5%23:53:49 : 15/22 6.7%23:54:09 : 15/23 10.5%23:54:43 : 15/24 15.4%23:55:05 : 16/25 11.5%23:55:50 : 17/26 8.4%23:56:01 : 17/27 12.4%23:57:20 : 17/28 17.2%00:00:19 : 18/29 13.2%00:00:31 : 18/30 18.1%00:00:59 : 18/31 23.7%00:02:19 : 18/32 29.8%00:03:39 : 19/33 24.3%00:04:45 : 19/34 30.4%00:05:27 : 19/35 36.8%00:06:27 : 20/36 30.9%00:06:52 : 20/37 37.1%00:08:08 : 20/38 43.6%00:08:27 : 20/39 50.0%00:09:13 : 20/40 56.3%00:09:48 : 21/41 50.0%00:10:01 : 21/42 56.1%00:10:30 : 21/43 62.0%00:10:43 : 21/44 67.4%00:11:02 : 21/45 72.4%00:11:33 : 22/46 67.1%00:11:58 : 23/47 61.5%00:12:59 : 24/48 55.7%00:13:32 : 25/49 50.0%00:13:42 : 25/50 55.6%00:13:58 : 26/51 50.0%00:14:12 : 27/52 44.5%00:14:49 : 28/53 39.2%00:15:06 : 29/54 34.2%00:15:47 : 29/55 39.4%00:16:16 : 30/56 34.4%00:16:39 : 31/57 29.8%00:16:48 : 32/58 25.6%00:16:56 : 33/59 21.7%00:17:13 : 34/60 18.3%00:17:44 : 34/61 22.1%00:18:13 : 35/62 18.7%00:18:22 : 36/63 15.7%00:18:48 : 36/64 19.1%00:19:08 : 37/65 16.1%00:19:22 : 37/66 19.5%00:19:38 : 37/67 23.2%00:20:03 : 38/68 19.8%00:20:14 : 38/69 23.5%00:20:24 : 38/70 27.5%00:20:34 : 39/71 23.8%00:20:41 : 40/72 20.5%00:20:47 : 40/73 24.1%00:20:59 : 41/74 20.8%00:21:24 : 42/75 17.8%00:21:41 : 43/76 15.1%00:22:03 : 43/77 18.1%00:22:12 : 43/78 21.4%00:22:31 : 44/79 18.4%00:22:46 : 45/80 15.7%00:23:44 : 45/81 18.7%00:24:26 : 45/82 22.0%00:24:45 : 46/83 19.0%00:25:53 : 46/84 22.3%00:26:06 : 46/85 25.8%00:26:43 : 47/86 22.5%00:27:10 : 48/87 19.6%00:27:37 : 49/88 16.9%00:27:55 : 50/89 14.5%00:28:39 : 51/90 12.3%00:29:15 : 51/91 14.7%00:29:26 : 51/92 17.4%00:29:50 : 51/93 20.3%00:30:04 : 52/94 17.7%00:30:14 : 53/95 15.2%00:30:30 : 54/96 13.1%00:31:03 : 55/97 11.1%00:32:29 : 56/98 9.4%00:33:06 : 57/99 8.0%00:33:42 : 57/100 9.7%00:34:06 : 58/101 8.2%00:34:23 : 58/102 9.9%00:34:38 : 59/103 8.4%00:35:16 : 59/104 10.1%00:35:37 : 59/105 12.1%00:36:14 : 59/106 14.3%00:36:55 : 60/107 12.3%00:37:03 : 61/108 10.5%00:37:10 : 61/109 12.5%00:38:06 : 62/110 10.7%00:38:58 : 63/111 9.2%00:39:26 : 64/112 7.8%00:39:40 : 65/113 6.6%00:40:37 : 65/114 8.0%00:40:43 : 66/115 6.8%00:41:05 : 66/116 8.2%00:42:32 : 66/117 9.8%00:43:14 : 66/118 11.6%00:43:38 : 66/119 13.6%00:43:57 : 66/120 15.8%00:44:37 : 67/121 13.8%00:45:33 : 67/122 16.0%00:45:54 : 68/123 14.0%00:46:10 : 68/124 16.2%00:46:32 : 68/125 18.6%00:47:22 : 68/126 21.1%00:48:21 : 68/127 23.9%00:48:34 : 68/128 26.8%00:49:13 : 69/129 24.1%00:49:25 : 70/130 21.5%00:49:32 : 70/131 24.2%00:49:55 : 70/132 27.1%00:50:18 : 71/133 24.4%00:50:25 : 71/134 27.3%00:51:00 : 72/135 24.6%00:51:49 : 72/136 27.4%00:52:19 : 73/137 24.7%00:52:52 : 74/138 22.2%00:53:25 : 74/139 24.9%00:54:37 : 74/140 27.7%00:55:29 : 74/141 30.7%00:56:18 : 74/142 33.7%00:56:59 : 74/143 36.9%00:57:28 : 74/144 40.1%00:57:40 : 74/145 43.4%00:58:13 : 74/146 46.7%00:59:37 : 74/147 50.0%01:00:00 : 74/148 53.3%01:00:22 : 74/149 56.5%01:00:39 : 75/150 53.3%01:00:56 : 75/151 56.5%01:01:34 : 76/152 53.2%01:01:52 : 77/153 50.0%01:02:20 : 77/154 53.2%01:02:47 : 78/155 50.0%01:03:52 : 79/156 46.8%01:03:59 : 80/157 43.7%01:04:22 : 80/158 46.8%01:05:02 : 81/159 43.7%01:05:47 : 82/160 40.6%01:06:32 : 83/161 37.6%01:07:25 : 83/162 40.7%01:08:42 : 84/163 37.7%01:08:56 : 84/164 40.7%01:09:37 : 85/165 37.8%01:10:14 : 85/166 40.8%01:10:33 : 85/167 43.9%01:11:05 : 85/168 46.9%01:11:29 : 85/169 50.0%01:12:03 : 85/170 53.1%01:12:06 : Test finished. ----------Total: 85/170 (53.1%)
Even though I failed, I deserve about two or three gold stars for effort (look at the start and end time).
I'm not too surprised though, looks like v0 is the way to go folks. They ain't joking by 320 being a waste of bits, as if the track ever calls for it, v0 will just dish out extra bits as needed. I really really don't want to do another 320 vs v0 test again, so don't ask.
I was hoping to catch the differences from the v0 soaring above 320, but clearly that ain't happening since upon post-analysis, the track only went above 320kbps for about 1% of the track. Bullocks.
I can't believe I didn't see this earlier.
I thought you wanted to wind down! You really could have stopped after 20 trials and we'd believe you. Mighty impressive test, though.
Would you be willing to do 320 vs. V2? I'll let you slide by with 100 trials 
Nice thread! I always remaster CDs and FLAC to 320 CBR just to be on the safe side. I have found that after a good equalization I can make a 320 CBR sound better (with better balance to my ears) than the original CD, even though I know there is some data loss, I don't mind since it has a much more pleasing sound than the original recording. I think having the proper EQ balance is way more important than listening to a lossless vs. lossy, of course I wouldn't go below 320 CBR just for good measure.
The funny thing is every ones ears are way different from each other as far as sensitivity in certain freqs, so EQing is pretty important for everyone to do IMO. That's why I'll spent 20 minutes remastering a whole album and transfer it to my PSP knowing that I put my best efforts into balancing the volume on all the relevant freqs.
I have always found that the high frequencies are affected the most in a lossy format. Since I listen to rock and metal mostly, this is very apparent after EQing and boosting the high freqs up 6 or so DB. If I did not EQ I think it may be more difficult to hear the high freq. changes that occur when converting to 320 CBR, since the volume of the symbols and high pitched guitar sounds are quieter. As a general rule of thumb I always try to bring the symbols in to make them sound like they are in the same room with all the other sounds, vocals etc. Then I know I have boosted my highs sufficiently.
Ah...
hm.
Then again, I feel like I can hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/192 on very high quality recordings... from the A/B comparisons I did at Linn Records website yesterday.
Thanks for the tip on that website Kiteki. I checked it out and it is pretty cool. I like the way they let you sample each format. You definitely get more "air" on the 24/192 FLAC. The sound has more 3 dimensional depth to it and more pleasant to listen to. Also very expensive! To rr en t (cough)!
Thanks for the tip on that website Kiteki. I checked it out and it is pretty cool. I like the way they let you sample each format. You definitely get more "air" on the 24/192 FLAC. The sound has more 3 dimensional depth to it and more pleasant to listen to. Also very expensive! To rr en t (cough)!
I wonder if anybody has gotten the 24/192 FLAC, other versions, and compared bit by bit? I always wonder if they do something different like apply a different EQ, process a few parts differently, and so on, to make the higher resolution versions sound different, if in fact they do sound different. (This is ignoring the fact that most DACs don't handle 192 kHz as well as 96 kHz, out of those that can actually do 192 kHz, and so on) I'd never trust comparisons like that unless the higher-res was transcoded down myself.
I have not looked at the mp3 frame structure, and maybe I should, but I suspect the v0 spiking above 320 is an erroneous interpretation or reading by the software and that it's not going above 320 for that frame, at least in the sense you're thinking. Hopefully I didn't just say something really ignorant. I know above 320 is allowed with free format mp3, but that's not the situation here?
Yep that's my mistake there, foobar has that little bitrate updater thing on the bottom left for me, and I forgot it over-reads when you seek in a track, which is why it only seemed to spike above 320 as I was clicking.
I can't believe I didn't see this earlier.
I thought you wanted to wind down! You really could have stopped after 20 trials and we'd believe you. Mighty impressive test, though.
Would you be willing to do 320 vs. V2? I'll let you slide by with 100 trials
Yep I'm kind of winding down, just taking it easy at the moment so I won't be able to take in everybody's requests.
I was going to go to 100 trials for fun, but that would be silly. And for that previous test, I wasn't going all the way to 170 just for laughs, I fighting to the death the whole way to spot any differences. 
Note that I'm using lame 3.98.4 now. (I don't even think it matters =P)
Umm, don't use v2.
320 vs v2 (Click to show)
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.8
2011/10/06 17:41:55
File A: C:\Users\Alice\Desktop\04 アナタガモトメルモノ v2.mp3
File B: C:\Users\Alice\Desktop\04 アナタガモトメルモノ.mp3
17:41:55 : Test started.
17:42:08 : 00/01 100.0%
17:42:31 : 01/02 75.0%
17:42:41 : 01/03 87.5%
17:43:00 : 02/04 68.8%
17:43:17 : 03/05 50.0%
17:43:24 : 04/06 34.4%
17:43:34 : 05/07 22.7%
17:43:45 : 06/08 14.5%
17:43:53 : 07/09 9.0%
17:44:03 : 08/10 5.5%
17:44:11 : 09/11 3.3%
17:44:27 : 10/12 1.9%
17:44:37 : 11/13 1.1%
17:44:45 : 12/14 0.6%
17:44:53 : 13/15 0.4%
17:45:02 : 14/16 0.2%
17:45:09 : 15/17 0.1%
17:45:18 : 16/18 0.1%
17:45:26 : 17/19 0.0%
17:45:34 : 18/20 0.0%
17:45:40 : 19/21 0.0%
17:45:55 : 20/22 0.0%
17:46:09 : 21/23 0.0%
17:46:18 : 22/24 0.0%
17:46:26 : 23/25 0.0%
17:46:32 : 24/26 0.0%
17:46:41 : 25/27 0.0%
17:46:51 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 25/27 (0.0%)
I wonder if anybody has gotten the 24/192 FLAC, other versions, and compared bit by bit? I always wonder if they do something different like apply a different EQ, process a few parts differently, and so on, to make the higher resolution versions sound different, if in fact they do sound different. (This is ignoring the fact that most DACs don't handle 192 kHz as well as 96 kHz, out of those that can actually do 192 kHz, and so on) I'd never trust comparisons like that unless the higher-res was transcoded down myself.
I've always wanted to do something like that, but I don't think my DAC can do 24/192, well, that, and the fact that anything in 24/192 is audiophile music and you know how much I dislike that......
