Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › FLAC vs 320kbps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FLAC vs 320kbps - Page 7

post #91 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

mp3 has audible differences which can be proven with a null test


FYI, that's not what a null test does.

post #92 of 120

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post


Anyone who doesn't do ABX testing everything is very likely wrong and subject to bias...  lolr  biggrin.gifdeadhorse.gif

 

Maybe people have better things to do than set up ABX tests over an utterly redundant issue.  mp3 has audible differences which can be proven with a null test - but honestly I cant say that the differences are DBT-proof, at least not with my gear.

 

If you really feel like wasting time though you can create your own test or run with the files from here

 

I tried this with a 24/96 WAVE to 320mp3 and even then the difference is very small, and my gear is not very bright (no pun intended) so I don't like my DBT chances.

 

Does this mean I go and rip my whole music collection to mp3 - erm no!  I want to keep a bit perfect copy of my audio.

 

You can feel free to save yourself $90 on a hard drive and rip everything to mp3 - you probably won't hear the difference unless your gear is very bright/revealing.

 

But unfortunately that doesn't do it for me - I want to wring out every last microscopic theoretical drop of SQ possible from my music - especially for archiving in case I get higher resolution gear down the line.

 

In the meantime I have better things to do with my time than worry about disk space lol!

 

Why is it that any criticism of the golden ear myth or any reference to DBT testing taken to mean that the poster has some sort of agenda to convert people to using compression? I couldn't care less what you do with your music, personally I have an archive den full of wax cylinder facsimiles of master tapes in a pressurized humidor.

post #93 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


FYI, that's not what a null test does.


Well the null test can prove that there are differences and that the differences are of a level that when isolated is clearly audible.  Put the music back over and it isn't so clearly audible.

 

We can probably get hung up on syntax all day, I though my argument was pretty clear back there.

 

Man why do i get sucked into these useless threadsdeadhorse.gif


Edited by drez - 2/3/12 at 10:43pm
post #94 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

mp3 has audible differences which can be proven with a null test - but honestly I cant say that the differences are DBT-proof, at least not with my gear.

Like this:

is.null( file.mp3)

Or do you mean the Ross and Dall Null tests?
post #95 of 120

is that a joke?

 

post #96 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

is that a joke?

Part of it is a joke only those familiar with R or S-plus will fully appreciate.

I'm pretty sure null test doesn't mean what you think it means.
post #97 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by vyyye View Post



That's funny because WAV and FLAC produce the exact same sound.

maybe so but how is that? from my understanding FLAC claims to be a lossless codec but it still compresses the original source into the format where wav does no type of compression at all and it just comes straight from the source. wav is completely lossless while flac still does bit of compression from my understanding.
post #98 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


Part of it is a joke only those familiar with R or S-plus will fully appreciate.
I'm pretty sure null test doesn't mean what you think it means.


Yeah went over my headconfused.gif

 

I was thinking cancellation by inverting phase of two recordings and then adding the two inverted inverted and in phase copies together.  Not sure what the correct technical term is for this.


Edited by drez - 2/4/12 at 3:49am
post #99 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexAeterna View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by vyyye View Post



That's funny because WAV and FLAC produce the exact same sound.

maybe so but how is that? from my understanding FLAC claims to be a lossless codec but it still compresses the original source into the format where wav does no type of compression at all and it just comes straight from the source. wav is completely lossless while flac still does bit of compression from my understanding.

Compression does not imply loss of information. For example, I can write the number 1,000,000 in seven characters (not counting commas) or I can write the same number in only four characters like this: 10^6. Both forms contain exactly the same amount of information, but one requires 75% more space than the other. We could say that the second expression is a lossless compression of the first expression. Lossless only implies 100% of the original information can be recovered.
post #100 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

Part of it is a joke only those familiar with R or S-plus will fully appreciate.

I'm pretty sure null test doesn't mean what you think it means.


Yeah went over my head:confused:

I was thinking cancellation by inverting phase of two recordings and then adding the two inverted phase copies together.  Not sure what the correct technical term is for this.

That's not what I thought you meant, but …

The test you describe won't work. It relies on the assumption that any sound that is audible in isolation is also audible when heard among all of the other sounds in the original file, which isn't always true.
post #101 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post


Yeah went over my headconfused.gif

 

I was thinking cancellation by inverting phase of two recordings and then adding the two inverted phase copies together.  Not sure what the correct technical term is for this.


 

Yes, the compressed and uncompressed file will not cancel out. Yes, the isolated difference might result in some sort of audible static. This doesn't matter when comparing the original files back to back as then the limitations of psychoacoustics kick in. There are some compressed songs that test as transparent to the original.

 

There's not a simple yes or no answer whether 320 will match flac. It's nothing to get excited about yet people constantly argue as if to seek some technical (or even philosophical) justification for using compression or lossless files in their collection.

post #102 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


That's not what I thought you meant, but …
The test you describe won't work. It relies on the assumption that any sound that is audible in isolation is also audible when heard among all of the other sounds in the original file, which isn't always true.


I mean that's the thing it will probably be audible in isolation but you probably wont be able to reliably discern the difference when layered with the music.

 

In blind conditions it would be very difficult to tell them apart.

post #103 of 120
post #104 of 120

Here's a good song to compare: Lord of This World by Black Sabbath.

 

Listen to Geezer's bass at 2:17: 320 mp3 is weaker. Make sure they are both from the same version of Master of Reality as there are many. I used the Black Box MOR.

 

You can hear it better with headphones.


Edited by Deverica Wolf - 2/4/12 at 8:05pm
post #105 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deverica Wolf View Post

Here's a good song to compare: Lord of This World by Black Sabbath.

 

Listen to Geezer's bass at 2:17: 320 mp3 is weaker. Make sure they are both from the same version of Master of Reality as there are many. I used the Black Box MOR.

 

You can hear it better with headphones.



Its amazing the length you have to go to to justify audiophile grade, which I think is about 5% above normal grade.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › FLAC vs 320kbps