FLAC vs 320kbps - Page 7

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

 

 

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.

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 threads

Edited by drez - 2/3/12 at 10:43pm

Like this:

is.null( file.mp3)

Or do you mean the Ross and Dall Null tests?

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.

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.

Yeah went over my head

 

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

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/594167/blind-test-128kbps-mp3-vs-lossless

Edited by Crazy*Carl - 2/4/12 at 10:44am

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

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