Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality

post #1 of 439
10/15/12 at 10:41pm
Thread Starter 

Hi All,

 

using both as the source of the music in the laptop, can anyone actually differentiate between 320 KBps MP3 and normal audio CD ?

 

I'm using Westone W4 (4x BA drivers) plug into my Fiio E11 played using Windows Media Player, and I wonder why some people actually prefer their music in FLAC or even WAV format ?

 

please share your thoughts and comments here if you can notice the difference in between the audio source.

Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #2 of 439
10/16/12 at 9:25am
People preder lossless mostly for "peace of mind", not actual sound. Some people worry that the compression might cause them to miss something they don't realize.
Reply
post #3 of 439
10/16/12 at 12:53pm

CD is better. You can't have 16/44.1 packed from 1411kbps to 320kbps without dynamic compression. 320kbps is OK for sake of space/battery/convenient. I listen to 256kbps M4A converted from flac on phone and still get good music though lossless sure will do better job but also consume more battery/storage. Some may disagree but that's his opinions.

Reply
post #4 of 439
10/16/12 at 3:32pm
Thread Starter 

Cool, many thanks for the explanation man, I appreciate it very much.

because nowadays, the choice for music is MP3 320 KBPs or FLAC in some of the sites out there :-) 

Reply
post #5 of 439
10/16/12 at 5:01pm
320 LAME sounds basically the same as lossless.
Reply
post #6 of 439
10/16/12 at 5:23pm

Sometimes in a direct comparison between a 320mbps rip and regular redbook playback the redbook will sound a little fuller to me. 

 

Otherwise the difference is scant, to hardly noticeable. 

Reply
post #7 of 439
10/16/12 at 5:33pm

depends on how to song is recorded or mastered for me. if the recording or mastering is great, even the 320kbps mp3 sounds great.

Reply
post #8 of 439
10/16/12 at 5:51pm

That is just not true - you can maintain the full dynamic range with an mp3

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

CD is better. You can't have 16/44.1 packed from 1411kbps to 320kbps without dynamic compression. 320kbps is OK for sake of space/battery/convenient. I listen to 256kbps M4A converted from flac on phone and still get good music though lossless sure will do better job but also consume more battery/storage. Some may disagree but that's his opinions.

Reply
post #9 of 439
10/16/12 at 5:57pm

I cannot tell a difference with my placebo-rich assortment of overpriced audiophile equipment.

Reply
post #10 of 439
10/16/12 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug View Post

That is just not true - you can maintain the full dynamic range with an mp3

Is this always true?
Reply
post #11 of 439
10/16/12 at 6:27pm

There is a very wide range in the resolving power of different systems and I would argue that there also are significant differences in auditory acuity and processing.  I believe that the differences between 320kbit/s lossy MP3 and good 44.1/16 redbook reproduction (or lossless copies) are clearly audible in the right context.  Obviously, YMMV.  For those that want to argue theory, Hydrogen Audio beckons - run free with your own kind.

Reply
post #12 of 439
10/16/12 at 6:38pm

I think I can hear the difference from Mp3 to Lossless, but I may be crazy? Placebo is a super strong force to be reckoned with.

 

 

 

So much of this is in our heads. Would be cool to see some scientific blindfolded group tests.

Reply
post #13 of 439
10/16/12 at 8:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

Is this always true?

http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression/
Reply
post #14 of 439
10/16/12 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post


http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression/

 

Awesome article. Thanks. 

 

I didn't see anything in there directly addressing dynamic range though. 

Reply
post #15 of 439
10/16/12 at 9:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

Awesome article. Thanks. 

I didn't see anything in there directly addressing dynamic range though. 

Precisely wink_face.gif

Although psychoacoustic-based compression may discard quieter information which is masked by immediately preceding louder information, that is not the same thing as dynamic range compression as it is known in audio engineering. WindowsX simply mixed up the terms.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality