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 - Page 11

post #151 of 516
I ripped from 96 up to 320. Maybe I don't understand the point.
post #152 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


I did line level comparison tests, and for 90% of the music I tested 192 AAC VBR was transparent. But I did find one odd track that still artifacted at 192, so I bumped it up to 256 AAC VBR. That's what I use to encode everything in my iTunes library and it's perfect.

OK then. So you think 160 or 128 is not transparent?
post #153 of 516
The thing about compressed audio is it's all about artifacting. It isn't about muffled sound overall. In testing a lot of different kinds of music I found that 128 often artifacted multiple times in a song. 160 a couple of times at most. 192 artifacting was rare. 256 AAC, never.
post #154 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The thing about compressed audio is it's all about artifacting. It isn't about muffled sound overall. In testing a lot of different kinds of music I found that 128 often artifacted multiple times in a song. 160 a couple of times at most. 192 artifacting was rare. 256 AAC, never.

Are you positive about that?

 

I've got some 90kbps stuff that I don't really hear any artifacts in, but the overall sound quality is clearly lacking. I'm sure the recording quality isn't top notch or anything but I still don't notice any artifacts. 

post #155 of 516

90kBs is fine for mono. Is it a mono recording?

post #156 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

90kBs is fine for mono. Is it a mono recording?

Nope, stereo.

 

The files I'm talking about(from the studio album): http://www.goodgravygrass.com/musicmerch.cfm

 

Perhaps there are artifacts I missed when I listened, but nothing severe. I'll have to actually compare well-recorded lossless converted to 90kbps and see if the same sort of muffled effect is present....

 

EDIT: Yeah just converted a FLAC file to 96kbps and tried some ABX testing in foobar. Extremely easy, the 96kbps file sounded a lot more muffled while I didn't notice any pops or anything that weren't there.


And to clarify, I was able to get 15/15 by only testing for a couple seconds each... and I didn't notice any artifacts.


Edited by chewy4 - 11/9/12 at 8:16pm
post #157 of 516

It depends on the kind of music. The hardest to compress is complex orchestral massed strings. If it doesn't artifact, it should be fine.

post #158 of 516
Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

 

EDIT: Yeah just converted a FLAC file to 96kbps and tried some ABX testing in foobar. Extremely easy, the 96kbps file sounded a lot more muffled while I didn't notice any pops or anything that weren't there.

 

Very low bitrate lossy compression will often apply an audible lowpass filter. 128 kbps MP3 usually cuts off at 16 kHz, but it could be less at 96 kbps.

post #159 of 516

I think AAC might work different at low bitrates. It generally sounds better than MP3 at low settings.

post #160 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I think AAC might work different at low bitrates. It generally sounds better than MP3 at low settings.

40kbps AAC sounds like 96kbps mp3 (low quality free digital import stream)

post #161 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I think AAC might work different at low bitrates. It generally sounds better than MP3 at low settings.

I recall reading somewhere a discussion where someone said that 256kbps AAC is actually higher in quality than 320kbps MP3, so you might actually be correct on that statement.

 

Destroysall.

post #162 of 516

I know technically what I am about to say makes no sense-  but to my ears- I know it to be true.  I have been doing this a long time and what I hear is what really matters.

 

 

AIFF and WAV are supposed to be the same- and maybe they are on paper.  However- I have tested cd after cd, song after song over and over again and WAV sounds better.  It is slightly more transparent and more emotionally involving. I hear and feel the difference.

 

MP3 320 kPBS is also clearer and more transparent than AIFF- but it is missing a degree of fullness.  That aside, there is NO information missing to my ears on MP3.  Many may actually enjoy the superior clarity of MP3 over AIFF at the cost of some fullness.

 

 

Bottom line,- WAV when burned from a disk is sonically superior to my ears to anything else.   MP3 is best left alone when downloaded as such because any converting slightly harms the sonics to my ears.

 

AIFF is the fullest sound- but to my ears it is a more muffled sound.  I prefer the clarity and convincing sound of WAV.

post #163 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

I know technically what I am about to say makes no sense-  but to my ears- I know it to be true.  I have been doing this a long time and what I hear is what really matters.

 

 

AIFF and WAV are supposed to be the same- and maybe they are on paper.  However- I have tested cd after cd, song after song over and over again and WAV sounds better.  It is slightly more transparent and more emotionally involving. I hear and feel the difference.

 

MP3 320 kPBS is also clearer and more transparent than AIFF- but it is missing a degree of fullness.  That aside, there is NO information missing to my ears on MP3.  Many may actually enjoy the superior clarity of MP3 over AIFF at the cost of some fullness.

 

 

Bottom line,- WAV when burned from a disk is sonically superior to my ears to anything else.   MP3 is best left alone when downloaded as such because any converting slightly harms the sonics to my ears.

 

AIFF is the fullest sound- but to my ears it is a more muffled sound.  I prefer the clarity and convincing sound of WAV.

 

What you perceive can be different, even if its exactly the same technically. Ever seen those optical illusions? Whatever works.

post #164 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

I know technically what I am about to say makes no sense-  but to my ears- I know it to be true.  I have been doing this a long time and what I hear is what really matters.

 

 

AIFF and WAV are supposed to be the same- and maybe they are on paper.  However- I have tested cd after cd, song after song over and over again and WAV sounds better.  It is slightly more transparent and more emotionally involving. I hear and feel the difference.

 

MP3 320 kPBS is also clearer and more transparent than AIFF- but it is missing a degree of fullness.  That aside, there is NO information missing to my ears on MP3.  Many may actually enjoy the superior clarity of MP3 over AIFF at the cost of some fullness.

 

 

Bottom line,- WAV when burned from a disk is sonically superior to my ears to anything else.   MP3 is best left alone when downloaded as such because any converting slightly harms the sonics to my ears.

 

AIFF is the fullest sound- but to my ears it is a more muffled sound.  I prefer the clarity and convincing sound of WAV.

 

LOL Anyone claiming they can hear the difference between wav, flac and a properly encoded 320kbps/v0 

 

please prove with ABX testing results.

 

all these claims, even with $40,000 worth of headphone equipment you'll still be guessing between wav and properly encoded Lame 320kbps/V0. 


Edited by Flognuts - 12/27/12 at 1:50am
post #165 of 516

I can hear a clear difference between mp3 and FLAC. Both ripped from the same CD on the same PC and played using the same software.

 

I use a decent HE-6/MDR-F1/Stax SR-5 and SR-001 rig and the difference is there,

 

The sound is more fuller and the low end seems intact in lossless whereas in the mp3 the low end seemed to lose its punch.

 

This was repeated on all the above.

 

Just my 0.02 cents.
 

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