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 12

post #166 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flognuts View Post

 

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. 

I have done blind testing- and I always chose WAV over AIFF.  I am not saying the difference is enormous, but it is there in audiophile terms. These claims are through a BHSE with Stax SR-009.

 

I do not know if I would know the difference in another system.

 

By the way- MP3 sounds DIFFERENT than AIFF or wave to my ears- NOT worse, and certainly no loss of detail.


Edited by rsbrsvp - 12/27/12 at 2:55am
post #167 of 516
Quote:

Originally Posted by gikigill View Post

 

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.

 

While telling lossless apart from MP3 is obviously not impossible, or even difficult at low bit rate, the "low end losing its punch" sounds rather like lack of accurate level matching (many encoders attenuate the signal slightly to avoid clipping on decoding). Lossy compression usually has more trouble with high frequencies.

post #168 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

I have done blind testing- and I always chose WAV over AIFF.  I am not saying the difference is enormous, but it is there in audiophile terms. These claims are through a BHSE with Stax SR-009.

 

Assuming that this is not just trolling, how did you do the blind testing exactly ? Did you use the foobar2000 ABX comparator, or similar software (as opposed to, for example, playing the AIFF file on a PC, but the WAV on a CD player, and comparing them without even matching the levels) ? Does the AIFF file contain the same PCM data as the WAV (i.e. if you convert it back to WAV, you get binary identical files with the same MD5 sum) ? Is there possibly some software problem that affects only AIFF files ?

post #169 of 516

I burned all my CD's using AIFF via Itunes.  Using itunes I then made WAV files from the AIFF files.

 

I kept both the AIFF files made direct from the CD burn and the WAV files made as a conversion from the AIFF files.

 

In Itunes, I then see two files of every song- the AIFF and the WAVE- but I don't know which is which unless I click "get info".  They look identical when listed in I tunes.

 

Then, I randomly play both songs which look identical in terms of their listing in itunes and I decide which I like better.  Afterwards, using the "get info" option in itunes- I see if I chose the AIFF or WAV version.

 

I have done this on multiple songs and albums and at different times (in case mood is a factor) and I ALWAYS chose WAV over AIFF.  And the Irony is that my AIFF files are a direct copy from the original CD while the WAV is a conversion from the AIFF.


Edited by rsbrsvp - 12/27/12 at 4:16am
post #170 of 516

Did you try the ABX comparator I suggested ? It could be a problem in iTunes, or somehow you could subconsciously find out which file is which (e.g. one type of file may have a statistical tendency to be listed first, but there may be other possible cues, too). If you still hear the difference in a real ABX test, you could try converting the WAV back to AIFF, and check if the result is an identical copy of the original AIFF file. Or just upload a short (< 30 seconds) sample in both AIFF and WAV format that you find to sound different.


Edited by stv014 - 12/27/12 at 4:25am
post #171 of 516

I do not have foobar.

 

If I reconvert the WAV to AIFF the AIFF using itunes it still sounds like the original AIFF- ie. not as good as WAV.

 

Listen,   maybe I am crazy- but WAV and AIFF are NOT the same thing in terms of sonic results, even though maybe technically they are.

 

And again, the SR-009 is a like a microscope.  Maybe other headphones or speakers would not allow one to hear these differences.

post #172 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

I do not have foobar.

 

Well, you could try other software with similar functionality, but so far it is not proven that the difference is not an iTunes specific problem, or even that it is not imaginary.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

And again, the SR-009 is a like a microscope.  Maybe other headphones or speakers would not allow one to hear these differences.

 

The differences need to exist in the first place to be audible. Also, a microscope and high quality audio equipment are different things. The first one magnifies by a large factor, making otherwise invisibly small details visible to humans; on the other hand, the latter is just meant to be transparent, but not magically enhance the sensory abilities of humans (assuming no signal processing or unrealistically high volume), which have limits. If you record sound with a microphone and play it back on the SR-009 at the same volume, you will not suddenly hear much more details than if you experienced the original sound live.


Edited by stv014 - 12/27/12 at 5:55am
post #173 of 516

The problem could indeed be itunes specific however- the problem with that theory is that Apple invented AIFF and itunes, and WAV which was invented by Microsoft sounds better on a Apple computer, with Apple software than Apple encoded AIFF files.

 

Listen; - even if Itunes is the problem, or my ear--   for those using an Apple computer and itunes to do their burning and file conversions, I would recommend trying WAV and comparing it to AIFF before just accepting AIFF as I did for many years before I even thought of doing a comparison .

 

Obviously, other software, computers, and media players may have different results.

 

My comments refer only to my setup.

post #174 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

The problem could indeed be itunes specific however- the problem with that theory is that Apple invented AIFF and itunes, and WAV which was invented by Microsoft sounds better on a Apple computer, with Apple software than Apple encoded AIFF files.

 

The fact that AIFF is originally an Apple format does not by any means guarantee that its implementation cannot be buggy in Apple software (just like Microsoft software does not always have perfectly reliable support for Microsoft formats). The people who wrote iTunes are most likely not even the same as those who created the AIFF format a long time ago.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

 

Listen; - even if Itunes is the problem, or my ear--   for those using an Apple computer and itunes to do their burning and file conversions, I would recommend trying WAV and comparing it to AIFF before just accepting AIFF as I did for many years before I even thought of doing a comparison .

 

Maybe they would still like to know what the problem really is, or if it even exists at all ?

post #175 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
If you record sound with a microphone and play it back on the SR-009 at the same volume, you will not suddenly hear much more details than if you experienced the original sound live.

 

Well, actually, you might. Not to overthink this example too much, but the recording method and mastering could easily affect perceived details. One of the audiophile draws of neutral low-distortion headphones like the 009 is that they'll let you hear way more than otherwise practically possible live due to the abundance of close miking in modern recordings. Alternately, a grossly colored phone like a Grado might lead you to think you're hearing more detail because of the bump in the presence range.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

 

Listen,   maybe I am crazy

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and bet on lazy rather than crazy. You seem quite content in your choice, which is fine, but this is the science forum so be prepared to have to go the extra mile.


Edited by anetode - 12/27/12 at 9:44am
post #176 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

 

Maybe they would still like to know what the problem really is, or if it even exists at all ?

I don't think there is a problem.   I saw another person in this thread a few pages back say the same thing as me:  That to his ears WAV is better than AIFF.  The sound is crisper and cleaner to my ears.

 

I do have another program "Pro Audio Converter".  I think I will try converting my AIFF itunes files to AIFF "Pro Audio Files" and see if there is a difference.

post #177 of 516
The WAV files and AIFF files would have been alternating in the iTunes window. The last file converted would have been second, I believe. If he had actually done the test he's describing, he would have known that.

WAV and AIFF are just file wrappers enclosing the exact same PCM audio. If someone thinks he's hearing a difference, he's wrong.
Edited by bigshot - 12/27/12 at 10:07am
post #178 of 516

I am not very technically knowledgeable; however allow me to share the following:

 

 

Just a few years back everyone was convinced that a USB cable should not make any difference in sonic output- as zero's and ones are zero's and one's.

 

Today, everyone in computer audio who has tested different high end cables USB cables knows they sound different even though I am not sure there is a technical explanation.

 

My point is- we don't know everything.   Maybe that wrapper and the way it is devised or programmed can effect the way the information is stored and transmitted.

 

I have no proof- I am just opening up the possibility.  I think it is reasonable.

 

Regardless, i am happy to be wrong- but I will continue to listen to WAV over AIFF as long as my ears deceive me into thinking what I am hearing is better.


Edited by rsbrsvp - 12/27/12 at 11:52am
post #179 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

I am not very technically knowledgeable; however allow me to share the following:

 

 

Just a few years back everyone was convinced that a USB cable should not make any difference in sonic output- as zero's and ones are zero's and one's.

 

Today, everyone in computer audio who has tested different high end cables USB cables knows they sound different even though I am not sure there is a technical explanation.

 

My point is- we don't know everything.   Maybe that wrapper and the way it is devised or programmed can effect the way the information is stored and transmitted.

 

I have no proof- I am just opening up the possibility.  I think it is reasonable.

 

Regardless, i am happy to be wrong- but I will continue to listen to WAV over AIFF as long as my ears deceive me into thinking what I am hearing is better.

From what I can tell you seem to be unreasonable.

post #180 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbrsvp View Post

Just a few years back everyone was convinced that a USB cable should not make any difference in sonic output- as zero's and ones are zero's and one's.

 

Today, everyone in computer audio who has tested different high end cables USB cables knows they sound different even though I am not sure there is a technical explanation.

 

Please provide links to relevant research / examples / proof where DBT tests show there are differences.  Even if you could find just one test where an actual DBT was held which shows there are any audible differences at all.

 

I think you'll find that there are no published tests which categorically prove any difference - and that all you have is people claiming they can hear a difference - yet same people will not submit to an abx test.

 

The reason there is no technical explanation is because there is no audible difference.

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