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 16

post #226 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Go ahead then. Talk about some a/b you've done with 24 bit masters vs 16 bit or 320k? I'm going to guess that, like the other posters, you will change the subject as fast as you can put the blindfold on for your foobar test. wink.gif

 

Last time I tried it, I failed to distinguish the two, but that's not an interesting result because anyone can claim that I have stone ears or wasn't taking the test seriously or maybe wasn't listening loudly enough or with crappy gear?

 

 

In an important sense, some kind of blinded testing is much more "listening to the results" than sighted comparisons because knowledge of which is which isn't biasing the listening results.

post #227 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

I won't even waste my time with 24 bit files. I find transparency with LAME V2 mp3 files, compared to 16/44.1 FLAC.....so why would I waste money and disk space buying 24 bit music? I'm living in the real world.
It's OK to be good with mp3. More power to you. Glad you like lossy with a quarter the resolution of a CD. Now back to today's technology- 24 bit with 16 times the resolution of what you like!
post #228 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


It's OK to be good with mp3. More power to you. Glad you like lossy with a quarter the resolution of a CD. Now back to today's technology- 24 bit with 16 times the resolution of what you like!

 

16 times meaning 16 times higher file size or so?

 

How about comparing 128 kbps early mp3 encoder to 128 kbps recent LAME?  Same file size, vastly different quality.

post #229 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

I won't even waste my time with 24 bit files. I find transparency with LAME V2 mp3 files, compared to 16/44.1 FLAC.....so why would I waste money and disk space buying 24 bit music? I'm living in the real world.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


It's OK to be good with mp3. More power to you. Glad you like lossy with a quarter the resolution of a CD. Now back to today's technology- 24 bit with 16 times the resolution of what you like!

It's not a matter of whether I like it or not....it is what I am capable of actually hearing. I can't hear any difference between that and redbook-quality FLAC. 

 

Maybe you'd discover the same thing if you actually took the test.....ABX redbook FLAC against the 24-bit you claim is superior. Go on....I dare you very_evil_smiley.gif

post #230 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

But my point is, 24 bit tracks sound better than 16 bit (same track), side by side.

I've done a side by side comparison on a ProTools workstation, and once the file was properly dithered and bounced down to 16, there was absolutely no audible difference between it and the 24 bit master.

I've done the A/B because it was my job to edit sound and supervise sound mixes. I worked with 24 bit files every day. I know exactly what the difference is. It's noise floor, not resolution in normal listening levels.

You want first hand experience comparing with my own ears, not pie charts? Here it is.
Edited by bigshot - 12/27/12 at 5:42pm
post #231 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

16 times meaning 16 times higher file size or so?

How about comparing 128 kbps early mp3 encoder to 128 kbps recent LAME?  Same file size, vastly different quality.
It's all good with me. I'm obviously not a member of the SS club here. But I do like to chime in to see if anybody is actually listening instead of posting pie charts. Glad the music sounds good for all of you! Cheers and happy new year to the SS peeps!
post #232 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


No it isn't. If you trust foobar over 30 years of recording technology, then I guess it is for you. In the meantime, maybe talk about something you've actually listened to. And no links please with pie charts.

I have recently proven to myself that I am unable to hear a difference when playing back a 24-bit 96kHz ALAC file at ~2600 kbps and a 16-bit 44.1kHz mp3 file at 320 kbps. (no pie charts, I promise)

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3/240#post_8901557

 

No illusions for me.  I know what I hear.  

post #233 of 516
I've done A/B listening tests with SACD, MP3 and AAC as well. Are you interested in hearing about that, jvandyk?
post #234 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonitus mirus View Post

I have recently proven to myself that I am unable to hear a difference when playing back a 24-bit 96kHz ALAC file at ~2600 kbps and a 16-bit 44.1kHz mp3 file at 320 kbps. (no pie charts, I promise)

http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3/240#post_8901557

No illusions for me.  I know what I hear.  
Proving to yourself is a good thing! Cheers!
post #235 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I've done A/B listening tests with SACD, MP3 and AAC as well. Are you interested in hearing about that, jvandyk?
It's all good BS. Sorry to be a bother. Cheers!
post #236 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

It is amazing..the state of denial of the obvious that occurs in Sound Science. Especially with a bunch of people using a free media player proving wrong 30 years of recording technology. As King Stahlman (bail bondsman in San Diego) would say, "whatever you did in the past, have a nice life"!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


Your vastly underestimating the power of actually listening to the results.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


Go ahead then. Talk about some a/b you've done with 24 bit masters vs 16 bit or 320k? I'm going to guess that, like the other posters, you will change the subject as fast as you can put the blindfold on for your foobar test. wink.gif

 

Here's the funny thing - those of us that have actually already performed the tests are quite happy to admit that there is no sonic difference between 16/44 and 24/96 if they're from the same mastering, volume matched, and resampled properly.  We have talked about actual tests - I can even give you examples - but ultimately you ignore what we've said.  The last quote (in red above) is the funny bit - as you're the one who keeps avoiding doing a proper blind test.  Your refusal to perform one simply confirms that you're avoiding reality (to me at least).

 

As you seem to be fond of quotes - I'll leave you with the one in my signature - it seems apt in this case.  From a very wise Chinese gentlemen .......

 

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance

post #237 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post



Here's the funny thing - those of us that have actually already performed the tests are quite happy to admit that there is no sonic difference between 16/44 and 24/96 if they're from the same mastering, volume matched, and resampled properly.  We have talked about actual tests - I can even give you examples - but ultimately you ignore what we've said.  The last quote (in red above) is the funny bit - as you're the one who keeps avoiding doing a proper blind test.  Your refusal to perform one simply confirms that you're avoiding reality (to me at least).

As you seem to be fond of quotes - I'll leave you with the one in my signature - it seems apt in this case.  From a very wise Chinese gentlemen .......

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance
Flame away Brooko. Happy new year.
post #238 of 516
Just to link something from my end of the universe and be done-
http://www.stereophile.com/content/road-analog-sounding-digital-are-we-there-yet

No need to flame. Nighty nite.
post #239 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Flame away Brooko. Happy new year.

 

Do you even know what the word flame means?

Pointing out flaws in your logic is not flaming.

 

He was pointing out that you shifted the burden of proof to us, the skeptics (which in itself was a fallacious maneuver, since you're making the claims that you can discern a difference) and when your burden of proof was actually met, you ignored the issue, moved the goalposts, and attempted to exit the discussion.

 

Then, rather than admit to your failing logic, you descended into tu quoque. Cool.

post #240 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Flame away Brooko. Happy new year.

No flame - haven't so far in this thread - nor do I intend to ...... despite the troll-bait you've been putting out wink.gif

 

Think you've had enough fun yet?

 

You and those "perfect ears" of yours have a good New Year too.

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