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 20

post #286 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


Let me rephrase then, how about 4600kbps vs 320kbps. Why is it so hard for the SS forum to answer this without calling me a troll?

 

 

 

Can my 4600kbps file be my own lossy format that encodes several pictures of cats in the data in order to bump up the kbps?

post #287 of 439

Jokes aside, "4600 kbps" is probably just a roundabout, stupid way of referring to (uncompressed PCM) stereo 24-bit @ 96 kHz sampling rate, just in case somebody hasn't noticed yet.

 

2 * 24 * 96 = 4608.

 

I'm also not sure why anybody would want to refer to the bitrate rather than the format itself, seeing as any extra data may or may not be meaningless based on compression or lack thereof, or issues relating to audibility.

post #288 of 439

As jvandyk refuses to actually perform an abx (Foobar 15-20 iterations) and post the results - there is little point in pursuing.  Sound Science is the only forum where we can request a dbt as proof.  While he clings to this "my ears are better" attitude - there is little point debating.  Onus of proof is on him.  If his ears are indeed better than all of us - then he should have no issues actually proving it ........

 

FWIW - 256aac is completely transparent to me (in an abx).

post #289 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

As jvandyk refuses to actually perform an abx (Foobar 15-20 iterations) and post the results - there is little point in pursuing.  Sound Science is the only forum where we can request a dbt as proof.  While he clings to this "my ears are better" attitude - there is little point debating.  Onus of proof is on him.  If his ears are indeed better than all of us - then he should have no issues actually proving it ........

 

FWIW - 256aac is completely transparent to me (in an abx).

I believe we'll see pigs fly before he does a proper ABX and is honest about the results.

post #290 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

I believe we'll see pigs fly before he does a proper ABX and is honest about the results.


No!!!! 1 Gbps is still better! tongue.gif

post #291 of 439
I can hear the difference between 1GBps and 1TBps!
post #292 of 439

if i remember from the previous few pages he mentioned 256kbps vs 24 bit. 
that doesn't make any sense. it is not even the same unit of measurementblink.gif (correct me if i'm wrong)

also imo bit rate isn't everything. as long as it's lossless it should be identical in information, and better formats allows it to be done with less resources.

can't say much about the bit depth though as i'm not so knowlagable in that topic

post #293 of 439

CD is better

post #294 of 439
For the folks who replied and didn't flame, atta boy! In the meantime, put down the articles and listen to the crap 256k stuff out there and compare to whatever lossless source you prefer if you care to. Whether 16 bit or 24 bit, strive for good sound, not saving hard drive space. That'll rap it for me for now.
post #295 of 439

"Wrap", not "rap". Say goodnight, Gracie.

post #296 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

"Wrap", not "rap". Say goodnight, Gracie.

Flamer.
post #297 of 439

Tag! You're it!

post #298 of 439

I guess 320kbps believers are fine with watching movies in 1024x768 screen as they're 'cherry picked' and doesn't make such noticeable difference comparing to Full HD or 4K. Don't forget that people can have placebo effects seeing higher resolution believing it'll bring them more and convince themselves to see it. It should be good enough as long as you don't see 'the real thing' like you don't listen to real instruments so 1024x768 is good enough for human's sense of perception, right?

 

If you don't, let me enlighten you with some sad facts. You're just jealous of people who can appreciate things better than you and want to stabilize your moral with logic 'no one is hearing better than me' and throw baseless theories from childish experiments to convince yourself from your inferiority complex. Graphical motion has infinity frequency sound has infinity harmonics so there's no earthling way to make enough of small fraction of human's audible range to justify it.


Edited by WindowsX - 1/8/13 at 11:42pm
post #299 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

I guess 320kbps believers are fine with watching movies in 1024x768 screen as they're 'cherry picked' and doesn't make such noticeable difference comparing to Full HD or 4K. Don't forget that people can have placebo effects seeing higher resolution believing it'll bring them more and convince themselves to see it. It should be good enough as long as you don't see 'the real thing' like you don't listen to real instruments so 1024x768 is good enough for human's sense of perception, right?

 

If you don't, let me enlighten you with some sad facts. You're just jealous of people who can appreciate things better than you and want to stabilize your moral with logic 'no one is hearing better than me' and throw baseless theories from childish experiments to convince yourself from your inferiority complex. Graphical motion has infinity frequency sound has infinity harmonics so there's no earthling way to make enough of small fraction of human's audible range to justify it.

 

I was going to post a different response, but then you edited in some more juicy details which I think speak for themselves...

 

 

 

By the way, if you're going to make comparisons with images and you're specifying visual resolution, you may also want to specify screen size and viewing distance.  (not like the auditory system really works the same way, with respect to frequencies etc.)

 

 

Also, is it just me, or (old post, emphasis added):

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

I already said 'CD is better.'. Even from laptop, CD is still better whether you can perceive it yourself or not. Some people may perceive the difference and some may not. Personally, getting accustomed to very highend speakers system makes perception whole difference from when I could hardly perceive the difference between stock mini cable and some better made ones.

 

We once made test comparing between ripped flac and original CD from common laptop using WMP as ripper and player (yeah non-audiophile app) plugged to musiland feeding $100K speakers system with about 10-20 audiophiles (Esoteric K-01/$10k DIY borbely preamp/Karan KA S 450/Rockport Aquila in well treated acoustic large room). The difference between flac and CD is clear like night and day to all 20 audiophiles, let alone mp3 comparing to CD. I hope this tests won't bring another placebo war though.

 

To make long story short, I can clearly differentiate between mp3 and normal CD audio on laptop system using jrmc playing from built-in speakers directly (maybe mine is some pretty good altec speakers not cheap made ones). But that's for my opinion and my experiences. Not everyone will agree with result I found.

 

anybody might be concerned at the false-positive rate of such a setup where 20 out of 20 listeners can "identify" FLAC vs. CD?  etc.?


Edited by mikeaj - 1/9/13 at 12:03am
post #300 of 439

Well, at first I don't intend to put juicy parts but reading after posting made me felt an urge to put ones. If you're seeing movies on TV at close enough view distance, you'd still prefer 1024x768 as being good enough, right? I can hear vinyl > SACD > CD > DSD > hires > wav > flac > mp3 and you can't tell my ears to replace mp3 in place of all those from reading here.


Edited by WindowsX - 1/9/13 at 12:11am
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