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 21

post #301 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

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.


I already countered this fact before. Let me repost it here:

 

Its the limit of human perception that defines the resolution of any medium. Not the other way round. If we cannot hear better than 16 bits of audio, it doesn't really matter whether we use 24 or 96bits. In the digital processing domain it may matter because audio equipment *can* distinguish between these bit depths, but not once its produced for listening.

The same can be said for resolution in terms of number of pixels per unit length, or sampling rate in terms of audio. If you've seen the high resolution displays you'll notice a 5" 1280x720 px makes it almost impossible to see the pixels, and truly impossible for a 4" screen with the same resolution, or higher PPI. The fact that we can cram in 1920x1080 px in the same size doesn't mean its better, because we can't notice it.

post #302 of 439

LoL. You said 'IF' and that works only 'IF' what you said was true. Sadly it wasn't and hires format wasn't made on whim just to please and make scam in pro audio market.

 

You must be using really small earbud from cheap system to justify your reasoning saying I'm seeing 5 inch screen movie from mobile instead of 55 from blueray player. Quite an analogy you put there. Too bad my reference system wasn't small earbud from phone jack. ;)


Edited by WindowsX - 1/9/13 at 2:25am
post #303 of 439

You can test it yourself if you can hear a difference between 96/24 and CD quality. Use whatever gear you have, but for valid results, do test with an ABX comparator, and do not listen at unusually high volume levels. If you do not like the sample, upload your choice of <30s "high resolution" music, and that can be degraded to CD quality, too, to see if you can tell it apart from the original.

post #304 of 439

CD is 16/44.1 and inferior format comparing to 24/96 file I know it but disc transport is still better than file player for real audiophiles.

 

Ah. You should use wav instead of flac.


Edited by WindowsX - 1/9/13 at 3:57am
post #305 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

CD is 16/44.1 and inferior format comparing to 24/96 file I know it but disc transport is still better than file player for real audiophiles.

 

Right, because those 1s and 0s on a piece of plastic is superior to the 1s and 0s on a piece of silicon. rolleyes.gif

post #306 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

CD is 16/44.1 and inferior format comparing to 24/96 file I know it but disc transport is still better than file player for real audiophiles.

 

Not that it should make any difference, but you are free to convert both FLAC files to WAV. If you are sure that 44.1/16 is clearly worse, why not take the test and prove it easily ?

post #307 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

 

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.

Oh my.

 

Most people here encourage others to use their own hearing as the judge, just in a proper ABX testing scenario. The vast majority fail on 320kbps vs. lossless. Everyone fails with lossless vs. any higher resolution. But I guess that taking psychological factors into account is childish.

 

I'm not really sure what makes you think the entire human range of hearing is a small fraction of human's audible range though. Care to elaborate? 

post #308 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

CD is 16/44.1 and inferior format comparing to 24/96 file I know it but disc transport is still better than file player for real audiophiles.

 

Ah. You should use wav instead of flac.

 

Clearly you have access to some powerful drugs. Maybe you should share....700

post #309 of 439

Why not? Go get some loans of Esoteric K-01 or Emm Labs XDS1 player (Or P-02/D-02 if you have balls to pull off one from the store) and compare it with computer from USB input. Works like wonder :D

 

 

For 16/44.1 VS 24/96 as file VS file, I said hires is better than redbook format but as that guy above said that those 1s and 0s on a piece of plastic is superior to the 1s and 0s on a piece of silicon (with his sarcasm but surprisingly true). I learnt from data communications class that optical media is more reliable than persistent storage and laser scanning yields generally less jitter issue (without anti-jitter crap).


Edited by WindowsX - 1/9/13 at 6:02am
post #310 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

For 16/44.1 VS 24/96 as file VS file, I said hires is better than redbook format but as that guy above said that those 1s and 0s on a piece of plastic is superior to the 1s and 0s on a piece of silicon (with his sarcasm but surprisingly true). I learnt from data communications class that optical media is more reliable than persistent storage and laser scanning yields generally less jitter issue (without anti-jitter crap).

 

In a perfectly working piece of equipment the two medium makes zero differences - the 0s and 1s are extracted, transferred and error checked for correct transmission.  So tell me how often do you listen to faulty pieces of audio equipment where the different medium makes a difference?  And while you are at it please tell us what a non-successful transfer of a digital signal sounds like?  You claim to have take data communications class I'm sure you can tell us what it is.


Edited by nanaholic - 1/9/13 at 6:46am
post #311 of 439

And I bet you can hear a difference in Fuses too right?

Isoclean's or HiFi Tuning?

 

One day I hope my hearing extends into the MHz range as well... biggrin.gif

post #312 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post
I learnt from data communications class that optical media is more reliable than persistent storage and laser scanning yields generally less jitter issue (without anti-jitter crap).

 

Oh man...here we go again.

The alleged jitter comes at the DAC stage. Whether you use a CD or a hard disk or an SSD has nothing to do with it. Thats if the CD has been seeked properly in the first place.


Edited by proton007 - 1/9/13 at 6:49am
post #313 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

For 16/44.1 VS 24/96 as file VS file, I said hires is better than redbook format but as that guy above said that those 1s and 0s on a piece of plastic is superior to the 1s and 0s on a piece of silicon (with his sarcasm but surprisingly true). I learnt from data communications class that optical media is more reliable than persistent storage and laser scanning yields generally less jitter issue (without anti-jitter crap).

You really seem to be resistant to the idea of buffer memory, which every CD player contains, and also the differences between software- (OS) and hardware-related latency  (as proven in your now locked thread and fidelizer site).

post #314 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post

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.


You sound like a rich person trying to justify your conspiscious consumption habits. I "settle" for lower quality video and audio all the time. At the right rip quality, I am more than pleased. End of story. Better formats and technology are appreciated, and innovation will continue, but your ears and eyes cannot be upgraded.

 

The Human "experience" of sound and vision is by definition biologically limited. Our technology is not. Our electronics are more sensitive, utterly objective, and unemotional in their approach to all things in life. Human beings are irrational, emotional, and forget that we observe only a tiny slice of the visible spectrum, and can detect a tiny slice of the audible spectrum.

 

The robots are coming - and they don't like people who, in disagreeing with others, don't recognize themselves also being judgemental by refusing a person the right to hold an opinion that disagrees with theirs.

post #315 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMateoHead View Post


You sound like a rich person trying to justify your conspiscious consumption habits. I "settle" for lower quality video and audio all the time. At the right rip quality, I am more than pleased. End of story. Better formats and technology are appreciated, and innovation will continue, but your ears and eyes cannot be upgraded.

 

The Human "experience" of sound and vision is by definition biologically limited. Our technology is not. Our electronics are more sensitive, utterly objective, and unemotional in their approach to all things in life. Human beings are irrational, emotional, and forget that we observe only a tiny slice of the visible spectrum, and can detect a tiny slice of the audible spectrum.

 

The robots are coming - and they don't like people who, in disagreeing with others, don't recognize themselves also being judgemental by refusing a person the right to hold an opinion that disagrees with theirs.

I disagree with this for a couple reasons:

 

1. When the robots come, they will provide us with upgrades for all of our sensory organs. They will then use these newly perceived segments of the visible and audible spectrum to communicate with us and weed out the non-conformists who will then either be forced to upgrade or be eliminated.

 

2. Robots can't comprehend judgemental behavior, nor do they like or dislike anything; like you said electronics are unemotional. They wouldn't care about that.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I've been collecting music that only uses frequencies above 22kHz. I don't know what it sounds like yet, but once I get my upgrades it's probably going to sound awesome.

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