320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality - Page 24

 

But your dog could probably successfully abx mp3 vs 192kHz lossless!!1

I listen to music almost exclusively from MOG or Spotify. For anything that is not available that I enjoy, I have purchased a CD, ripped it to mp3, and lately have been uploading these to Google Music. With my 4G LTE phone with a 22GB data limit working as a hotspot, I am able to use my iPod or iPad to play the entire catalog on MOG or Spotify, all of my ripped CDs through a Google Music app, and anything I may have purchased through iTunes using an LOD to an amp. I have access to millions of songs practically anywhere I go.

I do have thousands of songs on my computer in FLAC format, but now that Google Music works perfectly fine for backing up my collection, I honesly just don't bother to rip to FLAC anymore. I have playlists with days worth of music that can be made available for offline listening, but I haven't found this to be necessary in a very long time.

So, I guess I'm just being a bit lazy. But this goes back to my initial premise, I'm extremely confident that I will not hear any noticeable difference in sound quality between 320 mp3 and FLAC. I swore that I could at one time, then I felt certain I should, but test after test first amazed and ultimately assured me that I'm wasting my time and energy with lossless files.

 

I think you mean mp3s are lossy.  FLAC and other lossless codecs are ALSO compressed, the difference is whether the codecs are considered lossy or lossless.

 

Going back on track - I've done ABX of my favourite tracks which I've listened to over hundreds of time and got less than 50% correct (ie no better than guessing statistically speaking), so I just rip to 320kbps mp3s for best compatibility between all my devices.

Edited by nanaholic - 1/10/13 at 10:32pm

Completely opposite case here.. I do have some successful 320k vs lossless ABX experience, but still I am collecting music mainly in mp3.

 

Even having total storage of about 40TB, I never felt harddisks to be cheap orz.. (well, music is not my main usage of storage though)

thats..... huge. even with space getting cheaper, having that much disc space is STILL going to be expensive

I havent done abx yet, since I had the daunting task of locating the lame encoder within foobar 2000. I googled for the lame encoder, downloaded it and unzipped it into a folder. When I opened Foobar I could not locate the 'converter' tab. Some sites posted screen shots of how to locate it, but my version of foobar (latest version) had it so complicated that I spent close to 1.5hrs wondering if the initial install up was right.

 

Anyways, I took my CD, ripped a track to MP3 320kps using LAME in foobar and listened closely with the original CD and my observation was.... There was NO noticeable difference in either formats.

 

Then I took the same track in FLAC & compared it to the new 320 LAME and still there was NO difference.

 

Result was original CD = FLAC  = 320 lame

 

I Thank You for your time and post and this little exercise in helping me to understand the difference

I thought this was the case until now, that ALL mp3 software that encoded to 320kbps would sound the same. But its not the case for iTunes. There is a huge difference in sound to an mp3 encoder vs lame

You are absolutely right about this! Thanks also to you for your time & post for letting me know about this!

 

 

Now I have 15+ years of CD collection re-ripping to be done and all this time I thought I was listening to the best (before I joined Head-Fi)

IMO....are some types of music better suited to mp3 compression than others?

 

Especially poorly recorded/mastered files where any compression is just asking for more issues.

 

I noticed some songs sound perfect as FLAC files on spotify while others sound completely flat/dull(loudness war victims?).

I think you'll find this really interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhA7Vy3OPbc

 

Your perception is right on. It's a combination of two trends in music production that when taken together form a sort of deadly cocktail - lossy codec compression + dynamic range compression. The worst example of this is when notoriously loud pop music becomes truly painful and torture-like on radio or mp3. It is a travesty that we have allowed commercialism to raze, ravage, and plunder an art form that has been around as long as human beings lived in social groups. Watching Lund's discussion on it, however, reminds me there are still people who care and perhaps there may be hope for a solution in the future.  

I recently downloaded the new 24 bit Donald Fagen "The Nightfly" from HD tracks. I compared it to the 16 Bit CD version (which I've never been happy with). For fans of this album, the difference is night and day. All of the punch, dynamic range, treble detail, vocal transparency from the old vinyl sound I remember finally returns.

 

Say what you will about it being a different mastering (I highly doubt this since it was originally recorded on digital masters), but I am a happy 24 bit consumer once again. :)

It's a totally different master. You don't understand the difference between format and mastering.

There is absolutely no evidence for what you said here BS. I have researched it a fair amount.

 

But if you can come up with some evidence, it would be an interesting read.

 

One things for sure, it blows away the CD.

 

Here are a couple of interesting links on The Nightlfy-

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2334122

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/nightfly-24-44-1-hd-tracks-8974/

 

Interesting that many feel the 2002 DVD-A 24 bit release was the best version until now. All that can be found out is that it might be the stereo version fro  2002 used for the 24/44.1 (although that is a misprint and it actually is 48k as one finds out on their DAC). But that also doesn't make sense as the DVDA was 96k and this is 48k.

Edited by jvandyk - 1/14/13 at 1:52pm

Open both versions up in an audio editor and see.  What kind of other research is there?

From what I've read, the 2002 DVD-A contained a 5.1 version and a stereo version. But it was sampled at 96k They would have no reason to downsample it to 48?.

 

If in fact it was remastered for the DVD-A or this recording, there is no info released about it. They both certainly came from the original 3m 16 bit master tapes no matter what however. So even if they were upsampled, it proves the point that much improvement can be done to 16 bit with higher resolution formats......

 

There is also a recent SACD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the name of reason are you arguing with this wassock - he steadfastly refuses to do any kind of DBT and will go on doing so forever