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 5

post #61 of 516
No grand exit, it is just pointless to try to explain to black and white thought processes, no matter what you will regard it proof that your right, it is a bit like that idiot James randi offering a million dollars. The way he has it setup is that no one can disprove him, same with the sound science set here, I forgot briefly the futility of it all. I will just go on "fooling" myself but enjoy the music I guess.
post #62 of 516

Welcome back! Would you like another handy audio tip?

post #63 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

No grand exit, it is just pointless to try to explain to black and white thought processes, no matter what you will regard it proof that your right, it is a bit like that idiot James randi offering a million dollars. The way he has it setup is that no one can disprove him, same with the sound science set here, I forgot briefly the futility of it all. I will just go on "fooling" myself but enjoy the music I guess.

 

It would be really cool if what you say is true. Try out the Foobar abx comparator and post the log here. It should only take a few minutes really, and once everyone see's the log we will be convinced that you were right. beerchug.gif

post #64 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Smoothness and full bodiedness are not what the difference between compressed and uncompressed sounds like. Listen to extremely low bitrate compressed and then listen to a little higher and a little higher. The artifacting at the point where it crosses over into transparency is smaller and more infrequent, but it's exactly like low bitrate artifacting.
At some point the artifacting becomes so it's only in isolated spots. When there is suficient bitrate to render the sound, it's transparent. You only get artifacts in the complex areas that are harder to render. It isn't an overall thing.
Your description of only being able to "feel" the difference and not hear it is a classic description of sighted expectation bias.

but i was blind testing.

post #65 of 516
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I can. I rip my CD's to Wav and much prefer the sound, for my ears it is more organic and able to express the emotions of the artist. In comparison 320k or less feels flat and lifeless to my ears. More importantly It does not engage my interest. I get fed up quickly with compressed music, it seems to irritate me where as uncompressed leaves me feeling more relaxed.
I don't really care that the flat earthers will bang on that there is no difference, I simply don't think they know how to listen to music!

What's your source device and your listening gear ?

can you please share it here ?

post #66 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSantana View Post

What's your source device and your listening gear ?
can you please share it here ?

Check my signature, it list all that I use.
post #67 of 516

ianmedium, if you do not know how to or don't want to create a 320 mp3 feel free to upload a 30 sec or longer, whatever you like, lossless/WAV track to a free file hosting site. We will create a 320 kbps mp3 and then you can do a simple abx test, for example using foobar2000, so we can see if you can really hear what you say you can hear.

 

It's not impossible to hear differences, on same tracks the artifacts are audible, but those are rare exceptions.

post #68 of 516
I have done extensive listening to 320/ALAC/AIFF/WAV. On poorly produced or already heavily compressed music I hear no difference but on good quality recordings there is even a difference between AIFF and Wav. The tests I have done have been over the past couple of years and that is why I have ended up ripping everything to wav as to my ears there is a difference and it is in feeling and emotion. There are as many details in 320 as in wav but it is not that I am on about and I think there lay the problem with this whole debate.

Emotion is not quantifiable, it is an individual experience and I am more than happy enough if someone does not hear what I do, I won't try to disprove them. However, what are they listening to? I think that is the more important question. Is their music largely modern pop which with a few exceptions is generally poorly recorded and heavily compressed, especially if downloading from iTunes which now actually has music mastered so as to hide the inadequacies of the format they use. This I know as I spend a fair amount of time in mastering studio's as well as recording studios.

Now. If everyone here owned say, a meeting by the river by Ry Cooder and VM Bhatt on waterlily acoustics which is an immaculate recording (I know, I was there when it was recorded), ripped that in the various formats and listened and did not hear a difference then I think the issue is the quality of your hearing as there is definite differences, subtle between ALAC/AIFF/WAV agreed but hand on heart night and day between 320 and wav.

I have done blind listening between them and it is there. Of course having heard the masters of this particular recording and live so to speak wav is a poor substitute in comparison but until I get a hi rez player (unlikely until someone comes out with a fully functioning one as opposed to all the beta ones being pumped out by iBasso and Hifiman which people are paying to be beta testers for!) it is a suitable substitute I feel.
post #69 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I have done extensive listening to 320/ALAC/AIFF/WAV. On poorly produced or already heavily compressed music I hear no difference but on good quality recordings there is even a difference between AIFF and Wav.

It is claims like this we'd like to see you prove doing an ABX test because anyone can say "I can hear a difference between A and B".

 

 

Quote:
The tests I have done have been over the past couple of years and that is why I have ended up ripping everything to wav as to my ears there is a difference and it is in feeling and emotion.

So if you can feel a difference you should be able to do an ABX test, right?

 

 

Quote:
Emotion is not quantifiable, it is an individual experience and I am more than happy enough if someone does not hear what I do, I won't try to disprove them.

We don't need to quantify emotion, we just want to see if you can distinguish two files. Also, no need to disprove anything, just prove your own claims. That's all we ask for.

post #70 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

on good quality recordings there is even a difference between AIFF and Wav

You're imagining it, and it shows a gross ignorance of what those formats are. They share the exact same PCM data, bit for bit.
post #71 of 516

Here is the result of the Foobar ABX Test:

 

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.15
2012/10/24 23:24:51

File A: C:\Danger Mouse & Daniele Luppi\Rome FLAC\10 Black.flac
File B: C:\Danger Mouse & Daniele Luppi\Rome\10 Black.mp3

23:24:51 : Test started.
23:25:43 : 01/01  50.0%
23:26:24 : 01/02  75.0%
23:27:28 : 01/03  87.5%
23:28:12 : 01/04  93.8%
23:28:50 : 02/05  81.3%
23:29:55 : 02/06  89.1%
23:30:37 : 03/07  77.3%
23:31:05 : 03/08  85.5%
23:32:00 : 04/09  74.6%
23:32:47 : 05/10  62.3%
23:33:44 : 06/11  50.0%
23:34:21 : 06/12  61.3%
23:34:56 : 07/13  50.0%
23:35:44 : 07/14  60.5%
23:36:45 : 08/15  50.0%
11:13:39 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/15 (50.0%)

 

My "guessing" probability peaked at 90% - and indeed it felt like guessing toward the end mostly. I am going to run this again sometime later with a different track. With this one, my best guessing occurred during a vocal session by Norah Jones, in which there was some obvious echo reaching the left channel that was not always present. Emboldened, I focused on a section of male hummers recessed in the background, behind a string section. Like some claim, I was convinced that the music was "fuller" or that I was hearing the slightest bit of artifact in the sound. I didn't even bother listening to the bassline, which seemed identical between recordings. Shouldn't lossless be "cleaner"? My ears weren't sure.

 

I think it is correct that before the only thing I was really hearing, was a difference in "volume". But I stand by my assertion that, in "real world" listening, I am unlikely to normalize volume between source material and/or my devices. In my car, for example, CD, USB, and AUX sources all create a problem in terms of setting amp gain properly and EQ tuning. AUX sources are typically 3.5mm connections to phones or iPods, and sound crappier for reasons you probably know. They also need more gain, since their output is weaker. USB distorts sooner in my car (and now I know why, probably because I should apply replay gain to the tracks), but sounds good, and CDs tend to sound the best, and play the "loudest" before the scary scratching noise start in my car. That scratching noise, by the way, could be the 10 year-old interconnects I rely on, or something else. Maybe crossovers, maybe the pre-outs on my deck distorting, I am not sure.

 

Anyway. New tracks next time!

post #72 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post


You're imagining it, and it shows a gross ignorance of what those formats are. They share the exact same PCM data, bit for bit.

Word.

 

Even in lossless compressed formats any difference is going to be imagined, given that the compression was completed without errors. To state you hear differences is only proving how easy it is to imagine differences.

post #73 of 516
See, the whole point why I don't bother with these threads is the comments about my post above, there is no room for thinking outside their tight and safe boxes, they are right by the confines of their narrow thinking and minds. As for scamp, so your now capable of reading my inner most thoughts eh! Wow, such arrogance!

That is the problem with people who's whole lives need to be neatly contained within pre existing parameters you will never be able to feel or see that which cannot be proved by someone else's invented hypothesis.

All I can say is there is a difference, can I explain in in numbers or theorys, no, I can't but I trust my hearing a great deal more than I would ever trust your judgements as your very narrow in observation of things that are outside scientific proof.

I really now am gone, it is not my intention to prove anything as I know that there is more to something than the sum of its parts, I feel really sorry for those who think that all there is exists only if it can be proven on paper, your missing out on such a huge part of life in thinking that way. Thank God that the worlds greates mastering engineers, record producers and artists don't think the way you do, if they did all we would have to listen to are records like Adel's!
post #74 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

See, the whole point why I don't bother with these threads is the comments about my post above, there is no room for thinking outside their tight and safe boxes, they are right by the confines of their narrow thinking and minds. As for scamp, so your now capable of reading my inner most thoughts eh! Wow, such arrogance!
Well, it's more that he's capable of comprehending the science behind different audio formats. You might as well be saying that you can hear differences between files named differently if you're going to claim there is a difference between AIFF and WAV.

That is the problem with people who's whole lives need to be neatly contained within pre existing parameters you will never be able to feel or see that which cannot be proved by someone else's invented hypothesis.
All I can say is there is a difference, can I explain in in numbers or theorys, no, I can't but I trust my hearing a great deal more than I would ever trust your judgements as your very narrow in observation of things that are outside scientific proof.
It appears that you actually can't truly trust your own hearing given your unwillingness to perform an ABX test. ABX tests have nothing to do with "numbers or theories", so I'm not sure what you're going on about here.

I really now am gone, it is not my intention to prove anything as I know that there is more to something than the sum of its parts, I feel really sorry for those who think that all there is exists only if it can be proven on paper, your missing out on such a huge part of life in thinking that way. Thank God that the worlds greates mastering engineers, record producers and artists don't think the way you do, if they did all we would have to listen to are records like Adel's!
You've made it quite clear that you have no intention to prove anything, as you are completely unwilling to perform any blind tests. I believe you are just here for the sake of arguing.
post #75 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetdragon View Post

but i was blind testing.

That's fine. I'm not one of the guys who insists on that. Maybe you were hearing a line level difference. What you describe doesn't sound at all like compression artifacting. So it must be something else.
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