or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Hi-Res 24/94 vs Flac vs CD vs Mp3 files download comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hi-Res 24/94 vs Flac vs CD vs Mp3 files download comparison - Page 3

post #31 of 134

I don't know what you're talking about - all I see that's different between the two is a clear cut off at 20kHz on the mp3 graph, everything underneath is exactly the same, meaning that both files are audibly identical, unless you can hear at 20kHz and above...

post #32 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

I don't know what you're talking about - all I see that's different between the two is a clear cut off at 20kHz on the mp3 graph, everything underneath is exactly the same, meaning that both files are audibly identical, unless you can hear at 20kHz and above...

I disagree, the mp3 has noticealy less saturation within the areas outside of the purple, that blue noise is again your decay, and  that removal of decay to my ears is pretty obvious, vbr0 is sonically the same as mp3 to me 

 

and it's not proven but there is a theory of study that is suggests that our brains create spacial audio information from the skin on our faces near our ears, this was the idea behind the Taka T Super Tweeter 

 

my point being is the spectrum shows a reducation of saturation near the purple peaks and valleys, 

post #33 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

I disagree, the mp3 has noticealy less saturation within the areas outside of the purple, that blue noise is again your decay, and  that removal of decay to my ears is pretty obvious, vbr0 is sonically the same as mp3 to me 

 

and it's not proven but there is a theory of study that is suggests that our brains create spacial audio information from the skin on our faces near our ears, this was the idea behind the Taka T Super Tweeter 

 

my point being is the spectrum shows a reducation of saturation near the purple peaks and valleys, 

 

I don't really see it personally. Can you post the results of a double blind test between 320kbps mp3s and FLAC done by yourself? If it's pretty obvious to your ears you should be able to do one without problems.

post #34 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

I don't really see it personally. Can you post the results of a double blind test between 320kbps mp3s and FLAC done by yourself? If it's pretty obvious to your ears you should be able to do one without problems.

and so it starts again 

post #35 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

and so it starts again 

 

It's a valid question considering your claims.

post #36 of 134

the first Batik

 

and the second Carmen 

 

ran em each and foo bar gave them a listen, and for the batik the second one to my ears lacked the treble extension, and the first Carmne was much the same it lacked exstension 

 

and to be honest, I really liked that Batik track :D, think I've got a new artist to start listening too ^^ 

post #37 of 134

Did you use foobar's abx plugin? What is Batik and Carmen??

post #38 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

Did you use foobar's abx plugin? What is Batik and Carmen??

Yeap, and after I shot them into FooBar I looked at the meta data so that I could figure out who the artist was for each track, I liked that first song and I think I found the album it came from 

post #39 of 134

I'm not just talking about foobar but a proper ABX test using:

 

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

 

This.

 

Earlier you said you didn't use this, now you're saying you did?

post #40 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

I'm not just talking about foobar but a proper ABX test using:

 

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

 

This.

 

Earlier you said you didn't use this, now you're saying you did?

Yea I used that, and I never said I didn't use the ABX tester, you assumed that I didn't and now that you have even the slightest inkling of doubt in my results your going to disprove my results.

 

This is why I don't do ABX testing any more, it's such a process, I used the abx tester, heck I even shut my eyes after I started the process

 

but what you people want isn't my results your only interested in what ever proves your own theories, there for I'm either going to have to do another ABX and give you like a dozen screens or what ever for you to even consider changing your mind, which I'm not going to do since those of you who feel mp3 is equal to lossless are set in your ways

 

I, for like the 6'th time abx tested, I know what I heard my opinions are unchanged, and now I'm aggrivated that I had to... do another abx and NOW I have another user going to question me

 

as I said before, I'm finished here. Thanks though for the new music :D 

post #41 of 134

I also don't see much differences, but the tracks can't be superimposed on that pic so maybe it's more about the vertical size of each track. dunno and it's not really important.

in any case if set by default, wouldn't the blue part be around -60 to -80db? I guess cjl changed the range on that. on my audacity, most of the songs I just tried have almost no blue parts ^_^.

 

 

in any case, doing a conclusive abx of mp3 vs flac is not that hard if you pic the right kind of song at the right moment and know what you're looking for. but that's doing all in my power to set the right situation to hear differences. if I pick a few songs at random and abx them, then I fail pitifully(having all my library in both mp3 and flac makes that exercise pretty simple). again classical seems to be the best way to hear differences in my experience(also some al jarreau songs with a nice dynamic range and nice sound).

my point being that if someone wants to, he can succeed in an abx. hell you can run an abx of frozen's ost vs justin beiber last hit and just screenshot the magnificent results. again an abx is really useful for ourself.

post #42 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

I also don't see much differences, but the tracks can't be superimposed on that pic so maybe it's more about the vertical size of each track. dunno and it's not really important.

in any case if set by default, wouldn't the blue part be around -60 to -80db? I guess cjl changed the range on that. on my audacity, most of the songs I just tried have almost no blue parts ^_^.

 

 

in any case, doing a conclusive abx of mp3 vs flac is not that hard if you pic the right kind of song at the right moment and know what you're looking for. but that's doing all in my power to set the right situation to hear differences. if I pick a few songs at random and abx them, then I fail pitifully(having all my library in both mp3 and flac makes that exercise pretty simple). again classical seems to be the best way to hear differences in my experience(also some al jarreau songs with a nice dynamic range and nice sound).

my point being that if someone wants to, he can succeed in an abx. hell you can run an abx of frozen's ost vs justin beiber last hit and just screenshot the magnificent results. again an abx is really useful for ourself.

exactly, if you know what to listen to it's easy to tell the differance between the two, the question isn't CAN you hear the differance do you really care to hear it, are those extra little details really important to you?

post #43 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

exactly, if you know what to listen to it's easy to tell the differance between the two, the question isn't CAN you hear the differance do you really care to hear it, are those extra little details really important to you?

You two bring out some good points.  Some cans actually give you no choice as they throw details in your face.  This is a flawed test, if you give people with ibuds to the most high-end setup to tell apart two formats.

 

I'm curious what percentage of people that are skeptical has actually had a long relationship with a high-end setup?  How can you judge based on theoritical principles?  In every scientific theory, and experiment is carried out to show the theory applies in real life.  There is flaws in assuming based on on what is known(axioms in mathematics), in real life, experience matters.  This is not a mathematics problems, once you get out of the classroom, real world comes a knockin.


Edited by SilverEars - 5/31/14 at 12:43pm
post #44 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

exactly, if you know what to listen to it's easy to tell the differance between the two, the question isn't CAN you hear the differance do you really care to hear it, are those extra little details really important to you?

I'm not assuming anything, its in your previous posts... Now your defensive attitude really makes me doubt you even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

You two bring out some good points.  Some cans actually give you no choice as they throw details in your face.  This is a flawed test, if you give people with ibuds to the most high-end setup to tell apart two formats.

I'm curious what percentage of people that are skeptical has actually had a long relationship with a high-end setup?  How can you judge based on theoritical principles?  In every scientific theory, and experiment is carried out to show the theory applies in real life.  There is flaws in assuming based on on what is known(axioms in mathematics), in real life, experience matters.  This is not a mathematics problems, once you get out of the classroom, real world comes a knockin.

Yeah that's real cute and all but the people arguing in this thread have been at this for decade and heard systems that cost tens if not hundreds of thousands...
post #45 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

exactly, if you know what to listen to it's easy to tell the differance between the two...

This strikes me as an extreme exaggeration, if not an outright lie. The difference between 320kbps well encoded MP3 and wav is by no means obvious, and even on the most difficult to encode tracks, it is subtle at best. I agree that it is occasionally (with the right equipment, training in what to listen for, and certain samples) audible, but it is always a minimal and difficult to hear difference.


Edited by cjl - 5/31/14 at 1:36pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Hi-Res 24/94 vs Flac vs CD vs Mp3 files download comparison