[Whitebread]

I can EASILY hear the difference between MP3's properly encoded at anything lower than 256kbps with my HD650 that, by the way, are amped by the terrible amp in my Onkyo stereo reciever and fed by my computers onboard audio.

 

[Head Creep]

I tried this in the past, and I had a very, very difficult time distinguishing between FLAC and LAME V3. Even taking the possibility of future transcoding into account, it's almost impossible for me to justify lossless' larger file size.

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitebread /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can EASILY hear the difference between MP3's properly encoded at anything lower than 256kbps with my HD650 that, by the way, are amped by the terrible amp in my Onkyo stereo reciever and fed by my computers onboard audio.

Great. Come up with an ABX result. That's the point of this thread. I am still awaiting the other 12 ABX results from the other people who haven't provided one yet.

I seriously doubt that anyone can easily discern between 256 kbps CBR and lossless when encoded with a proper encoder. I haven't met anyone yet who can ( EASILY) and that's not because I only meet people who are not skilled enough. Once again. Come up with an ABX. You voted "yes" and I requested an ABX. The nice thing to do right now is to provide one. Thank you.

 

[Febs]

As far as I'm concerned, there have been only 2 valid "yes" votes so far in this thread.

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as I'm concerned, there have been only 2 valid "yes" votes so far in this thread.

x2

 

[Whitebread]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnOYiN /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great. Come up with an ABX result. That's the point of this thread. I am still awaiting the other 12 ABX results from the other people who haven't provided one yet. I seriously doubt that anyone can easily discern between 256 kbps CBR and lossless when encoded with a proper encoder. I haven't met anyone yet who can ( EASILY) and that's not because I only meet people who are not skilled enough. Once again. Come up with an ABX. You voted "yes" and I requested an ABX. The nice thing to do right now is to provide one. Thank you.

I'll do it, but wiht the time I wasted last night, I'm gonna have to work work work from now until friday night basically. I still have 2 tests between now and then. Your gonna have to wait at least a few days.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitebread /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can EASILY hear the difference between MP3's properly encoded at anything lower than 256kbps with my HD650 that, by the way, are amped by the terrible amp in my Onkyo stereo reciever and fed by my computers onboard audio.

-V0 is not "lower than 256kbps." It averages between 200 and 260kbps, but will contain a significant number of frames at 320kbps, and therefore, yield quality that is substantially higher than 256kbps CBR.

 

[EnOYiN]

Here a small proof that I can't hear the difference when using a low-fi recorded song. The song in question is You're So Great from Blur from their selftitled album.

foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.2
2007/02/21 15:30:40

File A: D:\ABX\You're So Great\07 - You're So Great.flac
File B: D:\ABX\You're So Great\07 - You're So Great.mp3

15:30:40 : Test started.
15:30:51 : 00/01 100.0%
15:30:59 : 00/02 100.0%
15:31:07 : 01/03 87.5%
15:31:21 : 02/04 68.8%
15:31:27 : 03/05 50.0%
15:31:33 : 04/06 34.4%
15:31:47 : 04/07 50.0%
15:31:55 : 05/08 36.3%
15:32:11 : 05/09 50.0%
15:32:18 : 06/10 37.7%
15:32:19 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 6/10 (37.7%)

True guessing going on here. I tried for 4 times and this is the best one. So even when being able to hear the difference I will still have to pick songs that have been recorded very well. ( like dream theater, steely dan, etc) Since I have been cherrypicking a little I think I should starting thinking about changing my own vote to "no".

 

[EnOYiN]

Another cherrypick: Don't Know Why by Norah Jones.

foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.2
2007/02/21 15:44:24

File A: D:\ABX\Don't Know Why\01 - Don't Know Why.flac
File B: D:\ABX\Don't Know Why\01 - Don't Know Why.mp3

15:44:24 : Test started.
15:45:40 : 01/01 50.0%
15:46:01 : 02/02 25.0%
15:46:17 : 03/03 12.5%
15:47:04 : 04/04 6.3%
15:47:16 : 05/05 3.1%
15:47:39 : 06/06 1.6%
15:47:51 : 07/07 0.8%
15:48:20 : 08/08 0.4%
15:48:30 : 09/09 0.2%
15:48:42 : 10/10 0.1%
15:48:46 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)

The first word "waited" hurts my ears a bit in the FLAC. It doesn't when playing the mp3. ( not because of the volume, but I guess it's just too high for my sensitive ears - I'm a sensitive guy you see )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Televator /img/forum/go_quote.gif a grado-'ultra-bright' smily:

This smily describes the FLAC quite well I think.

 

[Whitebread]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif -V0 is not "lower than 256kbps." It averages between 200 and 260kbps, but will contain a significant number of frames at 320kbps, and therefore, yield quality that is substantially higher than 256kbps CBR.

O, so my claim has no grounds here, my mistake.

 

[craiglester]

There's a lot of variables to take into account here.
Cherrypicking a song that lame encodes with audible artifacts, is kinda cheating a bit. Plus, what version of lame are you all using?
Unless everyone is using the same version, with the same encoding presets, with everyone using the same decoder, and the same equipment, then what's being tested?
If you're really asking if we can tell the difference, and you're interested in the user then we should really all be using the same gear.
If you're asking if our gear obscures the differences then that is a whole other kettle of fish, no?

I didn't take the test , I don't really see the point in it.
If I have it in lossless, i'll be listening to that. I don't keep the same music in lossless *and* mp3 for the simple reason i'd get duplicates on my squeezebox. Why bother when every player i have plays Flac's?

 

[pheonix991]

Yeah, I can, slight difference between radiohead in flac and radiohead in lame at those settings, but, I really have to listen hard.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pheonix991 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, I can, slight difference between radiohead in flac and radiohead in lame at those settings, but, I really have to listen hard.

Where are your ABX results?

 

[lordgibbness]

Quote:

Originally Posted by craiglester /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's a lot of variables to take into account here. Cherrypicking a song that lame encodes with audible artifacts, is kinda cheating a bit. Plus, what version of lame are you all using? Unless everyone is using the same version, with the same encoding presets, with everyone using the same decoder, and the same equipment, then what's being tested? If you're really asking if we can tell the difference, and you're interested in the user then we should really all be using the same gear. If you're asking if our gear obscures the differences then that is a whole other kettle of fish, no? I didn't take the test , I don't really see the point in it. If I have it in lossless, i'll be listening to that. I don't keep the same music in lossless *and* mp3 for the simple reason i'd get duplicates on my squeezebox. Why bother when every player i have plays Flac's?

The point is that people make baseless claims and say mp3 isn't good enough for them. The recommended LAME version is 3.97 (on the lame wiki) but older versions (3.91+) are still fine to this day. Also your comment about people testing on the same equipment is not the point of the test. We are not trying to find who has the best hearing on the forum - we are seeing which preset is best for them on their current gear. Recording to lossless is a great idea (perfect for archiving etc.) and this test is not trying to invalidate its' use.

 

[lordgibbness]

To: aphex944, Asmo, Barry, Benco, blinx, GameBlaster, goodsound, Karlosak, Maleficio, pheonix991, PsychoZX, Redo, TestSpecimen, Vuti and Whitebread

How can you read the first post and then vote YES without showing ABX results? Can you not read?