[Costia]

made it to -45dB with my monster turbine attached to a laptop O_o
thats 1:100 SNR
no way.

 

[AstralStorm]

I've made it to -60 dB in the test. That's with equalized GR07, deep insertion (trimmed Comply P slim). Unequalized I got to -48 dB.
(Sourced with Fiio E7.)

 

[Redbeard65]

I made it to -45 db using an XM5 (through it's DAC) with a pair of DBA-02.
I'm kind of surprised my ears still work that well after all I have put them though over the years...
 
 

 

[Redbeard65]

I just tried again with the XM5 but used my ER4s this time. Only made it to -24 db with the ER4 in either P or S mode.

 

[RonWilson]

Quote:

128kb/s -> 320kb/s = Big difference for me.  More can be heard, and it's a lot more lively.
192kb/s -> 320kb/s = Differences are audible, I can pick out one or two things different with the recording.
256kb/s -> 320kb/s = There's a difference, I can hear something different, but they are extremely small and subtle, you have to try to listen for it...  Which kills the song since you're all focused on listening for the differences in sound rather than enjoying the music.
 
This is comparing MP3 @ certain bit-rates.  Not a conversion from lower to higher (arrows might be a little misleading).
 
A lot of my songs are also 256AAC (not included in comparisons) due to iTunes' store purchases.  I have trouble telling those apart from 320kb/s MP3 as well.  It could also be how iTunes/iPods play them as well.

Well, I'm confused by this thread.  I would think that the values are off by a matter of a thousand.  In other words, it should be 1.28kb/s and 1.92kb/s or abbreviated 128 b/s or 192b/s etc.  Were these numbers mis stated or are we quoting what my dog can hear?
 

 
 

 

[keanex]

A proper 128kbps MP3/Ogg/AAC should be almost transparent. I would wager that most people couldn't ABX 192kbps from FLAC even. As for best quality/file size, LAME V2 MP3 setting is the best you'll get, I prefer V0 though because it's capable of reaching 320kbps. Either way I've said it time and time again, which has fallen upon deaf ears, VBR is better than CBR. When comparing 320kbps to V0 you'll never and I repeat, never, be able to ABX them. I'd doubt many people could ABX even V0 from FLAC on any system. Every one is considered a liar to me until they post ABX results.

 

[syn_fx]

First of all, never say never (killer samples exist in every codec - regardless of bitrate, all have flaws), but they are very rare, and thus highly unlikely to be encountered by the general public (in addition, you often need trained ears to hear things like pre-echo, an artifact typically associated with mp3).
 
Secondly, topics about DBT are not allowed in all but the sound science sub-forum, so I suggest that the the thread moves on. In fact this entire thread probably belongs there. 

 

[Chris_Himself]

Unless I'm using a DAC, I can't hear the difference between FLAC and 320kbps

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Unless I'm using a DAC, I can't hear the difference between FLAC and 320kbps

Well I couldn't tell what song I was even supposed to be listening to if I left out the DAC and tried to listen to the S/PDIF or I2S bitstream either so not picking up on a bitrate isn't much of a surprise...

 

[Joe Bloggs]

First of all, never say never (killer samples exist in every codec - regardless of bitrate, all have flaws), but they are very rare, and thus highly unlikely to be encountered by the general public (in addition, you often need trained ears to hear things like pre-echo, an artifact typically associated with mp3).
 
Secondly, topics about DBT are not allowed in all but the sound science sub-forum, so I suggest that the the thread moves on. In fact this entire thread probably belongs there. 

Well, this thread wasn‘t about ABXing in the first place, it was about being underwhelmed by Hifi headphones. And I don‘t think Hifi quality has anything tp do with ABXing--I bet anyone who hears above 16kHz can ABX 320kbps from lossless 100% on any headphones if he listens through a 16kHz highpass filter :rolleyes:

 

[funkmeister]

The kb/s means "kilobits per second" and isn't about frequency. It's referred to as the bitrate. So there's nothing here to do with kHz or kilohertz. This kb/s (or kbps) referrs to how much data is used to reproduce sound. A file that's encoded with only 192kb/s has less audio information stored in it than 320kbps so you have a smaller computer file... maybe 6MB instead of 11MB. The tradeoff is that the sound has to be compromised to get to that level of file compression (not to be confused with sound compression where dB spread is reduced). The smaller the number, the more info is thrown out and the more the sounds run together in the song. Also, the smaller the number, the smaller the file size. In the past, computer and PMP capacity was a bigger deal than it is now so people are more apt to use higher bitrates these days because they can and because the music is better quality when they do so. I remember doing MP3 files in the late 90's at 128kbps and I though they sounded good because my equipment was crappy. I still have one file from back then that I can now clearly tell sounds pretty crappy because I have good headphones.
 
FWIW: 256kbps sounds really good and uses about 1.88MB of storage space per minute of stereo audio. Lossless compressed (like WMA Lossless, Apple Lossless, or FLAC) uses about 5.5MB per minute of CD-quality stereo audio. A raw CD uses about 8.78MB per minute of audio.

 
Quote:

Well, I'm confused by this thread.  I would think that the values are off by a matter of a thousand.  In other words, it should be 1.28kb/s and 1.92kb/s or abbreviated 128 b/s or 192b/s etc.  Were these numbers mis stated or are we quoting what my dog can hear?
 

 
 

 

 

[funkmeister]

That listening test is brutal. I could only get to -24dB with J. Stone (end result) but got a nice red bar at -27dB when I pulled out my Icon HD. I also could only get a final score of -18dB with the "two tone cms" test and realized that there's some oscillation going on somewhere. Aargh! Now I will be forever pissed. I got into the -39dB on that one so I had hope for a better final score, but I just couldn't get it.
 
Anyway, the Tracy Chapman test was much easier. I passed all green checks to -45dB and said to hell with it before even trying -51dB. I didn't even finish the test, so I guess without too much tone repitition (nice varied music instead) the oscillation isn't apparant over the distortion. That 70Hz/800Hz sine wave really has me miffed. Maybe it's not the OpAmp in the NuForce, but I thought at first that it is. It sets in gradually and if I run the A/B close together it stays strong, but after about three or four seconds of silence it has drifted away and I can start over. Is that my amp, my phones, or my ears? I have closed back phones.
 
UPDATE: I left the test open in another window and came back to it this morning and finished it up for kicks and giggles. Behold!
 
Test -> NuForce Icon HD -> AKG K171 MK II
 

 

[Sparky191]

With my budget and time constraints, and enviroment and ears. Anything more than 256kb is wasted on me. 320kb maybe for a few tracks. 

 

[funkmeister]

Quote:

I've made it to -60 dB in the test. That's with equalized GR07, deep insertion (trimmed Comply P slim). Unequalized I got to -48 dB.
(Sourced with Fiio E7.)

What test? I only see it going down to -54dB and they repeat it at that level a few times.

 

[AstralStorm]

Same test, just reduced the general volume level to make it harder. It's not the same as actual -60 dB.
However, you can make it -54 dB if you like.