[az2123]

Yeah, Ogg Vorbis has a very efficient algorithm. If you want the most quality per MB, use Ogg Vorbis. Otherwise, FLAC ftw!

 

[jh901]

Eternal187

If you are using the cheapest gear available, like the buds that come with "mp3 players", then it won't matter what CODEC you choose. If you have decent IEMs or reference cans, like K701s or, like me, you even use digital files (network music player/music server) for your hi end system, then you absolutely must use flac. There is a HUGE difference that no one can argue against.

 

[brn80]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif I got a big facepalm link for you: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! it's had more votes for the 128 than for the 320

I got 320, but it was a very close call. I had to replay it thrice and I 'perceived' the 320 to have better clarity in the soundstage or background, if that makes sense. But since it's 50/50 chance, I could very well have just picked the 128 too since it was very close.

Back to point, it all depends on your setup. I save flac for the sake of having an archive copy and then I keep the 'portable' versions of these for putting onto a DAP. Price per megabyte of hard drive storage is so cheap these days, space is no longer a concern. I used to use mp3 all the time, till I read about and played around with different formats. 128kbps aac but mostly ogg is what I use now. Unless I'm critically listening, but even then, I don't think I'd notice a difference between the ogg and flac variants on my setup. You also have to get a good encoder, esp. at the lower bitrates with ogg. I think there's a stigma associated with that 128 and below number, since the mp3 variants tended to be not as good or, as someone pointed out, ripped from really bad sources. Granted, if you've got an expensive on-the-go setup (>$300) you'd probably use flac or lossless aac anyways.

 

[project86]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jh901 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Eternal187 If you are using the cheapest gear available, like the buds that come with "mp3 players", then it won't matter what CODEC you choose. If you have decent IEMs or reference cans, like K701s or, like me, you even use digital files (network music player/music server) for your hi end system, then you absolutely must use flac. There is a HUGE difference that no one can argue against.

I have a high end system and I use flac for convenience, but 320k sounds great on it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've done tests between mp3, ogg of various bitrates, and lossless and they've picked out from best to worst (blind test, only I could see what file I was playing, on three people who are all into audio) lossless > ogg > mp3 And I have also picked out mp3 with the most bloated, artificial bass notes.

You should download Foobar and try some ABX testing. If finding flaws on 320k mp3 is indeed as easy for you as you claim, and you verify that by ABX testing, please join hydrogen audio forums and get involved. You can help with the implimentation of better lossy codecs.

But first make sure you can do what you think you can do. Proper test methodology is important, and Foobar takes care of that for you.

 

[cerbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by az2123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, Ogg Vorbis has a very efficient algorithm. If you want the most quality per MB, use Ogg Vorbis. Otherwise, FLAC ftw!

+1. They used to have freaky stereo imaging that I tell apart at much lower bitrates than MP3 (when I could at all, of course), but that's been gone with newer versions of the encoder, starting maybe 2 years ago.

 

[Bojamijams]

I can't tell a difference between 320kbps and flac... Maybe on some recordings it does exist, but not on any I've tried.

My computer library is all going lossless but for portable, I will start using 320kbps MP3. I have a rockboxed imod right now and am using that simply because I don't want to use itunes and haven't found anything else to generate my database for me. However, I'm starting to slowly replace all FLACs on the imod with 320kbps MP3. I don't need the hard drive space saving (120gb drive) but I do enjoy the longer battery life.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brn80 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I got 320, but it was a very close call. I had to replay it thrice and I 'perceived' the 320 to have better clarity in the soundstage or background, if that makes sense. But since it's 50/50 chance, I could very well have just picked the 128 too since it was very close.

honestly, the 128 kbits sounds horrible on my system. I was even able to ask a few non-audiophile ppl at my place, and they all succeeded. if you can't hear much diff between the 2 files, maybe it's time for an upgrade

and I still hate JS, it kills the soundstage! 320/S w/ a high quality algorithm is acceptable...but I mostly listen to 70's music, so any compression worsens the SQ....which is often not too great to begin w/

compression is prolly a lot less audible on loudness war stuff/electronic boomboom..
I really can't stand lossy music(70's reggae/funk/jazz) anymore

 

[satshanti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif lossless > ogg > mp3

Absolutely! Look, it's a matter of various things, quality of the recording, quality of the playback equipment, quality of one's own hearing. It also really depends what you use it for. On a portable music player, it just doesn't matter. MP3 at 128 kbps will probaly sound the same as lossless, but on a really "hi-fi" set-up, there is nothing subtle about the difference between the various lossy formats and their bit rates and lossless files. Lossless is just that, it's the reference. The next best lossy option imho is ogg vorbis q10 at about 500 kbps, which really sounds "almost" as good as lossless. Then come the lower ogg bitrates, like q9 (320 kbps) and q8 (256 kbps), and maybe at q7 or q6 (224 and 192 kbps), MP3 joins the club at its maximum of 320 kbps. After that OGG without fail beats MP3 at all bitrate levels, at least to my ears in my system with the music I play.

 

[Pistachio]

If you think the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless is large, go do some ABX tests. It will probably be a humbling experience.

 

[Velteron]

I think there are two things, making differences between mp3 and lossless.

1. Bitrate with encoding quality.
2. Music complexity

If you have light music with only 2 or 3 instruments in it, these instruments will divide number of kbits, flowing per second (bitrate) between them. There are numbers of kbits per second required to any instrument to sound good and quality enough, and increasing this number will bring less and less differences.
So, If we have light music with 3 instruments and 128 kbit, each instrument will get 42,67 kbits. It may be enough to make it sound good and increasing bitrate for the music up to 320 kbps will make a bit difference.

But if we have symphinic, or orchestral or any "heavy" music, with many instruments in it, these instruments will also devide bitrate between them and number of kbit for each of them will be ridiculous.

The difference you hear between 128 kbps, 320 kbps and lossless is depend on kind of music you listen.

 

[cerbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistachio /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you think the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless is large, go do some ABX tests. It will probably be a humbling experience.

True. On the other hand, digging out the CD and re-ripping, after you hear that one 'off' sound that annoys the hell out of you during casual listening, is much less fun than ripping it lossless to start with. That also gives you the ability to change to another lossy format for portable use, if a given recording has noticeable problems.

 

[brn80]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif honestly, the 128 kbits sounds horrible on my system. I was even able to ask a few non-audiophile ppl at my place, and they all succeeded. if you can't hear much diff between the 2 files, maybe it's time for an upgrade

That's great

kudos to your friends and your system. I know my system is modest for now, I will eventually upgrade once I get some more cash flow. I've gotten to spend some quality time with a friends' balanced setup out of a DAC1, and the jump isn't as pronounced (for me) as going from nothing to what I have, so I'm content for now. Maybe it's my hearing, who knows?

Speaking of hearing, I had my gf listen to the the 'teen buzz' ringtone that's been going around, and I guess it does work--she is a bit older than me--she wasn't able to discern the tone, although once I turned up the volume she said she felt like something was hitting her head/headache. Pretty interesting, this site has a couple of the high frequency tones, 19kHz was my limit (just barely), any higher and I wouldn't be able to tell if it was playing or not if we were in a blind test. I could tell the tones were playing since it made a sound (pop) once you hit play. Once again it also might be system dependent, but a good headphone should be able to reproduce the tones roughly.

Mosquito ringtones - download the original mosquito ring tone from Teen Buzz

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brn80 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I had my gf listen to the the 'teen buzz' ringtone that's been going around, and I guess it does work

how about this one

 

[120717]

What about gain. I keep finding myself having to adjust the volume on my iPod when playing playlists of tracks from different albums from various sources.
Lower bitrates seem to be louder?
I personally feel that flac sounds more refined, as well as providing better soundstage.

 

[brn80]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif how about this one

rofl, win. What's funny is that she's Japanese too. I sent her the link, let's see if she comes to slap me