Agreed, hey, if you paid for all those bits on the CD, you'd want every single one of them on your computer/whatever to get your moneys worth. Regardless of whether or not the mp3 is transparent.
I failed the lame 320 and I really don't think I will be able to do it even if I kept trying for two reasons. Firstly, I think lame @ 320 has that particular track down no problem, and secondly, I really want to bash my head against the wall because of that track. No offense intended because I think it's a fine song, I just absolutely hate it.
I'll try it again in the future when I do another run of tests, hopefully with my rig upgraded. It will be a good test to see if better gear can help resolve it or not.
Thanks for taking the time to run the trials. In straight ahead A/B sighted trials, I got stumped on both of the 320s. I've done thorough ABX before and the thought of 20+ trials repeating the same bit over and over doesn't sound too appealing to revisit.
There have also been many moments during casual listening where I went "a-ha!" and thought that I identified an audible compression artifact only to find that the distortion was already on the CD. Mp3 compression does exacerbate any pre-existing distortion to an extent, so I've found it easier to distinguish between lossy and lossless files on lower quality recordings.
Then again, I feel like I can hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/192 on very high quality recordings... from the A/B comparisons I did at Linn Records website yesterday.
I wouldn't know, I don't have any high quality recordings.....
@anetode
Yeah no kiddin' about the 'not too appealing' bit, I think I've done like a 30 minute ABX trial where I've listened to a certain section a few hundred times.
Even though I failed, I deserve about two or three gold stars for effort (look at the start and end time).
I'm not too surprised though, looks like v0 is the way to go folks. They ain't joking by 320 being a waste of bits, as if the track ever calls for it, v0 will just dish out extra bits as needed. I really really don't want to do another 320 vs v0 test again, so don't ask.
I was hoping to catch the differences from the v0 soaring above 320, but clearly that ain't happening since upon post-analysis, the track only went above 320kbps for about 1% of the track. Bullocks.
Which one? 3.98.4/3/2? Have you tried the 3.99 beta and see if it made any improvements in comparison? I'd also try 3.98.4x since it makes some interesting improvements too:
Wow, let's enter 85/170 as the longest negative ABX result anyone ever attempted, into the Guinness book of world records? Now that's dedication.
And thanks for confirming (as much as one test can do) why people use -V0--or lower--instead of 320 kbps for portable use. You know, there's always the odd track out there where the music confuses the psychoacoustic model and maybe some of the wrong bits are thrown away, but these are the fringe cases rather than the norm.
I was hoping to catch the differences from the v0 soaring above 320, but clearly that ain't happening since upon post-analysis, the track only went above 320kbps for about 1% of the track. Bullocks.
I have not looked at the mp3 frame structure, and maybe I should, but I suspect the v0 spiking above 320 is an erroneous interpretation or reading by the software and that it's not going above 320 for that frame, at least in the sense you're thinking. Hopefully I didn't just say something really ignorant. I know above 320 is allowed with free format mp3, but that's not the situation here?
Even though I failed, I deserve about two or three gold stars for effort (look at the start and end time).
I'm not too surprised though, looks like v0 is the way to go folks. They ain't joking by 320 being a waste of bits, as if the track ever calls for it, v0 will just dish out extra bits as needed. I really really don't want to do another 320 vs v0 test again, so don't ask.
I was hoping to catch the differences from the v0 soaring above 320, but clearly that ain't happening since upon post-analysis, the track only went above 320kbps for about 1% of the track. Bullocks.
I thought you wanted to wind down! You really could have stopped after 20 trials and we'd believe you. Mighty impressive test, though.
Would you be willing to do 320 vs. V2? I'll let you slide by with 100 trials
Nice thread! I always remaster CDs and FLAC to 320 CBR just to be on the safe side. I have found that after a good equalization I can make a 320 CBR sound better (with better balance to my ears) than the original CD, even though I know there is some data loss, I don't mind since it has a much more pleasing sound than the original recording. I think having the proper EQ balance is way more important than listening to a lossless vs. lossy, of course I wouldn't go below 320 CBR just for good measure.
The funny thing is every ones ears are way different from each other as far as sensitivity in certain freqs, so EQing is pretty important for everyone to do IMO. That's why I'll spent 20 minutes remastering a whole album and transfer it to my PSP knowing that I put my best efforts into balancing the volume on all the relevant freqs.
I have always found that the high frequencies are affected the most in a lossy format. Since I listen to rock and metal mostly, this is very apparent after EQing and boosting the high freqs up 6 or so DB. If I did not EQ I think it may be more difficult to hear the high freq. changes that occur when converting to 320 CBR, since the volume of the symbols and high pitched guitar sounds are quieter. As a general rule of thumb I always try to bring the symbols in to make them sound like they are in the same room with all the other sounds, vocals etc. Then I know I have boosted my highs sufficiently.
Then again, I feel like I can hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/192 on very high quality recordings... from the A/B comparisons I did at Linn Records website yesterday.
Thanks for the tip on that website Kiteki. I checked it out and it is pretty cool. I like the way they let you sample each format. You definitely get more "air" on the 24/192 FLAC. The sound has more 3 dimensional depth to it and more pleasant to listen to. Also very expensive! To rr en t (cough)!
Thanks for the tip on that website Kiteki. I checked it out and it is pretty cool. I like the way they let you sample each format. You definitely get more "air" on the 24/192 FLAC. The sound has more 3 dimensional depth to it and more pleasant to listen to. Also very expensive! To rr en t (cough)!
I wonder if anybody has gotten the 24/192 FLAC, other versions, and compared bit by bit? I always wonder if they do something different like apply a different EQ, process a few parts differently, and so on, to make the higher resolution versions sound different, if in fact they do sound different. (This is ignoring the fact that most DACs don't handle 192 kHz as well as 96 kHz, out of those that can actually do 192 kHz, and so on) I'd never trust comparisons like that unless the higher-res was transcoded down myself.
I have not looked at the mp3 frame structure, and maybe I should, but I suspect the v0 spiking above 320 is an erroneous interpretation or reading by the software and that it's not going above 320 for that frame, at least in the sense you're thinking. Hopefully I didn't just say something really ignorant. I know above 320 is allowed with free format mp3, but that's not the situation here?
Yep that's my mistake there, foobar has that little bitrate updater thing on the bottom left for me, and I forgot it over-reads when you seek in a track, which is why it only seemed to spike above 320 as I was clicking.
I thought you wanted to wind down! You really could have stopped after 20 trials and we'd believe you. Mighty impressive test, though.
Would you be willing to do 320 vs. V2? I'll let you slide by with 100 trials
Yep I'm kind of winding down, just taking it easy at the moment so I won't be able to take in everybody's requests.
I was going to go to 100 trials for fun, but that would be silly. And for that previous test, I wasn't going all the way to 170 just for laughs, I fighting to the death the whole way to spot any differences.
Note that I'm using lame 3.98.4 now. (I don't even think it matters =P)
I wonder if anybody has gotten the 24/192 FLAC, other versions, and compared bit by bit? I always wonder if they do something different like apply a different EQ, process a few parts differently, and so on, to make the higher resolution versions sound different, if in fact they do sound different. (This is ignoring the fact that most DACs don't handle 192 kHz as well as 96 kHz, out of those that can actually do 192 kHz, and so on) I'd never trust comparisons like that unless the higher-res was transcoded down myself.
I've always wanted to do something like that, but I don't think my DAC can do 24/192, well, that, and the fact that anything in 24/192 is audiophile music and you know how much I dislike that......
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
