[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif of course there is, theres a whole 128kbs differential, which is one mans audible feast!

Indeed!
When just looking at the bitrate (hence also file size) its that easy. But when talking about audible difference its not that easy. Of course there are a difference, but it may not be audible to some while its highly audible to others.

 

[TubeStack]

Haven't read entire thread, but there's a huge difference between 192 and 320.

However, as krmathis said, what's audible to one person is not necessarily audible to another. (If a tree falls in the forest...)

So, the question asks, "is there a difference?"

In a philosophical sense, to those who hear it, yes. To those who don't, no.

But a more technically-minded approach would argue the difference is there whether one can hear it or not.

Both viewpoints seem true, to me.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed! When just looking at the bitrate (hence also file size) its that easy. But when talking about audible difference its not that easy. Of course there are a difference, but it may not be audible to some while its highly audible to others.

Yes, but you make it sound like being audible is a majority when in fact it is a very small minority so you should change that to audible to *some* but not to most. And then you have to add hyperbole by saying "highly" audible to others and I just find that very hard to believe. "Highly" audible I find a very subjective comment and don't believe it for one second because my ears are just not that bad.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TubeStack /img/forum/go_quote.gif But a more technically-minded approach would argue the difference is there whether one can hear it or not.

Yes, that is true but if a person can't hear it then it is meaningless. Which is the majority of the population. The same goes for upsampling, technically there is a difference but if one can't hear it then it is meaningless in the real world. I swear some of you that claim to hear a difference are not being honest either because you refuse to take ABX tests.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, that is true but if a person can't hear it then it is meaningless. Which is the majority of the population.

I didn't realize there were some study studies done that determined that the "majority of the population" couldn't hear a difference and that only a "small minority" could. Interesting. Can you refer us to the study or studies that concluded that? Also, I'd be curious as to what bit rates were tested also in those tests.

 

[Pio2001]

Some links on this topic. All based on blind tests.

December 2005, the last multiformat public listening test at 128 kbps (actually around 140) : Results of the public multiformat listening test @ 128 kbps (December 2005)

All of the 18 samples were rated above 4.0 with all 4 encoders, except maybe one, encoded with mp3, on the following scale :
1 - very annoying
2 - Annoying
3 - Slightly annoying
4 - Perceptible, but not annoying
5 - Imperceptible

Which means that 128/140 kbps compression was barely perceptible for the group, made of about 30 listeners.

June 2006 : the ABX Just Destroyed My Ego - Hydrogenaudio Forums thread on hydrogenaudio.

All of sudden, forumers started ABXing their own encoder. The thread starter could not hear the difference between 64 kbps and the original, while he was, before the test, reluctant to use lossy compression, even at 320 kbps, instead of FLAC, and could not imagine listening to something as a 128 kbps mp3.
Many listeners could not distinguish between 128 kbps and original.

Soundexpert tests with artifacts amplification : Audio quality of encoders at 128 kbit/s - SoundExpert

Many codecs are rated above 5 in the 128 kbps test, which means, according to their documentation that their distortion can be considered to be outside the hearing ability of the listeners. They used special tricks in order to amplify the distortion on the samples under test.

However, these are collective tests, made with many untrained listeners. On the other hand, some tests made by trained listeners show that at 175 kbps, for example, differences are still audible, even without using especially difficult samples : MPC vs OGG VORBIS vs MP3 at 175 kbps - Hydrogenaudio Forums

 

[PhilS]

Pio2001, thanks for the references. Very interesting. I thought it was a little questionable to generalize. I'll have to take some time to read some of the links.

 

[milkweg]

The facts are all over the place so do a little of your own research on the subject. I've already done mine and that is why I give your subjective opinion very little credibility. The facts are: the majority of the population can not tell the difference between 192kb/s and lossless so the chance of hearing the difference between 192kb/s and 320kb/s MP3 is next to impossible for the majority of the population. Even if you claim you can hear a difference it is such a small and negligible amount of difference that these claims of huge differences just make me want to puke because I know they are lies, damned lies and more lies.

 

[TubeStack]

Again, it's a massive difference, simple as that.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif The facts are all over the place so do a little of your own research on the subject. I've already done mine and that is why I give your subjective opinion very little credibility.

I'm crushed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if you claim you can hear a difference it is such a small and negligible amount of difference that these claims of huge differences just make me want to puke because I know they are lies, damned lies and more lies.

Wow, you are something.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't realize there were some study studies done that determined that the "majority of the population" couldn't hear a difference and that only a "small minority" could.

Yes, there as many such tests (a few quoted above), or just follow some Hydrogenaudio test threads to see how it's supposed to be done. And most of the tests I've seen are at relatively low or at most mid (192 kbps-ish) rates because above that even trained listeners find it nearly impossible to reliably resolve lossy from lossless. Above 256 kbps a very few of an expert group sometimes can on test samples, but it seems overwhelmingly true to say that 256 and above is essentially transparent in any meaningful sense for the vast majority of the population. Well, except for Head-Fi members, of which so many can 'easily' tell the difference... you know, less 'soundstage' and 'openness'...

I wouldn't go so far as to call anyone a liar just because they say they can easily resolve one high-bitrate lossy format from another (because I think people do at least believe what they are saying, regardless of accuracy), but let's just say that such reports at the very least... well... strain credulity.

.

 

[PhilS]

Double post somehow.

 

[imademymark]

why do all of these get personal? i think i can- tell the difference between 192 and lossless, but 320 is somewhere in between, and i'm not sure i can differentiate them from lossless/ 192 consistently.

i like to think of audiophile experience as a stacking thing, like it all adds up so that when you play lossless, out from a good source, into a good amp, and through good headphones then it sounds wonderful, but if you isolate anyone of the variables and say "ah ha! but how much difference would it make if i remove just a little bit of bytes, or i substitute the amp for a model without certain premium parts can you tell?" then its might not be as meaningful as you might think.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Above 256 kbps a very few of an expert group sometimes can on test samples, but it seems overwhelmingly true to say that 256 and above is essentially transparent in any meaningful sense for the vast majority of the population. Well, except for Head-Fi members, of which so many can 'easily' tell the difference... you know, less 'soundstage' and 'openness'...

Well, we'll just go around and around on this, but what some people hear and what people are able to prove they hear under testing conditions may or may not be the same. A number of you accept such tests as infallible. Some of us don't, although they certainly need to be considered IMO. I would also say, however, that that the fact that some people accept such tests does not make me puke.

I think I will test this for myself under conditions that, for me, are more realistic than what appears to be involved in some of the testing.

 

[hybris]

It's more or less useless to discuss these kinds of things. mp3, loudspeaker cables, it's all the same discussions.

Anyone that can hear "massive differences" between 192kbps and 320kbps (assuming a good quality encoder) or a regular loudspeaker cable that have acceptable electrical/impedance qualities compared to a loudspeaker cable that costs the same as a car are helpless victims of placebo.

Proper ABX testing is a bit fiddly, but the point can be made even with a simpler test.

Bring home a few friends, encode say 30 seconds of a few tracks in 128, 192 and 320kbps mp3 with the lame encoder. Then you put the same track (but with different bitrate) in a playlist several times, say 15 times (each bitrate repeated five times) in random order.

Now the rest of you guys who don't know the playlist order try to rate the sound quality, or even guess which bitrate are playing for each of the 15 tracks.

I can tell you right now that your results will be completely random, perhaps you're able to place the 128kbps track a few times. So you guys go home and do that test, and come back here and tell us that you still think it's a massive difference.

Then the rest of us can lean back and chant "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"