[Chez]

I use 320kbps VBR AAC where possible and to be honest, I can't tell a difference between that and lossless, even through my £20k home setup, it still sounds amazing.

 

[syn_fx]

 

If you're wondering about your hearing, why not test it?
http://www.foobar2000.org/
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
 
Use a simple ABX test between FLAC and mp3. IF you hear a difference, and that's a big if since the vast majority of people overestimate their hearing ability, the difference will be subtle. That I guarantee you. So, if you manage to pass the ABX test you'll have to decide if that marginal difference is even worth it in a portable set up. Basically, when you're out and about you're not paying the closest attention to the music, and the music must compete with outside noise -- so max quality may really be a waste of space.
 
I'll also add that 320 CBR is a waste of space. If you want max quality mp3, use V0. There is a fraction of people on this board who can truly and consistently differentiate between 320 mp3 and FLAC via ABX. I doubt there are 10 people among headfi's thousands who could do the same between 320 CBR and V0 mp3. And that's in a quit room. For portable use, there is no one alive capable of hearing a difference between the two. And that I feel I can say with absolute certainty.
 
Myself, I use V2 mp3. For portable use it is more than adequate to me. FLAC has its place, but that place is in your home system.

 
This.
 
Very few people can consistently tell the difference between V0 LAME and FLAC in blind testing. Don't fool yourself, try the test. 
 

 

[ajkda]

 
Quote:

I didn't say lossless was not important, I just said that lossless doesn't have massive gains over 320kbps MP3. I would not be happy if a CD I bought came with mp3 tracks, because it's an instant bottleneck.
 
VBR 230 in the case of most of my files means average bitrate 230. You can set it to never go over a certain amount and never go under a certain amount. If you want specifics, iTunes tells me the average bitrate of it song. Sometimes it is more or less than another song.
Taking a quick look, it varies from 225 to 290, just looking at a couple albums.
 
Anyways, I'm not trying to say MP3 is good or anything. I'm a pirate simply because that's the generation I come from and that's what most of my library was before entering the Head-Fi world. Unless it sounds blatantly bad I'm not all that concerned, and if it's a band I like I tend to buy it anyways.
 
I prefer to use 256kbps (or around that when using VBR) AAC when I can, mostly because it sounds nearly as good as lossless and is a lot more friendly to an 8gb iPod. I can live with the difference, it's nowhere near the difference of something lower compared to it. I'd use Ogg hands down if Apple would support it, but that's far too open for such a company.
 
I think the point of this thread is not to debate, but rather to share our experiences.

 
 
Yep, my idea was for us to share our experiences.
I personally think that it is the easiest to differentiate codecs like 64,128 from 256 and 320kb. The jump from 64/128 to 256/320 is very large, with the 64 having lots of artefacts and it gets cleaner and cleaner the higher you go. Until when it gets so high that you start to find out that those artefacts were actually minute details that were missed out from the lower bitrates. Kinda funny and ironic isn't it when all i wanted was to get rid of the grainy artefacts.
 
And I also want to add that I do not claim that I am able to hear the differences between the 320k and flac file. It was merely a strange experience for me.
 
However, one should also know the speed of human adaptation, the difference could be real. The power of the brain is immense and many of you could have heard the difference just that your ears 'burned in' or adapted to the new sound, and when you switched back you might not be able to sense the difference.(An example would be how fast does you eyes adjust itself to the darkness when you switch off lights. It is really fast.) Which is the reason why I think AB blind test ABX isn't fully foolproof, but I think its good enough to suffice since it has been around for so long it must have meant something. Just my 2 cents =)
 

 

[usf09]

Could somebody explain how to run that ABX test from Foobar? I'm already pretty certain I won't be able to tell the difference, but I'd still like to try. I extracted the .dll into Foobar components, but it won't play in Foobar. Is there something else I have to do? Thanks!
 
Edit: I'm dumb...never mind, got it...

 

[swanlee]

My opinion is why bother wondering if you can or cannot hear the difference or wasting time with massive ABX tests etc. I use lossless and only lossless and I'm done don't have to worry just sit back and enjoy the music.
 
Even if you transcode to lossy on your portable player you really should keep your music archive in lossless as then you can transcode to any file type or bit rate you want to.

 

[pedxing]

Quote:

My opinion is why bother wondering if you can or cannot hear the difference or wasting time with massive ABX tests etc. I use lossless and only lossless and I'm done don't have to worry just sit back and enjoy the music.
 
Even if you transcode to lossy on your portable player you really should keep your music archive in lossless as then you can transcode to any file type or bit rate you want to.

With lossless compression, I don't have to worry about silly compression artifacts giving me listening fatigue.  I noticed that 320 kbps mp3 was giving me really bad listening fatigue after about an hour.  The problem started to go away after I re-encoded my music to 320 kpbs AAC CBR.  When I found a front end for quicktime to encode 320 kbps TVBR, most of my annoyances with artifacts went away (most songs average 350-380 kbps).  I cannot directly point what is wrong with highly compressed lossy recordings, not can I tell which one is which on the spot.  I think at some point, ABX testing is kinda pointless to me and that points is jumping from 128kbps to 192 kbps mp3.

 

[mvw2]

I think it's all in your head.  Lossy formats very specifically affect high frequencies first.  If you hear anything different it will be in the very high notes, cymbals, etc.  This is where you will first hear anything.  Since you're talking bass, it's all in your head.  Compression works by fitting generic curves over non-generic original curves.  Compressed formats approximate the original information.  Because of the compact and varying nature of high frequencies per unit time, they lose detail first.  Bass frequencies are very easy to approximate and can be done so to high accuracy with even very low bit rates.  As well, the human ear sucks at picking up distortion in bass frequencies.  It's just how we're built.  We are most sensitive to midrange frequencies because of our vocal nature.  Highs can be easily distinguished too because of the level of harshness that can be created.  Bass on the other hands can be crap and still be perceived as good.  It can be difficult to pick up distortion under 10% in lower frequencies.  Many people may not notice much under 20% even.  That's just how it is.
 
Because of this, I call shenanigans on your hearing perception.  I highly doubt there is actually a perceivable difference.

 

[Hybrys]

Did this get moved here or something? o.O
 
I dunno about AAC, but, I finally completed my 320 MP3 vs FLAC long-term ABX test with 93% for FLAC.  >_>

 

[JxK]

Quote:

My opinion is why bother wondering if you can or cannot hear the difference or wasting time with massive ABX tests etc. I use lossless and only lossless and I'm done don't have to worry just sit back and enjoy the music.
 
Even if you transcode to lossy on your portable player you really should keep your music archive in lossless as then you can transcode to any file type or bit rate you want to.

What in the world are you talking about? Why bother with "massive" ABX tests? You don't need alot, just 12 is enough. That's 12 clips from different songs. You really wouldn't need even more than 10 second clips. And if you find that you can't tell a difference between mp3 and flac, then suddenly you have more space on your portable set up. Really, it's not a particularly complicated concept.
 
I do agree though that archives should be kept in flac since HD space is getting so very cheap.

 

[JxK]

Quote:

What in the world are you talking about? Why bother with "massive" ABX tests? You don't need alot, just 12 is enough. That's 12 clips from different songs. You really wouldn't need even more than 10 second clips. And if you find that you can't tell a difference between mp3 and flac, then suddenly you have more de facto space on your portable set up to fill with more music. Really, it's not a particularly complicated concept.
 
I do agree though that archives should be kept in flac since HD space is getting so very cheap.

 

[snoopy007]

the main difference I find between 320 mp3 and flac is that if you ever turn the bass up and crank up the volume. There is not enough omph in the bass in the mp3. This is probably very noticable for bassheads with good home/car speakers.
 
Personally, I am not a basshead. I find that vbr v0 setting offers a good compromise between space and quality. Yes I can hear a slight difference between  flac and 320 mp3 on more complex music when doing ABX testing. However, I  don't think during normal portable use I can really tell  the difference between the two.
 
So I will stick with Flac for backup/home use  and lame vbr V0 for portable use.
 
 
Flac ----> home use.
lame vbr V0 mp3 ---> portable use, iriver e30 with AT ckm-55.
 
Besides, as everyone on these forums already know. The source ( the mp3/pmp player) and your headphone  is probably more important in getting a right sound signature for you.

 

[jaw2ek]

Very, very occasionally, I have detected differences in ABX testing on my computer, but only when I am listening very intently and trying to find differences.  The only time I noticed a dramatic difference between lossy and lossless was on speakers using a rockboxed ipod and a Bose dock (of all things!). Once.
 
So, every once in a while I ask myself, having just upgraded my earphones, if I would hear a difference on my iPod? I then encode a song or clip at several bitrates, make a playlist and play it at random and try to pick out which is which.  Its not true a/b, but it matters not, in my case.  I fail to distinguish bit rates every time.  Pretty sure my 42 yr old ears have some high frequency loss, especially in my right ear. Maybe that enters into the equation as well?
 
I encode from FLAC to Lame 3.97 V0 for my ipod.  Works for me.  I know that it is possible to hear differences, but I simply do not.
 
Lucky for me!

 

[zenpunk]

Quote:

Did this get moved here or something? o.O
 
I dunno about AAC, but, I finally completed my 320 MP3 vs FLAC long-term ABX test with 93% for FLAC.  >_>

Congratulation Hybrys, you can consider yourself to be among the very few beings on this earth to reliably ear a difference between flac and 320 mp3 . If you used the equipments in your signature that's even more remarkable! 

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

 
Congratulation Hybrys, you can consider yourself to be among the very few beings on this earth to reliably ear a difference between flac and 320 mp3 . If you used the equipments in your signature that's even more remarkable! 

This netbook's onboard, to my SRH440s, with both FLAC and 320 MP3 files directly from the CD.  It's the track, well mastered.  <_<

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Did this get moved here or something? o.O
 
I dunno about AAC, but, I finally completed my 320 MP3 vs FLAC long-term ABX test with 93% for FLAC.  >_>

Great! Significance (that you reliably can tell one from the other) starts with 95%, that's for example 9 right out of 12.