[JohnSantana]

Hi All,
 
using both as the source of the music in the laptop, can anyone actually differentiate between 320 KBps MP3 and normal audio CD ?
 
I'm using Westone W4 (4x BA drivers) plug into my Fiio E11 played using Windows Media Player, and I wonder why some people actually prefer their music in FLAC or even WAV format ?
 
please share your thoughts and comments here if you can notice the difference in between the audio source.

 

[bigshot]

People preder lossless mostly for "peace of mind", not actual sound. Some people worry that the compression might cause them to miss something they don't realize.

 

[WindowsX]

CD is better. You can't have 16/44.1 packed from 1411kbps to 320kbps without dynamic compression. 320kbps is OK for sake of space/battery/convenient. I listen to 256kbps M4A converted from flac on phone and still get good music though lossless sure will do better job but also consume more battery/storage. Some may disagree but that's his opinions.

 

[JohnSantana]

Cool, many thanks for the explanation man, I appreciate it very much.
because nowadays, the choice for music is MP3 320 KBPs or FLAC in some of the sites out there  

 

[bigshot]

320 LAME sounds basically the same as lossless.

 

[RamblinE]

Sometimes in a direct comparison between a 320mbps rip and regular redbook playback the redbook will sound a little fuller to me. 
 
Otherwise the difference is scant, to hardly noticeable. 

 

[Dyaems]

depends on how to song is recorded or mastered for me. if the recording or mastering is great, even the 320kbps mp3 sounds great.

 

[El_Doug]

That is just not true - you can maintain the full dynamic range with an mp3
 
Quote:

CD is better. You can't have 16/44.1 packed from 1411kbps to 320kbps without dynamic compression. 320kbps is OK for sake of space/battery/convenient. I listen to 256kbps M4A converted from flac on phone and still get good music though lossless sure will do better job but also consume more battery/storage. Some may disagree but that's his opinions.

 

[tim3320070]

I cannot tell a difference with my placebo-rich assortment of overpriced audiophile equipment.

 

[gnarlsagan]

That is just not true - you can maintain the full dynamic range with an mp3

Is this always true?

 

[plantsman]

There is a very wide range in the resolving power of different systems and I would argue that there also are significant differences in auditory acuity and processing.  I believe that the differences between 320kbit/s lossy MP3 and good 44.1/16 redbook reproduction (or lossless copies) are clearly audible in the right context.  Obviously, YMMV.  For those that want to argue theory, Hydrogen Audio beckons - run free with your own kind.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I think I can hear the difference from Mp3 to Lossless, but I may be crazy? Placebo is a super strong force to be reckoned with.
 
 
 
So much of this is in our heads. Would be cool to see some scientific blindfolded group tests.

 

[anetode]

Is this always true?

http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression/

 

[gnarlsagan]

Quote:

http://arstechnica.com/features/2007/10/the-audiofile-understanding-mp3-compression/

 
Awesome article. Thanks. 
 
I didn't see anything in there directly addressing dynamic range though. 

 

[anetode]

Awesome article. Thanks. 

I didn't see anything in there directly addressing dynamic range though. 

Precisely :wink_face:

Although psychoacoustic-based compression may discard quieter information which is masked by immediately preceding louder information, that is not the same thing as dynamic range compression as it is known in audio engineering. WindowsX simply mixed up the terms.