[Agnostic]

What bothers me the most about these tests, whether double blind or otherwise is that nearly all make the assumption that a few small sound samples are representative of all music. If I listen to 4 hours of music a day you can't tell me that a few 10 second samples can prove tranparency.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Interesting.

Cognitive Daily: Few listeners can distinguish between "average" and "best" MP3 samples

Summary:

Their results: 64 kbps worse than 128 kbps, 128 kbps usually not distinguished from 256 kbps.

Audiophiles slightly better on testing than non-audiophiles.

The test metholodolgy is much-maligned in some quarters, because they did not use the original lossless samples in the testing, if I understand correctly. Thus, it's not true ABX testing.

I know, this thread is 'old'! But I had to weigh in.

I can hear a definite difference between the same source ripped to 128kb and then to 256. I wouldn't use 128kb for spoken word, let alone music! 192 minimum for speech files.

 

[bigshot]

It depends on the codec. AAC at 128 is quite good. I use AAC 256 VBR for everything. It's compact and transparent.

 

[Steve999]

I got an e-mail after years of dormancy on this site, stating that someone had posted to this thread.

Wow, this was from something I posted 9 1/2 years ago. I see the same old arguments and discussions live on.

256 kbps codecs are the default now, and the technology has only gotten better over the last 9 years. For your $10 a month Apple Music will let you download DRM-free 256 kbps AAC recordings, if it's in their library, for you to keep, to replace your old recordings. The quality is transparent to me. There is not much left to argue about.

I am happy with the equipment I had 9 1/2 years ago. I learned a lot here, but got tired of the arguing. Arguing is one of the best forms of learning--if free exchange of ideas is welcome and you are willing to listen to people with opposing points of view. Both were lacking here after a time. I don't see that things have improved much, if at all.

Adios, amigos, until next time. I love headphones too. : )

 

[Steve999]

Okay, after thinking about this, I am just too curious. This is just a discussion, not an attack.

What codec are you using?

What is your basis for saying you can tell the difference?

I will tell you my limitations. Years ago I did some abx testing and even back then for, statistically, for most people, including me, 128 kbps lame mp3 was pretty tricky to abx from the original. At 192 kbps any difference was to the point that for me abx testing was exasperating and boring and pointless, once I tried it a few times. For some demanding samples I could sort of tell the difference at 128 kbps, for others definitely not, and the differences were small enough that I would lose interest and patience. There were people who could do it systematically and reliably but in many cases by their account that was because they had taken the time to learn exactly what the compression artifacts sound like. They were of a nature that would skip most people’s attention, they said, and they could do it even with modest headphones. The quality of the gear made little difference in terms of being able to detect artifacts.

If I remember right even a 1db difference in volume is easily abx’ed.
So if most people are having trouble ABXing something perhaps you can see the differences are probably quite minor.

So the fact that even almost 10 years ago 128 kbps was sort of the borderline for transparency for a good mp3 codec makes me wonder about the basis of your claims. Saying that you can tell the difference between 128 kbps and the original is plausible to me but not probable, unless you are using an inferior codec. Saying you would not use anything less than 192 kbps for speech seems a little over the top to me. Since I originated this thread 8 1/2 years ago I am interested in where you are coming from. If you want to dig deep where people tried to do this stuff right you can hop on over to hydrogen audio and look through very old abx testing threads, though I think for them they beat the subject into the ground as the technology progressed until the codecs were too good to make it interesting anymore.

I know, this thread is 'old'! But I had to weigh in.

I can hear a definite difference between the same source ripped to 128kb and then to 256. I wouldn't use 128kb for spoken word, let alone music! 192 minimum for speech files.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Okay, after thinking about this, I am just too curious. This is just a discussion, not an attack.

What codec are you using?

What is your basis for saying you can tell the difference?

I will tell you my limitations. Years ago I did some abx testing and even back then for, statistically, for most people, including me, 128 kbps lame mp3 was pretty tricky to abx from the original. At 192 kbps any difference was to the point that for me abx testing was exasperating and boring and pointless, once I tried it a few times. For some demanding samples I could sort of tell the difference at 128 kbps, for others definitely not, and the differences were small enough that I would lose interest and patience. There were people who could do it systematically and reliably but in many cases by their account that was because they had taken the time to learn exactly what the compression artifacts sound like. They were of a nature that would skip most people’s attention, they said, and they could do it even with modest headphones. The quality of the gear made little difference in terms of being able to detect artifacts.

If I remember right even a 1db difference in volume is easily abx’ed.
So if most people are having trouble ABXing something perhaps you can see the differences are probably quite minor.

So the fact that even almost 10 years ago 128 kbps was sort of the borderline for transparency for a good mp3 codec makes me wonder about the basis of your claims. Saying that you can tell the difference between 128 kbps and the original is plausible to me but not probable, unless you are using an inferior codec. Saying you would not use anything less than 192 kbps for speech seems a little over the top to me. Since I originated this thread 8 1/2 years ago I am interested in where you are coming from. If you want to dig deep where people tried to do this stuff right you can hop on over to hydrogen audio and look through very old abx testing threads, though I think for them they beat the subject into the ground as the technology progressed until the codecs were too good to make it interesting anymore.

1. Either iTunes, EAC, or Windows Media player.


2. Going from 128 to 256kbps is a doubling of the bitrate. Both the bottom and top of the spectrum of a song rippped to MP3 seem tighter, more solid, closer to the CD they were ripped from. Transients(snare drums, kicks, even hand claps), while mushy at 128, sound more solid at 256. Going for broke - 320kb, to me is diminishing returns: little improvement per additional storage consumed by the larger file.

For speech, which is less complex than music, the disadvantages of a low-bitrate conversion are more apparent: swirly, metallic heads and tails in elements of speech. Going even to 192kb cures enough of those lossy artifacts that they become less noticeable to me.

 

[Steve999]

If you can overcome the technical difficulties of setting it up try some ABXing. I think you will be astonished. You could try it with Foobar2000 I think but the learning curve is steep, but on the other hand you would be introduced to a super-cool software. I would guess you’d have to set aside a few days and go through a lot of frustration to learn how to do it. Back in the day hydrogenaudio would quite often have a study all set up for you to participate in but I suspect those days are long gone. : )

If anyone else knows of a way to set you up for some abx’ing I think it would be a great experience for you. My days of doing such things are long gone. I believe I have done plenty to get the big picture and just enjoy the music. If I hear something messed up I fix it. Although today I have seen there are some folks with some really extensive knowledge here—much more than mine—I’m really impressed. They can back me up or correct me or help you as they see fit.

1. Either iTunes, EAC, or Windows Media player.


2. Going from 128 to 256kbps is a doubling of the bitrate. Both the bottom and top of the spectrum of a song rippped to MP3 seem tighter, more solid, closer to the CD they were ripped from. Transients(snare drums, kicks, even hand claps), while mushy at 128, sound more solid at 256. Going for broke - 320kb, to me is diminishing returns: little improvement per additional storage consumed by the larger file.

For speech, which is less complex than music, the disadvantages of a low-bitrate conversion are more apparent: swirly, metallic heads and tails in elements of speech. Going even to 192kb cures enough of those lossy artifacts that they become less noticeable to me.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

If you can overcome the technical difficulties of setting it up try some ABXing. I think you will be astonished. You could try it with Foobar2000 I think but the learning curve is steep, but on the other hand you would be introduced to a super-cool software. I would guess you’d have to set aside a few days and go through a lot of frustration to learn how to do it. Back in the day hydrogenaudio would quite often have a study all set up for you to participate in but I suspect those days are long gone. : )

If anyone else knows of a way to set you up for some abx’ing I think it would be a great experience for you. My days of doing such things are long gone. I believe I have done plenty to get the big picture and just enjoy the music. If I hear something messed up I fix it. Although today I have seen there are some folks with some really extensive knowledge here—much more than mine—I’m really impressed. They can back me up or correct me or help you as they see fit.

Thank you for the suggestion to ABX my 128 vs higher bitrate mp3s, but I can hear the difference just fine. It's not such a difference that people socializing in a crowded living room would hear it, but something that I can hear pretty clearly over my MDR-7506 headphones plugged into my iPod or my editing PC.

 

[Steve999]

Prove me wrong. I would try to prove you wrong but I can’t do your own testing for you. The 7506s are some of the best surgical audio tools on earth so you have all the equipment you need. This is a chance for you to learn a lot of things. : )

And you’d want to abx the 128 mp3 against lossless. Otherwise it’s not abx and the task would be even more difficult.

Thank you for the suggestion to ABX my 128 vs higher bitrate mp3s, but I can hear the difference just fine. It's not such a difference that people socializing in a crowded living room would hear it, but something that I can hear pretty clearly over my MDR-7506 headphones plugged into my iPod or my editing PC.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Prove me wrong. I would try to prove you wrong but I can’t do your own testing for you. The 7506s are some of the best surgical audio tools on earth so you have all the equipment you need. This is a chance for you to learn a lot of things. : )

It seems like you are insuating something, above. What exactly are you trying to say there?

 

[Steve999]

I’m not really insinuating anything. I honestly don’t think you could tell the difference between a modern day 128 Apple AAC file and the original though. You haven’t learned to listen for very subtle compression artifacts. The only one who can prove me right or wrong is you. That’s all my cards on the table. : )

I encode at 256 kbps because it’s the default in this day and age and I can’t be bothered anymore, so I don’t really have a dog in this race. Honestly, I am just trying to get some basics across to you. Some of the learning you would have to do and it would require a good amount of effort.

It seems like you are insuating something, above. What exactly are you trying to say there?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I’m not really insinuating anything. I honestly don’t think you could tell the difference between a modern day 128 Apple AAC file and the original though. You haven’t learned to listen for very subtle compression artifacts. The only one who can prove me right or wrong is you. That’s all my cards on the table. : )

I encode at 256 kbps because it’s the default in this day and age and I can’t be bothered anymore, so I don’t really have a dog in this race. Honestly, I am just trying to get some basics across to you. Some of the learning you would have to do and it would require a good amount of effort.

But I wasn't comparing AACs, I stated quite clearly, earlier on, that I was comparing what I heard between different bitrates of MP3 files. Not between AACs, WAVs, or any other file formats. Just MP3.

And obviously I can hear subtle data compression artifacts, I can hear a lot more of them at MP3 128kb than I do at 256.

Oh, so exactly which "basics would you like to get across to me"?

 

[Steve999]

Basics to learn (and they really are quite difficult subjects, don’t get me wrong):

1) how to do an abx test

2) how to prove your assertions

3) subjective impressions without controlled testing are often highly unreliable

I’ve planted the seeds. This will always bother you now unless you take it upon yourself to learn more. : ). I am wrong about things every day. I was wrong three times in this forum today and people corrected me and it was an absolute pleasure and privilege for me. I knew enough to know they were right and I was wrong.

But I wasn't comparing AACs, I stated quite clearly, earlier on, that I was comparing what I heard between different bitrates of MP3 files. Not between AACs, WAVs, or any other file formats. Just MP3.

And obviously I can hear subtle data compression artifacts, I can hear a lot more of them at MP3 128kb than I do at 256.

Oh, so exactly which "basics would you like to get across to me"?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Basics to learn (and they really are quite difficult subjects, don’t get me wrong):

1) how to do an abx test

2) how to prove your assertions

3) subjective impressions without controlled testing are often highly unreliable

I’ve planted the seeds. This will always bother you now unless you take it upon yourself to learn more. : ). I am wrong about things every day. I was wrong three times in this forum today and people corrected me and it was an absolute pleasure and privilege for me. I knew enough to know they were right and I was wrong.

Have you been suggesting, all along, that I am not hearing what I said I was, comparing those 128k mp3s vs 256k?

 

[Steve999]

Absolutely. : ). So prove me wrong.

Have you been suggesting, all along, that I am not hearing what I said I was, comparing those 128k mp3s vs 256k?