[Satellite_6]

Quote:

Is there an ABX or blind test add-on to foobar or are people just poking fun?   I think most of the time I can't tell the difference between 320 and FLAC, but for some songs and certainly live performances, I can.  Or at least I think I can.  If foobar doesn't have an add-on, could someone link me to something similar?

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

 

[Skarecrow77]

I commend your willingness to actually test it out.
 
Question for other people, who are certain that they can tell the difference between FLAC and MP3. Are you using MP3s that you have created yourself, or are you downloading them? If you create, say, a -v0 LAME MP3 from the FLAC file, can you ABX that?
 
Even today, most mp3s are crap, and most people don't know that the mp3s they have created are crap.
 
a mature release of a recent LAME revision (I think they were on 3.98 last I checked?) with a good VBR setting produces FAR better quality than what you may be used to.
 
aoTuV vorbis is even better (and again, my lossy encoder of choice).
 
Edit:
 
http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php
 
Try out LAMEdrop. It doesn't get any easier than that. open it up, right click and set the quality to something decent (I think it defaults to -v2 which is pretty decent to begin with), then drop your flac file on the icon.
 
Then try out Oggdrop aoTuV b5.7 for comparison if you like. I like -q 3 for portable, but a lot of people think -q 5 is the sweet spot.
 
http://www.rarewares.org/ogg-oggdropxpd.php

 

[bcasey25raptor]

honestly i am fine with my mp3 files right now. i dont have enough space to have flac files of everything. i have 15 000 songs. try to flac that and it will be like a tb of music.

 

[mikeaj]

.Several months back, I did an informal test myself with different-encoded mp3 files via whatever LAME version was out then.  The test music sample was a minute of classical orchestral music from "Jupiter" of The Planets (Dutoit, Montreal), which included part of a tutti section, some exposed woodwind solos, crash cymbals, etc.  I don't even listen to classical music that much, but I figured that that this would be a worst-case scenario for audio compression.
 
I created samples at CBR 128 kbps, CBR 192 kbps, VBR -V0, and CBR 320 kbps from the CD.  I didn't know about foobar's ABX plugin, so I just had a playlist with all the lossy files plus the original with a randomized playlist order and hit "next" via a hotkey 10 times between listens so would have no idea which file I was listening to.  With this method, I might get the same sample twice in a row.  After making a guess at which version I was listening to, I looked at foobar to see which it was.
 
After a lot of trials, I was able to tell apart the CBR 128 kbps and CBR 192 kbps from the rest with high accuracy.  Mostly, it was the string section entrances and woodwind solos that were the giveaways for the most lossy samples.  Maybe I should have tested VBR -V2, but the -V0, 320 kbps, and lossless sounded the same to me.  If I guessed between those correctly, it wasn't by a significant margin at all.
 
For other music, I'm sure I could get away with a lower bitrate than VBR -V0.  I'd heard a lot that formats other than mp3s had better quality at many bitrates, but I didn't know which encoders could rival modern LAME mp3 encoding.  Maybe I'll try Vorbis instead next time.  aoTuV seems promising to me--thanks for the info.

 

[i_love_hina]

DT880 through Zero DAC.  On the few occasions I've tried, I couldn't even tell the difference between FLAC and 192kbps.  I'm sure if I tried enough I could, but that would involve a level of focus normally reserved for when I'm constipated.  128kbps and FLAC I can definitely tell though.
 
And of course we all know "that guy" who claims he can hear the difference between 320kbps and FLAC or FLAC and WAV.  Until you try to get him to ABX in your presence suddenly his ears will be plugged up due to a cold or something,

 

[Divvy]

I won't personally believe in anyone being able to tell apart 320kbps and FLAC in ABX testing. Any other kind of test is pointless.

 

[eggontoast]

Quote:

I won't personally believe in anyone being able to tell apart 320kbps and FLAC in ABX testing. Any other kind of test is pointless.

So lets get this right, because you can't tell the difference no one else can and we are all liars.

 

[Divvy]

I'd rather peg it on self-deceiving than lying, but yes.

 

[eggontoast]

Quote:

I'd rather peg it on self-deceiving than lying, but yes.

 
That is......just ridiculous and very naive but if it keeps you happy thinking that then that is fine with me.

 

[Divvy]

Oh, it hardly has bearing on my happiness. It's simply what I believe and I'm open to being proven wrong, but many people who have claimed to hear the difference have systematically failed to prove so in ABX testing.

 

[eggontoast]

Quote:

Oh, it hardly has bearing on my happiness. It's simply what I believe and I'm open to being proven wrong, but many people who have claimed to hear the difference have systematically failed to prove so in ABX testing.

Just to clarify when I did my comparisons to decide on how to rip my library I used various genres of music with varying degrees of mastering quality.
 
As previous people have stated in this thread with some genres of music I could not hear a difference, I thought I could until I did the ABX test.
 
But with certain genres of music which have been well mastered the difference is all to apparent. The problem is..........there are to many poor quality recordings out there especially most modern pop music which is over compressed, poorly EQ'ed rubbish IMO.

 

[pp312]

I've come late to this thread and don't intend to read it all as it covers territory covered many times in the past. I'll just state that I can hear no difference between lossless and MP3 at any bitrate above 192, and I'm not even sure I could always pick the difference below that. If that makes me a tin-eared git, so be it.
 
I don't necessarily doubt (well, I do actually) that some people can hear a difference between 320 and lossless, but I just wonder what effect the supposed difference would have on listening pleasure. If you have to listen that hard, are you really listening to the music or the sound? I have many classical MP3 tracks in lower bitrates than 320 and am often amazed at how good they sound on my 650 phones---if the original recording was good. That's where the real differences lie, in the original recordings. Some are so good their virtues are hardly smudged by reduction to MP3; others so bad MP3 can hardly hurt them further.

 

[Pacha]

 
Quote:

DT880 through Zero DAC.  On the few occasions I've tried, I couldn't even tell the difference between FLAC and 192kbps.  I'm sure if I tried enough I could, but that would involve a level of focus normally reserved for when I'm constipated.  128kbps and FLAC I can definitely tell though.
 
And of course we all know "that guy" who claims he can hear the difference between 320kbps and FLAC or FLAC and WAV.  Until you try to get him to ABX in your presence suddenly his ears will be plugged up due to a cold or something,

With my DT 880 and Audigy 2 I couldn't find any difference between 320 and FLAC. I could find a difference between 128, 192 and 320 though.
I went to a head-fier place someday who told me he could hear differences between FLAC and 320, I didn't believe him or at least I had a lot of doubts.
Now with my current setup I can easily pick 320 mp3 from FLAC.
As far as I can say, LAME 3.98 V0 is indeed very good and gives a tough moment to find a difference, while other revisions or encoders, be it CBR 320 rate gives poor results and leads to mp3 being far easily recognized against FLAC (at least on my setup).

 

[Pacha]

Quote:

I don't necessarily doubt (well, I do actually) that some people can hear a difference between 320 and lossless, but I just wonder what effect the supposed difference would have on listening pleasure. If you have to listen that hard, are you really listening to the music or the sound? I have many classical MP3 tracks in lower bitrates than 320 and am often amazed at how good they sound on my 650 phones---if the original recording was good. That's where the real differences lie, in the original recordings. Some are so good their virtues are hardly smudged by reduction to MP3; others so bad MP3 can hardly hurt them further.

I don't have to listen carefully to pick up differences between 192 and FLAC files to tell that I enjoy much more listening to the latter. Not even talking about listening to a K2HD mastering ripped in FLAC for example vs the regular one ripped in 192 CBR, it brings the thing to another level.
 

 

[AnotherN00b]

I highly encourage anyone who isn't sure whether or not they can hear the difference between flac and a lame v0 or 320 mp3 to try the foobar double-blind ABX plugin mentioned above. That will definitely put your mind to rest on your choice of formats either way (there's a big difference in storage requirements!). It's easy to hear differences when you know what you are listening to but not so easy when you don't know and have to match A/B to X/Y! My equipment is not that great and my hearing is certainly not what it used to so I can only speak for myself but I'd love to see a log from an ABX test from someone who believes they can consistently tell the difference between Flac and 320 or v0 mp3s! I know that some can but I'm guessing not as many as think they can. Give it a try if you haven't!