EddieE
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Posts
- 2,006
- Likes
- 252
Maybe people could post up screen shots of their foobar2k double blind test results on this thread.
Even if you can't hear the difference, FLAC is not for listening, it's for archiving. When MP3 becomes extinct and some other format is used on PMPs, you will be ready.
Quote:If you can't hear the difference between mp3 of any bit rate and FLAC I would suggest that you are probably deaf and wasting your money on expensive headphones
That's pretty inflamatory. I assume you've done some double blind tests yourself?
It's possible to find some samples that mp3 at any bitrate can not make transparent. The codec has always had problems with certain things like transients and pre-echo.
It's also possible to jack down the bitrate far enough that nothing is transparent, and even simple music sounds wrong.
That said those are the extremes. Generally mp3 with a good encoder (read: LAME) around 192kbps or so sounds transparent to most people on most songs on most equipment most of the time. Double blind listening tests show this again and again. If you are specifically looking for it, you can sometimes pick out mp3 vs lossless/source, but it's very hard to do even on good equipment and you have to have a trained ear. That is, you have to have spent time learning exactly what it is that mp3 does wrong and look for it. Even then, if you don't have the source to compare to, it's usually very difficult to notice that anything is wrong.
I've found that auToV 5.7b ogg vorbis is transparent to me as low as q3 (about 118kbps) on the vast majority of my music. That's what I use for portable. I found this out by doing ABX testing and failing it.
If you can pass 10+ ABX tests of Q6 or higher vorbis or -v0 Lame, then more power to you. Congratulations, you've got better hearing than 99.9% of the population, and your prize is having to spend 10x as much on gear as the rest of us to achieve the same aural quality. Ignorance is bliss, no?
*Disclaimer: I do use LAME lossless on my home system simply because I have the storage space to do so and I can transcode it without worrying about artifacting.
What is this "LAME lossless" of which you speak?
Quote:What is this "LAME lossless" of which you speak?
Doh, that should have read FLAC lossless.
Did you ever try to do a blind A/B with FLAC vs. LAME V0 VBR?
Nobody I've ever tested has passed that, including me.
Who knows though, maybe you can?
Quote:Quote:What is this "LAME lossless" of which you speak?
Doh, that should have read FLAC lossless.
Free Lossless Audio Codec Lossless?
In my opinion, if you have the space go for FLAC for peace of mind. Honestly though, I've tried with hundreds of songs to hear the difference between 320kb mp3s and FLAC tracks. Each time I "hear" a difference I eventually boil it down to placebo. I've concluded that (at least to my ears) there is no difference between the two.
Yes.
As opposed to Monkey's Audio Lossless or Apple Lossless or WMA Lossless.
I was specifying that I used lossless at home, as well as which type of lossless, in a single sentence.
If you can't hear the difference between mp3 of any bit rate and FLAC I would suggest that you are probably deaf and wasting your money on expensive headphones
I really hope that is a joke.
i doubt that. it all comes down to the recording from the studio and how it was recorded. there is even amazing recordings in 128kbps mp3 files. if it's a bad recording no matter if it's uncompressed wav or compressed 128kbps it will always sound like crap. i mean it also comes down to how well the software used as well cause badly compressed you can clearly hear the compression artifacts and can be absolutely annoying. that's why i can't listen to youtube sometimes cause how youtube servers compresses the source.
Quote:If you can't hear the difference between mp3 of any bit rate and FLAC I would suggest that you are probably deaf and wasting your money on expensive headphones
Quote:If you can't hear the difference between mp3 of any bit rate and FLAC I would suggest that you are probably deaf and wasting your money on expensive headphones
That's pretty inflamatory. I assume you've done some double blind tests yourself?
i doubt that. it all comes down to the recording from the studio and how it was recorded. there is even amazing recordings in 128kbps mp3 files. if it's a bad recording no matter if it's uncompressed wav or compressed 128kbps it will always sound like crap. i mean it also comes down to how well the software used as well cause badly compressed you can clearly hear the compression artifacts and can be absolutely annoying. that's why i can't listen to youtube sometimes cause how youtube servers compresses the source.
Quote:If you can't hear the difference between mp3 of any bit rate and FLAC I would suggest that you are probably deaf and wasting your money on expensive headphones