Quote:
Originally Posted by catscratch
******
It really does depend on your music. I find that music that has a lot of textured information in the treble is usually a dead giveaway of compression. Strangely enough, electronic music is a good example if it has a lot of transparent treble sounds. On lower-bitrate recordings, these sounds take on a whistly tone that's very characteristic of compression. I can identify compressed recordings pretty easily just by listening to the quality of the treble samples in something like Shpongle's "Tales of the Inexpressible." Also, you can listen to the tonal background, listen "between the notes" so to speak, and you'll hear that lossless has a lot more air and space between each instrument. Separation is better, textures are crisper and are clearer, and everything is more in focus. It's subtle, but it's there.
Here's how I hear it:
With 128k, you're losing massive amounts of soundstage. You can very easily pick out 128 from CD just by the amount of soundstage lost. Textural information is also very much lost and textures are smeared. The whistly tone indicative of compression is very much present. 160k has some soundstage, but it is still very evident. 192k is where soundstage starts being more open, but it's still not CD-like, and you're still getting a lot of compression artifacts. With 224k, you're getting close to CD quality, but with careful listening, you can still pick out the artifacts. Soundstage is pretty good though. With 320k, compression artifacts are at a minimum, though if you know what to listen for you can sometimes spot them. Here, what matters more is instrument separation and tonal background. They are definitely lacking in 320k. But, it's pretty subtle, and you do need a good system to hear it, together with music where it matters.
My .02
P.S. If you can't hear it, then don't worry about it. Alternatively, start listening to lossless for about a week, then switch back to lossy once you've trained your ears to lossless. Perhaps you'll pick it up.
|
If it takes weeks of training and then *maybe*, just *maybe* he'll be able to discern very little differences (and that's *only* with very high high high end gear) and it has to be a good day... How the hell can someone claim "anything below 256 Kbps is crap"
We're not talking 64 Kbps... we're talking 256 Kbps!
This isn't about wether you can hear differences or not... this is about wether "anything below 256 Kbps is crap."
Now, reread my post because I think you misread me.
My post:
"Practice your techniques on lying straight in someone's face
"Anything below 256 Kbps is crap" is a lie... or that person is disillusioned
You pick one.
1. Lie
2. Be out of touch with reality"
I was responding specifically to the people that would claim anything below 256 Kbps is crap.
if you still disagree I'll use some logic
If: <256Kpbs == crap
Then:
"P.S. If you can't hear it, then don't worry about it. Alternatively, start listening to lossless for about a week, then switch back to lossy once you've trained your ears to lossless. Perhaps you'll pick it up."
==
"P.S. If you can't hear
[the differences between the original CD and crap], then don't worry about it. Alternatively, start listening to lossless for about a week, then switch back to
[crap] once you've trained your ears to lossless. Perhaps you'll pick it up
[the differences between the Original CD and crap]."
Oh yea... and in response to your post
I can roll my eyes more than you!