[jamvanman]

To my ears, wav files clearly sound nicer than mp3 files encoded at 80kbps, but the differences seem much harder to detect at 128kbps. I have only tried this with a few songs, though, and was wondering whether the differences in the sound quality of audio formats is more apparent for some songs than for others?

 

[G-FORCE]

Technically the difference in quality is there - with wav winning, but its really down to the individual's sensitivity - Most people, infact a lot cannot tell the difference at 128kbps - however those who really are sensitive will be able to tell the difference...

Yeah the type of music could have some influence - which is why if you are experimenting you should use all types of music...

I still regard the ATRAC format highly, but real shame it hasnt taken off to the growth of mp3!

 

[AdamWill]

g-force: aac and vorbis are both better than atrac, and have the benefit of being marginally (in the case of aac) and hugely (in the case of vorbis) less proprietary than atrac, which is wholly owned by sony.

 

[Tim D]

Yes sound quality for encoders is dependent on the original signal.

And actually 128kbs is very easy I think for most people here to distinguish. Or at the very least I have been able to do so blind. The only way it would be hard is if I had absolutely no concept of what the original sounds are supposed to sound like and they are simply warbly sounding synthetic simple tones...than maybe I wouldn't be able to tell (again if no one told me what the reference sound was supposed to sound like).

 

[dallasstar]

The difference becomes about indistinguishable at 256kbs for me. The difference between 128 and 256 is readily apparent to me with my better headphones, but with cheap speakers/headphones, I can see why it would by nearly impossible to distinguish.

 

[jamvanman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim D ......And actually 128kbs is very easy I think for most people here to distinguish...

Do you find this is the case with nearly all music, or more so for some things and less for others ?

 

[jamvanman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallasstar The difference becomes about indistinguishable at 256kbs for me. The difference between 128 and 256 is readily apparent to me with my better headphones, but with cheap speakers/headphones, I can see why it would by nearly impossible to distinguish.

Would it depend on the set up of my computer (sound card etc) ? Maybe i should be trying it out more on my JB3 (where everything is just lame aps).

 

[Tim D]

I figure lower bit-rate encodings are more suitable towards lots of music with synthetic tones (trance, electronica) but will do poorly on (believe it or not) metal, complex orchestral music, etc. Not to mention if it is real instrument or vocal music that you are familiar with it is much easier to differentiate because you can simply say, hey that isn't supposed to warble or sound like that. Since my preference leans towards the latter, my minimum preferred encoding is 192 VBR with Lame (i.e. standard preset I believe) with some marks off for being CBR at that bitrate, and many marks off for being stereo instead of joint stereo. I won't hold onto anything less, and if anything I'm being pretty lenient in my standards compared to some.

 

[AdamWill]

classical music's definitely the hardest to encode. BTW, someone linked a very interesting scientific comparison between 128K MP3, 256K MP3 and the source file in another thread. Wish I could find the link again. Sigh.

 

[jamvanman]

yes, that makes quite a difference. Using a couple of tracks from Dream Theater 'Live at Budokan' the difference b/w 128kbps and WAV was quite obvious. But for some less detailed stuff from the 1970s (Pavlov's Dog 'At the Sound of the Bell') there seemed less in it.

Regardless, maybe even quite subtle improvements in sound quality may prove less fatiguing over the course of an hour or two.

 

[Sinbios]

personally, i can't tell a difference between 320kbps vbr mp3's and lossless formats, but i know some people who won't listen to anything other than lossless :/

 

[Faelix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill classical music's definitely the hardest to encode. BTW, someone linked a very interesting scientific comparison between 128K MP3, 256K MP3 and the source file in another thread. Wish I could find the link again. Sigh.

Actually, classical music is easier to encode. Try encoding losslessly both classical and pop tracks, in order to see this point. When you try quality-based VBR modes from several lossy codecs (MP3, MPC, AAC, Ogg Vorbis), you can also verify this fact.

The trouble is in other place, here. In classical music, the artifacts of lossy compression are easier to hear and detect. So, people who listen to this kind of music tends do adopt higher bitrates to keep themselves safe.

By the way, the link is http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html.

 

[bigshot]

The music I have had the most trouble with artifacting are 50s pop vocals from Capitol records. The dry sheen of the strings is very complex, and can quickly turn to gurgle. Most classical music has a little more distance to the miking, and the reverb acoustic hides some of the complexity, making it a little bit less touchy. Acoustic jazz, heavy metal, super well produced music like Steely Dan and Joni Mitchell require a medium setting. Electronic music is the most tolerant of heavy compression because there is no reference to the sound.

See ya
Steve

 

[AdamWill]

faelix: that's what I meant. My apologies for being imprecise.

 

[Jon L]

It's also worth noting that these differences are MUCH more noticeable on a good 2-channel speaker setup vs. good headphones.

There are differences between apple lossless/itunes vs. wav/foobar that are so much easier to hear via revealing speakers than good headphones (K1000, ER4 in my case). Subtle spatial cues, soundstage positioning/clarity, true bass coupling tend to really reveal sound differences through revealing speakers.