[c001m4n]

I believe in a double blinded test it would be very hard to distinguish between the two formats. It is possible to hear the differences a-b'ing between the formats of the same music. A true audiophile will always go for the "original", not because it sounds better, but it is the way it was meant to sound.

 

[amartignano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by all2ofme I do my mp3s at 192VBR or better (though never more than 256VBR). I can sometimes tell the difference between them, but not between them and the original CDs.

Logically impossible.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse40902 I have some Flac music in my computer. I was thinking either 320kbs or 192kbs for my mp3.....I just wanted to know will there be a major difference. Either way, I need to encode the Flac to mp3... Anybody know any easy way?

Foobar can transcode from Flac to mp3. Use LAME's -V2 setting (equivalent of --alt-preset standard in older versions of LAME) and you'll end up with VBR files that are roughly the size of a 192kbps CBR file, but at a substantially higher quality.

 

[all2ofme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amartignano Logically impossible.

Ha! You're right - I wasn't very clear. I can sometimes tell the difference between 192 and 256, but never between the 256 and the originals.

 

[amartignano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by all2ofme Ha! You're right - I wasn't very clear. I can sometimes tell the difference between 192 and 256, but never between the 256 and the originals.

Ok!

Sorry for my laziness in trying to understand

bye
Andrew

 

[Silent117]

Hi,

download foobar in the newest version of it (0.9). Then use the ABX testing feature. I could swear i hear a difference between VBR 2 Lame mp3´s and wavs. But i´ve blindtested this and i was wrong.

All you hear is probably Placebo effect (your brain tells you that its better because it should sound better.).

I noticed that i got a placebo effect. You should test it too!

put 2 files in foobar (drag + drog) and select both songs (just those 2 songs) and rightklick. Then you´ll find ABX testing.

Hope this can helps ya.

For me: I´ll never use flac or wav again , simply because i can´t tell the differnce.

 

[PeeeMeS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by c001m4n A true audiophile will always go for the "original", not because it sounds better, but it is the way it was meant to sound.

Isn't that a true purist? That doesn't make you a "true audiophile"

 

[mattg3]

Im over 50 so my hearing is probably not that great after all those 60s concerts but 96bit mp3 from my creative zen is pretty damn listenable for me and direct comparisons to cd are hard for me to tell.Remember though that i grew up with mono and sterio lps and cassette tapes and cds came up later in life for me so having 10 thousand songs at 96 bits wma works for me.Guess this is the only benefit i can find from growing old.

 

[Purgatos]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattg3 96bit mp3 from my creative zen is pretty damn listenable for me and direct comparisons to cd are hard for me to tell.

Just how loud were those 60s concerts?

 

[amartignano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattg3 Im over 50 so my hearing is probably not that great after all those 60s concerts but 96bit mp3 from my creative zen is pretty damn listenable for me and direct comparisons to cd are hard for me to tell.Remember though that i grew up with mono and sterio lps and cassette tapes and cds came up later in life for me so having 10 thousand songs at 96 bits wma works for me.Guess this is the only benefit i can find from growing old.

I'm happy you can spare so much space, but 96kbs wma is really *bad* in audiophile terms. But not only... artifacts and artifact and more artifacts, plus "sflized" transients (onomatopeic expression, created now... the transient ar not "t" but "sflz"), and no image at all. At least 192 kbs, then we can begin to speak about hifi (not really in my opinion, but at least...).

I know it's so "cool" to have mp3, but it is a wonderful thing to search quality... (it also improve the emotion to listen to music)

bye
Andrew

 

[mattg3]

As loud as it took to make 96bit listenable and thats using PA2V2 with dt990 pro.Nothing i can do about it now.Would be great if something existed that took your original ripped bit rate and changed it without having to start again.Creative has some software that claims it does this but many have reported it actually makes things worse.

 

[amartignano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattg3 As loud as it took to make 96bit listenable and thats using PA2V2 with dt990 pro.Nothing i can do about it now.Would be great if something existed that took your original ripped bit rate and changed it without having to start again.Creative has some software that claims it does this but many have reported it actually makes things worse.

It's impossible (if I've understood), once you have ripped to a xxx kbs bitrate mpeg3 format (mp3, wma or whatever), you have lost information, no way to go back (if it was possible, it will be a lossless compression, and it isn't).

Andrew

 

[mixxxer]

I do a lot of sound editing on pc's - so the other day I spent some time testing.

I took one of my cd's and ripped a song @ 320CBR, 256CBR, 192CBR,128CBR and 96CBR in Adobe Audition 2.0. using Fraunhofer mp3 coedc.

I then loaded the 5 tracks into the multitrack editor and starting some investigating. First using MY ears, in MY earphones I found that from 320 to 192 there wasn't much difference. However - as was noted earlier in this thread - 320 seems almost more piercing in the cymbals. weird. 128 and below i could hear the cymbals drwoning in the rest of the music..

BTW I was using a somewhat 'heavy; song, with lots of cymbasl etc - it was the band Scissorfight, the song is Dredge. (i listen to heavy music so this was a good test track for me to compare).

once I was done listening - a started a close magnification and compare of the wave displays of the tracks. 320 to 192 to almost identical. but below that - you could actually see the less definition in the waveform in between snare/bass drum. on a magnified level - the waveforms were more 'rounded' and not as sharp as the higher bit rates.

This is just to my ears, and to my eyes. But - seeing is believing...

 

[Febs]

Why would you expect the waveforms to look the same when you've processed the tracks with a lossy codec? The issue is not whether an MP3 contains the same information as an uncompressed track. Clearly, it does not. The issue is whether the information that is discarded during the encoding process causes a difference in sound perceptible to the ear, not the eye.

 

[mixxxer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs The issue is whether the information that is discarded during the encoding process causes a difference in sound perceptible to the ear, not the eye.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

I was trying to say that each lower bitrate had more degradation of the waveform original source (obviously) - but my ears could not pick up much difference until I hit below 192.

So While I could SEE differences, I could not HEAR them until a certain level. that's all. not very scientific and just for fun.