[Ra97oR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedSky0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I strain I can tell a difference between 128 and FLAC on some songs. Otherwise it sounds the same to me. V0 saves on space by almost completely cutting frequencies above 20k which you shouldn't be able to hear anyway, and marginally reducing detail from 16k to 20k. V2 does the same except cuts more off in the 16k to 20k region. Considering that a lot of songs simply don't have a lot of detail in that range, I can't help calling baloney on people who claim the difference between 320 and FLAC is night and day. I mean and that's just an indisputable fact in some cases. Here's a jazz song: No way you'd be able to tell the difference between FLAC and V2. Here's a piano solo: Again, absolutely no way you can hear the difference, probably even with far lower bitrates. (Taken from Spectral Comparisons) Here, you can see what I mean for yourself too. Turn the volume down so you don't deafen yourself and click on 16k. Do you really think you're missing out on anything by having a slight amount of detail cut from frequencies above this point? I do not think so. Equal loudness contours and audiometry - Test your own hearing So anyway, my point is, don't stress, you're not the only one.

I can clearly hear the 16K tone... And... it hurts... D:

(I enjoy 30hz for some reason...

)

Also to me, aac 320 is rather good, with 320 mp3 it kinda lacks the "sparky sound" at the very top.

 

[West726]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commanderloochy /img/forum/go_quote.gif . I started this thread to make sure that it was the headphones that weren't allowing me to hear the difference.

Well, there are several variables here -- the files, the source, the headphones, and your ears (among others). You say your files are good, so that's that. I think your headphones aren't good, and most here will agree. We could speculate on the source. But the most important variable is your ears, and I don't have any experience with them. Bottom line: who knows?

 

[mritt400]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedSky0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I strain I can tell a difference between 128 and FLAC on some songs. Otherwise it sounds the same to me. V0 saves on space by almost completely cutting frequencies above 20k which you shouldn't be able to hear anyway, and marginally reducing detail from 16k to 20k. V2 does the same except cuts more off in the 16k to 20k region. Considering that a lot of songs simply don't have a lot of detail in that range, I can't help calling baloney on people who claim the difference between 320 and FLAC is night and day. I mean and that's just an indisputable fact in some cases. Here's a jazz song: No way you'd be able to tell the difference between FLAC and V2. Here's a piano solo: Again, absolutely no way you can hear the difference, probably even with far lower bitrates. (Taken from Spectral Comparisons) Here, you can see what I mean for yourself too. Turn the volume down so you don't deafen yourself and click on 16k. Do you really think you're missing out on anything by having a slight amount of detail cut from frequencies above this point? I do not think so. Equal loudness contours and audiometry - Test your own hearing So anyway, my point is, don't stress, you're not the only one.

So, what is the point in ripping music any higher than say MP3 @ 128kbps? So the lossy v. lossless quandry is a farce? An aural illusion?

 

[nullstring]

Some things just don't compress well in MP3's. I find that I can hear artifacts in cymbals with lossy compressions. lossy compressions also have an overall lack of crispness. You can hear "sizzles" and such where you shouldn't.

I can usually only hear a difference if I A & B them though, unless it's 128K or so, then it's more obvious. after 192K it becomes hard. And by the time it's 320, I can't tell any difference at all.

Course, my rig is hardly great at all.

 

[Commanderloochy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by West726 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, there are several variables here -- the files, the source, the headphones, and your ears (among others). You say your files are good, so that's that. I think your headphones aren't good, and most here will agree. We could speculate on the source. But the most important variable is your ears, and I don't have any experience with them. Bottom line: who knows?

Source is my computer, macbook pro, through the headphone jack. Good point though, all we can do is speculate. Hopefully after Christmas I'll have a decent setup and better headphones.

 

[catscratch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commanderloochy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just to clarify: I know bose are poor headphones. I started this thread to make sure that it was the headphones that weren't allowing me to hear the difference.

The headphones are likely the main culprit. Bose stuff is pre-tuned to average customer expectations and is not very revealing, in fact it's usually made to hide flaws instead. But the music could be a factor too - simple music like smooth jazz is largely useless for evaluation purposes and is not affected by compression to the same extent as, say, minimally-mic'd symphonic classical. Generally transients are hit the hardest by compression, and genres in which transients play a huge role are affected the most (typically the genres that have a lot of multiple parallel instruments and a lot of spatial information).

I wouldn't worry too much about it. In fact, if you don't hear a major difference on the K702/compass I still wouldn't worry too much about it. It takes a certain level and more importantly a certain type of gear for the difference to become night and day.

However if you find yourself enjoying listening to lossless more and can't explain why, it could be listener fatigue which lossy compression AFAIK can induce. DBT won't pick this up but it is flawed in that it only takes into account the short term, not enough time to induce fatigue in the first place.

 

[lilkoolaidman]

The QC2s use noise cancellation which puts in a counteractive (in lack of a better word) wave that cancels out outside noise, but doesn't allow very good detail and sound reproduction. The QC2s are designed to cancel noise, and that, they do well but they just don't have the sound reproduction needed to hear the differences between 162 and flac. Not to mention they could have a high impedance and low sensitivity.

Try some more revealing headphones, and see if you can't hear the difference the 162kbps's highs should sound more wishy-washy than the flac's which should sound more crisp and detailed. Also, try a different song.

 

[Commanderloochy]

Thanks for all the replies, and helping me clear this up. So the general consensus is: The bose q2 aren't good enough to reveal the difference, and the difference is subtle even with good headphones.

Btw if anyone was curious I was using Nine Inch Nails to try to determine the difference. But I'll admit I didn't listen for very long, and it seems the difference in quality only reveals itself after extensive listening.

 

[applaudio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mritt400 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, what is the point in ripping music any higher than say MP3 @ 128kbps? So the lossy v. lossless quandry is a farce? An aural illusion?

I did a little experiment on my S9 (listening through HD 228 with center foams removed, if you must know) where I listened to a few albums that I had never heard before except from across the room through my brother's tinny Macbook speakers--thus, I had no idea what the bit rates were for individual tracks. As I would discover, some of the tracks were ripped at 128, some were ripped at 192, some were ripped at 256, and some at 320, while others were ripped at various variable bit rates. I was not even listening overly critically, just doing my best to enjoy the music, without paying undue attention to the quality of the rips. Listening to the tracks, I always noticed the very artificial-sounding highs and a general smearing of detail when I came across the 128 kbps tracks, and would think "wow, that one must be 128," and sure enough I was usually right. I would even guess correctly if a song was 192 probably half of the time, maybe more. On those tracks, I could tell it couldn't be as low as 128, because the highs didn't sound crappy enough, yet I could still hear the artificiality in the treble (particularly in cymbals), plus the details and instrument separation weren't quite where they were on some tracks. I could not, however, pick out the differences between 192 VBR, 256 CBR, and 320 CBR, but I expect that's due to the technical limitations of my equipment.

I can't attest to how much of a difference, if any, ripping to FLAC makes, in comparison to MP3 at 320 kbps.

But I can tell you straight up that bit rate absolutely does make a difference. 128 kbps just sounds terrible, IMO. In fact, I usually can't stand to even listen to tracks ripped at 128, the flaws are so painfully apparent to me. I never rip at anything less than 192 VBR, personally.

Edit: The level of fine detail, the number of instruments, the pace of the song, etc., can all affect whether you'll hear a difference between different bit rates. There are some quieter, slower tracks where I would have no idea the bit rate was 128 just by listening. But usually in the heavier rock tracks, and the faster paced stuff, I can pretty easily hear the "blurring" going on, whether I want to or not.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mritt400 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, what is the point in ripping music any higher than say MP3 @ 128kbps? So the lossy v. lossless quandry is a farce? An aural illusion?

You have a valid point. On the other hand, what is there to lose by ripping lossless? I saw a 1.5TB drive going for $90 the other day. Storage is cheap and a lossless rip doesn't take much longer than a lossy one. Ripping lossless is also a safeguard against the future. Today's lossy formats might not be supported by media players five years from now. You never know. But if you've ripped lossless or have CDs, then you'll be able to use them into the forseeable future.

 

[lecky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Simple music like smooth jazz is largely useless for evaluation purposes and is not affected by compression to the same extent as, say, minimally-mic'd symphonic classical. Generally transients are hit the hardest by compression, and genres in which transients play a huge role are affected the most (typically the genres that have a lot of multiple parallel instruments and a lot of spatial information).

It's the transients that are a give away for me. With '80s DT990 600ohm, Heed Canamp and V Dac I get wonderful transient detail when it's presented in the recording or in the file, wonderful spacial, atmospheric detail.
It's only with this setup that the raves about these headphones suddenly started to make sense in a big way.
Actually live jazz recordings are affected as well of course as symphonic classical (and this combination makes up most of my listening these days).

 

[mritt400]

Quote:

Originally Posted by applaudio /img/forum/go_quote.gif 128 kbps just sounds terrible, IMO. In fact, I usually can't stand to even listen to tracks ripped at 128, the flaws are so painfully apparent to me...The level of fine detail, the number of instruments, the pace of the song, etc., can all affect whether you'll hear a difference between different bit rates.

I agree with what you are saying here. I wanted to ask since your previous post claimed: “…absolutely no way you can hear the difference, probably even with far lower bitrates.” Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of this comment.

The “wider” the comparative bitrate gap is certainly makes identifying the differences easier. To me, the differences between 128 or 160 kbps MP3 CBR and FLAC or WAV are as distinct as a punch in the face. Although the closer the variance in bitrate the more difficult the task becomes. Lossless formats offer far more comparatively dynamic, vibrant and seemingly complete reproduction. Lower bitrates seem muddy and flat in comparison. It is always a matter of comparison and familiarity in terms of differentiating between lower quality and higher quality bitrate formats.