Latest Thread Images

Do you hear the difference? A test
Mar 25, 2008 at 2:55 PM Post #31 of 139
It was easy to notice the 320kbps version. Tho if there was 6 different samples it would be quite hard.
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 2:55 PM Post #32 of 139
I got it right too (for as much as that matters on a single test), but it's interesting to note how close they are. Since the 320 sample would be difficult or impossible for most people to tell from lossless, the fact that 128 is so close to 320 is surprising. So much for 'terrible, unlistenable' 128 kbps...
rolleyes.gif
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 3:12 PM Post #33 of 139
I could tell the difference and I've got an ear infection!
It wasn't a huge difference by any means, just that the 320 just sounded slightly fuller to my one good ear
smily_headphones1.gif

But I'd never have guessed that the bitrates were so far apart. They were very close. I'd have expected the 128 to sound like crap in comparison, but it was very similar to the 320. Hmmm, so does that mean the 320 is almost as crap as the 128, or that the 128 is almost as 'good' as the 320
confused.gif
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 3:22 PM Post #34 of 139
Got it right, but it was almost guessing. Both clips sounded bit bad. Completely flat, no soundstage in either one nor much cymbals where obvious differences do happen.
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 3:36 PM Post #35 of 139
Honestly, 24-bit 48k wavs don't even have the clarity that straight virtual instruments have.

I can tell the difference instantly after I mix a song of mine or listen to it in the cubase 3 form with the tracks running seperately. There is real dynamics lost after a mixdown process most people aren't aware of, which is a good thing. It's usually the reason you EQ stuff to death to hide that lost fidelity. I usually don't do that.....but it's done alot i'm sure.
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM Post #36 of 139
Quote:

Originally Posted by indysmith /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I got it, but i hate that guy's voice.


May "that guy" rest in peace - one of the most recognized singers ever. My clip was Luciano Pavorotti 1935 - 2007, who was your guy?
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM Post #37 of 139
Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif
May "that guy" rest in peace - one of the most recognized singers ever. My clip was Luciano Pavorotti 1935 - 2007, who was your guy?


x2
biggrin.gif


I couldn't hear the difference, even after looking at the 1st spoiler. I never have been able to hear the difference between 128 and lossless. Partly that is because I've not trained my ears to hear the difference. Also because my musical memory is not that good with this type of clip. From everything I've read, the most noticeable difference should be in the percussion. I listen to one clip, hear the percussion, then listen to the singing again, and it wipes out my exact memory of the percussion.

tfarney, IMO it's always safe to rip to lossless. I do and I've never heard the difference. I listen to 128kbs VBR on my iPod, but off of my computer I listen to lossless. A future equipment upgrade and you might be able to hear the difference, at least at a higher bit rate.

Or the other way, MP3 compression becomes better and you can't hear the difference at an even lower bit rate.

I originally ripped at 128 and and am slowly reripping lossless. When I'm though, I'm probably going to need a terabyte for my music
frown.gif
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 6:20 PM Post #38 of 139
Some music lends itself well to lower bitrates, and some doesn't, it depends on the individual song or songs. I have a lot of iTunes 128K music that doesn't sound bad, but it isn't great - even 4 years ago I was ripping CD at 160-192 because I could hear it was better. That also made it easier to sort my ripped music from iTune store by sorting by bit-rate.

I never used iTunes music for my home systems (just ipods) until I got an airport express for the family room and an apple TV for the bedroom a year ago. Then I started to complain it didn't sound as good as a CD.

Once I got my E4c for iPod a year ago, it was also evident that 192 wasn't quite enough for the ipod, and ever since I've been ripping CD's at 320kbps 90% of the time, and only 10% get ripped as Apple lossless if I need a reference CD (I got blasted once for doing a review with 320k MP3). To me 320kbps is 97% of a real CD, and a real CD is 97% of an LP. I am happy with 320kbps if that is all I have.

The main difference I hear between 320kbps and Apple lossless is that final bit or air and ambience between and around instruments, but to me the instruments sound pretty true if mic'd well. It take enough concentration to build up a head-ache trying to pick which is lossless and which is 320kbps. So, lossless is usually reserved for those live performances that can take advantage of that final bit of ambience and dynamics, or for my reference tracks and CD's, or if I have an XRCD, HDCD or K2HD CD to rip (but I don't know if the computer extracts it all, or if I just have to do it because I am a little OCD).

One change I have made since those revelations last year is that now I buy more CD's than downloads again. I will rip 320kbps for the iPods, but listen to the CD when possible or convenient. I will only buy iTunes Plus music at 256k, or from Amazon.com. My $10/mo eMusic subscription lets me get more new age and ambient music or electronic music that I think does fairly well when compressed, that I will often listen to when I go to bed or in the background. That is not the kind of music that I will just sit and listen, just to enjoy the performance.

PS: As for LP, it took me until 1988 before I parted with my turntable after having CD for 4 years, as both CD and LP sounded great through my Polk SDA CRS (which I still have today). I could only hear the difference with my med school friend's Quad electrostatics, and it was extremely subtle. To me it wasn't worth the PITA of having LP's at that point. What I don't miss with my Harmon Kardon linear tracking and Technics turntables with moving coil cartridge was the pops and crackles, and the need to maintain and keep the LP's dust free and trying to not help them warp, and replacing styluses, etc...
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 6:32 PM Post #39 of 139
Yeah...I got it right but this track was very very compressed sounding in both clips. Almost like a mono recording or something. This was a bad clip to do this type of comparison. It almost sounds like they ripped a very old vinyl recording using one of those $100 USB turntables. In an already relatively compressed recording you can't tell much of a difference. I rip my orchestral stuff in wav, and rock music and modern stuff in 256 AAC. IMO 256kbps aac's are plenty good enough for rock pop and pretty much anything else like that, for me at least cause that's what I listen to on my iPod and I don't need much more than that. Classical recordings, however, have a much larger soundstage and need the added headroom that the lossless formats are capable of.
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 6:52 PM Post #41 of 139
Really tough one. I thought I heard some lo-finess in the castanets (I thought it was a tambourine...). I used to use a lot of bad quality samples when I made music before the time of Internet. I may hear something in the beginning of the long singing note too. Got it right.
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 6:55 PM Post #42 of 139
Got it wrong. They both were not of good qual and found it hard to choose. And that voice....ug, my ears were not happy :wink:
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 7:30 PM Post #44 of 139
Yes, got it right. Not so difficult, but I had to plug in my IEM's to hear difference.
 
Mar 25, 2008 at 7:39 PM Post #45 of 139
Saw this over at the Steve Hoffman forums and found the difference very easy to spot even on PC speakers. Quite a lot of digital artifacts in the "B" sample.

It would be more fun if the samples would swap places at random whenever the page was refreshed to rule out lucky guesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top