[Duggeh]

Your first problem is that the HD280 is rubbish.

Your second problem is that after hundreds of hours you didn't spot this.

 

[BigTony]

One should always remember that older mp3 compression wasn't just about reducing bitrate and cutting off high-freq. it also added a boost to the lower freq. to provide a 'more realistic' sound. I can tell when my server has picked an mp3 out of the bag, mainly due to the extra bass boost and the mushyness of higher frequencies (percussion suffers quite a bit).

Try listening to lossless for a few hours, then drop in an mp3 .. you'll notice it.

 

[REB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif OFT.

OFT?

OFTOffice of Fair Trading (UK)
OFTOffice for Technology
OFTOperational Flight Trainer
OFTOrbital Flight Test
OFTOne-Way Function Tree
OFTOptical Fiber Thermometer
OFTOuter Fix Time
OFTOperational Field Test
OFTOperational Feasibility Test
OFTObserved Fire Training
OFTOperational Feasibility Testing
OFTOn-Board Footprinter
OFTOphir Forex Trading
OFTOver Fill Trip
OFT Open Field Test

 

[olblueyez]

Q

 

[moonboy403]

QFT...

There.

 

[Cynips]

I was unsure about which one to pick in that test, but apparently picked the right one. To me, that sample sounded like it had better dynamics, difficult to hear any difference in the hight-hat though.

Remember really old mp3's where there was a mile of difference between 128 and 160 even. A cymbal in 128 would sound more like some digital effect than a real instrument. Listened to a excerpt from Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring just yesterday and was surprised to find that it sounded very good. Guess it's these better encoding schemes you're talking about. There still are absolutely horrendous modern 128 rips out there. Things that sound like they took a pillow and put over the mic and then upsampled it from a 32 kbps rip

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynips /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was unsure about which one to pick in that test, but apparently picked the right one. To me, that sample sounded like it had better dynamics, difficult to hear any difference in the hight-hat though. Remember really old mp3's where there was a mile of difference between 128 and 160 even. A cymbal in 128 would sound more like some digital effect than a real instrument. Listened to a excerpt from Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring just yesterday and was surprised to find that it sounded very good. Guess it's these better encoding schemes you're talking about. There still are absolutely horrendous modern 128 rips out there. Things that sound like they took a pillow and put over the mic and then upsampled it from a 32 kbps rip

Did you hear a slight distortion at about 14 seconds on one of them?

 

[bergman2]

I'm sorry...I thought this was a poll question...

 

[GeckoSlayer]

The other day I was doing some ABX testing in Foobar.

Realised I could tell the difference (10/10) between 128 and 192.

10/10 for 192 and 256

7/10 for 256 and 320



Then I switched over to AAC....

Haha.. 128kbps VBR compared to 320 CBR mp3...
4/10 to the 320 CBR. Pretty much proving (to my ears at least) that 128 AAC VBR is pretty incredible.

I found similar with ogg, but got 7/10 to the 320 CBR.

I keep all my music in FLAC for archival purposes, and to re-encode my music when major revisions of encoders are released..

 

[Cynips]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you hear a slight distortion at about 14 seconds on one of them?

If I listen closely and compare the two there is a (mid-range) difference there, something that is just absent in the 320 sample, but that was definitely not how I decided. Honestly, I think my choice was kinda random. After, I took the "But Can You Hear THIS?" test and failed to hear anything above 15KHz. But then again, I AM 45 years old.

 

[REB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif QFT... There.

Aha. Thanks

.

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynips /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I listen closely and compare the two there is a (mid-range) difference there, something that is just absent in the 320 sample, but that was definitely not how I decided. Honestly, I think my choice was kinda random. After, I took the "But Can You Hear THIS?" test and failed to hear anything above 15KHz. But then again, I AM 45 years old.

I can hear clearly up to 18 khz.