LAME MP3 supports 24-bit audio but only at 44.1KHz meaning the dynamic range is the same, At V2 the bit rate will reach 240 ~ 320k at louder parts. Doing forced -Y stops It stealing bits from under 16KHz when It not needed, Much better than doing hard 16KHz lowpass.
FLAC vs. 320 Mp3
- Thread starter IcedUP
- Start date
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
A decent bit rate will bypass the lowpass won't it? AAC doesn't have lowpass at 192 and above. Just do it 256 VBR and LAME should be fine.
danadam
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
- Posts
- 154
- Likes
- 116
In case of lame it will affect it but only V0 (which is the same as preset insane) will disable it. There is a table here: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php/LAME#Recommended_settings_details
MakeshiftApe
100+ Head-Fier
Personally like many audiophiles say: I trust my own ears.
...and I've done the various A/B tests between the two and can't pick out a difference between the two. In fact in all honesty, while something like 128kbps clearly sounds awful to me, I think once you reach 192kbps, my ears at least aren't good enough to hear the difference.
When it comes to downloaded/offline music, since storage is cheap and abundant these days, I'll still go for the best quality I can find, i.e. usually FLAC, but most of my listening is done via Spotify, so 320kbps AAC.
To me the bigger thing when it comes to audio quality is trying to find the version of song that has the best dynamic range and wasn't compressed to death by the loudness wars.
...and I've done the various A/B tests between the two and can't pick out a difference between the two. In fact in all honesty, while something like 128kbps clearly sounds awful to me, I think once you reach 192kbps, my ears at least aren't good enough to hear the difference.
When it comes to downloaded/offline music, since storage is cheap and abundant these days, I'll still go for the best quality I can find, i.e. usually FLAC, but most of my listening is done via Spotify, so 320kbps AAC.
To me the bigger thing when it comes to audio quality is trying to find the version of song that has the best dynamic range and wasn't compressed to death by the loudness wars.
Ryokan
Headphoneus Supremus
Oh chimps are not monkeys, learnt something from the science forum today 
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
All of our knowledge is evolving!
Davesrose
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,544
- Likes
- 383
Humans are part of the great ape family as well. So not all great apes think alike
Tell me about it. Take my brother in law for example …Humans are part of the great ape family as well. So not all great apes think alike
Been A/B'ing 128kbps AAC(Apple, --quality 64) vs 192kbps LAME MP3. They both sound the same with AAC-LC actually sounding cleaner. When i used Noise/Experimental as stress test AAC at 128kbps would reach 275kbps with upper max being 320kbps in heavy sections.
Starting to think --quality 64 is more stable than 96 as I get no distortions from View from Nhil(HNW at It most Ambient). Noticed It uses 17KHz lowpass which ironically gives a gain over Opus at 128kbps since It not running into 16KHz ~ 22KHz stealing bits, But I view AAC being 1024 x 128 helps as Opus behaves like 576 x 120.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
If you use VBR it doesn't "steal bits", it distributes them to use more where they're needed and less when they aren't. There's absolutely no reason not to use VBR.
musicloverca
New Head-Fier
My experience: when I used entry level audiophile gear I couldn't really hear a difference between lossless formats like FLAC, and any decent MP3 quality level like 192kbits+ - the highest quality setting on Spotify was more than enough for me. Once I got better gear which improved clarity and details (high end headphones, DAC, amp, streamer, power conditioning, better cables) I did actually hear a difference between even relatively good lossless (Spotify highest quality https://support.spotify.com/us/article/audio-quality/ ) and lossless like FLACs from HDTracks and streaming from Qobuz. I was actually surprised by this! I compared the same songs on Spotify and Qobuz, and even when it was 320kbps vs lossless 16/44.1 on a pop track which isn't exactly meant for audiophiles, I noticed a difference!
I'd recommend doing the same experiment yourself: get a 1 month trial of Qobuz, compare the same song to Spotify, and see if you hear a difference. If you don't, great, one less thing to worry about! And if you do, Qobuz is about the same price as Spotify and has almost as big of a library, plus extra versions of albums like 24/96 versions.
I'd recommend doing the same experiment yourself: get a 1 month trial of Qobuz, compare the same song to Spotify, and see if you hear a difference. If you don't, great, one less thing to worry about! And if you do, Qobuz is about the same price as Spotify and has almost as big of a library, plus extra versions of albums like 24/96 versions.
Users who are viewing this thread
