[Àedhàn Cassiel]

So what's the consensus on which file types and bitrates have total fidelity to human ears at the lowest file size? Can we make a list of what's compromised, what's not, and of the what's not, what's most space-efficient?

 

[Blackwoof]

So what's the consensus on which file types and bitrates have total fidelity to human ears at the lowest file size? Can we make a list of what's compromised, what's not, and of the what's not, what's most space-efficient?

For AAC & Vorbis = 140 kbps, Lame MP3 = V3(170 kbps), Opus 1.3 = 80 kbps.

 

[bigshot]

So what's the consensus on which file types and bitrates have total fidelity to human ears at the lowest file size? Can we make a list of what's compromised, what's not, and of the what's not, what's most space-efficient?

I have a test that compares Frau MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC at 192, 256 and 320. The difference at 192 is very small, but some people can detect it if they concentrate. From the people who have taken my test, Frau 320, LAME 256 and AAC 256 seem to be transparent to everyone. If you added VBR, you might be able to take it down one more notch.

Personally, I use AAC 256 VBR for everything. Haven't had any artifacting at all.

 

[Blackwoof]

I have a test that compares Frau MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC at 192, 256 and 320. The difference at 192 is very small, but some people can detect it if they concentrate. From the people who have taken my test, Frau 320, LAME 256 and AAC 256 seem to be transparent to everyone. If you added VBR, you might be able to take it down one more notch.

Personally, I use AAC 256 VBR for everything. Haven't had any artifacting at all.

Vorbis at 140kbps VBR, 95% of my collection is tranparent to me. Anything complex is 192k and above since it let's me not stress my 64GB sd card. With AAC some ambient music i listen to needs 224kbps to sound fine while Vorbis dosen't have that problem.

 

[bigshot]

I’m talking about the best that anyone did. Many people were fine at 192 across the board. Sorry, I didn’t make it clear that I was talking about top scores.

 

[old tech]

Sorry to be pedantic, but isn't it possible to put 320 content into a flac file? Should the subject heading be 320 v Lossless rather than 320 v Flac?

 

[Blackwoof]

Sorry to be pedantic, but isn't it possible to put 320 content into a flac file? Should the subject heading be 320 v Lossless rather than 320 v Flac?

Saying that i agree, There Wavpack hybrid which can be really good at 384kbps and tranparent at 512kbps assuming forced dynamic noise shaping switch is on. To stop artists like Merzbow/Epica sounding wrong.

Yes but i really hope many know not to do that anymore since there no point on lossy in a desktop area anymore. Since fake lossless files were common because people used 320 mp3 to cheat on 256GB HDDs in 2006?.

 

[stonesfan129]

I really like Opus but there are just so few players that support it. Besides, I have space for FLAC on my portables anyway.

 

[TheGiantHogweed]

I've found that with most of the sort of music I listen to, it just isn't worth having CD quality flac over 320kbp mp3. I use a FiiO X3 and have nearly 7500 tracks taking up 90.4GB. The vast majority are Mp3s as the bitrate i mentioned. Most of what I listen to is from before 2000 and I don't think recording quality has improved significantly anyway, at least only on a very limited number of artists. I find that especially if you have a portable player and are out and about, the sound quality difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and 16bit flac will be absolutely tiny. That, the compatibility with other older devices and the file size difference is the reason I go with Mp3.

 

[bigshot]

I'm the same. I did extensive tests before I built my music server because I have over 25,000 CDs. I didn't want to rip twice, and I didn't want to have to transcode to load my phone. I settled on AAC 256 VBR. It's completely transparent with any recording I throw at it, it's compact and it plays on everything I have to play it on. I can fit my entire music library (pushing on two years worth of music) on a single hard drive. That makes it easier to back up. The CDs are all in boxes in the garage now.

 

[Sam L]

I've found that with most of the sort of music I listen to, it just isn't worth having CD quality flac over 320kbp mp3. I use a FiiO X3 and have nearly 7500 tracks taking up 90.4GB. The vast majority are Mp3s as the bitrate i mentioned. Most of what I listen to is from before 2000 and I don't think recording quality has improved significantly anyway, at least only on a very limited number of artists. I find that especially if you have a portable player and are out and about, the sound quality difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and 16bit flac will be absolutely tiny. That, the compatibility with other older devices and the file size difference is the reason I go with Mp3.

I'm curious if your observations re: cd quality flac vs. 320kbp mp3 holds true when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc? I'm debating whether I should pull the trigger on something other than Spotify but have held off because the rest of my family doesn't want to switch from Spotify and could care less about lossless audio.

during the covid era, I've started listening more critically to classical music again and I've noticed some artifacts from time to time on Spotify. I'm thinking of looking at primephonic or idagio

 

[magicalmouse]

I'm curious if your observations re: cd quality flac vs. 320kbp mp3 holds true when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc? I'm debating whether I should pull the trigger on something other than Spotify but have held off because the rest of my family doesn't want to switch from Spotify and could care less about lossless audio.

I had tidal lossless and spotify premium together for a few days (subscription overlap) and i did notice a slight difference but this may be due to different masters being used or even placebo - it would be intersting to hear a range of observations - imo differences may occur when listened to carefully through good equipment in a quiet room but portably out and about not likely.

d

 

[TheGiantHogweed]

I'm curious if your observations re: cd quality flac vs. 320kbp mp3 holds true when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc? I'm debating whether I should pull the trigger on something other than Spotify but have held off because the rest of my family doesn't want to switch from Spotify and could care less about lossless audio.

during the covid era, I've started listening more critically to classical music again and I've noticed some artifacts from time to time on Spotify. I'm thinking of looking at primephonic or idagio

I think Spotify uses 320kpbs ogg format. Oggs are slightly better than Mp3s. I think it will be pretty hard again to tell a difference between spotify and CD quality other than things related to the device you are using.

I used to think there was a bigger difference, but it is only when you really try to think about the difference that it is really noticeable. The one and only 24bit album I have is barely any better than hearing it on spotify. And I think that is because it never was amazingly produced in the first place IMO. Classical music especially (if it is old) I would see very little benifit. The last big step in my view is goign up from 160kbps to 320. Then from there upwards the quality differences are so small you need to do some extremely careful listening to notice obvious differences. A lot of the time, I don't see how it is worth the extra storage space myself. I will admit it is better, but barely. A limited amount of very advanced modern music that is exceptionally recorded may benefit more from this.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Most of what I listen to is from before 2000 and I don't think recording quality has improved significantly anyway, at least only on a very limited number of artists.
[2] I find that especially if you have a portable player and are out and about, the sound quality difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and 16bit flac will be absolutely tiny.

1. As a general trend, recording quality has decreased since "before 2000", although there maybe some exceptions.

2. We need to be careful here! The "sound quality difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a 16bit flac" will actually be relatively large but will also be inaudible.

[1] I'm curious if your observations re: cd quality flac vs. 320kbp mp3 holds true when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc?
[2] during the covid era, I've started listening more critically to classical music again and I've noticed some artifacts from time to time on Spotify. I'm thinking of looking at primephonic or idagio

1. His observations broadly agree with the demonstrated science, that the difference is inaudible. Therefore, "when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc" one can discount the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless BUT, one can't discount the possibility of different masters, which of course are deliberately designed to sound different.

2. But of course we have to ask what's causing you to "notice some artefacts". It is possible though unlikely, that it's actually due to MP3 encoding, for example a transcode or possibly even an MP3 created with a very old MP3 algorithm. Although it's also possible (though also unlikely) that a lossless version is a transcode. Far more likely, is some problem with your internet connection or the internet itself, in which case swapping music service won't help or, some problem with Spotify's internet connection or servers, in which case swapping services could help, assuming they don't have a similar issue. And, without a controlled listening test, placebo always has a good possibility/probability of being the cause.

[1] The last big step in my view is goign up from 160kbps to 320.
[2] Then from there upwards the quality differences are so small you need to do some extremely careful listening to notice obvious differences.

1. Potentially this is true. Although it does depend on the type of music and the exact MP3 encoder employed. Using one of the modern MP3 encoders, this step would typically be rather small or inaudible but not necessarily always.

2. Actually, it's rather the reverse. Using a modern MP3 encoder at 320kbps, an "extremely careful listening" test will reveal no audible differences at all, let alone "obvious differences". However, a far less careful listening test, for example a sighted test, could result in obvious differences being noticed (due to perceptual biases/placebo).

G

 

[TheGiantHogweed]

1. As a general trend, recording quality has decreased since "before 2000", although there maybe some exceptions.

2. We need to be careful here! The "sound quality difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a 16bit flac" will actually be relatively large but will also be inaudible.



1. His observations broadly agree with the demonstrated science, that the difference is inaudible. Therefore, "when considering Spotify premium vs. lossless streaming ala tidal etc" one can discount the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless BUT, one can't discount the possibility of different masters, which of course are deliberately designed to sound different.

2. But of course we have to ask what's causing you to "notice some artefacts". It is possible though unlikely, that it's actually due to MP3 encoding, for example a transcode or possibly even an MP3 created with a very old MP3 algorithm. Although it's also possible (though also unlikely) that a lossless version is a transcode. Far more likely, is some problem with your internet connection or the internet itself, in which case swapping music service won't help or, some problem with Spotify's internet connection or servers, in which case swapping services could help, assuming they don't have a similar issue. And, without a controlled listening test, placebo always has a good possibility/probability of being the cause.



1. Potentially this is true. Although it does depend on the type of music and the exact MP3 encoder employed. Using one of the modern MP3 encoders, this step would typically be rather small or inaudible but not necessarily always.

2. Actually, it's rather the reverse. Using a modern MP3 encoder at 320kbps, an "extremely careful listening" test will reveal no audible differences at all, let alone "obvious differences". However, a far less careful listening test, for example a sighted test, could result in obvious differences being noticed (due to perceptual biases/placebo).

G

I sometimes do wonder why a great deal of music (especially popular stuff) sounds so poorly recorded / mixed these days. Especially if you conciser the capabilities of modern technology. Honestly, barely anything new that I know beats pink floyd from 45 years ago. A lot doesn't even sound remotely close to it. One of the main improvements I notice with modern stuff is very little or no background hiss. I don't know a great deal about the newer stuff out there, but in general, i find the popular music to sound like it has been recorded to sound sharp and clear right from phone speakers. Then when you listen to it with decent audio equipment, it sounds really badly tuned. The charts on spotify are an example of this. Admittedly, I very much dislike the style of most, but that isn't related to the way it is recorded. But I do wonder why so many artists that have so much money have them recorded in what sounds like they can't afford proper recording equipment - or the electronic sounds just sound like that in the first place.
One track that i actually happen to like the tune of is "Blinding Lights" by "The Weekend". But this is an example of what in my opinion is very badly recorded. The beatbox style drums i can accept as that may be deliberate (although not really my thing), but the synth, bass other sounds seem to have a really poor slightly muddy sound, almost like they are recorded from a tape. This may be 80s style music, but I know a large amount of bands from the 80s that had their recordings sound significantly better than this. I can accept strange recordings if music is pretty old, or clearly not that advanced yet, but so much modern stuff out there almost seems to be deliberately done like this and I just don't get why. If it was done better, it isn't like those who listen on their phones will care, and those who appreciate decent sound will actually be able to enjoy it more.
There are still a few more modern bands that i listen to, but are usually far less well known and have been heavily influenced by artists long ago. In my opinion, those are often the ones that tend to have better recordings.

Sorry for going on a rant about that! But it is an interesting topic.








Oh yea i could have worded that better. I agree it certainly will be a lot better, and that is possibly why a lot of people always use the better option, but the audible difference in a lot of situations is what is tiny.







I used to believe i could hear more differences than I actually can. It wasn't just the file size that made me put all my CDs on my FiiO x3 as 320kbps Mp3s, it was that i could hear no or little difference. With a really good CD player, listening to it direct could well have a noticeable difference with my headphones compared to an Mp3 on my X3 in that case, but I think that will be more related to the quality of the device than the format. I don't think I did thourough enough testing such as ripping a disk as a wav or flac and listening to that and the same disk as a 320kbps mp3 on my X3. I almost wonder if I would notice a difference there now.