1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

FLAC vs 320kbps

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by olear, Jan 28, 2012.
1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. Head Injury

    FYI, that's not what a null test does.
  2. anetode
    Why is it that any criticism of the golden ear myth or any reference to DBT testing taken to mean that the poster has some sort of agenda to convert people to using compression? I couldn't care less what you do with your music, personally I have an archive den full of wax cylinder facsimiles of master tapes in a pressurized humidor.
  3. drez


    Well the null test can prove that there are differences and that the differences are of a level that when isolated is clearly audible.  Put the music back over and it isn't so clearly audible.
    We can probably get hung up on syntax all day, I though my argument was pretty clear back there.
    Man why do i get sucked into these useless threads[​IMG]
  4. Jaywalk3r

    Like this:

    is.null( file.mp3)

    Or do you mean the Ross and Dall Null tests?
  5. drez
    is that a joke?
  6. Jaywalk3r

    Part of it is a joke only those familiar with R or S-plus will fully appreciate.

    I'm pretty sure null test doesn't mean what you think it means.
  7. RexAeterna

    maybe so but how is that? from my understanding FLAC claims to be a lossless codec but it still compresses the original source into the format where wav does no type of compression at all and it just comes straight from the source. wav is completely lossless while flac still does bit of compression from my understanding.
  8. drez


    Yeah went over my head[​IMG]
    I was thinking cancellation by inverting phase of two recordings and then adding the two inverted inverted and in phase copies together.  Not sure what the correct technical term is for this.
  9. Jaywalk3r

    Compression does not imply loss of information. For example, I can write the number 1,000,000 in seven characters (not counting commas) or I can write the same number in only four characters like this: 10^6. Both forms contain exactly the same amount of information, but one requires 75% more space than the other. We could say that the second expression is a lossless compression of the first expression. Lossless only implies 100% of the original information can be recovered.
  10. Jaywalk3r

    That's not what I thought you meant, but …

    The test you describe won't work. It relies on the assumption that any sound that is audible in isolation is also audible when heard among all of the other sounds in the original file, which isn't always true.
  11. anetode


    Yes, the compressed and uncompressed file will not cancel out. Yes, the isolated difference might result in some sort of audible static. This doesn't matter when comparing the original files back to back as then the limitations of psychoacoustics kick in. There are some compressed songs that test as transparent to the original.
    There's not a simple yes or no answer whether 320 will match flac. It's nothing to get excited about yet people constantly argue as if to seek some technical (or even philosophical) justification for using compression or lossless files in their collection.
  12. drez


    I mean that's the thing it will probably be audible in isolation but you probably wont be able to reliably discern the difference when layered with the music.
    In blind conditions it would be very difficult to tell them apart.
  13. Crazy*Carl
  14. Devarika Woulf
    Here's a good song to compare: Lord of This World by Black Sabbath.
    Listen to Geezer's bass at 2:17: 320 mp3 is weaker. Make sure they are both from the same version of Master of Reality as there are many. I used the Black Box MOR.
    You can hear it better with headphones.
  15. Crazy*Carl


    Its amazing the length you have to go to to justify audiophile grade, which I think is about 5% above normal grade.
1 2 3 4 5 6

Share This Page