FLAC vs 320kbps
Jan 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM Post #16 of 120
Take one of your FLAC files and convert it to 320k. Then highlight both files, right-click -> utilities -> ABX two tracks.

You need to do it at least ten times I'd say as to rule out luck.


Given a single pair of tracks and ten ABX comparisons, one would need to correctly identify X eight times in order to reject the null hypothesis (the null hypothesis being that there is no discernible audible difference between FLAC and 320 kbs for a particular listener on a particular equipment setup listening to a particular song) at a 95% confidence level.
 
Jan 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM Post #17 of 120
Well I'm just trying to get him started on the right path, not overwhelm the guy.
wink.gif

 
Jan 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM Post #18 of 120
Every time this conversation pops up in a thread, it always severely weirds me out that so many people say there's no discernable difference, or that it's "slight," or you "need the right gear."
 
Jan 28, 2012 at 1:47 PM Post #19 of 120
Now when it comes to WAV files I hear a difference over FLAC and 320.  As for just FLAC and 320 its nothing that makes me say "wow that sound much better" and my source as well as gear is fine.  FLAC does sound a little better than 320 its just not worth the extra space they take up in my pmp.
 
Jan 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM Post #20 of 120


Quote:
Now when it comes to WAV files I hear a difference over FLAC and 320.  As for just FLAC and 320 its nothing that makes me say "wow that sound much better" and my source as well as gear is fine.  FLAC does sound a little better than 320 its just not worth the extra space they take up in my pmp.


That's funny because WAV and FLAC produce the exact same sound.
 
Jan 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM Post #24 of 120


Quote:
I think there's a graph I can plot showing the correlation between post count and the propensity to say yes
wink.gif

 
Anyways, I don't think I'd be able to tell, but I've never tried ABXing at 320kbps. I've only gone up to around 200-250 (vbr), and I could tell an incredibly slight difference but didn't really care. This was all with modern Lame versions. Ogg Vorbis and AAC/M4A encoders both perform a bit better than Lame. In full disclosure, I didn't have quite as good of equipment as I do now, back when I did said test.

 
Huhh?
 
 
 
Jan 28, 2012 at 3:36 PM Post #27 of 120
It is probably easier to just make your own from .flac files or similar using LAME.
 
Jan 28, 2012 at 3:38 PM Post #28 of 120


Quote:
Listen for yourself. I know you already have Foobar, so check out this component: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
 
Take one of your FLAC files and convert it to 320k. Then highlight both files, right-click -> utilities -> ABX two tracks.
 
You need to do it at least ten times I'd say as to rule out luck.



I'll be trying that out myself.....I use FooBar220 but never used that plug in.
 
I add maybe 10 FLAC albums to my collection daily so that will be a nice ultility to use along with Flac Tester and Audio Checker.
darthsmile.gif

 
Jan 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM Post #29 of 120


Quote:
Listen for yourself. I know you already have Foobar, so check out this component: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
 
Take one of your FLAC files and convert it to 320k. Then highlight both files, right-click -> utilities -> ABX two tracks.
 
You need to do it at least ten times I'd say as to rule out luck.


I find Foobar not very easy to use.
confused_face_2.gif

 
 
 
Jan 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM Post #30 of 120
I can hear the difference, but still use 320kbps....the sound difference doesn't warrant the effort for me. 320kbps is still very musical to my old ears. 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top