[Alexhifi]

Hey everyone...I'm just getting into all of this and am trying to "train" my ears. I spent about 30 minutes trying to hear the difference between some music directly played from a CD and the same music APE encoded on my Iriver i799. I'm using no amp with the mp3 player, so maximum volume is not even close to loud but I can say confidently, it is not distorting the music. I'm using Senn 590s (not broken in) /w the stock cables. The CD player and home stereo I used isn't hi-fi by any means, but it isn't junk - Harmon Kardon FL8300 5-disc player and an original Harmon Kardon AVR20.

I tried my best and I simply could not hear the difference. I was sure the volumes were close so as not to fall for the "louder makes it sound better" syndrome. I'm not certain if my source CD is that good either - it's the soundtrack to The Fifth Element. I really like the music and it gets very complicated in quite a number of tracks. From what I can tell, the headphones are muddying up complex parts of the song that have constant bass tones in them. But then again, maybe it just wasn't recorded that well? Maybe the 590s need more burn-in time? Maybe I'm crazy?

Anyway, trying to keep this short. Could someone put up perfectly ripped WAV files of music pulled from a CD that is considered very well recorded/mastered? Genre is not important. I'm looking for music that I can use to compare raw WAV vs APE MP3. ANY and ALL advice appreciated. I really am trying to learn here!

If you need space to put the files, please PM me and I'll get you a login to a high speed FTP site with plenty of space.

-Alex

 

[EdipisReks]

good luck trying to hear the difference between cd's and well encoded lossy files. i can't tell the difference between 224 kbps AAC and lame alt preset extreme mp3's and cd's with my equipment. with my friend's MartinLogan Prodigy/Descent system 320 kbps AAC and lame alt preset insane are indistringuishable from cd's, to my ears. the only reason that it takes a higher bitrate with those ML electrostats is that the detail they present is such that extremely tiny sound signatures in encoding can be barely heard.

 

[wolfen68]

From my experience, the actual clarity is very close between the original cd and a well encoded lossy. You have to listen beyond that and get a little more "big picture" in your head. It always seemed to me that after an extended listen, original cd's sound very slightly less flat and have just a touch more life, fullness and impact.

Most people probably try to distinguish by analyzing details...and that's hard to hear differences on with a well encoded file....unless you have well trained ears.

 

[hugz]

This has inspired me to upload a wav and a 128, 160, 192 of the same some to my karma and do some listening.

What genre would be good? I listen to probably most to some extent.

Or is it just best to use something familiar?

 

[EdipisReks]

use something familiar, imo.

 

[go_vtec]

May I suggest that you try the experiment own your own first. I think you should start with few well recorded tracks from CD that you are really familiar with. (You gotta have at least one CD right

) Rip couple of them to Wave and various bit rates (320kbps, 192kbps, 128kbps and so on). Burn a CD (I recommend in the order of descreasing quality) and play back on your CD player. Depending on the songs, your equipment and your exprience, you should be able to tell difference between 128 vs. Wave and perhaps even more (say 192 vs Wave). Good luck!

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

If you can't hear a difference, there is no difference.

Don't let jedi mind tricks fool you into thinking otherwise.

There is no reality beyond the world that we can perceive or imagine.

 

[TheWayofWay]

The one time I did ABX testing, I did it between a raw wave file and a 192kbps wma. It was Katie Melua - Belfast

I could hear a difference, very subtle, but it was there. The decay of the guitar plucks (especially the low notes) was just more real with the wave. Listening closely, I could hear it slowly fade unlike the wma. The wma kind of sounded like it was 'faking' the decay. It would sort of retain the same loudness/pitch and whatnot. It wouldn't fade and become quieter. Therefore, there is a difference.

Some may say its analyzing details, but if all those little details add up, it can make a pretty sizable difference. Just my experiences.
(Done with rig in my sig, Beyerdynamic DT880s)

Edit: I've also done it with the analog outputs on my revolution 7.1 Same thing.

 

[Kirosia]

If you can't hear it, then don't worry about it. Don't "try" to if it's not already apparent. You're better off. More room on your hard drive.

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWayofWay The one time I did ABX testing, I did it between a raw wave file and a 192kbps wma. It was Katie Melua - Belfast I could hear a difference, very subtle, but it was there. The decay of the guitar plucks (especially the low notes) was just more real with the wave. Listening closely, I could hear it slowly fade unlike the wma. The wma kind of sounded like it was 'faking' the decay. It would sort of retain the same loudness/pitch and whatnot. It wouldn't fade and become quieter. Therefore, there is a difference. Some may say its analyzing details, but if all those little details add up, it can make a pretty sizable difference. Just my experiences. (Done with rig in my sig, Beyerdynamic DT880s) Edit: I've also done it with the analog outputs on my revolution 7.1 Same thing.

It does heavily depend on the quality of the recording.

I think you would find it MUCH more difficult distinguish a 192 kbps recording from lossless with something like rock.

There's less detail to preserve because the recording quality is so poor to start with.

Regardless, I think most people would find it difficult to distinguish 320 AAC from lossless.

 

[TheWayofWay]

It definitely is difficult to tell the difference, but I stick to raw wave for peace of mind I guess. For rock, I suspect it would be more difficult simply because its faster. There's less time for analysis of small details. Plus, you'd be more interested in headbanging than you would scrutinizing guitar decay.

I guess it depends on some things, but if one has the disk space, I see no reason to not use raw wave or lossless.

 

[Alexhifi]

Good posts everyone. I had a feeling I'd get a "you won't be able to tell the difference", "don't try to hear a difference if you can't", and "the difference is subtle and has more to do with the fullness of the music".

The problem with doing this myself is that I truthfully haven't listened to music direct from CDs for many years now! I also am not sure what is considered a well mastered recording. I know there are folks here who have excellent recordings on CD and was hoping I could get that "perfect" WAV file rip of it. Once I have a known good base, I can work from there. Even if you can't provide the rip, at least let me know the exact CD so I can purchase it. Im assuming the CD would have a good mix of music that is enjoyable and suitable for benchmarking (for example, isn't just all classical music).

At this point, I'm not interested in knowing the difference between 128kbps MP3s and perfect, but something apparently much more difficult - VBR ~230kbps (APE) vs perfect. The reason I choose APE (or even APS) is because I've read docs stating that APS is basically right on the edge and only people with the best ears and equipment can tell the difference.

BTW, if I do make a CD with a perfect image and an MP3, do I need to convert the MP3 back to WAV and burn? My CD player doesn't decode MP3 - it's old school.

-Alex

 

[Asmo]

ca.geocities.com/asmo@rogers.com/asmo_comparisson.zip

128/160/192/VBR + flac file short piece of music, you should be able to hear some definiete differences, I won't point them out.

Cut & paste the URL to get the file, stupid rogers & geocities.

 

[bigshot]

Here is the best site I've found for identifying compression artifacts

Artifact Training Page
http://ff123.net/training/training.html

See ya
Steve

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexhifi BTW, if I do make a CD with a perfect image and an MP3, do I need to convert the MP3 back to WAV and burn? My CD player doesn't decode MP3 - it's old school. -Alex

Not sure what you're trying to say, but if you mean taking mp3s and burning them on a CD as reg. tracks, all you need is a fairly up-to-date (as in not really really old) burner program. Just choose to make an "audio/music CD", and drag (or open) the files on in whatever order you want them to play.