[nintendoeats]

I understand what masking is, that's not my point. I'm simply suggesting that such a huge loss of data, almost enough to reproduce the song, should be audible to somebody who can differentiate 192khz audio from 96 khz audio. With my current equipment and depending on the original recording I can generally tell 328 kbps MP3s from red book, but I would be very confused if I were to give anybody an abx test pitting a CD against a 128kbps MP3 using that equipment and they had 50% accuracy.There are identifiable noises that can be heard in one recording and not in the other, forget abstract stuff about soundstage or spaciousness. The distortion in a low bitrate lossy file is way above the audibility threshold.
 
EDIT: I just realized that I used the word distortion incorrectly. You know what I mean.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  I understand what masking is, that's not my point. I'm simply suggesting that such a huge loss of data, almost enough to reproduce the song, should be audible to somebody who can differentiate 192khz audio from 96 khz audio. With my current equipment and depending on the original recording I can generally tell 328 kbps MP3s from red book, but I would be very confused if I were to give anybody an abx test pitting a CD against a 128kbps MP3 using that equipment and they had 50% accuracy.There are identifiable noises that can be heard in one recording and not in the other, forget abstract stuff about soundstage or spaciousness. The distortion in a low bitrate lossy file is way above the audibility threshold.
 
EDIT: I just realized that I used the word distortion incorrectly. You know what I mean.

 
I sincerely doubt that you fully understand what masking is in this situation.  Show me any evidence that someone can differentiate between 192 kHz and 44.1 kHz, much less between 192 kHz and 96 kHz.. If you provide your most valued song, I might be able to provide you with a test between 192 kbps mp3 against whatever format you believe to be superior.  If you can play Foobar and use the ABX test, I'd like to see you pass an ABX test.  I'm confident that you can't.

 

[brent75]

  As to OP, it seems impossible that you can tell a 192 khz recording from a 96 khz, but not a 128 kb file from a lossless one.

Yes -- I'm surmising that the reason my lone 192 sounds best is due to the master being better...not due to the sample rate itself.

 

[nintendoeats]

   
I sincerely doubt that you fully understand what masking is in this situation.  Show me any evidence that someone can differentiate between 192 kHz and 44.1 kHz, much less between 192 kHz and 96 kHz.. If you provide your most valued song, I might be able to provide you with a test between 192 kbps mp3 against whatever format you believe to be superior.  If you can play Foobar and use the ABX test, I'd like to see you pass an ABX test.  I'm confident that you can't.

I don't think that anybody can differentiate 192khz files from 44.1khz files. I'm just trying to use the evidence I can personally provide to demonstrate to OP an inconsistency in their own belief.
 
I use Foobar as my audio player. I might do that at some point, but not just now. I just took a break form listening to Nick Drake's Pink Moon for the first time on my new setup. What I am about to say is not scientific in anyway because this is the first time I have listened to the file since making a major change to my audio chain. The reason I took a break is that I wanted to tell everybody that the third string on the guitar he is playing the the song Know has loose tuning pegs. I think it's the third string, that's the string I would use to play the bass note. I am going to test this tomorrow because I am just as interested in the answer as you are, but I do not believe that I will hear that in an 128 kb MP3 of the song. That's the kind of detail that I'm talking about, very specific things that you can point at.
 
For a slightly more grounded example, I have had things that I listened to for a decade in 128 MP3. A few years back I started re-ripping my CDs to FLAC, primarily for archiving purposes because I was skeptical about the quality increase beyond 320 kb MP3. I could hear new instruments in some recordings, especially later Beatles. Not a fuller sound, not clearer sound, not less distorted sound. Entire instruments which, in the 128 kbps MP3 version, had been compressed out to the point where you could only hear them if you already knew exactly what they sounded like and were actively listening for them.
 
I really don't want to come off as confrontational. I entirely understand the feeling that most of this is placebo because I have absolutely been there, and still am about most things in consumer audio. The only reason I am this confident is because over the years I have come across this kind of very specific detail comparing to MP3s from a variety of sources.

 

[nintendoeats]

  Yes -- I'm surmising that the reason my lone 192 sounds best is due to the master being better...not due to the sample rate itself.

Audio science is very clear on that in fact. Put it to you this way:
No instrument creates those frequencies.
No microphone can pick up those frequencies.
Most (I'm not sure about all) amplifiers cannot react to those frequencies.
No speaker can produce those frequencies (possibly excepting specialized ones used for scientific research which the consumer press would not be aware of)
The human hear has not been demonstrate to hear anywhere near those frequencies.
 
If somebody has bothered to put something out in 192, it has probably been recorded and mastered very well. Based on all the information that I have, you have surmized correctly.

 

[brent75]

 
Audio science is very clear on that in fact. Put it to you this way:
No instrument creates those frequencies.
No microphone can pick up those frequencies.
Most (I'm not sure about all) amplifiers cannot react to those frequencies.
No speaker can produce those frequencies (possibly excepting specialized ones used for scientific research which the consumer press would not be aware of)
The human hear has not been demonstrate to hear anywhere near those frequencies.
 
If somebody has bothered to put something out in 192, it has probably been recorded and mastered very well. Based on all the information that I have, you have surmized correctly.

Yes, I agree. I was getting ready to respond to your previous post that said "I'm just trying to use the evidence I can personally provide to demonstrate to OP an inconsistency in their own belief."...and ask you what you think my belief is, exactly. (but I think we're actually on the same page)
 
If I wasn't clear, my "4-format" test was a DIFFERENT song that the ones I was referring to later in 192, 96 and 44.
 
The first part of my original post (testing the 4 formats) = me pointing out that I couldn't hear a difference, so my belief would be there is no discernible difference and it's a smarter play to rip lower so I can store more tracks on m portable.
 
The second part of my original post was not a belief, but merely asking why my 192 sounds clearly better than my few at 96 and all my rest at 44. But my belief in that case was that it's due to the master itself, rather than the sample rate.
 
In the end, that actually sort of pisses me off -- that essentially masters can be "held hostage" from us unless you agree to pay more.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  I don't think that anybody can differentiate 192khz files from 44.1khz files. I'm just trying to use the evidence I can personally provide to demonstrate to OP an inconsistency in their own belief.
 
I use Foobar as my audio player. I might do that at some point, but not just now. I just took a break form listening to Nick Drake's Pink Moon for the first time on my new setup. What I am about to say is not scientific in anyway because this is the first time I have listened to the file since making a major change to my audio chain. The reason I took a break is that I wanted to tell everybody that the third string on the guitar he is playing the the song Know has loose tuning pegs. I think it's the third string, that's the string I would use to play the bass note. I am going to test this tomorrow because I am just as interested in the answer as you are, but I do not believe that I will hear that in an 128 kb MP3 of the song. That's the kind of detail that I'm talking about, very specific things that you can point at.
 
For a slightly more grounded example, I have had things that I listened to for a decade in 128 MP3. A few years back I started re-ripping my CDs to FLAC, primarily for archiving purposes because I was skeptical about the quality increase beyond 320 kb MP3. I could hear new instruments in some recordings, especially later Beatles. Not a fuller sound, not clearer sound, not less distorted sound. Entire instruments which, in the 128 kbps MP3 version, had been compressed out to the point where you could only hear them if you already knew exactly what they sounded like and were actively listening for them.
 
I really don't want to come off as confrontational. I entirely understand the feeling that most of this is placebo because I have absolutely been there, and still am about most things in consumer audio. The only reason I am this confident is because over the years I have come across this kind of very specific detail comparing to MP3s from a variety of sources.

 
I was being way too aggressive in my previous comment.  I do apologize.  I can only find Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" at 96/24, but it would be interesting to create an ABX test between that and a lossy version.  

 

[nintendoeats]

  Yes, I agree. I was getting ready to respond to your previous post that said "I'm just trying to use the evidence I can personally provide to demonstrate to OP an inconsistency in their own belief."...and ask you what you think my belief is, exactly. (but I think we're actually on the same page)
 
If I wasn't clear, my "4-format" test was a DIFFERENT song that the ones I was referring to later in 192, 96 and 44.
 
The first part of my original post (testing the 4 formats) = me pointing out that I couldn't hear a difference, so my belief would be there is no discernible difference and it's a smarter play to rip lower so I can store more tracks on m portable.
 
The second part of my original post was not a belief, but merely asking why my 192 sounds clearly better than my few at 96 and all my rest at 44. But my belief in that case was that it's due to the master itself, rather than the sample rate.
 
In the end, that actually sort of pisses me off -- that essentially masters can be "held hostage" from us unless you agree to pay more.

My apologies, I inferred from what you were saying that you believed that the higher frequencies were the reason that the files sounded better. If that is not the case then we are indeed on the same page. I was clear that they were different tracks, but I see so many pseudo-scientific claims in which people make claims based on different tracks that I didn't consider that detail relevant to interpreting what you believed from your post.
 
I do still absolutely believe that you should be able to discern the low bitrate file from ALAC on equipment of sufficient fiedlity, assuming that the song you are using contains the sort of hidden details that I was talking about earlier. It is definitely more noticable in some songs than others and I haven't idenitified a pattern in that respect. One thing I will speculate is that you may want an amp for those headphones. That is the major change that I just made to feed my AKG K240s and it made a difference that borders on absurd (prior to that I did not believe that headphone amps were requiredfor low-impedence headphones). The reason that I say you may want one is twofold:
 
#1: While your headphones are low impedence, they also have a fairly low sensitivity. This means that they will draw quite a lot of current and your DAC may not be up to the task. I don't know the details of it, just a guess.
 
#2: Impedence alters by frequency, so #1 may be exasurbated if the impedence drops or increases dramatically at some frequencies.
 
Just a thought. I really do believe that with the correct track the difference between the 128kb and lossless should be blatant.

 

[brent75]

  One thing I will speculate is that you may want an amp for those headphones.

In case you missed it in my original post, I have Mojo in between my laptop and headphones. And I'm feeding it via Roon (as opposed to iTunes)...and set up correctly...so should be MORE than enough to tell a difference, and hence my bewilderment (and starting this thread). Unless you're suggesting that I need to get into a true/dedicated/wall-powered amp.
 
I wonder to your point if I should try different songs. Or maybe try in the morning -- maybe my ears are fatigued at night.
 
At any rate, I'm sort of deciding to split the difference, and load my portable up with a combo of 320 and ALAC versions. No real reason why -- I just don't want the lowest one and don't want the highest one. (how's that for science...haha)

 

[nintendoeats]

   
I was being way too aggressive in my previous comment.  I do apologize.  I can only find Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" at 96/24, but it would be interesting to create an ABX test between that and a lossy version.  

No problem, the internet gets much worse than that. I don't have the 96/24 version for the reasons previously stated (by the way, I am open to the idea of bit rates above 16 bit mattering, though until I encounter good evidence I'm not spending a penny on it). Tomorrow I will do an ABX between lossless and 128kbps MP3 and post results. The audio chain for the test will be:
 
Foobar2000 -> Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro -> Fiio e12 -> AKG K240
 
The one thing I will say is that I haven't tested that card with this amp yet because I havd a Fiio K5 coming for that purpose. However, my expectation is that it will be audibly transparent and won't affect anything. If I can't find that detail then I will call the test a wash because I can't ABX through my X3II.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  Yes, I agree. I was getting ready to respond to your previous post that said "I'm just trying to use the evidence I can personally provide to demonstrate to OP an inconsistency in their own belief."...and ask you what you think my belief is, exactly. (but I think we're actually on the same page)
 
If I wasn't clear, my "4-format" test was a DIFFERENT song that the ones I was referring to later in 192, 96 and 44.
 
The first part of my original post (testing the 4 formats) = me pointing out that I couldn't hear a difference, so my belief would be there is no discernible difference and it's a smarter play to rip lower so I can store more tracks on m portable.
 
The second part of my original post was not a belief, but merely asking why my 192 sounds clearly better than my few at 96 and all my rest at 44. But my belief in that case was that it's due to the master itself, rather than the sample rate.
 
In the end, that actually sort of pisses me off -- that essentially masters can be "held hostage" from us unless you agree to pay more.

 
This is basically the only reason I continue to participate in the forums here at Head-Fi,  I really don't want to see music aficionados succumb to the industry's attempt to place false value on a product with a higher bitrate.  I realize that any major music label is not going to be able to re-release their library in an optimal format, but I loathe to see them remaster any albums and then charge a premium price in the guise that the format is the reason for the improvement.

 

[nintendoeats]

  In case you missed it in my original post, I have Mojo in between my laptop and headphones. And I'm feeding it via Roon (as opposed to iTunes)...and set up correctly...so should be MORE than enough to tell a difference, and hence my bewilderment (and starting this thread). Unless you're suggesting that I need to get into a true/dedicated/wall-powered amp.
 
I wonder to your point if I should try different songs. Or maybe try in the morning -- maybe my ears are fatigued at night.
 
At any rate, I'm sort of deciding to split the difference, and load my portable up with a combo of 320 and ALAC versions. No real reason why -- I just won't want the lowest one and don't want the highest one. (how's that for science...haha)

Ah, again, sorry. I thought you meant a mojo DAC straight into headphones. Faulty assumption. Different songs is important though. One great example is Augustus Pablo. I have some of his music FLAC, but all I'm actually getting is really accurate tape hiss. I could never tell that from an MP3. Conversely, music that is mostly generated by digital electronics like chiptunes will compress very easily because you don't have any natural ovetones to erase. In between that it isn't obvious to me what will compress well and what won't.

 

[nintendoeats]

   
This is basically the only reason I continue to participate in the forums here at Head-Fi,  I really don't want to see music aficionados succumb to the industry's attempt to place false value on a product with a higher bitrate.  I realize that any major music label is not going to be able to re-release their library in an optimal format, but I loathe to see them remaster any albums and then charge a premium price in the guise that the format is the reason for the improvement.

Oh man, what a horrible thought. My musical tastes and buying habits have kept me safe from that sort of thing...but I was just now wondering if there was a remastered version of Reggatta De Blanc by The Police....
 
EDIT: Going to bed, all further posts will be read in the morning.

 

[sonitus mirus]

At least A&M Records have maintained the rights to the Police since the beginning.  I have the 1993 Message in a Box CDs, and it sounds the same to me as the Google Music Play All Access version, which is provided in 320 kbps lame-encoded (CBR Extreme).  The Police really knew their stuff in the recording studio, and probably due to Stuart Copeland, but that is just my guess.

 

[nintendoeats]

  At least A&M Records have maintained the rights to the Police since the beginning.  I have the 1993 Message in a Box CDs, and it sounds the same to me as the Google Music Play All Access version, which is provided in 320 kbps lame-encoded (CBR Extreme).  The Police really knew their stuff in the recording studio, and probably due to Stuart Copeland, but that is just my guess.

I would guess the same, though of course I don't know who else was there with them. However, I did find that there is a 2003 remastered version of the album while my copy is from the original release. There is a particular bit of clipping present in Walking on the Moon that is very irritating on my new equipment, so hopefully that was eradicated in the new version. Late night ebay purchases, oh dear.