[iancraig10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilDwarf I never understand all this talk about low bitrates sounding bad.

I treat mp3 as a convenience and don't let the 'lack' of quality bother me. I don't think that it was ever envisaged as particularly high quality but is simply a bit easier than carrying loads of cd's and a portable player.

On certain types of music (or sounds) you can become aware that it is an mp3 even at higher rates but that really depends on how sensitive you are and how responsive your headphones are.

I stick to vinyl or cd for quality and mp3 just for convenience.

Ian

 

[nabwong]

The lower the bitrate, the more roll-off there is on the highs. I can listen to songs as low as 128kb. It doesn't bother me with my portable set up. However, below that, there's a huge drop in sound quality.

 

[darkninja67]

I hear more smearing on the high end with lower bit rates than with FLAC. I use ER4Ps with can be very revealing with MP3s and such/

 

[silvalis]

Does anyone else notice that it's easier to hear the deficiencies of a poorer system after listening to a better system than the other way around?

 

[JJ15k]

Absolutely, I do

Because on a poorer system you don t know what you could be lacking. So when you hear the highend system and it shows you those things, your brain will then look for them in the songs when you are on the poorer system and you will hear the difference.

 

[EvilDwarf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Try a different approach... rip a song and encode it in 128KBPS, and keep the original .wav. Now instead of concentrating, just relax and listen to the MP3 for awhile, get completely used to the sonic signature of the song. Then switch to the .wav. Or reverse the procedure, using the .wav as reference. IMO it's easier to hear differences if you're not trying, because often this causes a person to not see the forest for the trees. That's a major failure of the whole ABX thing IMO, it narrows one's attention down and results in hearing only the more obvious differences.

Maybe you have a point there. As far as I know, A/B listening tests have been critisized for barring out the "emotional" center of the brain and using only the "analytical" parts. Relaxed listening might reveal more differences, than trying desparately to spot flaws in the mp3 recording. Also the type of music chosen for comparison, will certainly have an impact.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ15k Absolutely, I do Because on a poorer system you don t know what you could be lacking. So when you hear the highend system and it shows you those things, your brain will then look for them in the songs when you are on the poorer system and you will hear the difference.

Yes, I agree, and our mind remembers what we hear, and psychologic things kick in. That's why I REFUSED to listen to any speakers in the shops I was in looking for 595's. I would had tried on 650's, but those probably would sound worse then my 595's unamped.

I am certain this has been debated more then once on this forum, so maybe we should continue it in that thread and close this one as it is off topic and becoming a debate?

 

[Patrick82]

With K501 I almost couldn't hear a difference between 128 kbps mp3 and WAV even after doing A/B-ing for half an hour.

But when I tried it with K1000 I noticed the difference immediately.
A/B-ing doesn't work because your state of mind is different, but if you do hear a subtle difference then the improvement will become night and day in long-term listening.
When I upgraded my reference album (LOTR) from 320 kbps mp3 to WAV I immediately could hear that it sounded more transparent but too cold and scary. I didn't like it at first because I had been used to the rolled-off highs for many months.

 

[A.Thorsen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by silvalis Does anyone else notice that it's easier to hear the deficiencies of a poorer system after listening to a better system than the other way around?

Absolutely yes!

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Try a different approach... rip a song and encode it in 128KBPS, and keep the original .wav. Now instead of concentrating, just relax and listen to the MP3 for awhile, get completely used to the sonic signature of the song. Then switch to the .wav. Or reverse the procedure, using the .wav as reference. IMO it's easier to hear differences if you're not trying, because often this causes a person to not see the forest for the trees. That's a major failure of the whole ABX thing IMO, it narrows one's attention down and results in hearing only the more obvious differences.

Bingo. The differences are easily discernable when you don't try to concentrate. Just try to enjoy the music and the differences become very clear. The lossy files just sound lifeless and more like sound than music. You will easily notice the difference if you just listen for enjoyment.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick82 With K501 I almost couldn't hear a difference between 128 kbps mp3 and WAV even after doing A/B-ing for half an hour. But when I tried it with K1000 I noticed the difference immediately.

Interesting... the K501 is definitely a non-analytical headphone, which may be partially why. Granted the K1000 is a better headphone, but it could be that it's more analytical in the highs as well that makes it easier to hear the flaws.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sxr71 Bingo. The differences are easily discernable when you don't try to concentrate. Just try to enjoy the music and the differences become very clear. The lossy files just sound lifeless and more like sound than music. You will easily notice the difference if you just listen for enjoyment.

I bet hiphop lovers would have a very hard trouble switching from 128 kbps to 320 kbps. I listen to some rap, but I really prefer smooth jazz, among a variety of other things. The big bass boom has become acustomed to probably so many people to be distorteted and sort of boomish, so the natural sound from the song in flacc would probably sound so weird to them.

 

[Seijang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilDwarf I never understand all this talk about low bitrates sounding bad. There has been an A/B-Test between 128kbit and lossless floating around and I've only been able to tell ever so *slight* differences by concentrating VERY hard using my DT 880. I don't hear any difference from 256kbit VBR and above to lossless. So either everybody else has golden ears or there must be some hype about lossless involved.

I've been able to hear the difference between 128 and 320 for a while now. As my rig gets better, its just easier to hear.

I know I can hear the difference because I have difficulty remembering to replace my old 128 songs to 320 consistently. So sometimes I'll be listening to music and then be like..wtfcakes, this sounds like crap. And lo and behold, its 128 .

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seijang I've been able to hear the difference between 128 and 320 for a while now. As my rig gets better, its just easier to hear. I know I can hear the difference because I have difficulty remembering to replace my old 128 songs to 320 consistently. So sometimes I'll be listening to music and then be like..wtfcakes, this sounds like crap. And lo and behold, its 128 .

I think the best way to figure it out is using a method like yours. Rip a total of 100 songs from cd's, make 2 copies of each (one 128 kbps) one flacc or 320 kbps. Then, add them into your library (make sure they are good songs, and your favourite), and play shuffle. See if you can hear the difference like this guy, make sure there is no tag set in foobar or your app that says the bitrate. Hell, even minimize your program and relax and listen while browsing, and just see if you hear anything.

 

[familyman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by XxATOLxX You notice a difference between 320kbps and FLAC? x2.. My speakers trample my headphone rig soundstagewise.

those Odyssey's are the nicest looking wood grain monitors I've seen.
did you post a review or impressions on them? I've got monitors already, still interested in how they sound though.