[nicholars]

Quote:

I would normally side relentlessly with those who say "Actually, the compression really isn't that bad," but Youtube-quality audio? 
 
Please tell me you're talking about HD instead of 240p videos (sound bitrate scales with video quality setting).

Tbh I dont think compression is THAT bad.... I just think statements like "you probably wont notice the difference between 128kbps and 24bit lossless wav" is rather missleading.... For what it is - a way of compressing audio to tiny sizes with minimal relative quality loss - it is very impressive, but lossless or higher bitrate is clearly better quality on a good quality source + headphones.

 

[shrimants]

unless your sound system is specifically tailored to output frequencies lower than 20HZ and higher than 18khz, you wont notice a difference. Your computer will and a spectrogram will, but you wont. At least not without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars first. And at that point, why bother.

I listen to FLAC only, I redownloaded/reripped al my 320kbps in flac because it was a free upgrade. I either pipe that to my AMB Gamma 2 F++ or convert to ALAC and put it on my ipod for use through Monster Turbine.

The bass difference is EXTREMELY noticeable to me, but it wasnt at all noticeable thorugh my nexus one.

If you can reacquire your music in flac, do it. If not, just keep the cheap 320kbps mp3 and get some decent headphones and save yourself 3000 bucks.

 

[nicholars]

Tbh I think that is a bit of an over simplified view beacuse it is not as simple as cutting off the frequencies below 20hz and above 20khz for a 128kbps or similar mp3...

 

[shrimants]

It is an extremely simplified view, but that is just one of the many reasons. One of the mp3 codec's biggest ways to compress data is to cut off the top and bottom end of frequencies. It is evident with a spectrogram image. I couldnt find the exact webpage I read about this, but what.cd uses examples from that webpage. Here is a different one I found that basically says the same thing with a bit more user friendliness:

http://www.projectharp.com/2009/10/how-to-use-spectrogram-for-audio.html

Its not like looking at a spectrogram will provide definitive proof or anything, but there is a huge amount of data loss when converting to mp3. That being said, that much data loss isnt terribly apparent with a 320kbps mp3 unless you have spent a LOT of money on your equipment to make it so that the data loss IS apparent.

What it boils down to is this: do you have the money to spare to be able to tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio? If so, I recommend you spend it because listening to high quality audio through high quality audio equipment is an entirely different experience than listening to lossy audio with so-so equipment.

I'm only recently discovering that audio quality better than bose even exists. I'm carefully mapping out my spending so that I dont end up with 30 pairs of headphones and a bunch of expensive equipment. Im buying a singular upgrade to what i'm currently working with, waiting until it is thoroughly overused, and then buying the next piece. My monster turbines are my current "high end" solution, and my next step is to buy a pair of fullsized headphones that offer the same bass loudness, tons more bass clarity, clearer and less harsh high range, and be built like a tank. I was looking at ath m50's but I'm more than willing to save up and spend up to 500 bucks for my next pair. If I had a job that gave me disposable income, i'd gladly buy a pair of 1000 dollar headphones but not until I thoroughly test them out.

I used my bose on ears so much that the driver itself became "flaccid". theres tons of crackling and artifacts now and i'd deem them unusable for anything higher quality than streaming anime.

 

[nicholars]

Get some Denon D2000 they are great

 

[RexAeterna]

unless your sound system is specifically tailored to output frequencies lower than 20HZ and higher than 18khz, you wont notice a difference. Your computer will and a spectrogram will, but you wont. At least not without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars first. And at that point, why bother.
I listen to FLAC only, I redownloaded/reripped al my 320kbps in flac because it was a free upgrade. I either pipe that to my AMB Gamma 2 F++ or convert to ALAC and put it on my ipod for use through Monster Turbine.
The bass difference is EXTREMELY noticeable to me, but it wasnt at all noticeable thorugh my nexus one.
If you can reacquire your music in flac, do it. If not, just keep the cheap 320kbps mp3 and get some decent headphones and save yourself 3000 bucks.

how many songs actually have a full spectrum frequency from 20hz-20khz? if your into pipe organs and cymbals yea maybe but lot of music don't even reach those ranges even lot of electronically produced music from the computer barely hit that deep or high. most good sources and amps can scale the full 20hz-20khz range. the biggest flaw and bottleneck is your headphones and speakers used especially headphones. most headphones are incapable of extending down to 20hz flat or up to 20khz. that's why headphones with a flat treble response or slightly boosted treble tends to sound very bright to most people. even speakers nowadays has what's called ''modern highs/treble'' where it gently rolls off after 10khz. the other thing that's never mentioned as well is most people,even kids nowadays can't hear above 16khz cause they damage their hearing young from loud poorly mastered music.

 

[nicholars]

Hmm well thanks for stating the obvious there... I am not sure what relevance that has...

 

[nanaholic]

The difference between lossless and 320kbps really isn't that great if you aren't doing critical listening.  I've done my fair share of ABX tests in foobar and frequency test on websites (I can hear all the way up to 22kHz now with my T1 which I couldn't with my other gear) and what not but damn if you ask me to pick between lossless and 320 I'll really have to strain, listen to the tracks multiple times and maybe I'll pick it out 40-50% of the time, and guess what?  That's no longer enjoying the music if it takes THAT much effort to tell the difference apart.  So for simplicity I just listen to 320kbps.  Is there a quality difference?  Sure there is and it is scientifically measurable, and with signal processing background I also *know* there is, but if I can't tell in everyday usage then I simply don't have reasons to care.    

 

[koolkat]

Eh?
 
I'm using SineGen 2.1 
 
Set the starting frequency level at 100Hz.
Moved the scale down by my arrow down key.
 
I'm hearing a droning sound all the way down to 15Hz. 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

Hmm, I must have staggered into Sound Science by mistake. Damn.
 
I'd like that thank the OP for dragging a relatively sane section of HF down into an unwinnable debate that brings nutters from both sides out of the woodwork. End of the day, if my brain tells me I'm happy drinking the Kool Aid, I'm freaking well going to drink the stuff. Objectivists are a lot like hardcore atheists - they spend more time trying to disprove the existence of something than the true believers spend simply accepting it. Just enjoy your music, people. 
 

The reason i react to this is because i am an Atheist and what you stated is not true unless with a small selection of individuals. Any group of people or organization has it's extremists.
 
 

 

[ZorgDK]

I've done a few blind test between 320 mp3 and 128 mp3. I found that the easiest way to tell them apart is to listen for how deep the bass goes, that would be the dynamic range difference I assume. The difference isn't big at all.

 

[nicholars]

Hmm well i was listening to an album on my mp3 player earlier and I was thinking "hmm this really doesnt sound very good I bet it is low bitrate" and I look at the details and sure enough it is 192kbps vbr mp3....
 
All I am saying is PERSONALLY I notice quite a big difference in sound quality... Maybe I just have better hearing or soemthing lol

 

[koolkat]

Quote:

Hmm well i was listening to an album on my mp3 player earlier and I was thinking "hmm this really doesnt sound very good I bet it is low bitrate" and I look at the details and sure enough it is 192kbps vbr mp3....
 
All I am saying is PERSONALLY I notice quite a big difference in sound quality... Maybe I just have better hearing or soemthing lol

 
Lol'd.
 
"hmm this really doesnt sound very good I bet it is low bitrate"
 
Now get a lossless file of the same song and convert it to mp3 320kbps and 256kbps.
 
Put all 4 versions of the song on your playlist.
 
Even if you can tell the difference from lossless and lossy, I doubt you'll be able to tell 320, 256 and 192 apart.
 

 

[nikp]

Quote:

Hmm well i was listening to an album on my mp3 player earlier and I was thinking "hmm this really doesnt sound very good I bet it is low bitrate" and I look at the details and sure enough it is 192kbps vbr mp3....
 
All I am saying is PERSONALLY I notice quite a big difference in sound quality... Maybe I just have better hearing or soemthing lol

Same thing happened to me. But however, there was a time when I am listening to this movie soundtrack and I thought it's a FLAC because the quality is just splendid. Guess what? It is a 3.1 MB mp3 file 128kbps. 

 

 

[Currawong]

I've removed about 3 pages of off-topic discussion. Please try and keep threads on topic and don't reply to flame-bait.