[ricmat]

after posting the wrong side...

Hi guys!


After reading a lot about this decided to do my own tests, so a few days ago...

...Just got some good recording (DDD Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto #3 Bernard Haitink, Vladimir Ashkenazy Sep. 1986 Decca) and made the rip at lossless for the first movement - mp3 cbr 128Kbps lame 3.97, mp3 cbr 192Kbps lame 3.97 and mp3 vbr 192-224Kbps lame 3.97)

late in the night, no noise at all (anechoic chamber though... ), just plugged my Alessandro MS-1 (30hours old) into my laptop (with realtek high definition audio) did some ABX test and the result was:


@ mp3 cbr 128Kbps lame 3.97 vs lossless - result 10/10 (I could differenciate each of them, so I did not proceed longer after 10 rights!)

@ mp3 cbr 192Kbps lame 3.97 vs lossless - result 9/14 (I could differenciate 9 out of 14 samples)

@ mp3 vbr 192-224Kbps lame 3.97 vs lossless - result 8/20 (totally random, couldn differenciate anymore)

So, those were the results!

(i'm thinking of re-doing this test with 164Kbps...)


I'm also thinking about buying some new stuff for my laptop, ex0du5 already told me about PCMCIA Audigy 2 ZS, is it a decent laptop music sound card?

Cheers!

 

[krmathis]

Your findings are about what the general consensus have shown.
That most people have a hard time distinguish a Lame -V2 [~192kbps VBR) file from the lossless source.

 

[ssportclay]

You may never feel a need to use a lossless codec as long as you never upgrade your equipment.The more you get into better speakers and amplifiers,the more you will become dissatisfied with lossy sources.Foobar,EAC,Flac,and ASIO are all free to use as long as you are willing to provide enough hard drive space.

 

[SR-71Panorama]

Some tracks I cant hear a difference, but others is very obvious. One such track that is glarringly better in lossless is Metallica's Sad But True. The lossless has so much more vitality in the cymbal crashes. It is the only track that I INSTANTLY could hear a difference after about a millisecond of playback.

 

[ricmat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SR-71Panorama /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some tracks I cant hear a difference, but others is very obvious. One such track that is glarringly better in lossless is Metallica's Sad But True. The lossless has so much more vitality in the cymbal crashes. It is the only track that I INSTANTLY could hear a difference after about a millisecond of playback.

Really?? thats great!

I have to try with that track!

Thanks for the tip!

Cheers!

 

[Illah]

I personally feel that when you get to really good quality VBR there is practically no difference, even with expensive gear. I still rip mostly acoustic/organic music to FLAC just to feel better about myself (jazz, classical, some rock) but honestly I can't even tell the difference

Having been in the audio game for a while, then backing out, has taught me a lot. For example, I obsessed on head-fi for a year, spent a lot of time on home theater before that, then largely dropped off the forums and everything for the past 12-18 months.

From just enjoying my gear and music I realized that when you're reading Stereophile and the forums it makes you think things matter when they really don't. This hobby is full of myth and superstition.

--Illah

 

[LFF]

I rip all my music to FLAC. Here is my advice - In 1993 128kps MP3 was CD quality. That's right, CD quality from 20Hz to 20kHZ. Now, it is hard to do, but when you find that 1993 codec, 128kps will be all you'll need. Good luck!

 

[Thelonious Monk]

i can't tell between 320kbps lame and flac. i especially can't tell between 500kbps vorbis and flac

edit: presonus cs -> k501/sr225/hd600

 

[Redo]

What's sad is the stuff lossless formats have the hardest time compressing, is the stuff the lame can compress to low bitrates with little to no artifacts. EG the really hotly mastered newer rock music, FLAC can't compress it too well (1000kbps+). However, throw a Lame 3.97 -V 4 at that kind of music and it sounds exactly the same to me.

But the more dynamic music, such as some of the better mastered Doors stuff, it's a much different story. FLAC can compress it down to 700-750kbps routinely, and that's the stuff I've nailed 7/7 at FLAC vs 3.97 -V 2.

If disk space becomes a critical issue for whatever reason, I have a whole pile of FLAC music that's gonna go right to -V 4 mp3 to save disc space.

 

[pedxing]

My suggestion is to listen to the CD and make a judgement call on the compression ratio. I have done -v 4 with poorly mixed CDs and the differences are very slight. On the other hand, there are some extreme cases with some orchestra music where 320 kbs mp3 did not cut it.