[cswann1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oggranak /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for MP3s for jogging, we're getting to a point where that's not as much of an issue. I'm not sure how hard drive players fare when being moved around like that, but even flash players are reaching capacities around 30GB now, more than enough to store a decent amount of lossless music.

I was wondering when someone was going to mention this. In an age where terabyte hard drives for your home PC are under $150 (USD) and our portables will hold a couple of hours worth of uncompressed audio information, the "need" for highly compressed files is fading fast.

 

[Taikero]

Ever since I started upgrading my sound system I've been rediscovering artists I'd completely passed over because they just didn't sound good before. When I can't even understand what the singer is singing, why do I want to listen to his (or her) music?

I like the wine correlation. Cheap boxed wine tastes horrible and you almost have to force it down. Get something in a bottle between $30-$100 (lots of good options, really) and it's a whole different story. Appreciating audio doesn't have to be super expensive either. Just do some looking around and you can find great options for less than the average night at a bar. Heck, don't go to the bar for four nights you would have and you've paid for a substantial amount of audio bliss.

Anyway, backup or not, the guy has a point. Just today I let a coworker listen to "Rock You Like A Hurricane" by the Scorpions, and he said he heard things through my Denon AH-D5000 he'd never heard before on that song ever.

It's too bad the average person thinks spending more than $50-$100 on headphones is basically insane. I get strange looks when I tell people what my headphones cost.

 

[rjp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiFi1972 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry for the rant, but I'm personally tired of the music industry trying to scare everyone into thinking that we need a new format (such as SACD) when the technology is already there.

Exactly. Even worse, the real rationale for SACD is DRM: you can't just "roll your own" SACDs. Even if you have a DSD-capable recorder (like one of the Korg units), the SACD format is designed so that players won't play unencrypted discs - and only the pressing plants have the keys needed to make playable discs.

You can make your own DVD-A discs (though you can't use Meridian Lossless Packing without shelling out big bucks).

 

[CJ Scudworth]

I only skimmed the article linked to by the OP, but the fact is that with today's more sophisticated and better-tuned MP3 encoders (or AAC encoders, for that matter) most people cannot tell the difference between a 128 kbps file and a CD, especially if it is a VBR encoding.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ Scudworth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I only skimmed the article linked to by the OP, but the fact is that with today's more sophisticated and better-tuned MP3 encoders (or AAC encoders, for that matter) most people cannot tell the difference between a 128 kbps file and a CD, especially if it is a VBR encoding.

Not if they only just listen to 128 kbps. It often takes some experience with the higher quality item to learn to discern the differences. Perhaps that's the point, or one of them anyway.

 

[mbd2884]

With any posting about lossy formats from so called "audiophiles" should always be taken with grain of salt.

These snobs tend to forget their ears are in fact biological and they are human. Our hearing is extremely limited and well they are full of themselves.

Like PhilS said, if its 128 kbps then yes, but once its 192+, that's when they are just talking out their ass.

That and music and audio equipment is just so subjective anyways. The placebo effect is always present, almost nothing about music can be said definitively it would seem, its all up to the listener to decide for themselves.

 

[CJ Scudworth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not if they only just listen to 128 kbps. It often takes some experience with the higher quality item to learn to discern the differences. Perhaps that's the point, or one of them anyway.

If more people subjected themselves to blind testing, they would be surprised.

I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who can reliably tell the difference between a 128 kbps MP3 file and uncompressed CD audio, but this is increasingly rare, even among "audiophiles." It's often the case that these people have in effect trained themselves into hearing specific artifacts endemic to MP3 compression which most people never hear, and are often present even at the highest MP3 bitrates.

Bottom line is, if you can't tell the difference now between a low-bitrate MP3 file and a CD, the chances that you will in the future only decrease as your ears get older.

 

[Dominat0r]

hmmm this is not new news guys....we all know this. You know that bit rate DOES make a difference and its waste of money to buy lower bit rate itunes music. Compressing music you know will cause the music quality to degrade. That piece of music might really not be as enjoyable as the CD version, due to it being 128k instead of lossless. I know people say that cannot tell a difference....well that fine..However, just cause you cant hear it, it doesnt mean its not degraded. Ignorance is bliss...if you cant tell, then bless your ears =)

 

[kool bubba ice]

When did SQ matter? The people that want lossy codecs, and missing information, listen on 10.00 ear buds with their poor amp/dac Ipod...Yes, I'm a audio snob.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ Scudworth /img/forum/go_quote.gif If more people subjected themselves to blind testing, they would be surprised. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who can reliably tell the difference between a 128 kbps MP3 file and uncompressed CD audio, but this is increasingly rare, even among "audiophiles." It's often the case that these people have in effect trained themselves into hearing specific artifacts endemic to MP3 compression which most people never hear, and are often present even at the highest MP3 bitrates. Bottom line is, if you can't tell the difference now between a low-bitrate MP3 file and a CD, the chances that you will in the future only decrease as your ears get older.

I just don't agree. And I don't think it is rare among "audiophiles" that they can tell the differences between 128 and lossless. I think most people with a decent amount of experience listening to a quality recording on a decent MP3 player with decent cans could hear it. A 128 recording just doesn't sound the same as lossless. That's my opinion, but I respect yours also.

EDIT: BTW, if it is "rare" for audiophiles to be able to tell the difference between 128 and lossless, do you think it is also rare that audiophiles can tell the difference between different brands of MP3 players playing the same lossless recording? Just curious.

 

[lucky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ Scudworth /img/forum/go_quote.gif If more people subjected themselves to blind testing, they would be surprised. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who can reliably tell the difference between a 128 kbps MP3 file and uncompressed CD audio, but this is increasingly rare, even among "audiophiles." It's often the case that these people have in effect trained themselves into hearing specific artifacts endemic to MP3 compression which most people never hear, and are often present even at the highest MP3 bitrates. Bottom line is, if you can't tell the difference now between a low-bitrate MP3 file and a CD, the chances that you will in the future only decrease as your ears get older.

I ABXed some music a while ago and distinguished 192 from lossless 3/3 times (not scientific, I know). 128/lossless was rather straightforward (cymbals are watery at 128, and things are also slightly more muffled), but 192/lossless was much more tricky. I was 0/3 distinguishing 320/lossless.

I agree with your point about self-training to ID artifacts, but I'd note that the threshold at which that training becomes necessary will vary among people. I'd suspect, for example, that most people could distinguish a Youtube audio stream from that of a lossless file without any training, as long as they were told to identify the "better" sample. As you increase the quality of the lossy file, however, it becomes harder to do so naturally until you have to start listening for the differences, and as the lossy file increases further in quality, it eventually becomes impossible (for example, I don't believe anyone is capable of discerning a 499kbs lossy file from a 500kbs lossless file). In short, it depends on your ears, your music, your gear, and, perhaps most importantly, your concern.

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighLife /img/forum/go_quote.gif hmmm this is not new news guys....we all know this. You know that bit rate DOES make a difference and its waste of money to buy lower bit rate itunes music. Compressing music you know will cause the music quality to degrade. That piece of music might really not be as enjoyable as the CD version, due to it being 128k instead of lossless. I know people say that cannot tell a difference....well that fine..However, just cause you cant hear it, it doesnt mean its not degraded. Ignorance is bliss...if you cant tell, then bless your ears =)

Yes it is degraded, but how and to what extent?

I have had many people tell me that they can tell the difference between mp3 and lossless, yet they are completely unable to describe what those differences are. I have been told many times (by non-internet friends) mp3s sound "static-y" or "less bass" even though neither of those are introduced by higher bitrates. At very low bitrates you can easily hear the kinds of artifacts that are introduced such as pre-echo and changes in attack/decay, but above 192/V2 most people are unable to recognize these and above 256/V0 I have yet to see an instance where someone accurately described these artifacts (though I do not doubt that some people can tell that there is a difference, especially with familiar recordings). Personally I see no reason to go above V0 for SQ reasons, but others do and that is why there are different settings.

What does amaze me though, is that audiophiles have not embraced OGG Vorbis for their lossy needs considering it scores better on listening tests.

 

[CJ Scudworth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucky /img/forum/go_quote.gif In short, it depends on your ears, your music, your gear, and, perhaps most importantly, your concern.

Exactly, which is why an article telling people to disregard all MP3 encoding isn't worth my reading it.

 

[Dominat0r]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ Scudworth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly, which is why an article telling people to disregard all MP3 encoding isn't worth my reading it.

i dont really see him being anti-lossy.....just pro-lossless =)

the number thing that tells me normally is quick snaps of a snare drum, or rolls on a cymbal. Even the crash of a cymbal. Also, the extension of the lowest bass note...normally you can hear slightly muddy or overpower low bass due to lower bit rates. Also, ive noticed that sometime i hear some background noise on a mp3....almost like a low level pink noise.

However, i do believe that high quality MP3s (320k) are more transparent then most people say they are.

 

[CJ Scudworth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif EDIT: BTW, if it is "rare" for audiophiles to be able to tell the difference between 128 and lossless, do you think it is also rare that audiophiles can tell the difference between different brands of MP3 players playing the same lossless recording? Just curious.

To be honest, I haven't had much experience in this specific area, so I don't have an opinion on it. I would think that design differences could lead to differences in sound quality, but whether or not they would be significant enough for most discerning listeners to pick up, I don't know. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.