WAVs vs. MP3s

[judgmentday]

I dumped a whole CD in the Vision: M 30gb and in the MUVO2 5GB and for some reason the wavs sound much better in both players. When listening for extendended time, with the mp3s I even get headaches. I'm using the Sennheiser M500. Don't you guys experience the samething? I guess I'm going to listen to wavs instead of compressing for the space sake. I have not tested MP4 AAC. Hopefully those would sound better than mp3s. What do you guys think?

 

[rockin_amigo14]

i should hope the WAV files sound better. they aren't compressed.

AAC is said to sound better than mp3 at certain bitrates, but not by me. i haven't listen to them as a comparison.

 

[judgmentday]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin_amigo14 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i should hope the WAV files sound better. they aren't compressed. AAC is said to sound better than mp3 at certain bitrates, but not by me. i haven't listen to them as a comparison.

What about the new LAME 3.97 or 3.98? Do you really get an improvement from the old encoder 3.96.1 @ 256kb?

 

[Febs]

Yes, there are definitely improvements in 3.97 (the current recommended LAME version) and 3.98 (still in alpha) over 3.96.1, though many of these advantages relate to encoding speed and file size. Be sure to use the -V x presets. Use the following command line for the closest setting to 256kbps:

-V 0 --vbr-new

There are very few people who can tell the difference between MP3s encoded with this setting and .wav files.

Generally speaking, AAC/MP4 is said to outperform MP3 at comparable bitrates, although once you get into the 200+ kpbs range, both should be transparent.

 

[EFN]

This is a subject well discussed and debated. I have been doing extensive swaps between LAME 3.97, NERO AAC, WMA, FLAC and WAV.

Without a doubt, properly encoded lossy formats as mentioned above will sound as good as the lossless image. But the similarities end when played through highly transparent rig (good amp + good headphone).

I stress that between superbly encoded lossy and lossless, quality wise they are practically on par with regard to sound quality.

The difference is in how the dynamics and transients are potrayed. I could always sense some glare and unescessary sparkle in lossy formats - much more apparent in LAME 3.97 and less with NERO AAC. In short they have that "edgy" feeling. WAV and FLAC on the other hand were almost free of the glaring body. Another thing is the sense of space at which lossy format somehow felt lacking. But seriously, with an excellent DAP like zune and Rio Karma through the headphone out, this will not be bothering the listener at all. But when you start to introduce amp and highly surgical headphone into the picture, the shortcomings will become apparent.

 

[vranswer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EFN /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is a subject well discussed and debated. I have been doing extensive swaps between LAME 3.97, NERO AAC, WMA, FLAC and WAV. Without a doubt, properly encoded lossy formats as mentioned above will sound as good as the lossless image. But the similarities end when played through highly transparent rig (good amp + good headphone). I stress that between superbly encoded lossy and lossless, quality wise they are practically on par with regard to sound quality. The difference is in how the dynamics and transients are potrayed. I could always sense some glare and unescessary sparkle in lossy formats - much more apparent in LAME 3.97 and less with NERO AAC. In short they have that "edgy" feeling. WAV and FLAC on the other hand were almost free of the glaring body. Another thing is the sense of space at which lossy format somehow felt lacking. But seriously, with an excellent DAP like zune and Rio Karma through the headphone out, this will not be bothering the listener at all. But when you start to introduce amp and highly surgical headphone into the picture, the shortcomings will become apparent.

I've often referred to this 'glare' as 'blare', as in blaring sound. I'm cruising along listening happily to lossy files until the time comes to turn up the volume. That's when lossy compression exhibits its weakness afaik. The sound just starts to become annoying/irritating.

I've dumped lossy compression, and use ALAC and FLAC. Just need enough memory for the job - 8GB for flash players is pretty sweet right now.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

This is a subject well discussed and debated. I have been doing extensive swaps between LAME 3.97, NERO AAC, WMA, FLAC and WAV.

What is your procedure when doing the tests?

 

[EFN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is your procedure when doing the tests?

There's no specific procedure. Nothing beats the experience of using each format and swapping them in between for a space of at least 1 month. I have use LAME for 3 months, NERO AAC for 1, and FLAC on and Off for a total of 4 months, WAV only on my computer all the time and recently WMA for a couple of weeks. It's easy for me because I have 2 Rio Karma and a zune at that time.

ABX testing does nothing to show me. Actual usage and listening counts. With a limited pool of 50 frequently played songs that I am hugely familiar with, it's not difficult.

 

[justin2net]

LAME encoded 320 CBR mp3s, -b 320 are very VERY close to lossless. very close. the difference i spot is that with mp3, the character isnt as charming (louds and softs arent as pronounced as lossless).

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EFN /img/forum/go_quote.gif ABX testing does nothing to show me. Actual usage and listening counts.

ABX isn't listening?

Most people can more easily resolve a difference when comparing tracks over short periods of time, but if you think you can tell the difference better over long periods then you can ABX over a month instead of a minute, as long as the testing is blind. Your testing is blind, right..?

 

[EFN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif ABX isn't listening? Most people can more easily resolve a difference when comparing tracks over short periods of time, but if you think you can tell the difference better over long periods then you can ABX over a month instead of a minute, as long as the testing is blind. Your testing is blind, right..?

I don't have to be blindfolded to feel the "edgy"ness of lossy file. Like I stress earlier - on the fly ABX does not work for me so that's why I decided to use them on daily basis and train my ear. Again, SQ wise most lossy format are on par with lossless, it's the glare level that makes the difference specially on bright sounding rig

 

[Febs]

It sounds like ABX does work for you but you've chosen to misinterpret the results.

 

[vranswer]

You will never, EVER convince any denizen of the ABX nation that you could possibly hear the difference without a blind computer-even-though-that's-not-your-actual-normal-source program to compare to digital files. "NO, you cannot hear the difference

, it MUST be placebo". "It is SCIENCE only if you ABX!"

The vehemence with which the argument is made demonstrates that the ABX faithful simply cannot hear the difference between lossy and lossless compression, and thus neither can anyone else. So the remaining heathens must be proselytized to know the TRUTH.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer /img/forum/go_quote.gif You will never, EVER convince any denizen of the ABX nation that you could possibly hear the difference without a blind computer-even-though-that's-not-your-actual-normal-source program to compare to digital files. "NO, you cannot hear the difference , it MUST be placebo". "It is SCIENCE only if you ABX!" The vehemence with which the argument is made demonstrates that the ABX faithful simply cannot hear the difference between lossy and lossless compression, and thus neither can anyone else. So the remaining heathens must be proselytized to know the TRUTH.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer /img/forum/go_quote.gif You will never, EVER convince any denizen of the ABX nation that you could possibly hear the difference without a blind computer-even-though-that's-not-your-actual-normal-source program to compare to digital files. "NO, you cannot hear the difference , it MUST be placebo". "It is SCIENCE only if you ABX!"

When did "even-though-that's-not-your-actual-normal-source" enter the discussion? EFN said nothing about it. He just said that that he can hear a difference through extended listening that he cannot hear through ABX testing. I'm highly skeptical of those types of claims. I wouldn't be skeptical of claims that he can he a difference using certain gear that he cannot hear using other gear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer /img/forum/go_quote.gif The vehemence with which the argument is made demonstrates that the ABX faithful simply cannot hear the difference between lossy and lossless compression, and thus neither can anyone else.

Yawn. Go back and read some of my posts about ABX testing. You'll find that I readily acknowledge that there are people who can hear differences that I cannot.