[Chri5peed]

edit

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jammin72 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The bones in the human ear still vibrate due to frequecies beyond 20kHz and some instruments such as cymbals produce frequencies well above that figure.

You're talking about theoretical hairs on a gnat. It makes no difference in real world listening.

Take a high bitrate recording and a pro grade equalizer and roll off everything above 18kHz. See if you can hear a difference. Now roll it off earlier by a few kHz... then a little earlier... see where you can start hearing a difference. I think you'll be surprised at how low the real spectrum of sound in music is.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe plenty of enjoyment in music is got by feeling. At the most basic level speakers can cause violent motion, same as Tweeters, they just add an intangible fullness. Speaker bass IS tangible!

If you understand the basic principles behind sound, you can make more logical assumptions about how sound reproduction works. Musical expression is measured in subjective feeling. Musical reproduction is measured as frequencies and decibels. Sound reproduction isn't intangible.

See ya
Steve

 

[LeChuck]

For the most part I agree with Steve...

I've never done an explicit test between lossless and 320Kbps MP3, but I have done it with Musepack, and for me lossy was totally transparent - there was no discernible difference. I would almost be willing to argue the case that at those bitrates, and with quality codecs like OGG-Vorbis and Musepack, no one is capable of telling the difference between lossy and lossless, but that would be too presumptuous.

That being said, I ALWAYS rip to lossless. And why not? As many others have pointed out, hard disk space is so cheap these days (I bought three 800GB drives and run them in RAID-5) that the cost advantage of saving to MP3 is fractional at best. I think people also underestimate how efficient lossless codecs have become, especially with certain types of music. My library is about 70% classical, and most of it will compress lossless at an average bitrate of about 500kbps, which is certainly reasonable.

When I want to listen on my portable, it's just as simple as making a playlist in Foobar and converting it to Musepack.

The bottom line is that I payed for 100% of the music, and I want 100% of it going into my DAC, so that there is never any doubt in my mind. And while present-day equipment, or even just my equipment may be unable to resolve the difference between high quality lossy and lossless compression, there's no telling what future improvements in DAC and amplification technology will reveal.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeChuck /img/forum/go_quote.gif That being said, I ALWAYS rip to lossless.

Compression artifacting is cumulative. You always want to rip to lossless so you can reencode for different purposes without adding to the artifacting.

A first generation lossless file with good encoding is identical for purposes of listening with human ears on any equipment.

See ya
Steve

 

[Jammin72]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're talking about theoretical hairs on a gnat. It makes no difference in real world listening. Take a high bitrate recording and a pro grade equalizer and roll off everything above 18kHz. See if you can hear a difference. Now roll it off earlier by a few kHz... then a little earlier... see where you can start hearing a difference. I think you'll be surprised at how low the real spectrum of sound in music is. See ya Steve

As I said, I'm not interested in real world listening, I'm hoping for something just a bit better.

We're speaking of apples and oranges it seems. I'm talking about something more than just perceived sound.

It's really a conversation for another thread.

I'll keep my hiary gnat.

Thanks for the info though.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jammin72 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The bones in the human ear still vibrate due to frequecies beyond 20kHz and some instruments such as cymbals produce frequencies well above that figure. We interpret this information whether we "hear" it or not. What some studies have shown is that this helps people to resolve a sense of space or image, or that they simply report the listening experience as being more "real". There are some human reactions that are not as of yet quantifiable or understood, but that doesn't make them useless. Listen to the Roger Waters "In The Flesh" recoding on SACD with a system and speakers that produce those higher frequencies then playback the redbook or standard cd version on the same system and you can begin to understand the difference it makes in the image and realism of the recording. mp3, even at 320, has compression artifacts that distort the sine waves. It's shifted out of the range of most people's hearing so many people beleive that it's not worth bothering over. For the majority of folks this is true, critical listening is not an en masse endeavor. Most of us want to be able to hear our music in a clear and coherent manner and it becomes the background of our lives. For this type of listening it's more than enough, I have many albums encoded in mp3 because either the recording itself is nothing worth reproducing in a high rez format or simply becuase the only time it would be played would be for cleaning the house, going for a jog, or become part of the DJ list for a party. My live conert collection on the other hand is a different story. Compress any of my own recordings to an mp3 format and the soundstage collapses noticeably. The ideas and theories are sound and for 90% of the population what you're saying is true but being a gemini I always like to offer the counter-opinion when someone is making an absolute statement.

Jammin72, I appreciate what you've said, but one slight constructive criticism - if you're going to mention scientifically controversial hearing above hearing studies (which may indeed be true and important to this subject), bringing in horoscopes in at the end doesn't help your argument.

 

[Solude]

You can't hear or lose what isn't there. Cutting off frequencies at a certain Hz is part of the DAC process. Including harmonics, nothing in natural music crosses the 10KHz range. Being able to hear incredibly annoying sounds doesn't make them present in music... something that aims to be pleasing to the ear

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jammin72 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As I said, I'm not interested in real world listening, I'm hoping for something just a bit better.

Well, if that's the case, the sky's the limit. Spend as much money as you can on things you can't hear. To me, being an audiophile isn't being financially able to throw large amounts of money at theoretical sound. It's being able to achieve optimal sound at any price point. Anyone can put together a $50,000 sound system that sounds good. It takes experience, knowledge and a discerning ear to be able to do the exact same thing for much less. I'll spend the money I save on music.

See ya
Steve

 

[Jigglybootch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jammin72 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As I said, I'm not interested in real world listening, I'm hoping for something just a bit better.

What the hell does that even mean?

 

[bhjazz]

A 320 rip still means you are applying the MP3 compression scheme to the files. Part of this scheme includes rolling off higs and lows. I don't car how many extra files I can get onto a hard drive just because the files are smaller, they are compressed, and that means giving up part of the music. Flac and wavs to the rescue!

 

[TMM]

320kbps and V0 MP3 sounds pretty much the same as uncompressed imo. Only if you really listen closely will you hear the difference (rolled off/distorted highs). Personally i prefer FLAC as storage space isn't a problem for me and it doesn't take long to rip anyway.

 

[baglunch]

For me, the most important issue (as bigshot said) with encoding to FLAC, is being able to re-encode to lossy, and have the best sounding version of that lower bitrate possible. So I can have FLACs for listening at my more expensive workstation rig, and have the best possible sounding low bitrate VBRs of those same songs for my portable rig.

Also, I've recently upgraded my rig. While it's not nearly on par with the some of the more serious among you, it's a big jump from what I'd had before. And now I can hear a difference between my old VBR -v3 mp3s and my new FLAC re-rips. So, with FLAC, you won't have to worry about your rig outpacing your source media.

You can always re-encode the quality out. You can't re-encode it back in.

 

[Jigglybootch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhjazz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't car how many extra files I can get onto a hard drive just because the files are smaller, they are compressed, and that means giving up part of the music. Flac and wavs to the rescue!

FLAC is compressed.

 

[baglunch]

I don't think he meant filesize by "compressed" there. I think he meant the audio wave, but he phrased it confusingly, mixing the two issues. That's how I read it anyway.