[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed /img/forum/go_quote.gif Use V0 instead of 320kb/s, but aside from that, w/decent system the 128>320 jump is one of the biggest free leaps in SQ there is.

The jumps get smaller as the bitrate goes up. 128 to 192 is significant, particularly with AAC. There is a slight improvement to certain types of artifacting up to 256. I haven't been able to find any difference between 256 and 320. Perhaps it makes more of a difference with MP3s than AAC.

See ya
Steve

 

[HFat]

Not sure what doubt you're having but, if you like doubting, think about what "overall sound quality" could possibly mean. And then think about what it could mean to me vs. what it could mean to you.

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The jumps get smaller as the bitrate goes up. 128 to 192 is significant, particularly with AAC. There is a slight improvement to certain types of artifacting up to 256. I haven't been able to find any difference between 256 and 320. Perhaps it makes more of a difference with MP3s than AAC. See ya Steve

...but 128>320 is 128>192 and some more.

Really the point was bitrate/codec can be immensely affecting.



I wonder why anyone goes about buying upgrades, when their first port of call is less good than it could be. 'Weakest link in the chain'.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...but 128>320 is 128>192 and some more.

It's important to realize that more is not always better. Sometimes it's just more. Bitrate that improves sound quality beyond the range of human hearing is a waste of time, and the massive files are a waste of space on your hard drive, taking up space that more music could be occupying.

The key is to find the perfect spot, where codec and bitrate give the maximum sound quality for the minimum filesize. For me, that's 192 AAC VBR. 320 would be beyond overkill.

See ya
Steve

 

[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...and the massive files are a waste of space on your hard drive, taking up space that more music could be occupying.

This may be true on portables, where it's physically impossible to increase hard drive capacity beyond certain limits, but some portable rigs have such high resolving power that it may be worth the sacrifice of quantity.

On desktop machines there is no excuse. If you have such limited space, where your considering lowering the quality of music, stop buying new CDs and upgrade the hard drive! I've spent more than twice the price of my teradrives on CDs this year, yet they only take up a fraction of total capacity in lossless.


EK

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's important to realize that more is not always better. Sometimes it's just more. Bitrate that improves sound quality beyond the range of human hearing is a waste of time, and the massive files are a waste of space on your hard drive, taking up space that more music could be occupying. The key is to find the perfect spot, where codec and bitrate give the maximum sound quality for the minimum filesize. For me, that's 192 AAC VBR. 320 would be beyond overkill. See ya Steve

Wasn't argunig that, I said 'Use V0' even.

Just 128 to 320 encorporates 128 to 192, no arguing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by evilking /img/forum/go_quote.gif On desktop machines there is no excuse. If you have such limited space, where your considering lowering the quality of music, stop buying new CDs and upgrade the hard drive! I've spent more than twice the price of my teradrives on CDs this year, yet they only take up a fraction of total capacity in lossless.

Yes, I do not understand. I bought a biggish internal HDD just for FLACs for about £80. I'll tell you something, it has more than 8 CDs on it.

 

[Leporello]

Usually I have been able to tell 128 kbit from the original in a blind test. But 320 kbit has been impossible so far.

Regards,

L.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilking /img/forum/go_quote.gif On desktop machines there is no excuse. If you have such limited space, where your considering lowering the quality of music, stop buying new CDs and upgrade the hard drive!

That wouldn't work for my collection, I'm afraid. There's too much great music and not enough hard drive space.

See ya
Steve

 

[Kryogen]

I can tell the huge difference between 128 and 192.

Not really sure I can hear a difference between 192 and 320 though. Sometimes I think I do, but that might be placebo. I rip my cds to 320 "just to make sure".

I can not hear a difference between 320 and the CD though. Not at all, never did.

 

[Jammin72]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's important to realize that more is not always better. Sometimes it's just more. Bitrate that improves sound quality beyond the range of human hearing is a waste of time, and the massive files are a waste of space on your hard drive, taking up space that more music could be occupying. The key is to find the perfect spot, where codec and bitrate give the maximum sound quality for the minimum filesize. For me, that's 192 AAC VBR. 320 would be beyond overkill. See ya Steve

You're making a fairly large assumption here. The fact is that frequencies beyond the range of human hearing do indeed affect the way primary waves behave in space. It's part of the reason that DSD or SuperAudio CD played on systems with the capacity to render the information have a much more natural feel and larger more well defined soundstage. Perhaps for your stlye of listening it's a waste of time but for others it is part of the process in the pursuit of sonic bliss. If you're collecting music via an electronic format an you want your library to support a level of listening to which you are stiving doing so in a format that will work better when you are able to upgrade the playback system makes sense. For a portable player lower bit-rates can make sense but with the storage boom happening collecting in V0 or even *gasp* FLAC may save you re-ripping in the future.

 

[bigshot]

There's never been any study that showed that frequencies above 20kHz have any effect whatsoever on the quality of the music. In fact, there have been studies that show that filtering off everything above 10kHz doesn't affect the quality of the sound for most people.

The fundamental frequencies of the highest musical instrument doesn't reach above 8 or 9 kHz. This means that extension to 20kHz allows for a full range of harmonics and then some. That is all you need.

The sound quality difference between lossy encoded at a reasonable bitrate and lossless has nothing to do with how good the sound is. It doesn't matter how good of a system you play it back on. The difference is the number of compression artifacts. You can hear artifacts just as well on a midrange stereo system as you can on a high end. If you raise the bitrate on your lossy files high enough for the type of music you listen to, you can pretty much eliminate artifacting. Once you do that, there is no real difference between lossy and lossless.

See ya
Steve

 

[yale.reinstein]

Quality of the rip / codec is more important than the bitrate. So is the quality of the original material.

I've heard beautiful 128kbps mp3s and wholly unimpressive lossless files.

 

[Jammin72]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's never been any study that showed that frequencies above 20kHz have any effect whatsoever on the quality of the music. In fact, there have been studies that show that filtering off everything above 10kHz doesn't affect the quality of the sound for most people. The fundamental frequencies of the highest musical instrument doesn't reach above 8 or 9 kHz. This means that extension to 20kHz allows for a full range of harmonics and then some. That is all you need. The sound quality difference between lossy encoded at a reasonable bitrate and lossless has nothing to do with how good the sound is. It doesn't matter how good of a system you play it back on. The difference is the number of compression artifacts. You can hear artifacts just as well on a midrange stereo system as you can on a high end. If you raise the bitrate on your lossy files high enough for the type of music you listen to, you can pretty much eliminate artifacting. Once you do that, there is no real difference between lossy and lossless. See ya Steve

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.

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The fundamental frequencies of the highest musical instrument doesn't reach above 8 or 9 kHz. This means that extension to 20kHz allows for a full range of harmonics and then some. That is all you need.

I agree most can't hear very high-frequencies. You said it 'The fundamental frequencies of the highest musical instrument doesn't reach above 8 or 9 kHz', which means some do.

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!

 

[HFat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jammin72 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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

This isn't a valid test. Have you tried downsampling (and maybe dithering) the SACD version instead?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jammin72 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Compress any of my own recordings to an mp3 format and the soundstage collapses noticeably.

Have you tried an ABX test? If you passed one by listening for a collapsing soundstage, I'd be interested in learning more about those recordings.

Sorry if this is old news to you... I wouldn't have bothered someone with a high post-count with this stuff as it's been rehashed over and over.