[trains are bad]

They sound identically. But I need to use .FLAC for storage, and there is no point to having two copies of my collection since I listen on my computer anyway.

I wouldn't hesitate in any way to use 320kbps LAME on a portable setup, or anywhere it was an advantage.

They sound exactly the same.

 

[lordgibbness]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad They sound identically. But I need to use .FLAC for storage, and there is no point to having two copies of my collection since I listen on my computer anyway. I wouldn't hesitate in any way to use 320kbps LAME on a portable setup, or anywhere it was an advantage. They sound exactly the same.

On a portable you wont hear any improvement over alt. preset standard (wind, other noise) - plus its almost identical to 320 anyway... only smaller. Good quote from ubernet here: "We advise against using this; you SHOULD NOT use this for new rips. It's almost always a poor choice; clearly bigger than APS [standard] or APX [extreme], doesn't sound any better, still lossy (though transparent). If your needs are archival, consider FLAC instead."

I pretty much agree here - I use APS (VBR ~220kbps) when ripping. If I was to archive my collection then I would be using FLAC.

 

[eberggren]

I did a blind listening test a couple of weeks ago comparing MP3 at 320kbps using iTunes' encoder, MP3 at 320kpbs using a LAME encoder, and Apple Lossless. Here's my setup:
4G (b/w) 40gb iPod-->Dock Connector/Cable from audiolineout.com-->Headroom Micro Amp-->Sennheiser HD600 with Cardas cable

I used the iPod for the test since I do probably 80 percent of my listening on it.

I put the 3 versions of each song in its own playlist, turned shuffle on, hit Play, and sat back and listened, jotting down which one I thought best and then back up to see which one was which.

The results? I thought the LAME songs sounded best 2 out of 3, and on the 3rd one, it was pretty much a toss-up. The Apple MP3 actually came in second ahead of ALAC once, and third the other two times.

I'll admit, that at 54, my hearing may not be all that it once was, but then again that may be a benefit here as I can put 3 times as many LAME MP3s on my hard drive and iPod as ALAC songs. Plus I wasn't very happy with previous experiments with ALAC as songs--especially long ones--there would often be a slight pause in the middle of songs caused, I presume, when the hard drive had to feed extra data to the memory cache. And using it in the car was impossible as it would do that pause thing everytime I hit a bump (and on California freeways, there's LOTS of bumps)--very annoying.

Anyway, I'm going with LAME MP3.

 

[aphex944]

For a few albums, I have both LAME APS MP3s and Monkey's Audio Lossless versions in the same directory. Many times I'll just load up all my music, put it on random, minimize, and do some work. I'll hear a track and notice that it sounds a bit "off", something just isn't right about it. It always ends up being the MP3 version, this has happened 3 or 4 times, which is enough to convince me that there really is a difference between the two.

I've noticed whenever I try an ABX test that I will involuntarily focus on one instrument, or one frequency range of the track. I've never been able to ABX Lame APE against Lossless, but I have a feeling it's how I'm listening during the test. I do notice the differences when I'm relaxing and taking in the whole spectrum instead of focusing and concentrating.

 

[TooNice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordgibbness I pretty much agree here - I use APS (VBR ~220kbps) when ripping. If I was to archive my collection then I would be using FLAC.

Unless you know for sure that you don't ever want to store it, it makes more sense to rip into FLAC, then transcode into LAME APS when necessary IMO..

I also go APS for portable, but since I don't want to end up ripping twice, I always rip in lossless.

 

[lordgibbness]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooNice Unless you know for sure that you don't ever want to store it, it makes more sense to rip into FLAC, then transcode into LAME APS when necessary IMO.. I also go APS for portable, but since I don't want to end up ripping twice, I always rip in lossless.

Yeah, if I every get round to re-ripping my collection I will definately use FLAC but these are CDs that I ripped in 2001, and only a few since. Haven't ripped many CDs in quite a while now.

 

[RichA]

Most of the time, I'd not notice a difference. Same goes for medium-bitrate Ogg - I really struggle to find the differences between lossless and Ogg at 200kbps and over.

 

[ferraro25]

Wow, I have pathetic hearing. Using the ABX test in Foobar on a couple of tracks, I cannot tell the difference between .wav and 128 kbps cbr .mp3 encoded with Lame 3.96 (just -b 128)! The test tracks were the first two tracks on Dave Matthews Band "Under the Table and Dreaming." Since I am willing to bet quite a few people here have that CD, could someone please test the first two tracks using the same method I did and report your results? If not, no problem - I just am curious to see if my hearing is really THAT bad, ugh.

Obviously, I voted that I cannot tell a difference on my setup.

 

[]|[ GorE]

From my experience,any bright sounding equipment in your chain makes the mp3 encoding artifacts more noticable.The playback transducers have the most impact.As an example,my EQed for flat response Koss UR40's and Philips HP805's make 192 kbps mp3's sound as good as the original wav.BUT,if UNEQED .....because of their boosted highs,the difference is more audible.

I have also done some testing between 192kbps mp3 and the original wav's on a Klipsch reference THX system and couldnt hear any difference at all.On a side note,i can hear test tones upto 17.5Khz.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferraro25 Wow, I have pathetic hearing. Using the ABX test in Foobar on a couple of tracks, I cannot tell the difference between .wav and 128 kbps cbr .mp3 encoded with Lame 3.96 (just -b 128)! The test tracks were the first two tracks on Dave Matthews Band "Under the Table and Dreaming." Since I am willing to bet quite a few people here have that CD, could someone please test the first two tracks using the same method I did and report your results? If not, no problem - I just am curious to see if my hearing is really THAT bad, ugh. Obviously, I voted that I cannot tell a difference on my setup.

naa
it depends also on tracks/genres you're going to check .
Get very well recorded electronica for ex. , and the difference wil show up very easily

 

[Tachikoma]

Quote:

I cannot tell the difference between .wav and 128 kbps cbr .mp3 encoded with Lame 3.96 (just -b 128)!

It also doesn't help when most pop recordings don't have much of a dynamic range =/

 

[trains are bad]

Also, I have heard that much of the difference is attributable to spacial imaging differences on speakers. On headphones they might not show up yet be obvious on speakers.

 

[ferraro25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boodi naa it depends also on tracks/genres you're going to check . Get very well recorded electronica for ex. , and the difference wil show up very easily

Using the ABX test in Foobar, I can't tell with Orbital's "In Sides." The problem here is definitely my ears. I am surprised that I hear such big differences between my headphones, but no difference between CD quality and 128 kbps .mp3s encoded with Lame.

Anyway, this makes me feel better about using Yahoo! Music as my primary source of music. There is probably no way I could tell the difference between CD and 192 kbps .wma.

 

[RichA]

It's always the same though - the differences aren't noticeable on all music. The information is missing, of that there is no doubt. Whether you notice it is another.

With a medium-quality MP3(or any other codec), then maybe you'll not notice a difference with 80% of music(apart from all the 'audiophiles' in the world who can hear every single difference in every single piece of music). Of the remaining 20%, there will be sections where you think that something maybe doesn't quite sound how it should, and others where you know that something isn't quite right.

A VBR MP3 averaging 170-220kbps sounds pretty damned good almost all of the time. There will be subtle differences, but only if you're actively listening for them. An Ogg averaging 170-220kbps should be as close to transparent as you'll find from a lossy codec.

There will always be certain sections of certain songs where it just doesn't cut the mustard. Maybe in years to come, every piece of music can be compressed and still retain perfect audio quality. Chances are that in 2 years time, audio compression will be pretty redundant unless you're a hardcore p2p pirate with ten billion songs. A 200gb portable media player should easily let you fit on a couple of hundred albums in lossless, or absolutely bucketloads of compressed audio. A couple of years after that, we'll have 500gb or 750gb readily available. With that kind of capacity, is anyone going to bother developing lossy audio?

As always, I'm heading off-topic and posting pure speculation

.

--Rich

 

[ferraro25]

Well, I found out that I can hear the differences between 128 kbps and CD quality at the start of the track of "The Best of What's Around" by Dave Matthews Band using ABX in Foobar (and my setup in my signature, with AKG K 81 DJ). I can easily get 20 out of 20 in a row that way. Phew, I thought my hearing was worse than it is. It is evident that the 128 kbps .mp3 is less precise, simulating high-frequency sound with something akin to white noise.