[Xakepa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, and in any case completely misses the point. It's true that there is additional resolution in a 24 bit (versus a 16 bit) recording, and this may yield slightly better sound, but the dynamic range of a 16 bit recording (which is what bit depth effects) is already impressively good. And yes, 96 or 192 kHz sampling will extend frequency response, which some people *may* bea ble to hear. BUT - lossy codecs do not work by changing bit depth of sampling rate. They are, as most know, based on pshyco-acoustical algorithms which actually remove data that is WELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF HUMAN HEARING. True, in most modern lossy codecs this removal of sound is imperceptible, but it is NOT the same as changing bit depth or data rate at all. So your argument does not hold water. I'm not arguing that people should listen to lossless -- that is up to the individual. But when you rip, you should rip in Lossless. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just making themselves feel better about having spent time and effort ripping CDs in a sub-optimal way. And also, there is nothing "uber-elitist" about this -- it's quite the opposite, it's about utility and flexibility. If you ripped in MP3 320k, it may sound perfect to you. But if you them want to transcode to AAC 192 for some reason later, you will SERIOUSLY compromise the sound quality, whereas if you had ripped in lossless, this would be no problem.

Pls, read the second sentence of my post. It's the brain that sets the limit, and once the psycho-acoustic model "gets" how brain discards info, you're done. You could increase fidelity, bandwidth etc but you won't be able to percieve that.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACK5ON That sounds interesting. Would you be interested in posting the results of an ABX test to prove you can tell the difference in [320 MP3 -> 192 AAC] from a [lossless -> 192 AAC] conversion? Should be easy to do, since in your opinion it 'SERIOUSLY' compromises sound quality.

Sorry, but this is not "My Opinion". Look on Hydrogen audio and other places -- there is NO doubt that transcoding from one lossy format to another significantly degrades sound quality. It's reasonable to argue that a good lossy codec on a signle pass will be transparent, but it's not reasonable to argue that that lossy file can be run through yet another lossy codec and come out even close to transparent.

I have no interest in wasting my time on such a ABX test.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xakepa Pls, read the second sentence of my post. It's the brain that sets the limit, and once the psycho-acoustic model "gets" how brain discards info, you're done. You could increase fidelity, bandwidth etc but you won't be able to percieve that.

I read what you said, but you act like all ear/brain functions are 100% identical, which they are not.

And besides that, you are trying to argue with me on a point I was not trying to make! My point was just that ripping, which is essentially archiving no matter how you look at it, should be done in lossless. I was not trying to argue whether MP3 320k was transparent or not!

 

[dknightd]

skylab,
I did try such a comparison during part of my process of picking an audio format to use for my computer listening.
I found a song that I could reliably abx at 192 kbps mp3 from lossless
(it only took 5 songs to find one - sorry I do not remember what song I used). Then I ripped that song from lossless to 320 kbps mp3. I could not tell the 320 from lossless no matter how hard I tried.
Then I ripped that 320 mp3 down to 192 mp3. I could still easily tell either 192 from either lossless or 320. But try as I might I could not tell the two 192s apart. At least on this one song (specifically chosen since 192 mp3 was not adequate) I could not tell the difference if it was ripped from 320 or lossless. It was not good enough for me to use in my house, but, would have been fine for most portable uses where other noises would likely drown out the difference.
To be honest, I found standardizing on 320 mp3 somewhat surprising and scary. . . I still don't understand how I could remove over the half the information from a recording and not be able to tell the difference. I guess those phycoacoustic guys have this pretty well figured out (at least to my ears). Yet I can still tell apart some mid 80's CD's from digital versions I ripped myself from LP - sometimes - and often when I can tell a difference I prefer the LP version. But even then after reripping to 320 I can't tell the difference.
This suggests to me that mastering has more effect on the sound than the difference between 16bit44.1 and 320 kbps mp3. Again, I still find this hard to believe, but, so far ABX testing has told me it is true.
BTW, I'll let archive.org (or similar) archive live GD recordings, and listen to them at 320 kbps (I assume from your avitar your are a GD fan . Things sure have improved since we used to trade cassette tapes of these live shows! I finally threw away all my GD bootleg tapes, even ones that were "only" 2 or 3 generations old.
You really should try some abx testing. The results might surprise you. It did me.
David

 

[dknightd]

Edit: I did not try mp3 to aac encoding. It is possible that by going from mp3 to aac you would loose more than by going from mp3 to lower bitrate mp3.

 

[JACK5ON]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab I agree 100% that regardless of how transparent any lossy codec is, you should RIP in Lossless. Then you have the files there that way, and you can make lossy copies of them at any rate with any codec for any purpose, but you have the files archived as lossless.

Agreed completely. It saves you tons of time and trouble in the end. I have a few scratched CDs that were almost impossible to rip, and it would take A LOT to make me re-rip those...

 

[randyruiz]

Let's not also forget that those of you guys listening to 192k on a 5g ipod with ibuds/px100 or name your inexpensive headphone might someday upgrade. The new 2008 ipod hd video might come with a digital line out for your portable dac/amp that you connect to your senn 6x0 or Grado RS-whatever's and then you will hear the difference between format types. By that time you have amassed a mountian of mp3's which you no longer listen to because they sound like crap compared to your lossless stuff.

Get off to a good start and begin with lossless.

 

[JACK5ON]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab Sorry, but this is not "My Opinion". Look on Hydrogen audio and other places -- there is NO doubt that transcoding from one lossy format to another significantly degrades sound quality. It's reasonable to argue that a good lossy codec on a signle pass will be transparent, but it's not reasonable to argue that that lossy file can be run through yet another lossy codec and come out even close to transparent. I have no interest in wasting my time on such a ABX test.

I'm quite aware that it is a proven fact that transcoding degrades sound quality. However, how much it degrades the quality is still somewhat of a grey area. I haven't seen many ABX tests based on transcoding, and I'm sure I've never seen one comparing lossless > 192 and 320 > 192. (I suppose not many tests have been performed on transcoding because it makes no sense to transcode because you should have lossless backups [we agree on that much haha]) Personally, I know I can't tell the difference. I would post an ABX test of my own, but that would be pointless since ABX can only prove something exists; it cannot prove something does not exist. This is why I would be interested for you to post some test results. Seriously, prove me wrong and make me look like an idiot.

Plus, since you bring up HA, it is actually agaisnt their forum rules to make claims about sound quality and not offer any proof to your statements.

 

[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by randyruiz By that time you have amassed a mountian of mp3's which you no longer listen to because they sound like crap compared to your lossless stuff.

hey, don't knock it . . . . can be a great way to regain some hard-drive space

yikes

 

[complex]

Ah, Musepack. My one true love.

The vast majority of my music is Musepack Q5, and it's amazing. In the past, I've been able to ABX the difference between lossless and LAME APS (only very slight and only when I'm really listening for it), but I've never been able to reliably tell Musepack apart from the original.

Considering Musepack Q5 results in a significantly smaller file than LAME APS, I'm mighty happy with it.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dknightd BTW, I'll let archive.org (or similar) archive live GD recordings, and listen to them at 320 kbps (I assume from your avitar your are a GD fan . Things sure have improved since we used to trade cassette tapes of these live shows! I finally threw away all my GD bootleg tapes, even ones that were "only" 2 or 3 generations old. You really should try some abx testing. The results might surprise you. It did me. David

Yeah, what a godsend downloading has been for us Deadheads, eh? I have been downloading shows in SHN (another now mostly forgotten lossless codec) for almost 10 years. I also ditched all my cassettes about 5 years ago. I have downloaded almost 1,000 GD shows in that time span, and have them all on CDs. I did also download from archive.org a bunch of their VBR MP3 rips from those same shows because their MP3's seemed to sound pretty good to me.

As for ABX testing, I have some problems with it, but I won't debate that here. But I am also not going to do any on this topic, since:

1. I am not claiming nor have I claimed that high quality VBR MP3 isn't transparent at least the overwhelming majority of the time;

2. It has been shown conclusively before that transcoding lossy codecs produces degraded results. I have zero interest in trying to decide whether I can hear this degradation, since it clearly exists, and is meaningless to me personally anyway, since all my rips are, and will always be, in lossless. I'm not changing that regardless of the outcome of ANY ABX tests, for the very practical reasons I have already stated.


Folks, you can poke fun all you want, but I am an audiophile, and I want the best sound possible. Since ripping in lossless is essentially a free "upgrade", it's worthwhile for me. YMMV.

 

[NiceCans]

I am not an audiophile, but I love good sounding music and appreciate a great system. Even though the files are 4x as large as mp3's, I now rip to flac and no longer transcode my Grateful Dead concert downloads (an others) to mp3

Aside from whether or not I can hear a difference, I leave myself more options as I have a full-bitrate file.

True you pay 4:1 for it in space and do not get a 4x return in quality, but isn't that true of almost all audio upgrades?

And just like upgrades, if you cannot hear it then it is not worth it to you, yet it may be to others. This does nothing to reduce your enjoyment of mp3's, if they sound great to you then enjoy them!

 

[dknightd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab is meaningless to me personally anyway, since all my rips are, and will always be, in lossless. I'm not changing that regardless of the outcome of ANY ABX tests, for the very practical reasons I have already stated.

Fair enough.

Edit: Do you think it is fair to tell people that mp3 is bad, and, that they can't transcode from 320 mp3 to 192 without "serious" problems unless you have actually tried it? Parroting what you read someplace else is OK, I guess, unless you don't even bother to provide a link.
Also, I wonder if you have your 1,000 GD shows on your computer. If not why not?
If you do, Cheers

I have a paltry 300 some odd shows on my computer (I had more but I've started deleting ones where the sound quality sucked.
Apparently disk space is cheap, but not cheap enough for me to keep all my music on my computer in a lossless format. I'd be willing to pay more for disk space if I could hear a benefit. . . I'm listening to 1973-06-10 right now - good show
but I sure like being able to go to a different show at the click of my mouse. I just got in the mood for Peter Tosh - mystic man - point and click it starts playing. Now I want to hear toots and the Maytals, I am a rasta man - a couple of clicks and it is cranking.
Who knows, perhaps you have a 10TB netapp disk array sitting in your basement.
We can't all do that.
Untill somebody can convince me that 320 mp3 sounds worse than lossless, and I can verify it, I don't see the need to spend my money on more disk space when I could use it to buy more music, or save for my retirement.