[Barry]

People do that and I do not find it useful.

I do think that subjective preference are grounded in reality - I do not think that there is an objective, factual actual best when it comes to an appreciation of music reproduction -- just each individual's reality. And I would be surprised if my reality - my view of the world -- is the same as yours or yours the same as the next person,etc. And we are all correct when it comes to preferences. OK, I am done. Time for a beer.

 

[darrenmc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry /img/forum/go_quote.gif People do that and I do not find it useful. I do think that subjective preference are grounded in reality - I do not think that there is an objective, factual actual best when it comes to an appreciation of music reproduction -- just each individual's reality. And I would be surprised if my reality - my view of the world -- is the same as yours or yours the same as the next person,etc. And we are all correct when it comes to preferences. OK, I am done. Time for a beer.

I think you are confusing subjective preferences and objectively detectable differences. For one thing, the sentence "I do think that subjective preferences are grounded in reality" is just completely incoherent.... it is not possible for "preferences" to be grounded in anything, they are YOUR preferences and nobody else's.

ABX tests are NOT about telling which one is "better", it is about PROVING that the differences in enjoyment you are experiencing between two encoding schemes are due to OBJECTIVELY DETECTABLE differences. Why would I care if you can do this? Because your preference to WMA may be due to one or both of
1. objectively detectable sonic differences,
2. the fact that you just happen to think Microsoft is a cool company and it makes you feel good to listen to WMA, or all your friends listen to WMA and you want to be in with the cool crowd, or....

Not that there's anything wrong with (2), but your subjective emotional responses are of no interest to me. I probably don't share them. The only thing we can share and discuss are objectively detectable differences, and if you can't prove that you are able to detect any than I have no reason to pay any attention to your claim that "WMA is better than MP3" (for example.). ... and the only way to PROVE you can detect objective differences is by using a test methodolgy like ABX that strips away all opportunity to interject subjective preference.

BTW, I have no doubt that people cannot tell the difference between two mass-market brands of horse-piss since they all come from the same horse, but anyone who drinks quality beer knows that "all beer tastes the same" is nonsense. Quality beer has something called "flavour" which mass-market beers would do well to study. I could ABX two decent beers and tell them apart all day long, I suspect 192 WMA vs MP3 would be a lot tougher!

 

[String Section]

Given that bars are typically filled with troglodytes and gastropods, the inability of the patrons to tell Swill A from Swill B is not surprising. I'd bet that MORE than 3/4 of the general population couldn't hear the difference between Focal Nova Utobia Be ($37,000/pr) and PSB Image 45 ($800/pr). Hell, I KNOW that more than 9 out of 10 people couldn't reliably tell the difference between Bach and Beethoven. Does this mean I'm just fooling myself when I say, "That sounds like Ludwig, to me."?

My point is that, within a specific field, the opinions of people who are either inexperienced, uninterested, or both, should be considered worthless.

The ability to discern and appreciate the (often subtle) differences within a particular field of endeavor are a learned and acquired skill. I wouldn't expect a vintner to value my "uneducated" palate when it comes to selecting grapes, or for anyone to ask me to explain the various sub-genres of Hip Hop.

That said, I do appreciate the replies, even those that have drifted somewhat far afield.

 

[String Section]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif I found that it's harder to tell the difference between an MP3 192 kbps and WMA 192 kbps than MP3 192 vs lossless. Really.

After last night, I'm inclined to agree. I discovered that my PC does a pretty decent job driving my SR-80s, I selected several well-recorded tracks that provided a good test of vocals, piano, cymbals, and upright bass. Using WMP 11, I ripped each track three ways: WMA 192, Mp3 320, and WAV Lossless.

Using the arrow keys, the enter key and my cursor on the track progess bar, I was able to rapidly switch back and forth between versions, listening repeatedly to the same passages for the subtlest changes in sound. After many mind-numbing sessions of this, I had to admit that I couldn't discern any difference between the WMA 192 files and the Mp3 320 files.

The WAV Lossless files, however, were noticably smoother, more timbrally lifelike, with a deeper and better focused soundstage. The character of the improvement from lossy files to lossless was very much like going from Redbook CD to SACD: The improvement was very real, and to an ear that knows what to listen for, it was significant.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by String Section /img/forum/go_quote.gif Using the arrow keys, the enter key and my cursor on the track progess bar, I was able to rapidly switch back and forth between versions, listening repeatedly to the same passages for the subtlest changes in sound. After many mind-numbing sessions of this, I had to admit that I couldn't discern any difference between the WMA 192 files and the Mp3 320 files.

Foobar2000's "ABX two tracks" feature makes this much easier. It's also more accurate, as it will use ReplayGain to ensure that the two files that you are comparing are volume-matched.

 

[blipmusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by String Section /img/forum/go_quote.gif My point is that, within a specific field, the opinions of people who are either inexperienced, uninterested, or both, should be considered worthless. The ability to discern and appreciate the (often subtle) differences within a particular field of endeavor are a learned and acquired skill. I wouldn't expect a vintner to value my "uneducated" palate when it comes to selecting grapes, or for anyone to ask me to explain the various sub-genres of Hip Hop. That said, I do appreciate the replies, even those that have drifted somewhat far afield.

Hear, hear. I'm playing the violin and having someone else who haven't played before to choose a new one for me would be absolute madness, hence the need for expertise.

As said above this is the only objective way we have of comparing, everything else are personal opinions even if those may, indeed, converge at times. Again, sorry for the hijack, above. Although, I'm an Apple guy I'm in the market for an ok flash-player powered by AA/AAA so I'll be watching the outcome of this thread.

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by String Section /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hell, I KNOW that more than 9 out of 10 people couldn't reliably tell the difference between Bach and Beethoven. Does this mean I'm just fooling myself when I say, "That sounds like Ludwig, to me."? My point is that, within a specific field, the opinions of people who are either inexperienced, uninterested, or both, should be considered worthless.

Good point, well put.

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lisztian420 /img/forum/go_quote.gif PLEASE Some one answer me about 24 bit multichannel settin on wma10pro. Hi, Basically I am interested in WMA10Pro and it's potential for better sound quality than the standard. Anyone tried both? Can anyone tell the difference? Just got my zune and still waitin for it to arrive so I am doing some research regarding wma. please share your opinions. Thanx!

Go with WMA Pro. WMA9 Pro is better than standard and WMA10 pro no doubt better than WMA9 Pro.

You seem confused about 24bit and multichannel. Multichannel means an arbitrary number of channels. Zune has a stero output. You want stereo (or mono). Also as you don't record music you aren't likely to have 24 bit music on your computer and you have no use for this capability either. And it would be very much overkill for a portable anyway.

 

[lisztian420]

That clears it up for me now. Can anyone recommend a good coverter for me to rip cds into wma10 pro? Thanx!

 

[Palm Springs]

I use winamp at 256, 16bit, stereo, 44100, cbr, for wma10pro. although i'm not sure that zune fully supports it, the interface seems to lag when playing wma10 pro files, or maybe it's just me.

 

[]|[ GorE]

bleh! They sound about the same to me.