I should have asked that question first.......you're right. But I was also curious how many people here agreed with me or not.
It's a bit like JPG compression in so far as during the compacting stage, the codec dispenses with detail most people won't miss and during expansion it 'glosses over' the missing bits. The success-rate varies from person to person, from music to music and from system to system. Probably 99% of people don't care about the difference, or can't tell the difference, and and are perfectly happy with the quality. Same has how they'd probably never use anything but JPG file-formats on their digital camera, for the same reason. Though that doesn't make them bad people, except when a minority of them tell people who can hear the difference that we're fooling ourselves.Cypher said:
professorhat
Well-known member
Cypher said:The few people who hear a difference must have great ears
Thanks, but I wouldn't say my ears are great. My eyes on the other hand...
The_Lhc
Well-known member
professorhat said:Cypher said:The few people who hear a difference must have great ears
Thanks, but I wouldn't say my ears are great. My eyes on the other hand...
Your best feature I've always thought!
Well, I think this is good question no matter how many times it have come across.
For example I am probably more interested in real opinions rather pumping muscles of both sides.
I admit I never compared 320bps mp3 with wav, but I am perfectly happy listening to my mp3 player in 192bps and to my CDs at home stereo. I can find find the differences but many of them are due to the earphones and floor standers in the respective case. So in my opinion it doesn't matter much as long as you enjoy what you listen to depending on the circumstances.
Now, if you compare in strictly equal conditions (oh, yes, including the cables - funny I can hear the difference on those!) that is probably a topic for scientific research. And I don't buy the overlaying waves thing - yes teorythically they wouldn't overlap. The question is if mentally we can hear the difference between high bitrate mp3 and raw?
Just few thoughts...
For example I am probably more interested in real opinions rather pumping muscles of both sides.
I admit I never compared 320bps mp3 with wav, but I am perfectly happy listening to my mp3 player in 192bps and to my CDs at home stereo. I can find find the differences but many of them are due to the earphones and floor standers in the respective case. So in my opinion it doesn't matter much as long as you enjoy what you listen to depending on the circumstances.
Now, if you compare in strictly equal conditions (oh, yes, including the cables - funny I can hear the difference on those!) that is probably a topic for scientific research. And I don't buy the overlaying waves thing - yes teorythically they wouldn't overlap. The question is if mentally we can hear the difference between high bitrate mp3 and raw?
Just few thoughts...
Alec
Well-known member
It's just the ridiculous terms people use to describe this supposed difference.
Please, don't anyone say "the difference is literally night and day" or I'll have to pick on your English aswell as your ears.
Please, don't anyone say "the difference is literally night and day" or I'll have to pick on your English aswell as your ears.
Interesting topic. I have just compared mp3 (highest quality setting) & flac ripped with dbpoweramp and can't tell a difference. The dbpoweramp rips are better than my previous windows media player 192kbps rips though.
I've created a wav file and a MP3 (320kbps) file of some songs. I've listened to them several times and tried to notice a difference between them but could not find any.
Why do some people prefer the wav file over the mp3 file ? What do they hear in the wav file that isn't in the mp3 file ? Is it sounding clearer or more detailed.........
Again..........this is not about who's wrong or right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no problem.
Why do some people prefer the wav file over the mp3 file ? What do they hear in the wav file that isn't in the mp3 file ? Is it sounding clearer or more detailed.........
Again..........this is not about who's wrong or right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no problem.
When there is an obvious difference, yes, that's how I would describe it. But as I've said, to my ears the compression is more successful with some songs than others and depending on the song and on the equipment and the environment used to listen to it, the difference may be very obvious or not at all. For a start I can't tell the difference between MP3s and original CDs in the car, no matter what music I'm listening to.Cypher said:
i think if you cant tell between mp3 320 and lossless than just be happy and enjoy yur music. i admit a lot of pop music is hard to tell. i find with my music bob dylan,scott walker,neil young,mark knopfler,ten years after,robert cray,clapton,bruce springsteen ,sade ect when i turn it up i find flac a touch better than 320 acc or mp3. and with storage so cheap its abit like blu ray and dvd some are close and some are miles apart but in the end mp3 will only ever be on par never better so rip in flac or wav if possible and enjoy
Alec
Well-known member
Alec
Well-known member
John Duncan
Well-known member
You had me at...
...but then i'm a subjectivist.
On the vast majority of music I listen to I can't tell the difference (generally between 320k AAC and ALAC), but I'm old, deaf, and don't listen to classical on the whole. YMMV*
*and this is where I know I'm posting on the right forum.
amcluesent said:
...but then i'm a subjectivist.
On the vast majority of music I listen to I can't tell the difference (generally between 320k AAC and ALAC), but I'm old, deaf, and don't listen to classical on the whole. YMMV*
*and this is where I know I'm posting on the right forum.
Alec
Well-known member
al7478 , i am close ending all this amp speaker,cable wars and going for a solid easy setup. how good are your adm 9.1s i listen to alot loud and quite so it has to be an alrounder i listen to blues mrs r&b. sorry to take a sliproad on the thread just after a forum members thoughts
Alec
Well-known member
smuggs said:
Apologies for the rubbish answer, but I live in fear of this question.
I'm very inexperienced, I've heard very few sets of speakers.
I've liked them with everything I've listened to. I had MA B2s before, which sounded sluggish with anything a bit "hard" or lively. To begin with, I thought they sounded "lush" in a good way, with things like Find The River by REM, but then decided they just sounded cloying and gloopy.
Everything sounds the same with the AVIs though, what I imagine is neutral. They manage to get across the lush sound of some REM and the like, and the excitement and hard edge of Slipknot et al.
EDIT sorry, volume. Volume is subjective, I prefer them a bit louder but who doesn't? But they're fine at levels I think most would call quiet.
Well i've been toying around with aac 320kps and lossless music . When i had my IE7 headphones ( which broke ) i could notice a big difference between the two formats , now i have Beyerdynamics DTX 7iE i struggle to notice the difference .
I think its all about pairing all of what you have , no point having £500 speakers with a buget £100 amp , your system has to have some sort of consistency
I think its all about pairing all of what you have , no point having £500 speakers with a buget £100 amp , your system has to have some sort of consistency
steve_1979
Well-known member
landzw said:
I agree with you thare landzw.
With my Yamaha receiver and Q Acoustics speakers I can never tell the difference between 320kbps and lossless files.
With my Sony A-series Walkman and some very high quality Westone UM3x earphones I could just about tell the difference with 3 out of the 20 tracks I tested.
With professional audio active studio monitors the difference was more noticeable and I could definitly hear it was there but it was still only a very small difference. Even with equipment of this quality I often couldn't tell the difference because the quality of the original recording seems to have much bigger effect on the sound quality rather than whether or not it's been ripped to 320kbps MP3 or lossless.
Alec
Well-known member
Though 320kps to lossless has a big difference in bit rate you would think 256kps to 320kps you wouldn't notice the difference.
Though i can always tell the difference with these recordings as the 256kps just losses its lifeness and sounds more on the dead side.
Yet i still purchase of itunes now and again when i'm bored and find an old album i used to have, but i do try to purchase the cd then rip it in 320kps and this is often cheaper too
Though i can always tell the difference with these recordings as the 256kps just losses its lifeness and sounds more on the dead side.
Yet i still purchase of itunes now and again when i'm bored and find an old album i used to have, but i do try to purchase the cd then rip it in 320kps and this is often cheaper too
Though 320kps to lossless has a big difference in bit rate you would think 256kps to 320kps you wouldn't notice the difference.
Though i can always tell the difference with these recordings as the 256kps just losses its lifeness and sounds more on the dead side.
Yet i still purchase of itunes now and again when i'm bored and find an old album i used to have, but i do try to purchase the cd then rip it in 320kps and this is often cheaper too
Though i can always tell the difference with these recordings as the 256kps just losses its lifeness and sounds more on the dead side.
Yet i still purchase of itunes now and again when i'm bored and find an old album i used to have, but i do try to purchase the cd then rip it in 320kps and this is often cheaper too
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram