When I first upgraded to the CDQ I did some back to backs and while 320 kb MP3 sounded good I felt there was more ambiance in the Lossless, So I ripped everything as Lossless ALAC, the difference was not huge but to me it was noticeable to my ears.
I would consider my speakers to be pretty revealing. Anything above 200 kbps vbr for me is as good as it gets. 24/96, I wouldn't waste my money...the strange thing is, I used to think they were better, but after taking advice here, I did some tests, and surprised myself... I can't tell the difference between some 24/96 tracks I bought from Linn, and a downsampled to 200 kbps VBR MP3 I made myself. I put the imagined higher quality down to the fact that the labels that release 24/96, also make sure they are recorded well.
Weirdly, since I got my current PC system speakers, I have LOVED shoutcast at bitrates down as low as 128Kbps... Even 96 sometimes, although that starts to get a little rough around the edges.
Enjoy the music...
Weirdly, since I got my current PC system speakers, I have LOVED shoutcast at bitrates down as low as 128Kbps... Even 96 sometimes, although that starts to get a little rough around the edges.
Enjoy the music...
snivilisationism said:
snivilisationism said:
I have a feeling the latter may explain the former
in my experience -
mp3s/aac at high bitrates (256-320) are very difficult to tell from lossless cd-resolution - with most music.
However, I THINK I do notice a slight difference and I notice it in bass.
Another however - with very dynamic ranging e.g. classical music and with powerful active speakers+sub at high volume levels lossless and hi-rez sounds more realistic.
mp3s/aac at high bitrates (256-320) are very difficult to tell from lossless cd-resolution - with most music.
However, I THINK I do notice a slight difference and I notice it in bass.
Another however - with very dynamic ranging e.g. classical music and with powerful active speakers+sub at high volume levels lossless and hi-rez sounds more realistic.
Someone mentioned waveforms. It's true it radically will alter it, but the point is that it uses psycho acoustic modelling to throw away what you are least likely to notice. These are based on:
A: Basic human hearing, you hear some frequency bands better than others.
B: Masking. Frequencies are masked by dearby louder ones.
C: Temporal masking
Now the models aren't perfect, for example mp3 splits your audio in to sub bands. The human ear can be modelled as a bunch of band filters of varying length. In mp3 the band filters used are of equal length to make things simpler so this is the sort of thing that can lead to discrepencies.
There's also a bit of irreversible maths that goes on which will cause some spectral distortion (I can't remember what it is exactly) so even if you had infinite bit mp3s you would still chagne the waveform.
So a very high bit rate mp3 should in theory sound good, but as the waveform has changed there's no guarantee how good it will be. If using a constant bit rate even at 320kb/s the mp3 encoder might run out of the bits it needs. So different recordings at different points have the potential to lose out. This will become more clear the higher end your equipment.
I think storing all music in mp3 would be a mistake because you may end up with higher end equipment that can reveal the difference, if you use any of the lossless formats you will always have a bit accurate representation. However listening to lossless files on your ipod is stupid as you'll quickly use up all your space. Worth noting that when this stuff was developed you couldn't go to pc world and pick up a 1TB hard disk!
It's the same for 16 bit music, after all cds are effectively lossy if you had an analogue recording, but if it's well made it will be mastered to make it sound as good as possible. You will get frequency distortion on a cd, whether or not you notice it is another matter.
There are better encodings than mp3 now but it will take a while for a true standard to emerge, lossless audio is very clever and mp3 is really only the first generation.
So in short: yes they are different and you may or may not be able to tell. In theory you could end up with it sounding better, unlikely but the result afer the encoding coud potentially have altered the waveform for the better!
A: Basic human hearing, you hear some frequency bands better than others.
B: Masking. Frequencies are masked by dearby louder ones.
C: Temporal masking
Now the models aren't perfect, for example mp3 splits your audio in to sub bands. The human ear can be modelled as a bunch of band filters of varying length. In mp3 the band filters used are of equal length to make things simpler so this is the sort of thing that can lead to discrepencies.
There's also a bit of irreversible maths that goes on which will cause some spectral distortion (I can't remember what it is exactly) so even if you had infinite bit mp3s you would still chagne the waveform.
So a very high bit rate mp3 should in theory sound good, but as the waveform has changed there's no guarantee how good it will be. If using a constant bit rate even at 320kb/s the mp3 encoder might run out of the bits it needs. So different recordings at different points have the potential to lose out. This will become more clear the higher end your equipment.
I think storing all music in mp3 would be a mistake because you may end up with higher end equipment that can reveal the difference, if you use any of the lossless formats you will always have a bit accurate representation. However listening to lossless files on your ipod is stupid as you'll quickly use up all your space. Worth noting that when this stuff was developed you couldn't go to pc world and pick up a 1TB hard disk!
It's the same for 16 bit music, after all cds are effectively lossy if you had an analogue recording, but if it's well made it will be mastered to make it sound as good as possible. You will get frequency distortion on a cd, whether or not you notice it is another matter.
There are better encodings than mp3 now but it will take a while for a true standard to emerge, lossless audio is very clever and mp3 is really only the first generation
.So in short: yes they are different and you may or may not be able to tell. In theory you could end up with it sounding better, unlikely but the result afer the encoding coud potentially have altered the waveform for the better!
Lee H said:
It means that two sounds very close to eachother in time won't be distinct, one will mask the other. Interestingly the later sound can mask the earlier sound if it's louder! Weird eh?
Trefor Patten
Well-known member
ray: Given that a (relatively) large amount of information is thrown away when ripping a CD to 320kbps AAC (my preferred format), I am amazed that it sounds as good as it does. I CAN hear a difference between this and the equivalent bitrate MP3. The difference between this an AIFF is greater. Finally the difference between CDs and 24/96 or 24/192 files is (to my ears at least) quite profound: there is more detail, greater precision in timing, more presence, better imaging and placement of instruments in the soundstage, in short more music. BUT (and it is a bit but) all of this is rendered completely pointless if the recording was shoddy in the first place.I used to load my iPod touch with AIFF files, until I discovered that I could not hear the difference through my Sennheisers, now that I have a pair of Klipsch i10s I can and I am reloading my 320 files of WELL RECORDED music as AIFF, getting the best of storage and fidelity. I recently ripped some Julian Bream lute music as 320 mono (It was a 1950s mono recording) beautiful music, limited dynamic range, why waste the space.
Finally, as this is a HiFi forum, should we not be looking for the ultimate in sound reproduction, not arguing over whether we are happy with what we hear, but constantly seeking that which will make us happier. Roll on 24/192 downloads I say (But 48/384, that's just overkill). :wave:
John Duncan
Well-known member
Trefor Patten said:
Yes we should. However, if one cannot hear a difference in blind tests between 320k and 1411k then that is as happy as one can get (from a source point of view). I mostly cannot, and therefore tend not to worry about it. However, I would not (unlike some) presume to say that you cannot, in which case go crazy.
That said, I'm going to be doing some 24/96 listening tonight, as it happens...:-D
steve_1979 said:
Your last sentence explains all that needs to be said on the matter! THE ORIGINAL RECORDING IS ALL THAT MATTERS! end of story and thread.well it should be.
steve_1979
Well-known member
John Duncan said:
I'd be interested to find out how that goes because you've got a good system with accurate monitor like speakers.
As an enthusiast for 50 years i can answer this issue easily - ears. Sad really that mine just aint wot they used to be.
2p worth. Before I got my current rig, I always said there was a big difference in compressed codecs v lossless or wav. Now I have extremely revealing and clear sounding active speakers, most stuff from 128kbps internet radio to sacd sounds great, and what's more...indistinguishable above around the 160 kbps mark. I will openly admit that nothing above the aforementioned 160 kbps for me is worth it. I bought some Linn studio downloads too when I thought it made a difference, but since I started attempting to really differentiate, I am happy with 256 AAC, or 320 MP3 as about as much quality as I'm likely to get.
Anyone who says it is night and day is either physically gifted, or telling porkies.
Anyone who says it is night and day is either physically gifted, or telling porkies.
How did Minidisc work? Didn't that use some kind of lossy compression?
Reason I ask is I've still got one of those and actually I prefer its sound to MP3.
Not sure what that says about my ears as I'm sure someone's going to tell me that 320K MP3 is lightyears ahead of the Victorian technology using to compand the audio to/from MDs.
Reason I ask is I've still got one of those and actually I prefer its sound to MP3.
Not sure what that says about my ears as I'm sure someone's going to tell me that 320K MP3 is lightyears ahead of the Victorian technology using to compand the audio to/from MDs
.
John Duncan
Well-known member
snivilisationism said:
What was your previous gear? Are you saying compressed and lossless were distinguishable on it?
John Duncan
Well-known member
John Duncan said:
Previous gear is irrelevant as most of it is still in use in my living room and I didn't really test anything scientifically. But no. I used to swear blind I could hear a difference. To be honest, it was only since listening to the advice of fellow owners, and posters here that I actually "tried" to differenciate in a controlled manner, that I realised...I couldn't. In one way I felt bad, there MUST be a difference, but then I'm 40+, and maybe my ears are not what they were? Who knows? I still appreciate good sound, and now, at a cost quite a bit less than I imagined, I have it. It's not for everyone, the truthfullness and accuracy is more akin to a professional setup, I understand the need for a bit of colour/warmth having been through all that for 20 years or so, but, now, I'm happy. If a recording is bad, it's bad. But just like the girl with the curl, when it's good, it's very very good.
John Duncan
Well-known member
It was only relevant if you could tell the difference previously but can't now, tbh. I've said many times that on the whole I can't, so make do with 320k most of the time.
A great track for hearing the difference between 320k vs 16bit vs 24 bit is "A case of you" by Ian Shaw (from the Album - "Drawn to all things) by Linn Records ( 24/48 ).
Due to its simple nature and the quality of the recording, you can hear right into what is going on.
IMO. The 320k version sounds good but doesn't grab your attention. The 16 bit has a whole subtle extra layer of ambient info - listen to the breathing of the singer, the resonance of the piano (sounds like a different piano), the squeak of the fingers on the strings on the Double bass. The track now peaks your interest as being quite good.
When the 24 bit is played, the performance now takes on a "live, in your sitting room, three dimensional" quality. It (to me) sounds as if they have changed the pianist fo a better one. The track now has grabbed your attention to the point where you think "I want to hear more of this".
This is just a personal perspective that I (and others) have noticed on my system. It could be put down to pretentious nonsense, but why not try for yourself if curious enough (and report back with findings).
Cno
Due to its simple nature and the quality of the recording, you can hear right into what is going on.
IMO. The 320k version sounds good but doesn't grab your attention. The 16 bit has a whole subtle extra layer of ambient info - listen to the breathing of the singer, the resonance of the piano (sounds like a different piano), the squeak of the fingers on the strings on the Double bass. The track now peaks your interest as being quite good.
When the 24 bit is played, the performance now takes on a "live, in your sitting room, three dimensional" quality. It (to me) sounds as if they have changed the pianist fo a better one. The track now has grabbed your attention to the point where you think "I want to hear more of this".
This is just a personal perspective that I (and others) have noticed on my system. It could be put down to pretentious nonsense, but why not try for yourself if curious enough (and report back with findings).
Cno
cno, i obviously have no idea if this is the case in your instance, but i remember reading on another forum that some of the files on the linn website were mastered differently. the fact a file is 24bit shouldn't make any difference as the bit rate would only affect dynamics and 16bit already has a dynamic range that no stereo could hope to reproduce, so maybe the difference you hear is down to mastering?
personally, i think 192/256/320kbit mp3 is more then good enough unless you are looking for differences rather than listening to music.
personally, i think 192/256/320kbit mp3 is more then good enough unless you are looking for differences rather than listening to music.
Craig M. said:
Hi Craig
All I can say is try it for yourself....it makes an interesting experiment (and for 1 track doesn't cost too much); even if you only do 320k vs 24 bit. I'm lucky enough to have fairly good kit, and the difference is noticeable with each step up in resolution. I wish I could hear no difference, as it would be a lot cheaper. I have Beethoven's piano concertos No.3 4 & 5 in 24/192 which sounds stunning.
Anyway, I chose a track, which for me, allows the difference between resolutions to be more easily distinguished.
EDIT. Back in the middle of 2010, Linn became aware of a problem with 24/96 from Arts (initially with Bach's Brandenburg Concerto). The original recording was correct but somewhere in the "translation" to Linn, the resolution got upsampled from 16/44 instead of being native 24/96....something to do with incorrect filtering, I think.
All customers were informed, and the "Arts catalogue" withdrawn from sale until checked. Things should be back to normal by now. As far as I'm aware, there was no intention to deliberately deceive by Linn Records.
i've tried 24/96 albums from hdtracks, most sound great. did you do the 16bit and mp3 yourself, or download them like that? i have a 24/96 version of robert plant and alison krauss - raising sand, clearly better than the cd, but when i tried resampling it back down to 16/44 it sounded pretty much the same, so in this instance i think the difference between the high res file and cd was down to the mastering. i think you're right though that some music shows differences more than others.
"the fact a file is 24bit shouldn't make any difference as the bit rate would only affect dynamics" - that should've said bit depth.
the comment i made about the linn files having different masters could be erroneous, it might have been the naim site. the issue centred around two files, one at 16/44 the other, i think, at 24/96, with an invitation to download and hear the difference - somehow somebody figured out that they weren't different bit rate versions of the same master. with this in mind, i would only rely on a comparison of 16/44 and higher, if i had made the 16/44 myself from the original high res file.
"the fact a file is 24bit shouldn't make any difference as the bit rate would only affect dynamics" - that should've said bit depth.
the comment i made about the linn files having different masters could be erroneous, it might have been the naim site. the issue centred around two files, one at 16/44 the other, i think, at 24/96, with an invitation to download and hear the difference - somehow somebody figured out that they weren't different bit rate versions of the same master. with this in mind, i would only rely on a comparison of 16/44 and higher, if i had made the 16/44 myself from the original high res file.
Craig, the track was downloaded directly from Linn Records @ 320k; 16/44 and 24/48.
I have played this comparison to quite a few people (just to get a handle on how it's perceived). I personally find a subtle but noticeable difference; my wife thinks it's "totally obvious"; and my female cousin (who is older than me), could hear no difference whatsoever. Most people can hear a difference (including the daughter's boyfriend).....so it appears very individual.
I have played this comparison to quite a few people (just to get a handle on how it's perceived). I personally find a subtle but noticeable difference; my wife thinks it's "totally obvious"; and my female cousin (who is older than me), could hear no difference whatsoever. Most people can hear a difference (including the daughter's boyfriend).....so it appears very individual.
CnoEvil said:
it would be interesting to see if the same differences existed if you did the conversion from 24/48 to 16/44 and 320k yourself, i have always got better sq converting an existing cd to mp3 myself, rather than buying that mp3 from itunes or similar, even at the same bit rate. :O
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram