MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

[Anonymous]

I've just tried some 'lossless vs MP3' experiments on a friend of mine and got some very interesting results.

For the first experiment I played him a series of two identical MP3 files but lied and said that one of them was lossless. Most of the time he couldn't tell any difference but a few times his said the at the fake lossless file was better than the MP3 even though it was really identical.

For the second experiment I swapped the files around. I told him that the MP3's were lossless and that the lossless files were MP3's. This time he thought that the MP3's sounded better than the lossless files.

For the third experiment I played him some lossless and MP3's and told him the truth about which one was which. He mostly prefered the lossless files to the MP3's this time.

For the fourth experiment I let him do an ABX test using Foobar and he couldn't tell the difference.

What bitrate were the MP3s? 220kbps or so and I've never seen anyone who can tell in a proper test, other than conjecture.

 

[steve_1979]

What bitrate were the MP3s? 220kbps or so and I've never seen anyone who can tell in a proper test, other than conjecture.

320kbps

 

[Anonymous]

What bitrate were the MP3s? 220kbps or so and I've never seen anyone who can tell in a proper test, other than conjecture.

320kbps

Exactly. Lame MP3 at 320 is (in my humble opinion) CD quality for humans.... I can't speak for mosquitoes or dogs.

 

[steveozs]

Put simply to the OP yes it does make a difference, but more to the point, if you can't tell any difference then why worry? Just carry on with 320kbps files and be happy, that is unless you are doubting yourself.

I personally think that if anyone is going through all the trouble of getting your system sounding and being as good as it can be why on earth would you make the comprimise to save on a few mb's per file? :? My system isn't exactly expensive (sub 3k) but there is no way I am going to skimp on quality for the sake of a £50.00 hard drive if I didn't have the storage. As it happens I have 320kbps for my music on the go, and another for FLAC for listening at home.

Some 320kbps files do sound very similar if not pretty much the same to some lossless files, some sound noticeably worse, it all depends on the recording to start with, but with classical and especially Jazz there is more depth to the sound (in my experience) and the only way I can describe it is more of a '3d' type effect to the music. Either way my preference is as I said to go with lossless, there's no point in crying over a bit of storage.

Cheers,

 

[steve_1979]

I personally think that if anyone is going through all the trouble of getting your system sounding and being as good as it can be why on earth would you make the comprimise to save on a few mb's per file?

I completley agree with this statement. If I wanted to rip a CD collection from scratch then the obvious choice is to use lossless because hard disk space is so cheap. If you also want some MP3's to use with a portable player then you can easily batch convert a second copy of the music.

Some 320kbps files do sound very similar if not pretty much the same to some lossless files, some sound noticeably worse, it all depends on the recording to start with, but with classical and especially Jazz there is more depth to the sound (in my experience) and the only way I can describe it is more of a '3d' type effect to the music. Either way my preference is as I said to go with lossless, there's no point in crying over a bit of storage.

I used to think the same thing as you until I tried an ABX test. When you compared the MP3's to lossless was it just a 'sighted AB' test or have you ever tried doing a proper scientific 'ABX' test? Download Foobar2000 and install the ABX plugin and I bet you won't be able to tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless files (assuming both files are ripped from the same a CD of course).

 

[eggontoast]

I bet you won't be able to tell the difference between 320kbps MP3 and lossless files (assuming both files are ripped from the same a CD of course).

and that is one bet you would loose....

 

[eggontoast]

Double post

 

[Anonymous]

I'll put a tenner on Steve

Done it myself, and I can't ABX MP3 above 190 kbps (using my own LAME rips in VBR), never mind 320.

 

[John Duncan]

I'll put a tenner on Steve

Done it myself, and I can't ABX MP3 above 190 kbps (using my own LAME rips in VBR), never mind 320.

I'm sure I saw some recent scientific proof that AAC kicks LAME mp3's butt ;-)

 

[steve_1979]

Hi John.

A few weeks ago you said you were going to compare MP3's to lossless files. I'd be interested to hear how that went because you use detailed and accurate monitor like PMC speakers.

I'm sure I saw some recent scientific proof that AAC kicks LAME mp3's butt ;-)

I think that AAC's are better than MP3's at low bit rates but at high bit rates there's very little (if anything) to tell them apart.

 

[John Duncan]

Hi John.

A few weeks ago you said you were going to compare MP3's to lossless files. I'd be interested to hear how that went because you use detailed and accurate monitor like PMC speakers.

You're right, I did. But I didn't :-D

I think I got too embroiled in listening to the Moving Pictures Bluray in surround (which is fantastic). But just for you, I am downsampling the 24/96 flacs to 320k mp3 as we speak...

 

[Cypher]

MP3 (320 kbps)

AAC (320 kbps)

FLAC

WAV

These files all sound the same to me. MP3 and AAC at lower bitrates are not so good but at 320kbps it's perfect to me.

This is MY opinion........you have the right to disagree :beer:

 

[steve_1979]

and that is one bet you would loose....

Have you ever tried the ABX test in Foobar?

You should give it a try (using 320kbps MP3's and lossless files ripped from the same CD).

 

[steve_1979]

You're right, I did. But I didn't :-D

I think I got too embroiled in listening to the Moving Pictures Bluray in surround (which is fantastic). But just for you, I am downsampling the 24/96 flacs to 320k mp3 as we speak...

Awww thanks.

Don't forget to do a blind test so that you don't know before hand which one your listening to.

 

[John Duncan]

Indeed. Mrs JD is in for a fun evening...

 

[MajorFubar]

This is MY opinion........you have the right to disagree :beer:

I absolutely....agree!

Personally, I only object to those people who say that everyone who claims they can hear a difference are kidding themselves. You really can't be so dismissive and judgemental.

'Unpack' an MP3 to an audio-editing program like Audacity and you can easily prove that the waveform is different to the original WAV or FLAC of the same audio. Therefore, seeing that it is indisputably different, you're going to get three types of outcome. Some people are going to say that the audible affect of the difference is always night and day with every track they hear. Others are going to say they can never tell the difference at all. Others, including me, will say that to their ears, it varies tremendously from track to track: sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's subtle, sometimes there's no discernible difference at all.

All three opinions are valid enough to the people who subscribe to them :cheers:

 

[Anonymous]

'Unpack' an MP3 to an audio-editing program like Audacity and you can easily prove that the waveform is different to the original WAV or FLAC of the same audio.

There is no doubt it's different. MP3 tends to lop off information between 18 and 20 KHz for a start. It's whether that difference is actually audible that's in question.

While I would always rip a CD losslessly, I also rip to mp3, and I've settled on 190 VBR as the point at which I personally can't tell any difference between it and the original. 320 is overkill but pretty much guaranteed to be transparent.

I appreciate and believe that some folk may be able to tell the difference even then, but I've yet to see anyone pass the test that Steve mentions. Before I did it myself I could "definitely" hear a SQ gain with lossless. But when done scientifically with no preconceptions it's amazing how undifferent they become.

And while I absolutely think that people have the right to claim they can tell them apart, I take those opinions with a large pinch of salt, unless verified as above.

 

[MajorFubar]

There is no doubt it's different. MP3 tends to lop off information between 18 and 20 KHz for a start. It's whether that difference is actually audible that's in question.

If you use the scientifically-indisputable method of inverting the phase of the MP3 and merging over the top of the original WAV/FLAC, there is an awful lot more than "dogs'-ears" frequencies which doesn't cancel out. In fact, by and large, none of it cancels out; the two files are almost completely different, across all frequencies.

You are absolutely right though that the real question is whether the difference is audible. But because the difference unquestionably exists from a technical viewpoint, you're always going to get people who fall into one of the three 'camps' I identified above.

 

[steve_1979]

Personally, I only object to those people who say that everyone who claims they can hear a difference are kidding themselves. You really can't be so dismissive and judgemental.

I think that you may be missunderstanding me.

I'm not saying that it's totally impossible for some people to hear a difference between MP3's and lossless. All that I'm saying is that many of the people who 'think' that can hear a difference would't be actually be able to differentiate between a 320kbps MP3 and lossless if they were to do an ABX test using Foobar.

 

[Anonymous]

There is no doubt it's different. MP3 tends to lop off information between 18 and 20 KHz for a start. It's whether that difference is actually audible that's in question.

If you use the scientifically-indisputable method of inverting the phase of the MP3 and merging over the top of the original WAV/FLAC, there is an awful lot more than "dogs'-ears" frequencies which doesn't cancel out. In fact, by and large, none of it cancels out; the two files are almost completely different, across all frequencies.

You are absolutely right though that the real question is whether the difference is audible. But because the difference unquestionably exists from a technical viewpoint, you're always going to get people who fall into one of the three 'camps' I identified above.

I agree. I've done a "difference test" in the way you mention, and I can hear it (My gran could). But put the music back in and it's like trying to hear a conversation between 2 people in a Wetherspoons pub on a Saturday night , who are sat 20 metres away. I guess that's exactly how MP3 works though. (If the pub was empty bar them, you'd hear the chatter, but put 200 people between you and them, and their barely audible chat becomes in-audible.

 

[MajorFubar]

Personally, I only object to those people who say that everyone who claims they can hear a difference are kidding themselves. You really can't be so dismissive and judgemental.

I think that you may be missunderstanding me.

Just to put your mind at rest, I wasn't specifically meaning you In fact I I didn't have any one person in mind.

 

[Overdose]

Does all this really matter?

If you can hear differences between various bit depth files and you have the storage capacity, simply stick with lossless files.

If you sit in the other camp and can hear no differences beyond a certain bit depth, stick with files at or just above that threshold.

Personally, I believe that I have heard subtle differences between high resolution files and 16 bit FLAC rips, but I'm not about to shell out my hard earned on high res files due to the (IMHO) extortionate prices.

 

[eggontoast]

Have you ever tried the ABX test in Foobar?

You should give it a try (using 320kbps MP3's and lossless files ripped from the same CD).

Yes I have that is why I said it was a bet you would loose.

 

[Anonymous]

Have you ever tried the ABX test in Foobar?

You should give it a try (using 320kbps MP3's and lossless files ripped from the same CD).

Yes I have that is why I said it was a bet you would loose.

I'd still have a tenner on Steve.

<pedantic spell mode>

And the word you're looking for is "lose"

</pedantic spell mode>

 

[gowiththeflow]

A couple of weeks ago, I went with a mate to listen to some "high end" equipment at his favourite specialist dealers, as they were holding an open-house demo day. There was some very expensive stuff being used there.

After listening to some very good recordings being played from vinyl and some very good sounding CD's, I was asked if I wanted to hear anything. As I'm curious about this Hi-res digital thing, I asked if they had any suitable music files so I could hear what all the fuss was about. I admit to having been rather sceptical.

A series of tracks were loaded into a playlist (I had a hand in choosing them) and, iPad in hand, I played a number of them through a Linn Akurate DS and an even more expensive non-Linn amp and Shahinian speakers.

Initially the first few 16/44.1 rips just sounded quite good or nothing particularly striking, but then I selected a couple of hi-res downloads versions of identical tracks that had been ripped to 16/44.1

Switching from a CD rip at 16/44.1 to the same track downloaded from a certain web site in 24/44.1 I expected to be listening out for some subtle difference. Heck no! It was immediately obvious that the higher res format was providing a much more open and detailed sound. I switched back and forth a few times to confirm what I was hearing and the difference was definately there.

The exercise was repeated for another track (acoustic - piano and female vocalist) with similar results.

A couple of vinyl diehards were listening too and they seemed to be quite astonished by this.

I tried a couple of 24/96 tracks and again was very impressed with the results, although I have to say my socks were almost blown off by an high quality recording on CD and by a particular "audiophile quality" vinyl LP.

The impression I got was that there's definately something worth persuing with the hi-res digital formats, but as always it depends on the source material.

We're repeatedly being told it's impossible to hear any difference, or that only some people will hear subtle differences some of the time. I had an open mind on it, but the difference I heard that day was quite obvious and I have no claim to "golden ears" or suchlike. Whether there's any advantage to hi-res files on mid-range or budget equipment might be another matter entirely?

This episode reminded me of certain experts in the 1990's telling us that all CD players sound the same....?????

.