mp3/aac transparency with hi-fi equipment?

[admin_exported]

Hi, I've recently purchased my first "hi fi" gear and have been re-ripping my old CDs. After a little research on hydrogenaudio and some blind ABX tests (which have been a real eye opener), I've been left feeling a little bewildered. I've been really impressed at the sound quality of relatively low bitrate mp3 and aac files using good codecs (lame and nero/itunes), to my ears there was really no difference between ~200kbps and lossless files.

I found this very surprising; I hear of lots of people who swear by flac, and who despise all lossy formats; so I am simply curious as to how people on here feel about transparency with regard to lossy formats. Do you find that the required bit-rate for transparency increases with "higher end" gear? Or do you not ever regard lossy formats as transparent at all?

Thanks, Tom x

 

[DavieCee]

There may be a variance in opinions due to equipment, ears or simply the quality of the original recording but......

To my ears there is a noticeable difference below 256 kbps especially in the bass notes. They tend to get wooly. Above 320 kbps it gets hard to tell the difference but for me storage is not much of an issue so why compromise?

The main definer is how well the tracks are recorded in the first place.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Fully agree with DC's post above.

There is a slight further improvement in quality as you go above CD resolution.

 

[Alec]

I dont think i hear much if any difference from 256 and upwards without much critical listening which id rather not botehr with. When ripping, i go lossless, but im generally happy enough with itunes/amazon downloads.

 

[Paul.]

320 was the magic number for me as well, I had to really focus to tell on blind testing which was lossless and which was 320. As I wanted my favourite albums on my iPad, it was the choice between 20 albums in lossless or 60 in 320, I decided to go with 320. Maybe if my kit was better it would be easier to tell the difference.

 

[manicm]

Ok, I have an Arcam Solo Mini + B&W 685s, with rDock + iPod touch 3g - I usually rip in AIFF.

Now just late last night, having being impressed with AAC 256k on my previous iPod Nano through buds, I decided to rip the new remastered Beatles Red and Blue compilations, John Cale's Paris 1919, and King Crimson's In The Court Of The Crimson in 320k variable bit-rate AAC - the same setup as iTunes Plus (256k) but just the higher bit rate option.

And here are my results which I found very surprising:

The sound of the CDs are well preserved, displaying the usual AAC traits i.e. completely smooth and inoffensive at high frequency extremes, and a reasonable level of preserving transparency and space.

However, compared to 320k MP3s I've bought, the compression artifacts are definitely audible - I could not ignore this while listening - and I was not doing critical listening - lying down on my couch in the dark in fact. I have never experienced this with 320k MP3s.

So from my experience AAC is both good and bad for hifi systems. I will be re-ripping those albums in AIFF I'm afraid.

Just my two cents, maybe others may experience different. However, this exercise has taught me one lesson - I will never ever buy any music from iTunes.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Of course, you're not really ripping in AIFF at all: you're just copying the CD files from one medium to another. AIFF is the filename extension Apple chooses to put on CD-quality uncompressed 16-bit/44.1kHz files, as Microsoft chooses to designate them as .WAV.

 

[manicm]

Andrew Everard:Of course, you're not really ripping in AIFF at all: you're just copying the CD files from one medium to another. AIFF is the filename extension Apple chooses to put on CD-quality uncompressed 16-bit/44.1kHz files, as Microsoft chooses to designate them as .WAV.

Yes I understand it's an alternative container to WAV for uncompresses audio. In iTunes it does have the nicety of album art etc.

 

[pwiles1968]

I could hear a little difference between 320kb MP3 and ALAC on my system, to me there was a little more ambiance on the ALAC, 320 was still really good though.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all the input guys, archiving in lossless seems the way to go. On my entry level system I am perfectly happy with medium bit-rate aac files though.

I'm not trying to stir things up, but just wondering if anyone has done any double-blind testing between lossless and lossy codecs (ABX'ing), I'm just wondering how much difference you hear between them is psychosomatic? (Don't underestimate the power of suggestion!)

Also, I'm wondering how lossless formats run through a decent DAC compare to a good hi-fi CD player?

 

[Messiah]

TomLi:

I'm not trying to stir things up, but just wondering if anyone has done any double-blind testing between lossless and lossy codecs (ABX'ing), I'm just wondering how much difference you hear between them is psychosomatic? (Don't underestimate the power of suggestion!)

Also, I'm wondering how lossless formats run through a decent DAC compare to a good hi-fi CD player?

All of my CD's have been ripped to Apple Lossless and I have quite a few tracks purchased from iTunes in 256k.

I
notice little difference between them to be honest. I think the
Lossless tracks are marginally better but to be honest I have never done
any real testing between the two formats. My days of critiquing my
system etc are behind me now.

When I had my Cyrus set-up I had the Cyrus CD6s. I also played lossless files through my iPhone and Onkyo analogue dock. The difference between the two was marginal. The CD player was better but not by enough to justify keeping it and so I sold it!

 

[Anonymous]

TomLi:Hi, I've recently purchased my first "hi fi" gear and have been re-ripping my old CDs. After a little research on hydrogenaudio and some blind ABX tests (which have been a real eye opener), I've been left feeling a little bewildered. I've been really impressed at the sound quality of relatively low bitrate mp3 and aac files using good codecs (lame and nero/itunes), to my ears there was really no difference between ~200kbps and lossless files.

I found this very surprising; I hear of lots of people who swear by flac, and who despise all lossy formats; so I am simply curious as to how people on here feel about transparency with regard to lossy formats. Do you find that the required bit-rate for transparency increases with "higher end" gear? Or do you not ever regard lossy formats as transparent at all?

Thanks, Tom x

I think the problem most 'Audiophiles', (me included) have with Lossy formats on our HiFi equipment, is that we have spent years, or even decades in some instances trying to get more and more detail/space/openess/warmth/natural tonality and everything else from our favorite recordings. Each Component/Cable/Speaker upgrade adds more musicality etc.. to our music, and the idea of actually removing anything from our beloved music is so alien to us that we immediatley write off any such idea as absolutely ridiculous.

My own personal experience on my own listening equipment recently was that I couldn't tell the difference between high bitrate lossy at 320Kbps and Lossless which really surprised me, to say the least! But after some research into how the Psychoacoustic Models in lossy codecs work (which was quite enlightening) it's not as surprising really that my old ears can't hear a difference.

The only thing I maybe noticed (could be Placebo) was that through my speakers the soundstage seemed to be slighlty smaller and with a bit less air/openness.

Of course some people will have equipment thats costs tens of thousands of pounds, where the difference may very well be "night and day". Also there's "Placebo". As we know, enjoyment of any kind, including musical enjoyment, is a purely psychological phenomenon, so just knowing that a track is "Lossless" is going to enhance enjoyment for some.

 

[Anonymous]

You may find it interesting to check this page out:

http://mp3ornot.com/

It sorta proves your point in my opinion that the difference between low bitrate mp3's and near cd quality is hard to hear. That is, only when the files are ripped in a good way. Many times lossy files circulating on the web have been converted to various lossy formats before they reach you, and with each conversion they lose quality...

But then, when making your own digital music collection, with hard disk prices and download speeds (downloading with 120Mb/s in the Netherlands) these days its simply not worth it to substitute lossless with lossy files...