Flac vs 320kbps mp3
Michael Chare
320kbps mp3 files pulled from the free downloads on the Naim website.
but then I also found that the max frequency I can here is more like 11,000
Hz compared with the 15,500 Hz I could hear in the 60s.
It would appear that I am not alone in not being able to tell the
difference:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2009/11/18/Sounds-Good-To-Me/p1
Can anyone hear the difference?
--
Michael Chare
Serge Auckland
"Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in message
news:hfdjfe$4mg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
transparent, so I'm not surprised there isn't an audible difference. Whilst
your hearing loss won't help, the artifacts audible on lossy codecs are not
confined to high frequencies, so you will probably still be able to hear the
artifacts on MP3s at lower bit rates.
S.
Jim Lesurf
<sergeauck...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in message
> news:hfdjfe$4mg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >I have been struggling to hear much (any) difference between flac and
> >320kbps mp3 files pulled from the free downloads on the Naim website.
> > but then I also found that the max frequency I can here is more like
> > 11,000 Hz compared with the 15,500 Hz I could hear in the 60s.
> >
> > It would appear that I am not alone in not being able to tell the
> > difference:
> > http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2009/11/18/Sounds-Good-To-Me/p1
> >
> > Can anyone hear the difference?
> >
> >
> > -- Michael Chare
> Flac is a lossless codec, and 320kbps MP3 is generally considered to be
> transparent, so I'm not surprised there isn't an audible difference.
There are a few snags with the 'test' reported above.
One obvious one (not being DB ) has been mentioned in the follow-on
discussions on their website. However IIUC they also asked listeners which
version they 'preferred'. Not if they could tell if they were 'different'.
Hence it is quite possible in principle that people did hear differences,
but some preferred the 'lossy' version in some cases.
If the test was to see what was 'preferred' then that is different to a
test designed to see if they could reliably detect a 'difference'. This
confusion seems sadly common when hifi buffs/reviewers try to assess things
like this.
Similarly, the results may well depend on the options used for the
encoding, not just the bitrate. And the optimum may vary with the type of
music, how much is at low levels, etc.
So I can't say I find the result they got surprising. But I would not take
that as meaning too much for anyone else using other music. :-)
Shame that someone was willing to do such a test, but then made a poor job
of how it was done.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Brian Gaff
mp3, though the current coding is miles better than it used to be of
course.
The trade off is not in frequency responce, but in phase relationships of
low level components. In the early mp3s, the so called swizzle effect was
pretty obvious as the trade off tended to move the sound stage about by
phase, but the higher the bit rate the less this is obvious of course.
Its really a personal call, I suppose. I find that listening to a small mp3
player for a longish period leaves me with a kind of swizzling effect on
normal sounds for some minutes, even though during the playback it was not
that obvious.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in message
news:hfdjfe$4mg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Michael Chare
news:50c4fa9...@audiomisc.co.uk...
> There are a few snags with the 'test' reported above.
I suppose my question really was can you hear a difference between the two
formats?
--
Michael Chare
Don Pearce
Probably not. In fact the differences, such as they are, tend not to
be in overall sound as such. There will be moments when the MP3 gets
caught out, usually when dealing with something noiselike behind
something melodic. It will go harsh. Also if the recording has a lot
of audible background noise - a transcription from vinyl, for example
- you might find that all the MP3's capabilities are taken up with
reproducing that noise adequately, and the quality of the music will
the suffer badly.
d
Keith G
"Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote
> I suppose my question really was can you hear a difference between the two
> formats?
My question would be: How hard do you want to try and hear a difference?
Listening to different sounds from different sources in different locations
in different conditions requires that we make some sort of
(subconscious?)accomodation, otherwise most of what we heard would be too
hideous. You've attracted some serious *bollocks* comments here - have a go
at this *untreated* vinyl transcription to 256K MP3 and just see if you
*like* it and let me know:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/03%20Insensensatez.mp3
Hint: loudspeakers and a little distance represents 'normal listening
conditions' for most of the human race....
@;-)
Keith G
"Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in message
news:hfdjfe$4mg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
These probably could:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGbZq5qVAMc
@:-)
Jim Lesurf
Personally, as yet I've not made a serious systematic attempt to do so
since I'm not sure the answer would be of much use unless you add a number
of qualifying conditions to the above sweeping question about 'formats'.
Hasn't been a primary interest to me since I essentially don't use mp3
myself. Some other reasons outlined below...
Firstly it seems quite likely that the choice of bitrate would affect how
audible 'effects' might be.
Secondly, it would probably depend on other settings used when encoding. If
you look at lame you can find a list of these as long as yer arm...
Thirdly, it would probably depend on the type of music. And how familiar I
was with it. And the replay equipment and listening situation. And no doubt
other things which could be listed as they occurred to people!
Finally, it would depend on if simply listening to an mp3 with no access to
the source from which it was made, or if it was possible to do comparisons.
One aspect of such lossy schemes is that they may seem OK if you can't do a
direct comparison to detect alterations which - in isolation - may seem OK.
Similarly you can sometimes 'train' yourself so you can hear effects that
initially passed you by e.g. years ago learning how - at the time - to hear
what speaker cones were made from from the 'quack' or 'paper cup' effects.
Alas, doing that can spoil listening to music if you are still stuck with
using such things, so I don't advise people to try such things unless they
want to risk becoming distracted. :-)
So trying to come to sweeping conclusions about the 'formats' may fall foul
of intepreting indivual examples and deciding how 'typical' they are of
what the 'format' could do if optimised for the specific cases. And of then
generalising from one person to another. Having a few people listen to a
few files isn't much of a basis for that, let alone just one person, if you
expect the results to mean much to other people in other cases.
Given that I've not used mp3 for much listening I can't say trying to a
sweeping comparison has attracted me much. Particularly as I can't make any
particular claims for having 'golden ears' so my findings may well not tell
others much about what they might be able to hear that I might miss.
However I've certainly heard audible problems at times. Even for 256kbps
mp3 on occasion. And it is easy enough to show measurable differences.
I've also found measurable differenced between *decoders* playing the same
mp3 source. But have no idea which might be judged 'better' or 'closer to
the original' in any general sweeping terms due to all the other variables
of the kind I mention above.
Hence at present I'm quite happy to accept that some people can hear some
problems or differences that may not be noticed by others, and this varies
from person to person, file to file, etc, etc. Beyond that I have no real
idea at present. Not done the experiment. Other things have been more
interesting. :-)
FWIW I have been looking at this from a more measured perspective and have
some results which may appear sometime. But converting that into deciding
what it means in audible terms is not simple for the above reasons.
Serge Auckland
each with the same track firstly as a straight copy off a commercial CD,
then MP2 and MP3 encoded at different bit rates, some joint stereo, some
true stereo. I was surprised at how good they all actually were, down to
96kbps even MP2. My experience was that doing an AB comparison with the
original, it was fairly clear which was which up to something like (it was
some time ago, and I no longer have my notes) 192kbps MP2 and 128k MP3, but
after that, it became increasingly difficult to tell. However, what I found
most surprising, given all the hype about data-compressed audio in the HiFi
press at the time, was that in the absence of an AB comparison with the
original, how all of them, even the lowest bit rates were perfectly
acceptable for non-critical listening, and weren't obviously flawed.
When I got to above 256kbps for both MP2 and MP3, I couldn't hear any
difference with the original, on the two or three pieces of music I'd
chosen, however carefully I listened, and even knowing which was which, I
couldn't hear a difference. Maybe that says something about my ears, but it
points that TO ME, these algorithms do what they're supposed to do. I don't
often use MP3s as I don't use portable music players, but on my holiday
system, which consists of a laptop with a 500Gb drive and a Digigram sound
card, I have several hundred CDs ripped as 320kbps MP3s, and am not aware of
any lack of sound quality.
S.
S.
Keith G
"Serge Auckland" <sergeauck...@btinternet.com> wrote
> When MP3 perceptual codecs first became popular, I made up a couple of CDs
> each with the same track firstly as a straight copy off a commercial CD,
> then MP2 and MP3 encoded at different bit rates, some joint stereo, some
> true stereo. I was surprised at how good they all actually were, down to
> 96kbps even MP2. My experience was that doing an AB comparison with the
> original, it was fairly clear which was which up to something like (it was
> some time ago, and I no longer have my notes) 192kbps MP2 and 128k MP3,
> but after that, it became increasingly difficult to tell.
When storage was expensive and relatively hard to come by, I digitised to
128K as the best compromise and I had a player at the time ('MP3Man', IIRC)
that didn't seem to like anything better, in any case!
Nowadays I digitise to 256K because it sounds plenty good enough to me, even
over a 'full-size hifi system' and if 192K is good enough for firms like
Denon:
http://www.denon.co.uk/site/frames_main.php?main=prod&ver=&MID=3&sub=2&action=detail&Pid=406
Then it (or a little 'better' than 192K) is good enough for me!
Michael Chare
--
Michael Chare
"Serge Auckland" <sergeauck...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aOmdnbfX-cXGiIHW...@bt.com...
>
>>
> When MP3 perceptual codecs first became popular, I made up a couple of CDs
> each with the same track firstly as a straight copy off a commercial CD,
> then MP2 and MP3 encoded at different bit rates, some joint stereo, some
> true stereo. I was surprised at how good they all actually were, down to
> 96kbps even MP2. My experience was that doing an AB comparison with the
> original, it was fairly clear which was which up to something like (it was
> some time ago, and I no longer have my notes) 192kbps MP2 and 128k MP3,
> but after that, it became increasingly difficult to tell. However, what I
> found most surprising, given all the hype about data-compressed audio in
> the HiFi press at the time, was that in the absence of an AB comparison
> with the original, how all of them, even the lowest bit rates were
> perfectly acceptable for non-critical listening, and weren't obviously
> flawed.
>
> When I got to above 256kbps for both MP2 and MP3, I couldn't hear any
> difference with the original, on the two or three pieces of music I'd
> chosen, however carefully I listened, and even knowing which was which, I
> couldn't hear a difference. Maybe that says something about my ears, but
> it points that TO ME, these algorithms do what they're supposed to do. I
> don't often use MP3s as I don't use portable music players, but on my
> holiday system, which consists of a laptop with a 500Gb drive and a
> Digigram sound card, I have several hundred CDs ripped as 320kbps MP3s,
> and am not aware of any lack of sound quality.
>
That accords with what I have found. So far I have been unable to hear a
difference between Flac and 320kbps mp3!
Arny Krueger
message news:hfdjfe$4mg$1...@news.eternal-september.org
The listening tests were done in a totally bush-league fashion. This is
pretty irritating because the means for doing it right are well-known and
don't cost a cent out of pocket.
The tests need to be level-matched, time-synched and double blind.
In short the *right* way to do this is:
(1) Convert the MP3 back to a .wav file.
(2) Convert the FLAC file to a .wav file.
(3) Trim the files to make sure that they start and end at the same
identical point in the musical selection.
(3) Analyze the files to make sure they are level matched within 0.1 dB and
correct as necessary.
(4) Compare using double blind comparison software that is readily available
and downloadable on the web.
One other thing. It is well known that some musical selections are far more
likely than others to pick up audible differences when encoded with various
MP3 encoders, and that some MP3 encoders do a better job than others.
AFAIK, the musical selections were picked casually, and the MP3 coder
involved may not be the best around.
In short, it may be an interesting article to some, but it really doesn't
have that much to say.
For more information, please check the Hydrogen Audio forums, and the forum
FAQs there.
Michael Chare
news:hfgf5s$23u4$1...@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote
>
>
>> I suppose my question really was can you hear a difference between the
>> two formats?
>
>
> My question would be: How hard do you want to try and hear a difference?
>
> Listening to different sounds from different sources in different
> locations in different conditions requires that we make some sort of
> (subconscious?)accomodation, otherwise most of what we heard would be too
> hideous. You've attracted some serious *bollocks* comments here - have a
> go at this *untreated* vinyl transcription to 256K MP3 and just see if you
> *like* it and let me know:
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/03%20Insensensatez.mp3
>
Whether I like it or not is really another matter.
:-)
--
Michael Chare
Keith G
"Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in message
OK, no worries - but it prompts me to try summat else....
If you (or anyone else) can be arsed, compare these 'identical' clips
without discovering the various bitrates and see if you can easily split
them and/or evolve a favourite or best simply by *listening* to them:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2001.mp3
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2002.mp3
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2003.mp3
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2004.mp3
My contention is that few (if any) people will be able to split them by only
listening to them and that it doesn't matter anyway - low bitrate MP3s are
for 'mobile music' in any case!!
Keith G
Keith G
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote
> If you (or anyone else) can be arsed, compare these 'identical' clips
> without discovering the various bitrates and see if you can easily split
> them and/or evolve a favourite or best simply by *listening* to them:
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2001.mp3
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2002.mp3
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2003.mp3
>
> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2004.mp3
>
>
> My contention is that few (if any) people will be able to split them by
> only listening to them and that it doesn't matter anyway - low bitrate
> MP3s are for 'mobile music' in any case!!
I've played these to 'Golden Ears' (Swim Bo) and she has completely knocked
me on my arse by getting them *dead right* ('qualitywise')- maybe I'm
totally wrong here....!!
(Must be my 'Vinyleers'!! :-)
Rob
And me.
However, I use a lossless codec for the simple reason that, er, it might
matter one day.
Michael Chare
>
> "Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hfj96u$e09$1...@energise.enta.net...
>>
>>
>> without discovering the various bitrates and see if you can easily split
>> them and/or evolve a favourite or best simply by *listening* to them:
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2001.mp3
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2002.mp3
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2003.mp3
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Sample%20Clip%2004.mp3
>>
>>
>> My contention is that few (if any) people will be able to split them by
>> only listening to them and that it doesn't matter anyway - low bitrate
>> MP3s are for 'mobile music' in any case!!
I can play the clips on my PC, but how do I download them so that I can
play them on something else?
(using IE)
--
Michael Chare
Keith G
"Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in message
Right mouse click on the 'SampleClicknn' link and select 'Save Target As'
and watch where it wants to put them.
Try to play them without 'giving the game awayas to bitrates' to make your
comparisons. It's really a 'better or worse' you are looking for - play 'em
only two or three times at the most or you'll be lost!
(My 'bidey-in' was so *on the money* with these clips I think I'll have to
change my views on how *other people* hear MP3s!! @:-)
Keith G
"Rob" <patchoul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:FXaTm.12933$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Keith G wrote:
>> Nowadays I digitise to 256K because it sounds plenty good enough to me,
>> even over a 'full-size hifi system' and if 192K is good enough for firms
>> like Denon:
>>
>> http://www.denon.co.uk/site/frames_main.php?main=prod&ver=&MID=3&sub=2&action=detail&Pid=406
So bloody tempted by one of these - just out of curiosity!!
>>
>>
>> Then it (or a little 'better' than 192K) is good enough for me!
>>
>
> And me.
>
> However, I use a lossless codec for the simple reason that, er, it might
> matter one day.
Rob, I'm that bit further down the road than you are - what doesn't matter
to me today sure as hell ain't gonna matter at any time in the future!!
@:-)
Rob
>
> "Rob" <patchoul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FXaTm.12933$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Keith G wrote:
>
>
>>> Nowadays I digitise to 256K because it sounds plenty good enough to
>>> me, even over a 'full-size hifi system' and if 192K is good enough
>>> for firms like Denon:
>>>
>>> http://www.denon.co.uk/site/frames_main.php?main=prod&ver=&MID=3&sub=2&action=detail&Pid=406
>>>
>
>
>
> So bloody tempted by one of these - just out of curiosity!!
>
Probably does just fine. Software looks intriguing.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then it (or a little 'better' than 192K) is good enough for me!
>>>
>>
>> And me.
>>
>> However, I use a lossless codec for the simple reason that, er, it
>> might matter one day.
>
>
>
> Rob, I'm that bit further down the road than you are - what doesn't
> matter to me today sure as hell ain't gonna matter at any time in the
> future!!
>
> @:-)
>
Knowing your luck, you'll live to 108 with tip top hearing. Then we'll
see who's chuckling :-)
Keith G
> Keith G wrote:
>>>> http://www.denon.co.uk/site/frames_main.php?main=prod&ver=&MID=3&sub=2&action=detail&Pid=406
>>
>> So bloody tempted by one of these - just out of curiosity!!
>>
>
> Probably does just fine. Software looks intriguing.
Yes, I bet they probably unexceptional but otherwise fine - not having the
space to put one is a deterrent for me (I think) but the biggest mystery is
who are they being pitched at? They are too toy-like and plasticky to appeal
to an 'audiophile' but what teenager has got enough vinyl to want to make
MP3s from it? What teenager would bother, when they can just download it -
legally or otherwise?
My guess it's pitched at the Baby Boomers who still have the vinyl but are
not 'audio buffs' and just want it grabbed and split into 248 tracks a side
by the software for the iPods they have got somewhere but never use...??
>> Rob, I'm that bit further down the road than you are - what doesn't
>> matter to me today sure as hell ain't gonna matter at any time in the
>> future!!
>>
>> @:-)
>>
>
> Knowing your luck, you'll live to 108 with tip top hearing. Then we'll see
> who's chuckling :-)
Well, just so long as you are there to see me reach that age! ;-)