Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

"Serge Auckland" 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_m...detail&Pid=406


Then it (or a little 'better' than 192K) is good enough for me!

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

--
Michael Chare

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...



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!

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

"Michael Chare" wrote in
message
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/re...-Good-To-Me/p1

Can anyone hear the difference?

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.

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare" 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 ********** 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/shown...ensensatez.mp3


Whether I like it or not is really another matter.
:-)


--
Michael Chare

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare" 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 ********** 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/shown...ensensatez.mp3


Whether I like it or not is really another matter.
:-)


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/shown...0Clip%2001.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%2002.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%2003.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%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!!

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare" 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 ********** 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/shown...ensensatez.mp3


Whether I like it or not is really another matter.
:-)


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/shown...0Clip%2001.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%2002.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%2003.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%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!!

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

"Keith G" 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/shown...0Clip%2001.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%2002.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%2003.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%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'!! :-)

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

Keith G wrote:

"Serge Auckland" 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_m...detail&Pid=406



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.

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


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/shown...0Clip%2001.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%2002.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%2003.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...0Clip%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

Flac vs 320kbps mp3
 

"Rob" wrote in message
m...
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_m...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!!

@:-)