Hardbopjazz Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Recently I have been having a discussion on how music today is all about portability and not sound. This is something many here would agree upon. A coworker said to me if the music is coded properly I could not tell WAV from MP3. I told I think I could. He set out to prove me wrong. Today he made me listen to 10 tracks, each as WAV and as MP3. I was able to get 8 of the 10 correct. The 2 I wasn't able to get right was pops tunes with auto tuning. For me it's all in the cymbals with MP3s. Cymbals just stop as if just cut. I can't explain it any better than this. How do you think you would fare with a WAV to MP3 test? Edited January 10, 2015 by Hardbopjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Beat Steve Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 How do you think you would fair with a WAV to MP3 test? fair? fare??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted January 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) I can't hear the difference between CD and 256 AAC, so not very well. Nor do I care. It all sounds great to me. That's all that counts. And it's not like I don't take audio seriously. Edited January 10, 2015 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 The cymbals are a dead giveaway. XM satellite radio seems to suffer the same inferiority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjzee Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 At what bit rate (kbps) were the mp3s ripped? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted January 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 I believe 256 was what I was told Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 If anyone wants to try it themselves, there are plenty of online tests, or you can download foobar2000 for Windows http://www.foobar2000.org/download, or Lacinato if you have a Mac http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx. Feel free to cut and paste your results here so that we have more than just anecdotal evidence. I have done a Foobar ABX in the past, as well as a few online tests (though it's impossible to know how accurate the playback of those are), not to mention my own personal non-blind test. I hear nothing of note above 256 VBR AAC, and failed every test. For those who can, that's awesome, I suppose. But from every graph I've ever seen, the only place they've ever found any difference is a quicker rolloff over 16kHz. And if you're 30 or older, chances are very good you can't hear anything over 16kHz anyway. That's one of the main reasons I get such a kick out of Neil Young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Here's an interesting read and listen. https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/aac-vs-mp3-a-comparison-through-null-testing/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xybert Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Yeah the bit rate is the all important factor. On lower bit rates, the difference in quality is much more noticeable with acoustic music than it is with electronic/heavily produced music. Yeah as you increase the bit rates the difference is much less noticeable. When i studied audio engineering in 2007/2008 we did some blindfold testing and were tested on our ability to tell the difference between different bit rates, and yeah, i wouldn't argue with anyone that says that higher bit rate MP3/AAC files are indistinguishable to WAV/CD quality for all practical intents and purposes to the human ear in most cases. Having said that, i prefer having lossless files. Reasons: partly for the, however misguided, archival reason. I can always create MP3 versions of any quality from a lossless file but i can't do the reverse. Also, although you can't necessarily hear the difference, i am a believer that we hear more than we hear, FWIW. Related story time: when i first began studying audio engineering, i was not conscious of bit rates or whatever at all, and just used the default 128 kbps AAC version for iTunes thinking nothing of it. I had offered to burn a CD for one of my tutors, and i burned it straight from the iTunes files that i had ripped. I took it to him, he put it on and immediately expressed strong disgust that i had burnt him a CD based on low quality files. He heard it straight away. I was quite taken aback and embarrassed, it left quite an impression on me: i went home and re-ripped everything in to ALAC and have used it semi-religiously ever since. Anyway, the album was Prefuse 73's One Word Extinguisher, a great album! Dig that Mwandishi sample at the beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGnZLEuaw88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Excellent post, Xybert. 128 kbps does have a rather rough sound to it. My personal threshold is 256, but I know others claim that they have to at least get to 320 before they can't hear a difference. Either way, it was nice to hear a proffessional opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 No matter how many advances have been made in lossy encoding cymbals still sound like ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted January 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 No matter how many advances have been made in lossy encoding cymbals still sound like ass. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 So the myth goes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) So the myth goes... I'm a professional audio engineer, so I probably notice things a lot of people don't. Edited January 11, 2015 by Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 If "a lot of people" don't notice it, then it must be largely, if not completely, inconsequential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 If "a lot of people" don't notice it, then it must be largely, if not completely, inconsequential. I'm not even going to bother discussing this point because you're mind is so obviously made up it's a complete waste of effort on my part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Kinda like you and your incorrect assessment about home studios not being able to rival professional studios. You can always post Foobar results and prove that you have golden ears. I'm not interested in what people think they hear, just proof that they do. Something I never get. Edited January 11, 2015 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 The test has to be very strictly controlled and set up. If there is anything more than a 0.5db difference in volume between the two samples, that will be perceived and could skew the results. Also, 320kbps sounds drastically different than 256kbps and is much, much harder to distinguish. The playback software must be taken into account as well. Some software is better at decoding mp3s than others. That said, there is a difference if you know where to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 As I said, I'll buy that people can hear it when they present proof. Either way, if you have to listen that hard to hear it, what's the point? Sounds more like straining than it does listening, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xybert Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) It's a contentious topic, that's for sure. One of the most. Excellent post, Xybert. 128 kbps does have a rather rough sound to it. My personal threshold is 256, but I know others claim that they have to at least get to 320 before they can't hear a difference. Either way, it was nice to hear a proffessional opinion. Cheers, but i should probably clarify that i'm not a professional audio engineer. Got my certificate (not sure what the equivalent in the States would be) at the end of 2008 after dropping out halfway through 2007. Started going for my diploma in 2009 but dropped out after the first week. Scrabbled for about a year but just didn't have what it takes (on multiple levels) to make a living from it, which i needed. I like to think that i kept a foot in that world for a few more years by doing occasional stuff for friends and friends of friends etc but yeah i don't think i could even justify calling it a hobby anymore. Anyway, i'd probably file myself under 'has some idea but is not an expert'. Edited January 11, 2015 by xybert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 That said, there is a difference if you know where to listen. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Skid Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 This is an interesting discussion... but largely irrelevant. This stuff mattered to me 10 years ago, but not any more. Hard drive space = cheap. Everything in FLAC (or equivalent) for any "serious" listening. MP3s only when space is limited, which (for me) is only on my iPod. Since I use that mostly in the car, I don't expect much, but still encode at V4 (~165 kbps) or better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjzee Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 I found this article helpful: An Overview of Audio File Formats Supported by iTunes What is the best quality file format that can do all the following: be played in iTunes, played on an iPod, and sent from iTunes via an Airport Extreme to a stereo? My guess, from lower to higher sound quality: 320 kbps MP3 AAC (which seems to only go up to 256 kbps) (is this also known as .m4a?) Apple Lossless (is this a different .m4a?) WAV AIFF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) 320 MP3 and 256 AAC sound exactly the same in my experience. They are both "lossy" formats. Apple Lossless (ALAC), WAV, and AIFF are all lossless. There is zero difference between any of the three. They are all bit perfect replications. Just as stated in the article you linked to. .m4a is simply the file extension. Kind of like .wav, .com, .pdf, or .mp3. It can appear on both AAC and ALAC files. It's of no consequence, just a simple file extension. Which sounds the best? Well, in theory AAC sounds better than MP3. Though if you're encoding mp3's at 320 vs AAC at 256, it's probably a wash. ALAC, WAV, and AIFF are all completely the same, so you'll hear no difference between any of them. BTW, if it helps, CDs are essentially .wav files. Now, some folks will try to tell you that FLAC/ALAC are compressed, so therefore information has been discarded. That is absolutely, 100% incorrect. Lossless audio is just that, lossless. Think of FLAC/ALAC as CD audio turned into a .zip file. All the information is there, it's just been encoded and catalogued differently to reduce the overall file size. You'll have to experiment and compare for yourself to figure out which one sounds the "best". I personally find no discernible difference in any of them. As you've seen above, some folks will try to convince you they heard differences without offering even a shred of empirical evidence to support their claim. Kind of similar to audio companies who tell you their $1000 per foot speaker cables will magically transform your system and listening experience. But, do your own tests as I did and see what you come up with. Edited January 13, 2015 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.