What does your bit rate say about you?
- Thread starter bottle
- Start date
- Status
Good post.blr_p said:
The only problem is that the APE and FLAC decoders have not yet reached the same level of polish as say Vorbis, which has been around for about a decade now.
So though mathematically the wave file expanded from a FLAC is identical to the original (and when played back will sound identical), the playback of the FLAC file does sound different.
About the DBT, yes, there is a DBX plugin for Foobar and it's 7/10 for me for FLAC vs. Wav. Surprisingly, for a 500 kbps Vorbis file it was 5/10, which basically means guessing. I don't use APE at all - so can't tell.
Another thing I kind of forget - we are not accounting for subjectivity. A guitar which technically should sound the same to everybody and under all conditions, does not do so. Also the humidity and temperature of the air affects the sound. So the same guitar will sound different to each and everybody.
The way we perceive sound depends on the physical condition and specific geometry of our head and ear canals, the amount of damage and abuse we inflict on our ears, physical age, smoking habits, congestion in the bronchial pathways, and even our mood - when we are hyper notice how our ears block up?
In short, what's one's goose is the other's gander. Does not make sense to bash up either camp. I can tell the difference, and that's it. Frankly, if others can't, that's none of my business. The fact that I'm a musician makes me want to hear each and every nuance, the precise location, timber and nature of the voices, and analyse people's styles and micro-evolution over their lifetime.
I still spend over 20,000 bucks a year on original CDs. Crazy? Maybe yes. It's what I love doing, and will continue to do so till my ears degrade to the point I can't tell the difference (and that day comes to everybody, sooner or later).
Most of my collection is 192kbps ... looking to graduate to the next level once I get better equipment and free up some disk space 
blr_p
Oracle
sangram said:
I don't understand how they can sound different when the source is indistinguishable.
Assuming you are using a modern computer which can cope with the playback of the lossless files which will take up more processing power than a simple wav file.
I think you are referring to an ABX test (instead of DBX), thats the recommended dbl blind test, if you can pick 7 out of 10, you must have
(a) excellent ears
(b) know the tracks so damn well that you can pick out any nuance, at which point i would suggest you try music you are not familiar with. But i guess you wont, since you can tell the diff with what you know already.
Private Ryan
Explorer
I agree with king to some extent.. i have a lot of songs in multiple bit rates collected just to figure the difference.. One example which has bewildered me for a long time..i've got Dream theater's Pull me under in 128, 192,256 vbr and 320kbps formats...dont know why but the 128 kbps one sounds the best of them all..infact the high frequencies as well the minutest nuances of the strings and harmonics are best and clearest in the 128kbps bitrate version..theres a lot of hissing in the higher bitrate version..infact they sound as if they are of much inferior quality...:no: dont know why..i agree, where the files originated and who ripped them does make a difference but still....can anyone prolly explain why is it so?
One example which has bewildered me for a long time..i've got Dream theater's Pull me under in 128, 192,256 vbr and 320kbps formats...dont know why but the 128 kbps one sounds the best of them all..infact the high frequencies as well the minutest nuances of the strings and harmonics are best and clearest in the 128kbps bitrate version..theres a lot of hissing in the higher bitrate version..infact they sound as if they are of much inferior quality...:no: dont know why..i agree, where the files originated and who ripped them does make a difference but still....can anyone prolly explain why is it so?
blr_p
Oracle
Hard to tell unless you can look at their spectrals.
If you have Adobe Audition, it will show you the frequency distribution present. It's possible also the tracks come from different albums that might have had different mastering.
Even after looking at the graphs, judgement is very much an art rather than a science.
If you have Adobe Audition, it will show you the frequency distribution present. It's possible also the tracks come from different albums that might have had different mastering.
Even after looking at the graphs, judgement is very much an art rather than a science.
Private Ryan
Explorer
Blr_P said:
Well, i have Cool Edit pro...Audition is actually cool edit pro repackaged..so will check 'em out on CEP...as for the tracks,they are same...just the bitrates differ..
Shripad
Innovator
You need to make sure that the 320kbps rip is from original lossless source to notice difference between it and 128k.
There is clear degradation of sound @ 128k. Even if you have decent quality cans like HP805 you will notice difference.
If you are hearing lot of hiss at 320Kbps it means it was probably re-encoded from lossy source and not the original 320Kbps encode. You will find lots of crap on net @ 320Kbps which is encoded from 128-192kbps Mp3 file which is useless junk.
You dont need fancy headphones or speakers to notice difference between 128k and 320k neither you need to be audiophile or have exceptional ears. Its that obvious. And honestly listen to CD of same song and then to MP3 and you will see what you were missing.
There is clear degradation of sound @ 128k. Even if you have decent quality cans like HP805 you will notice difference.
If you are hearing lot of hiss at 320Kbps it means it was probably re-encoded from lossy source and not the original 320Kbps encode. You will find lots of crap on net @ 320Kbps which is encoded from 128-192kbps Mp3 file which is useless junk.
You dont need fancy headphones or speakers to notice difference between 128k and 320k neither you need to be audiophile or have exceptional ears. Its that obvious. And honestly listen to CD of same song and then to MP3 and you will see what you were missing.
Quad Master
Herald
Me just into the 320 and FLAC and Audio CD category , its bliss on the MX5021
anything less not appreciated now
finding 320kbps versions for all my fav tracks ripped at 128/160Kbps.
anything less not appreciated now
finding 320kbps versions for all my fav tracks ripped at 128/160Kbps.
@greenhorn: FLAC decoders use algorithms to decompress the data, plus an error handling and MD5 check for file comparison to the source. The stream data is reconstructed from this information, and is supposed to be bit identical to the source - but in many cases it's not (the FLAC homepage and Hydrogen audio Wikis have more info in case you're interested).
Maybe it's placebo, but the fact is I heard a difference and that made me give up the compression exercise and just buy a bigger hard disk.
I could only get it 7/10, compared to a much better hit rate with MP3 below 256kbps.
The most dificult for me is OGG. I rate it as the best lossy format, trouble is not many manuacturers of portable and car audio support it.
@blr_p: Sorry, it is the ABX plugin, not DBX.
I do tests with my collection of music, it's not possible or me to do it with music I don't have, because I'd have to get the original CD, no? One of the reasons that a DBT is so controversial is exactly that:
a. If you're listening for differences, you will find them.
b. If you're not familiar with the music, then what are you trying to judge?
So there are arguments both for and against it, and it is banned on many audio forums as heresy and personal (unwanted) opinion.
Maybe it's placebo, but the fact is I heard a difference and that made me give up the compression exercise and just buy a bigger hard disk.
I could only get it 7/10, compared to a much better hit rate with MP3 below 256kbps.
The most dificult for me is OGG. I rate it as the best lossy format, trouble is not many manuacturers of portable and car audio support it.
@blr_p: Sorry, it is the ABX plugin, not DBX.
I do tests with my collection of music, it's not possible or me to do it with music I don't have, because I'd have to get the original CD, no? One of the reasons that a DBT is so controversial is exactly that:
a. If you're listening for differences, you will find them.
b. If you're not familiar with the music, then what are you trying to judge?
So there are arguments both for and against it, and it is banned on many audio forums as heresy and personal (unwanted) opinion.
sangram said:
Meh , read both, lots of DSP theory. Bought back old memories :ashamed:
But still didnt see where exactly they say that the decoded signal will be different. I see they use a lot of filters and prediction to compress the signal, but nowhere did they say that they throw away anything ( except maybe the redundant 2 bytes)
besides , if it deconstructed the wave file any differently, how could they claim it to be lossless?
I'm not saying that you can't distinguish between FLAC lossless and CD , maybe you can. But just wondering how exactly it sounds different :huh:
blr_p
Oracle
You are trying to judge whethere given two samples of music you can distinguish between the two, nothing more.sangram said:
Whether you can nail the least lossy of the two.
I think so far you have been able to tell the diff with reasonable confidence, because you know the music very well. That's already quite good for you.
What happens with music you are not familiar with, will you *also* do as well ?
Ask a friend to rip some music you are not familiar with, then ABX that.
My assertion is that they should not be *any* difference, provided the hardware is sufficiently powerful enough to deal with lossless decoding.greenhorn said:
- Status