What does your bit rate say about you?

[cranky]

@greenhorn: Yes, there should *not* be a difference, but there is, to my ears - the only conclusion I can come to is that there's something wrong with my encoding or decoding, though I can't imagine why, it should error out and terminate in case of severe stream errors.

Or, maybe I have excellent ears (I don't think that's true, though, after my ear operation the hearing in one ear is less than the other - permanent damage).

@blr_p: That's the whole point - when I don't know much about something, I can't judge different samples of it with any confidence. That is true of any thing, including a car, girlfriend, job or music.

As I learn it better, I grow more confident and am able to pick differences between samples, and get intimate with its true nature. So IMO ABX testing for unfamiliar music for me is not an option, because I am trying to grasp the music, and though I may try to spot differences consciously, I can bet I'll get it wrong 10 times out of 10, because at that point I'm listening to the piece and not the artifacts.

The first time I heard Dave Brubeck's 'Improvisation' on a 128 kbps MP3, it sounded damn good to me because the drum solo is luscious. Later, after 5 listens, I began to spot imperfections and now, I'm dying to get my hands on the CD - I can't listen to the ripped version anymore and it's deleted from my disk. Like I said, I spend an obscene amount of money on CDs, and sometimes wish I was deaf, this hobby is killingly expensive.

I have a similar story about my girlfriend, but that's for another time!

 

[blr_p]

@blr_p: That's the whole point - when I don't know much about something, I can't judge different samples of it with any confidence. That is true of any thing, including a car, girlfriend, job or music.

The idea is can you tell the difference between a properly encoded file and its wav counterpart ?

Now if you know the music maybe you have an advantage already as you can say this or that is missing, so in a way its saying this encoder is not suitable, as you are the expert for this track. So if you can already tell the diff for stuff that you *do* know, why take the risk with stuff you don't know

But if you did not know the track and could not tell the diff, between the two, doesn't that *necessarily* imply the encoding method used was good enough ?..in your case, or that this would be pointless since you are not the track expert in this case. Tho you are saying you can tell the diff between FLAC & WAV, so i'd say no compression would be good enough, even lossless.

This is a logical argument, maybe someone can spot the mistake in it (if any).

A 128kbs file would be easy to pick out, try a 192 vbr one or even a 256. Thing is with recent encoders, lame for instance, the emphasis has been on improving the low end of things, the high end has been done already, the latest improvement (amongst others) with lame 3.97 achieved a file size reduction of 5% with no discernable loss. A 128kbs with lame 3.97 will sound better than a 128kbs with previous versions. That does not mean you use 128kbs for your collection, just that your 128kbs would not sound so bad in a noisy environment with a portable.