Be honest now...

[titaniumx3]

You can noticeably tell the difference with classical music as there is so much going on. It is not a major difference though. This is with an external sound card going to my hifi or Goldring DR150s

You need to do an ABX test in order make any worthwhile claims.

The brain is basically an incredibly complex sound processor and can change your perception of sound drastically depending on your physiological and psychological state.

I was once almost certain that there were noticeable differences between two files of the same song, untill I found out they were bit for bit identical.

 

[Ross1234]

You need to do an ABX test in order make any worthwhile claims.

The brain is basically an incredibly complex sound processor and can change your perception of sound drastically depending on your physiological and psychological state.

I was once almost certain that there were noticeable differences between two files of the same song, untill I found out they were bit for bit identical.

I disagree. For example listen to particular features repeatedly such as cymbals and you can tell if there is distortion.

 

[Ben Harrison]

I can certainly hear the difference between .flac and 128kbps .mp3, but 320kbps? Nope.

I don't exactly have amazing audio equipment though.

 

[Shamrock]

I disagree. For example listen to particular features repeatedly such as cymbals and you can tell if there is distortion.

Why don't you do an ABX test with your favourite classical track that has cymbals in?

If it's so noticeable, the test results will reflect this.

 

[Rexton]

With very hard and prolonged hearing I can notice small artifacts in 320MP3 that aren't present in FLAC, even more so when I'm listening through ultra top-end equipment (although my system is more than adequate). But for me the size/unavailability of the music I listen to in FLAC format isn't worth it.

 

[titaniumx3]

I disagree. For example listen to particular features repeatedly such as cymbals and you can tell if there is distortion.

You can't trust your brain. As harsh as that may sound, it's an undeniable fact. Just knowing what file you are listening to, will alter your perception of sound.

Also, if the distortion is really obvious, it may be the case that the lossy file was not encoded properly.

EDIT: when doing these comparisions (abx testing) you have to make sure the test is fair, i.e. there is nothing different in your audio chain for the lossless recording and the lossy recording, apart from the recording itself.

 

[Auraomega]

Using foo_abx strips most of those things out (replay gain for example). As long as you encode the stream yourself, using the LAME 320 without any DSP setting, you should be set.

Am I the only person here though who finds the constant claims, but lack of proof evidence enough that no one can tell the difference?

 

[kylew]

Using foo_abx strips most of those things out (replay gain for example). As long as you encode the stream yourself, using the LAME 320 without any DSP setting, you should be set.

Am I the only person here though who finds the constant claims, but lack of proof evidence enough that no one can tell the difference?

It's the same situation as speaker cables, and those who claim their oxygen free, gold plated soaked in poverty stricken orphaned children's tears Toslink cable makes their music sound better, with a wider soundstage and greater musical depth to their tracks that they never noticed before, but they're never willing to do an ABX test for some convoluted reason or another.

 

[james.miller]

Any cable that carries an analogue signal will always influence the sound and that includes speaker cables. There is plenty of undeniable proof regarding speaker cable - it's worlds away from the claims that are made about spdif cables.

 

[MatteH Oxford]

Am I the only person here though who finds the constant claims, but lack of proof evidence enough that no one can tell the difference?

 

[Shamrock]

Was that FLAC and 320kbps or FLAC and 64kbps?

Fair enough if you got 10/10, your equipment/ears must be better than mine, but it'd be nice to see the file properties in the screeny too.

 

[MatteH Oxford]

I don't think it displays file properties? Dunno, I've never used this software before!.
It was a .flac & a 320kbs .mp3 of Heaven 17's song 'song with no name'

 

[Mr Krugga]

Any cable that carries an analogue signal will always influence the sound and that includes speaker cables. There is plenty of undeniable proof regarding speaker cable - it's worlds away from the claims that are made about spdif cables.

You can win $1M if you prove you can hear the difference between good and the very top end cables. I would say go for it


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-end_audio_cables#Quality_debate

 

[Auraomega]

The cable effects the electronic signal that the speaker receives, however when you start buying semi-expensive cable the change is signal is so small you need an oscilloscope to see the difference and I don't for a second believe anyone can hear the difference.

And some people think just because a cable is for digital use it can be absolutely awful still and not affect quality, it's mostly true but you need a cable that is reliable enough to transfer the signal within certain boundaries; a lot of the digital coaxial cable sold for pence on the bay fails to even send a digital signal. Unfortunately a lot of companies prey on those who are foolish enough to buy into marketing hype like that (I think) £200 per foot S/PDIF...

 

[AbsenceJam]

Using foo_abx strips most of those things out (replay gain for example). As long as you encode the stream yourself, using the LAME 320 without any DSP setting, you should be set.

Am I the only person here though who finds the constant claims, but lack of proof evidence enough that no one can tell the difference?

There's no way of proving it without the person wanting proof physically being there. Screenshots mean nothing.

 

[kylew]

Any cable that carries an analogue signal will always influence the sound and that includes speaker cables. There is plenty of undeniable proof regarding speaker cable - it's worlds away from the claims that are made about spdif cables.

"Influence". Providing the cable is of a sufficient gauge, there'll be no difference, if the cable isn't sufficient you'll hear a difference, that difference will be deteriorating sound quality, not "sharper and brighter highs" like often hear people claim.

 

[HypnoToad]

i cant tell between 320 mp3s and flacs.

that said, flac files can sometimes be smaller then 320 mp3 files so i quite like flac myself

 

[titaniumx3]

i cant tell between 320 mp3s and flacs.

that said, flac files can sometimes be smaller then 320 mp3 files so i quite like flac myself

More like hardly ever. I've never seen any of my flac files go below 700kbps, which is still twice as much as a 320kbps mp3. Even with a stronger codec like Monkey's Audio, I've rarely seen it go below 500kbps.

Plus, 320kbps CBR is a waste as most people agree that the V0 VBR preset for LAME mp3 is more or less indistinguisable from 320kbps CBR, yet reduces the bitrate a fair bit. Remember that this is just mp3s were talking about, there are other more advanced lossy codecs out there that can provide even better quality at a given bitrate (though I personally stick to mp3 for the compatiblity).

In my opinion not enough credit is given to the technology that is used on these lossy codecs, it's pretty amazing when you learn about how it works, especially the mathematics involved.

 

[Auraomega]

I agree with that; I find almost all lossy compressions amazing in theory, although most of it goes over my head

I have a few FLAC files at around 320kbps, my smallest being 317kbps, ironic really that a lossy compression would actually take more space than the lossless.

 

[BloodyL]

Try a FLAC of The Police's "Wrapped around your finger", then try a 128kbps MP3 of the same track and you should pick up all kinds of "blorping" in the background of the MP3 as the encode struggles with such a subtle sound in the background.