1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Music 128kbps vs 320kbps vs Lossless Blind Test

Discussion in 'General' started by Zener Diode, 25 May 2013.

  1. Tangster

    Tangster Butt-kicking for goodness!

    Joined:
    23 May 2009
    Posts:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    151
    You can't just tease us like that. :p
     
  2. play_boy_2000

    play_boy_2000 ^It was funny when I was 12

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2004
    Posts:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    146
    I have a low-mid range amp and some proper speakers, but I find I can hear more of the nuances in music with my creative fatal1ty headphones (which aren't high end by any measure). Listing to the first sample, I couldn't tell the difference between 320 and lossless, however after listening to all of them twice over, I was able to pick out the 128kbps, although I didn't find that it bothered me.

    Maybe I should go buy some **** audio cables that are enriched with di-lithium dust
     
  3. smc8788

    smc8788 Multimodder

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,974
    Likes Received:
    272
    This. Having high end audio gear really shows off how good or bad the mastering is on a track. On something as well mastered as Random Access Memories for instance, I can easily tell the difference going from 192k > 320k > FLAC. On other albums (or generally any of the latest pop garbage) it can be much more difficult, and often sounds just as bad on FLAC as it does on a low-mid bitrate MP3. In general though I find I can easily tell the difference between 128k >320k MP3, but the difference between 320k MP3 and FLAC/lossless is not so great and really depends on the production quality of the track.

    Audio gear is in my sig - I mostly use headphones (currently around £2.5k of headphone gear - Woo Audio WA7 > Senn HD800's or Audez'e LCD-2's) which allow you to really focus in on the finer details of tracks so you are more likely to hear greater differences between quality settings. Though I use optical out to my Onkyo receiver and some B&W 685's when I want to annoy the neighbours :D
     
  4. biojellywobbles

    biojellywobbles Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    301
    Likes Received:
    17
    With my onboard audio and £15 panasonic cans I can't tell the blindest bit of difference between the first group. I think ignorance is bliss on the audio quality front, if I could tell a difference I would just end up spending more money.
     
  5. kingred

    kingred Surfacing sucks!

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    87
    I can tell the difference quite starkly, it seems the headroom and dynamics are a lot sharper so you can hear the mix loads better.

    Rig is Griffin iMic usb soundcard -> Pioneer MX2000 -> Pioneer bookshelves / Sony Headphones

    But I do have the hearing of a 17 hear old :toot:
     
  6. KidMod-Southpaw

    KidMod-Southpaw Super Spamming Saiyan

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    558
    Well, I tried it (Xonar DG going to HD598s- yes, I want an Essence One! :D)

    I couldn't tell much difference at first, but after looking at the order, I was going FLAC, 320, 180. I can never tell the difference like that. I then went 180, 320, FLAC and the difference was much bigger, as with all my stuff now, with any complex track, I can't go below FLAC unless its for my portable setup- simply to save space.
     
  7. Zener Diode

    Zener Diode User Title

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    624
    Likes Received:
    44
    I absolutely agree with you on the mastering. A lot of newer stuff (the pop garbage) seems to emphasise bass at the expense of the rest of the frequency range. That's an insane setup by the way. I saw a used pair of B&W 602 S3 for sale, but I don't have a proper amp so I let it go. They seem really nice though.
     
  8. Boscoe

    Boscoe Electronics extraordinaire.

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    69
    My profession is HiFi and I couldn't tell any difference. 90% of the difference is the speakers 9.9% amp and the rest is file quality and that.
     
  9. fdbh96

    fdbh96 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    29 May 2011
    Posts:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    33
    Im pretty useless at telling the difference with music, but I totally agree: Random Access Memories is awesome :D
     
  10. damien c

    damien c Mad FPS Gamer

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    3,004
    Likes Received:
    255
    WOW!

    I honestly could barely tell any difference between them, but my sound setup is not something that cost me allot of money.

    I literally only have a Creative sound card and a Creative Gaming headset.

    I think I might need to invest in some better equipment in the near future.
     
  11. Tynecider

    Tynecider Since ZX81

    Joined:
    23 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    807
    Likes Received:
    28
    I gave up with compression, Don't have a DAC.

    Vinyl and tubes Cheesecake!
     
  12. TheCherub

    TheCherub Minimodder

    Joined:
    16 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    699
    Likes Received:
    9
    If I didn't have a small child and a second on the way, I'd be right with you on that one.
     
  13. wolfticket

    wolfticket Downwind from the bloodhounds

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    3,556
    Likes Received:
    646
    Couldn't tell the difference between the rest, but picked the 128kbps with my crappy onboard sound and ipod earphones.

    I store my music Losslessly not particularly because I can hear a difference between that and high bitrate lossy, but rather so I can transcode to the format of my choice.
    In much the way you archive in an uncompressed image format so you can edit and export to JPG, rather than have to edit and compress a file that already has compression. A sort of digital negative.

    After all, storage is big and cheap these days. Even a sizeable FLAC collection won't put much of a dent in a modern HDD. And if suddenly for some reason I want my entire collection in (say) 96kbps Ogg, I can just transcode the whole lot as if directly from the original disks.

    24-bit on the other hand...
     
    Last edited: 30 May 2013
  14. Zener Diode

    Zener Diode User Title

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    624
    Likes Received:
    44
    Or not! If you're happy enough with the quality you should be thankful, it can be a very expensive path to go down :hehe: Especially because after the first £100 or so you have to pay exponentially more to experience small upgrades.

    Good for you man, sounds like a beauty of a setup. I've always wanted a tube amp, and there are some albums (GY!BE and NIN) that I just want in vinyl format, but alas I am also lacking a record player :waah:
     
  15. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    14,070
    Likes Received:
    2,428
    I don't want to be dismissive of any claims, or derisive towards anyone's setup, however I'm not entirely convinced about the "OMG night and day difference on my high-end Xonar and Logitech setup", or anything about less than FLAC making ears bleed etc :rolleyes:

    There's a little part of me thinking that the individuals saying that they hear a "night and day" difference are trying to somehow validate their thoughts that they have top-end equipment... :blush:

    I picked the 128k out of the first and last test, though wouldn't have staked my life on it - can't pin down what gave it away for me, just decided that there was one that sounded less good and went from there.

    I couldn't pick a clear winner or loser out of any of them in the second test
    and it appears that I was right about there being no clear loser

    I initially picked the lossless correctly in the first test, but upon re-listening to them a few times, couldn't pin down why I thought one was lossless and the other wasn't.

    I couldn't tell between the lossless and 320k on the last test.

    In all honesty, they all sounded pretty great. Just goes to show that it's more about the recording to start with.

    All of my recorded music I store in FLAC, but that's only because HDD space is cheap, so why not? I've never been upset when listening to decent recordings at 320k through Spotify (though I have been very upset about the quality of some supposedly modern recordings)

    For reference, depending on the circles one's hanging about it, the hi-fi hanging off the back of this PC ranges from "high-end" to "quaint, but capable" (Pathos ClassicOne, ProAc Response 1SC, Audiolab MDAC).

    Perhaps I just have cloth ears. If I only would have known, I could have saved tens of thousands on hi-fi gear over the years!
     
    Last edited: 30 May 2013
  16. Zener Diode

    Zener Diode User Title

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    624
    Likes Received:
    44
    As one of the Xonar + Logitech guys, I couldn't pick out much difference with the speakers. They're fun to listen to, and excellent quality for the price, but not analytic or precise enough I think, for the bit rate to make a huge difference. The headphones are a different story, but again, 320 sounded fine to me.

    I should point out, I came across this in a quest to prevent myself from buying into some kind of marketing hype. I wanted to see how much of a factor each component is, or how much difference I can really notice. I have come to the conclusion, that bit rate is not as important as I might previously have though (for me that is). Although it makes no difference because I'll always rip in FLAC anyways. I think the component which will make the most difference, that anyone can appreciate, is the speakers or the headphones.

    I do believe that a plenty of audiophiles could tell the difference, but I think a lot of audiophiles have a different goal than most people. I don't consider myself an audiophile :)


    EDIT: One more thing I forgot, this test is on very short audio tracks. Some people suggest that higher quality stuff can be less fatiguing over longer periods, even if there is no immediately noticeable difference. Who knows ??
     
  17. boiled_elephant

    boiled_elephant Merom Celeron 4 lyfe

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    6,889
    Likes Received:
    1,155
    This, now. I've always used £30 gaming headphones and cheap speakers; recently, though, I borrowed my audiophile uncle's AKG 702s. They're leagues above what I'm used to and I can now hear AAAALLLLL the horrible compression artifacts in my 192kbps MP3s.

    Time to start re-ripping all my CDs, I guess. On some discs I can tangibly hear the difference between 256kbps and lossless, too, so I might just go full lossless. Sounds so good.

    It's a horrible thing, audio quality, because every improvement (in your gear, your formats, your environment) is unquestionably a good thing but it's always impossible to go back, so you constantly raise the stakes. I listened to all my music on these 'phones and now I won't ever be able to buy a set of headphones for less than ~£150. I know what my music can sound like now. My shitty Creative Fatality headphones will never see daylight again.

    It's not psychosomatic, it's a real thing; hearing just varies from person to person. It's not absolute, either, but a matter of taste: as they say, the best speakers you can buy are the ones that sound best to you, end of. Similarly with formats, compressed mp3s sound fne to many people and some actually prefer it. But if you're all about accuracy and range, and your ears happen to be able to distinguish, there are differences between these formats.

    I was first struck by the difference when I stumbled across Showbiz by Muse on the aforementioned headphones and was blown away by how much better it sounded than everything else in my library. Wondering why, I checked the format: Apple lossless. But it's a particularly nice album anyway; others, I've simply not been able to hear the difference. Like HD films, some benefit and some just don't.
     
    Last edited: 31 May 2013
  18. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    14,070
    Likes Received:
    2,428
    I never said there's no differences, I merely stated that I feel like some people are over stating their significance for whatever reason. You stating that sound quality is entirely reliant on perception suggests neither you nor anyone else are in any position to say if it's psychosomatic or not. How do you know it's not just your brain fooling you? Next up, even if it is your brain fooling you, who gives a damn?

    Ah, but did Showbiz sound so much better because it's an excellent recording, or because is was lossless? The former has a far more profound effect on audio quality (Though there are limits, I'm not going to sit here and claim 32kbps to be listenable). It wouldn't surprise me if any of the 128kbps test tracks sound far better (content notwithstanding) than Lady Gaga's latest album (and this is just me generalising and vilifying Lady Gaga as all that's wrong with modern pop... who know's it might be an excellent recording. I'm not interested in finding out)

    What's "lossless" anyway? No such thing, short of a live rendition, and certainly no such thing in digital audio. CD quality certainly isn't lossless compared to a 24/192 master, and that's not lossless compared to the real deal.

    Anyway, I'm not going to start arguing, I know how arguments about hi-fi and audio always end up. I don't consider myself any more or less enlightened for not hearing "night and day", I don't know that what I'm hearing isn't the same as someone calling it night and day is hearing, and perhaps I'm merely under-stating the difference, or other are over-stating. I do know that I used to be in the "night and day" camp, and ripped all of my music in FLAC in with a holier-than-thou smug grin on my face with my Creative Labs speakers, when deep down I was begrudged to admit that the difference between FLAC, OGG and 320kbps MP3 was marginal at best. And all of it sounded crap compared to what I'm listening to now anyway :D (But for the record, I'm categorically not an audiophile, merely a music enthusiast).

    Good music still sounds good on a mobile phone speaker, crap music still sounds crap performed live at the Royal Albert Hall. Nit-picking at different formats just gets in the way, IMO.

    Different strokes!
     
    Last edited: 31 May 2013
  19. smc8788

    smc8788 Multimodder

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,974
    Likes Received:
    272
    Sounds like you might :p

    The whole point of a 'blind' test as the OP linked to is that you don't know what you're listening to so it's impossible to make decisions based on what you want to hear - whether it be to justify equipment purchases or just be an audio snob - rather than what you actually hear. I know from blind ABX tests I've done in the past that I can tell the difference between 128k MP3 and 320k MP3/FLAC with 90-100% accuracy, and 320k MP3 and FLAC with a 70-80% accuracy, depending on the quality of the recording, mastering and rip, as well as the section of the track itself. Poorer quality tracks generally yield a 40-60% success rate between 320k and FLAC (i.e. I can't tell a blind bit of difference). However, the major caveat here is that this is only by repeating the same short section of a track over and over again and comparing the minute details rather than actually listening to the music and and being able to tell the difference at the end of the track. There is certainly not a night and day difference that would make it obvious, as some people describe.

    I don't buy my audio gear to justify it in critical listening or blind ABX tests, I buy it because it increases the enjoyment I get from listening to good music, regardless of what format the track is encoded in (yes, even 128kpbs MP3's sound better with high end equipment than with bargain basement gear). I do agree with your general point though - a lot of the hearsay that is spread around like gospel within the audiophile community is absolute nonsense, particularly the stuff that comes from the 'lossless or nothing' crowd who often have a not-so-subtle case of post purchase rationalisation.
     
    Last edited: 31 May 2013
  20. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    14,070
    Likes Received:
    2,428
    But when the user is able to self-verify after the test, what's to prevent them from thinking "oh right, so number two was FLAC, yes, I totally heard that" after the fact and heading off to a forum to post about it? I'm not necessarily singling out anyone and calling shenanigans, but I know that these things can happen.

    Maybe if everyone was already intimately familiar with the tracks I might be more convinced than a picking out off the cuff from (what I'm assuming is) a previously unheard, 30 sec clip. There are some albums I've listened to literally hundreds of times and when my Mrs plays the Spotify versions (which she usually does, it's less that she doesn't hear a difference, more that she doesn't give a damn) vs my recordings (FLAC), I pick it up. It's certainly more marked than any differences I detected in these sample tracks, but not enough to upset me and even then I wouldn't use the term "night and day", perhaps "nautical dusk and astronomical dusk" (I had to wiki that...)

    If I was being a nit-picker, I'd ask why, if you're so about the music, you're participating in so many blind tests to quote statistics off the cuff like that. But I'm just taking the mick since you're taking the mick out of my cloth ears :p

    I've given up on participating in (and even frequenting) a few hi-fi forums which shall remain unnamed for this exact reason. I've come, over time, to the realisation that typically people who call themselves "audiophiles" are asshats, and no longer wish to associate with them. :D
     
    Last edited: 31 May 2013

Share This Page