Is there any difference between a 320 kb/s mp3 and a 700 kb/s flac except that the flac one takes up more space and doesn't play on my ipod? Either people who use flac files have some sort of super human hearing or they are idiots. I don't understand it, there is absolutely no difference that my ears can pick up. Do you use flac or mp3?
Quote from: MozartMobster on July 31, 2007, 03:25:37 AM
Is there any difference between a 320 kb/s mp3 and a 700 kb/s flac except that the flac one takes up more space and doesn't play on my ipod? Either people who use flac files have some sort of super human hearing or they are idiots. I don't understand it, there is absolutely no difference that my ears can pick up. Do you use flac or mp3?
Because FLAC isn't a lossy format (removes no digital information, simply stores it more effectively, like a .zip file). It means you need only rip once, then you can make a lossy version for your iPod (or whatever player) for use on the move.
You can also rip to Apple Lossless for CD quality audio on your iPod. Anyone that says they can tell the difference between 300 kbps mp3 and Flac is lying.
Quote from: Kullervo on July 31, 2007, 04:36:27 AM
Anyone that says they can tell the difference between 300 kbps mp3 and Flac is lying.
Except those who clearly
weren't lying when they correctly identified a 128, 192, 320 and WAV original in the blind test I carried out here on the forum not long ago. ::)
Yes, exactly. Try playing them through a "proper" hifi system rather than PC speakers, and then see if you can tell the difference.
Quote from: Mark on July 31, 2007, 04:38:15 AM
Except those who clearly weren't lying when they correctly identified a 128, 192, 320 and WAV original in the blind test I carried out here on the forum not long ago. ::)
Shananigans! Shananigans I say! There is no difference between lossless and 320kb/s mp3.
Quote from: Choo Choo on July 31, 2007, 04:46:28 AM
Yes, exactly. Try playing them through a "proper" hifi system rather than PC speakers, and then see if you can tell the difference.
Well, that *would* make a big difference, but with computer speakers or headphones they are identical.
Quote from: MozartMobster on July 31, 2007, 05:02:43 AM
Shananigans! Shananigans I say! There is no difference between lossless and 320kb/s mp3.
There is but does it make any difference in portable players? When I listen to music with my iPod outdoors the listening experience is limited by many aspects:
1. Wind. Masks the music a lot no matter how loud I listen to the music.
2. iPod output amplifier. It's driven with a low voltage battery! It's not High End!
3. Traffic noise and all other background noise.
4. Sennheiser PX-200 phones are very good but not High End.
These 4 things limit the sound quality, not low bitrate of lossy coding. My 2 years old iPod does not support lossless so I use 192 kbps AAC. That's good enough. Period.
Quote from: Kullervo on July 31, 2007, 05:32:42 AM
Well, that *would* make a big difference, but with computer speakers or headphones they are identical.
In fact low quality speakers may reveal the artifacts more easily. Lossy coding assumes more or less transparent sound reproduction. Nasty resonances and colourizations may reveal coding artifacts that would stay hidden with high quality system.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 31, 2007, 06:07:45 AM
There is but does it make any difference in portable players? When I listen to music with my iPod outdoors the listening experience is limited by many aspects:
1. Wind. Masks the music a lot no matter how loud I listen to the music.
2. iPod output amplifier. It's driven with a low voltage battery! It's not High End!
3. Traffic noise and all other background noise.
4. Sennheiser PX-200 phones are very good but not High End.
These 4 things limit the sound quality, not low bitrate of lossy coding. My 2 years old iPod does not support lossless so I use 192 kbps AAC. That's good enough. Period.
Strange, when I put my ipod on, I can never hear anything else. I was crossing the street once, and got terrified because I saw a car pass near me without hearing it. It didn't come close or anything, but it made me jump. There is no wind in southern california, but in Providence it never really affected it.
Quote from: MozartMobster on July 31, 2007, 06:41:30 AM
Strange, when I put my ipod on, I can never hear anything else. I was crossing the street once, and got terrified because I saw a car pass near me without hearing it. It didn't come close or anything, but it made me jump. There is no wind in southern california, but in Providence it never really affected it.
Phones gives an attenuation of perhaps 20 dB on average. Traffic noise is easily 80 dB so you still have 60 dB of traffic noise. Music masks some of it but on the other hand traffic noise masks music!
No wind in Southern California? ???
Quote from: MozartMobster on July 31, 2007, 05:02:43 AM
Shananigans! Shananigans I say! There is no difference between lossless and 320kb/s mp3.
This is proof that civilization can regress as well as advance. We now have a generation whose ears have been so blown out by ear buds and iPods that they can't distinguish gross degradation of audio quality.
Quote from: head-case on July 31, 2007, 07:36:47 AM
This is proof that civilization can regress as well as advance. We now have a generation whose ears have been so blown out by ear buds and iPods that they can't distinguish gross degradation of audio quality.
Gross degradation? Give me a break. 320 k/s is hardly
gross degradation. Why does it matter, anyway? People listening to flac are just as likely to miss details in the music as people listening to mp3. If I want CD quality I'll listen to a CD. Oh, but I'll be causing the regression of society as well, since I listen on headphones and can't hear a damn thing.
QuoteNo wind in Southern California? Huh?
Yeah, I had this silly idea that when it rains people are supposed to hold their umbrellas over their heads. It doesn't rain much here but from my experience thats the way it works. In Rhode Island, I did that and got soaked! You need to hold the umbrella in front of you because the wind makes the rain come in at like a 30 degree angle...
Quote
Gross degradation? Give me a break. 320 k/s is hardly gross degradation. Why does it matter, anyway? People listening to flac are just as likely to miss details in the music as people listening to mp3. If I want CD quality I'll listen to a CD. Oh, but I'll be causing the regression of society as well, since I listen on headphones and can't hear a damn thing.
Ohh ignore him, he is a head case!
Quote from: MozartMobster on July 31, 2007, 08:49:09 AM
Ohh ignore him, he is a head case!
Apparently my fears about the decline of civilization are unfounded.
Mark's original reply really nailed it from my perspective. I don't use FLAC in a portable player, or even when listening to music on my PC (my favorite software player won't play FLAC). I use it to store a ripped music from CD in a lossless format that takes half the storage space of a wav file and also allows meta data tags. From here I can easily make lossy copies in whatever format/quality I wish for use in a portable player, etc.
FYI, the reason I rip the CDs and store them in FLAC in the first place is so that I can box up the original CDs and store them out of the way. I understand why some people enjoy displaying their CD collection, but for me it takes up more space than I want it to (even with my meager collection). I keep the originals, but in a closet instead of on display.
Quote from: MozartMobster on July 31, 2007, 08:49:09 AM
Ohh ignore him, he is a head case!
As his total lack of posting anything more than pithy remarks and generally negative comments would support.
Quote from: Kullervo on July 31, 2007, 05:32:42 AM
Well, that *would* make a big difference, but with computer speakers or headphones they are identical.
Yup there is software out there to abq that. Instead of saying I'm awesome, I know what's different! You put your ears to the test instead. On crappy computer/sound card/bargain pc speakers, can't tell a thing. I might be able to if I still had my higher end gear. I think that mp3s start to sound transparent once you start getting past ~220. And so comparing ~320 mp3 to flac has got to be hard unless you have excellent gear and ears.
Elgar talked about artifacts-- that is one thing is that you can actually train your ears to hear the artifacts. Why would you want to do that though? That would be terrible!
Quote from: DavidW on July 31, 2007, 10:14:35 AMElgar talked about artifacts-- that is one thing is that you can actually train your ears to hear the artifacts. Why would you want to do that though? That would be terrible!
The idea of audio compression is based on the fact that even trained ears can't hear everything. Temporal and spectral masking effects of hearing makes it physically impossible. However, it is difficult to simulate human hearing and the masking effects accurately. Some of the coding artifacts can be detected. The lower bitrate the more detectable artifacts.
Nobody can detect most artifacts of a 320 kbps mp3. It's a small amount of artifacts that the people with trained golden ears can detect. These artifacts are a result of less than perfect simulation of human hearing.
Psychology plays a role here. People tend to exaggerate the problems in lossy sound because they know how low the bitrate is. Surely an 128 kbps mp3 must be very poor in quality because it has only 1/11 of the information the original wav has! Well, in reality the differences in sound quality are amazingly small considering the huge reduction in bitrate.
15 years ago people used C-cassettes in portable players (Walkmans, remember?) Those casettes had lots of noise, distortion and flutter. The sound really was poor! Compared the that technology even 128 kbps mp3s are High End!
Quote from: MozartMobster on July 31, 2007, 03:25:37 AM
Is there any difference between a 320 kb/s mp3 and a 700 kb/s flac except that the flac one takes up more space and doesn't play on my ipod? Either people who use flac files have some sort of super human hearing or they are idiots. I don't understand it, there is absolutely no difference that my ears can pick up. Do you use flac or mp3?
Wow, totally lossless compression is only twice the size of an mp3! Cool! Why bother with mp3s then?
Quote from: Daverz on July 31, 2007, 01:09:12 PM
Wow, totally lossless compression is only twice the size of an mp3! Cool! Why bother with mp3s then?
If your player supports lossless format there isn't much reason not to use it.
People, you have the choice. Use whatever format you want and stop criticizing other people for using something else...
Quote from: 71 dB on July 31, 2007, 11:10:34 AM15 years ago people used C-cassettes in portable players (Walkmans, remember?) Those casettes had lots of noise, distortion and flutter. The sound really was poor! Compared the that technology even 128 kbps mp3s are High End!
I'm not concerned with portable music. I have no illusion that the old walkman was a source of exquisite sound. But recently I went to an audio equipment store and the sales person was prepared to demo a pair of $3000 speakers with an iPod. That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
Thanks for the detailed, insightful post Elgar! :)
Quote from: head-case on July 31, 2007, 01:56:46 PM
Recently I went to an audio equipment store and the sales person was prepared to demo a pair of $3000 speakers with an iPod. That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
Yes, ridiculous. ;)
Quote from: DavidW on July 31, 2007, 02:23:14 PM
Thanks for the detailed, insightful post Elgar! :)
You are welcome DavidW!
Quote from: MozartMobster on July 31, 2007, 03:25:37 AMIs there any difference between a 320 kb/s mp3 and a 700 kb/s flac except that the flac one takes up more space and doesn't play on my ipod? Either people who use flac files have some sort of super human hearing or they are idiots. I don't understand it, there is absolutely no difference that my ears can pick up. Do you use flac or mp3?
Simple. Lossless files are a base for archiving and later treatment.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 31, 2007, 06:07:45 AM
There is but does it make any difference in portable players? When I listen to music with my iPod outdoors the listening experience is limited by many aspects:
1. Wind. Masks the music a lot no matter how loud I listen to the music.
2. iPod output amplifier. It's driven with a low voltage battery! It's not High End!
3. Traffic noise and all other background noise.
4. Sennheiser PX-200 phones are very good but not High End.
These 4 things limit the sound quality, not low bitrate of lossy coding. My 2 years old iPod does not support lossless so I use 192 kbps AAC. That's good enough. Period.
Wow. Rofl, just rofl.
An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 01, 2007, 02:24:11 AMAn acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...
So you are able to ABX 200kbps+ AAC tracks against the original? Or are you just another commedian?
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 01, 2007, 02:24:11 AM
Wow. Rofl, just rofl.
An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...
I think he was trying to say that sound quality is not as important on a portable player.
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 01, 2007, 02:24:11 AM
Wow. Rofl, just rofl.
An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...
It's not your business what satisfies me. Did you even understand my point?
Quote from: 71 dB on August 01, 2007, 05:38:32 AM
It's not your business what satisfies me. Did you even understand my point?
Of course it isn't. For all I know, you've been listening to composers who don't even matter in the past. Dittersdork, Elgar, blah blah blah. If
those bunch can already satisify your musical needs, then I'm just awfully sorry for you.
Rofl...
Quote from: 71 dB on July 31, 2007, 11:10:34 AM
15 years ago people used C-cassettes in portable players (Walkmans, remember?) Those casettes had lots of noise, distortion and flutter. The sound really was poor! Compared the that technology even 128 kbps mp3s are High End!
I remember the first walkman we had. A Sony that looked more or less like a brick!
This one:
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/rcc/rcc-446f1b557845awalkman.jpg)
It had a demo cassette though, one side was the 1st movement of Grieg's PC the other some type of jazz I think. This must be my first classical experience, I remember finding the music quite frightful actually ::)
Quote from: orbital on August 02, 2007, 06:27:04 PM
I remember the first walkman we had. A Sony that looked more or less like a brick!
This one:
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/rcc/rcc-446f1b557845awalkman.jpg)
It had a demo cassette though, one side was the 1st movement of Grieg's PC the other some type of jazz I think. This must be my first classical experience, I remember finding the music quite frightful actually ::)
One thing I'll say, this forum is refreshingly free of nut-jobs who claim that any analog system is intrinsically superior to a digital source because of "bit jitter", "time domain error", quantization noise. etc.
Quote from: head-case on August 02, 2007, 07:41:06 PM
One thing I'll say, this forum is refreshingly free of nut-jobs who claim that any analog system is intrinsically superior to a digital source because of "bit jitter", "time domain error", quantization noise. etc.
Those analog nut-jobs have huge misunderstandings of digital technology.
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 02, 2007, 06:17:40 PM
Of course it isn't. For all I know, you've been listening to composers who don't even matter in the past. Dittersdork, Elgar, blah blah blah. If those bunch can already satisify your musical needs, then I'm just awfully sorry for you.
Rofl...
You don't even know which composers I listen to and how much. You think I listen to Dittersdorf every day, don't you? You are so wrong. I'm sure I listen to some of your favorite composers too. I am sorry for you because you have a need to mock me just because I have personal opinions and taste.
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 01, 2007, 02:24:11 AM
Wow. Rofl, just rofl.
An acousitc engineer being satisfied by 192kbps music? Once again your hilariously brainless comments proves that You're a flippin' comedian...
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 02, 2007, 06:17:40 PM
Of course it isn't. For all I know, you've been listening to composers who don't even matter in the past. Dittersdork, Elgar, blah blah blah. If those bunch can already satisify your musical needs, then I'm just awfully sorry for you.
Rofl...
If you actually sat down and evaluated your contribution to this discussion in the cold light of day, hopefully you would come to the realization that it has been wholly negative. If you can't add anything (not even good comic relief), why don't you choose a thread that can benefit from your wisdom?
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 04, 2007, 06:03:22 AM
If you actually sat down and evaluated your contribution to this discussion in the cold light of day, hopefully you would come to the realization that it has been wholly negative. If you can't add anything (not even good comic relief), why don't you choose a thread that can benefit from your wisdom?
8)
Thanks for the support Gurn Blanston! Bonehelm clearly dropped the ball with these messages. If he knew more about sound reproduction, audio coding and human hearing he might realise it's not that brainless to be satisfied with 192 kbps AAC sound with portable players in heavily compromised listening environments.
As Mark stated, the sound quality problems of historical recordings are gigantic compared to the problems of mp3 and similar audio coding. Still people are satisfied with historical recordings (well, I am not that satisfied...).
Quote from: 71 dB on August 04, 2007, 07:00:46 AM
it's not that brainless to be satisfied with 192 kbps AAC sound with portable players in heavily compromised listening environments.
Not to mention on completely shitty equipment! iPods and their ilk probably supply the lowest audio quality after a walkman casette player...
Quote from: 71 dB on August 04, 2007, 07:00:46 AMIf he knew more about sound reproduction, audio coding and human hearing he might realise it's not that brainless to be satisfied with 192 kbps AAC sound with portable players in heavily compromised listening environments.
BTW aac bitrates are no more bound to block sizes as mp3 (..96 128 160 ...). I'd say with nero aac probably any average bitrate output with more than 120 kbps is overkill on portable solutions.
Bonehelm is the hero of wisdom who found out "aac isn't even lossless". Yay, t311 NOOZ!!!11!. Bonehelm: You might end in recognizing a CD "isn't even lossless". Maybe you'd avoid listening to music then and refuse to write in a music related forum. Maybe you go out and fight imperialism.
This would be good news, indeed.
The point is, I feel sad for people who choose to listen to low quality music when they can stay home and listen to 400+kbps flacs and apes like I do.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 04, 2007, 07:00:46 AMAs Mark stated, the sound quality problems of historical recordings are gigantic compared to the problems of mp3 and similar audio coding. Still people are satisfied with historical recordings (well, I am not that satisfied...).
It's one thing to be satisfied with a poor recording because that it was the only thing available when an artist was performing. It is quite another thing to be satisfied with a poor recording because you don't want it to take up too much room on your iPod. :P
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 06, 2007, 06:42:55 AM
The point is, I feel sad for people who choose to listen to low quality music when they can stay home and listen to 400+kbps flacs and apes like I do.
You're making the mistake of assuming that people have time to stay at home and listen to music. I certainly don't - most of the music I listen to, I listen to while moving around. And if I do listen to music at home, I listen to the CDs ;)
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 06, 2007, 06:42:55 AM
The point is, I feel sad for people who choose to listen to low quality music when they can stay home and listen to 400+kbps flacs and apes like I do.
When I am home I listen to CDs and SACDs. When I
must go somewhere I have to be satisfied with lesser sound quality. Better then nothing.
BTW, Flacs are more than 400 kbps, about twice that much. ;)
Quote from: head-case on August 06, 2007, 07:02:19 AM
It's one thing to be satisfied with a poor recording because that it was the only thing available when an artist was performing. It is quite another thing to be satisfied with a poor recording because you don't want it to take up too much room on your iPod. :P
Low bitrate does not COMPLETELY ruin the enjoyment for me. The reason for this is I have knowledge of audio reproduction, audio coding and human hearing in order to have a rational attitude on the issue. I also have sense of proportion.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 06, 2007, 12:50:13 PM
When I am home I listen to CDs and SACDs. When I must go somewhere I have to be satisfied with lesser sound quality. Better then nothing.
BTW, Flacs are more than 400 kbps, about twice that much. ;)
Low bitrate does not COMPLETELY ruin the enjoyment for me. The reason for this is I have knowledge of audio reproduction, audio coding and human hearing in order to have a rational attitude on the issue. I also have sense of proportion.
Smart guy, learn to read. See that little sign beside my "400kbps"? Grade 2 math? Ring any bells?
and just FYI, my winamp player says 4xx kbps whenever I play my .flac files. It can jump to 500 sometimes, however.
actually, i have seen anywhere between 400 to 900 plus kbps in flacs/ape, but, i never keep any of my music in this form, i always would convert them to 320 kbps mp3, for very obvious reasons:
1. user friendly, it's easier to manage mp3 files on a computer, e.g add album cover, comments, editing, etc....
2. Ipod friendly, i do not believe that there is an ipod out there that reads Ape or Flac
3. saves up some disk space, 320 mp3 takes up less room than flacs/ape.
4 Compatibility, if i were to share my music with another individual(s), it would be easier for them to access, assuming not everyone has a flac/ape supported mediaplayer.
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 07, 2007, 07:04:14 AM
Smart guy, learn to read. See that little sign beside my "400kbps"? Grade 2 math? Ring any bells?
and just FYI, my winamp player says 4xx kbps whenever I play my .flac files. It can jump to 500 sometimes, however.
Some parts of the music may compress to 400 kbps but other parts take more space. Anyway, I don't use flac so maybe I don't know...
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 06, 2007, 06:42:55 AM
The point is, I feel sad for people who choose to listen to low quality music when they can stay home and listen to 400+kbps flacs and apes like I do.
Why on Earth are you using a computer or portable listening device for serious listening? Lossless or not, that equipment chain just isn't as good as a decent CD player (or turntable), (tube, if that's your thing) amp, and either good headphones or respectable speakers. I'll admit that for casual listening or space considerations, I use my iMac or iPod. Still, if I want to get seriously into a CD, I break out a CD player. Not even a super-good one at that. I also get a drink or two and settled into my easy-chair, but that's a personal choice. You could, conceivably, construct a computer setup with enough HD space, a decent processor, a good sound card, and an external amp that could handle serious music - but you'd spend enough that a CD setup would not be that much more expensive. Computers and iPods, though, are the antithesis of serious listening. Music that demands your full attention isn't going to get better because you can check your e-mail, GMG, and CNN as you listen to it. To be blunt, you can feel sorry all you want, but you're not doing that much better yourself.
Of course, when you get into historical recordings - or even stuff made before the DDD days (including some early DDD recordings) - it doesn't matter what bitrate you make your rips at. Wilhelm Furtwängler's 1937 London performance of Beethoven's 9th is not going to suddenly sound great in a FLAC rip. Furtwängler's 1950 premiere of Strauss'
Vier letzte Lieder would sound the same at 96 kbps as it did at 400
+ kbps. Trust me. It just doesn't have a very good source. That matters infinitely more than bitrate or bitrate pity.
Quote from: PSmith08 on August 07, 2007, 01:06:54 PM
Why on Earth are you using a computer or portable listening device for serious listening? Lossless or not, that equipment chain just isn't as good as a decent CD player (or turntable), (tube, if that's your thing) amp, and either good headphones or respectable speakers. I'll admit that for casual listening or space considerations, I use my iMac or iPod. Still, if I want to get seriously into a CD, I break out a CD player. Not even a super-good one at that. I also get a drink or two and settled into my easy-chair, but that's a personal choice. You could, conceivably, construct a computer setup with enough HD space, a decent processor, a good sound card, and an external amp that could handle serious music - but you'd spend enough that a CD setup would not be that much more expensive. Computers and iPods, though, are the antithesis of serious listening. Music that demands your full attention isn't going to get better because you can check your e-mail, GMG, and CNN as you listen to it. To be blunt, you can feel sorry all you want, but you're not doing that much better yourself.
Of course, when you get into historical recordings - or even stuff made before the DDD days (including some early DDD recordings) - it doesn't matter what bitrate you make your rips at. Wilhelm Furtwängler's 1937 London performance of Beethoven's 9th is not going to suddenly sound great in a FLAC rip. Furtwängler's 1950 premiere of Strauss' Vier letzte Lieder would sound the same at 96 kbps as it did at 400+ kbps. Trust me. It just doesn't have a very good source. That matters infinitely more than bitrate or bitrate pity.
agreed, I still listen to music on my computer though, but i don't do anything else while i am listening to the music.