320 bitrate vs FLAC (distinguishable differences)?

[PENG]

Then I'm confused by your post 92 then since it insists DBT "only reveals preference" and your argument about advocates of lossy compression is based upon that.

You are now confusing me if you are confused by post# 92 lol!!. If no difference is detected between A and B, then how can we prefer A over B or vice versa? To me, if DBT reveals preference (Irv said it did, in post# 92), then it must have revealed difference too. The reverse is not necessarily true because one may not have a preference, regardless of the difference.

 

[PENG]

I can tell if something is 44 vs 96 most of the time. Ive always felt theres a sense of ease and a blacker background with a higher bitrate. After 96 its pretty much undetectable.

Quote from top of paper " The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels."

thats enough for me to want the higher bitrate version.

"always"? That's not my experience at all, and I am willing to bet if derived from the same master, you will have hard time telling the difference between the two. Again, I mostly buy 96, 192, even 352 and DSD 256 but for reasons I mentioned before, not because I believe they actually sound better by virtue of the format, bit rate and bit depth.

 

[gzubeck]

"always"? That's not my experience at all, and I am willing to bet if derived from the same master, you will have hard time telling the difference between the two. Again, I mostly buy 96, 192, even 352 and DSD 256 but for reasons I mentioned before, not because I believe they actually sound better by virtue of the format, bit rate and bit depth.

The reason why were stuck at 44 is that the studios are absolutely terrified of mass copying. At this point if we could get a highly secured 192 recording with some kind of insane failsafe security id take it at this point. Theres a reason why Mr. Fremer gets to say analog records are better than digital. theyre just not releasing the best due to fear of lost revenues.

 

[shadyJ]

The reason why were stuck at 44 is that the studios are absolutely terrified of mass copying. At this point if we could get a highly secured 192 recording with some kind of insane failsafe security id take it at this point. Theres a reason why Mr. Fremer gets to say analog records are better than digital. theyre just not releasing the best due to fear of lost revenues.

The reason why we are stuck at 44 kHz sampling rate is because of the Nyquist sampling rate and the upper limit audibility of the frequencies of human hearing. The Nyquist sampling rate is the minimum rate at which a signal can be sampled without introducing errors, which is twice the highest frequency present in the signal. For a human being with healthy hearing that is around 40 kHz, since 20 kHz is the upper limit of hearing. Beyond that, there is no audible advantage of higher sampling rates, indeed, they can actually make things worse by introducing higher frequency content which can bring unneeded intermodulation products into audible bands. Sampling rates above the redbook CD standard are pointless. If Mr. Fremer says analog records are better than digital, I doubt he is saying so because he thinks those records are more accurate media.

 

[3db]

Because I answering in the context of this discussion and misspoke. Obviously having a preference involves the detection of difference. Next time I'll be more careful with my choice of words.

Irv, I don't have a dog in a race when it comes to personal preferences and I already told you I understand your view point. My beef was your dismal of DBT tests to support your preference. That's it, that's all. Hopefully this post clears it up.

 

[gzubeck]

The reason why we are stuck at 44 kHz sampling rate is because of the Nyquist sampling rate and the upper limit audibility of the frequencies of human hearing. The Nyquist sampling rate is the minimum rate at which a signal can be sampled without introducing errors, which is twice the highest frequency present in the signal. For a human being with healthy hearing that is around 40 kHz, since 20 kHz is the upper limit of hearing. Beyond that, there is no audible advantage of higher sampling rates, indeed, they can actually make things worse by introducing higher frequency content which can bring unneeded intermodulation products into audible bands. Sampling rates above the redbook CD standard are pointless. If Mr. Fremer says analog records are better than digital, I doubt he is saying so because he thinks those records are more accurate media.

Doesnt the higher the sampling rate also reduce the amount of errors during recording? Why then are they recording at higher sampling rates? for fun?

 

[shadyJ]

Doesnt the higher the sampling rate also reduce the amount of errors during recording? Why then are they recording at higher sampling rates? for fun?

As far as I know, higher sampling isn't going to reduce errors. And many audio engineers do not use sampling rates past 48 kHz. Some so, some don't, but recording beyond 48 kHz is definitely not a universal thing. Many engineers do record at higher bit depths though, for more headroom when mixing.

 

[PietjePuk]

I believe that the differences are small anyways between 320 and FLAC. It depends on your own hearing plus (often not mentioned) use of the music. For example my brother is able to distinguish the compression on MP3. While that is an issue for him in the studio, it is much less so during regular playback. I'm having a much harder time to differentiate, but there are times when I can.

Then the use comes into play. There are a lot of albums I listen to for fun, where 320kbps is more than sufficient. (E.g. Everyone insisting on playing the Peppers in FLAC is crazy to me...) Only a few albums and on a few ocassions I like to listen to more carefully. Only those few I have in FLAC and then mostly for the comfort of knowing that I'm listening to the highest quality available.

 

[PENG]

I believe that the differences are small anyways between 320 and FLAC. It depends on your own hearing plus (often not mentioned) use of the music. For example my brother is able to distinguish the compression on MP3. While that is an issue for him in the studio, it is much less so during regular playback. I'm having a much harder time to differentiate, but there are times when I can.

Then the use comes into play. There are a lot of albums I listen to for fun, where 320kbps is more than sufficient. (E.g. Everyone insisting on playing the Peppers in FLAC is crazy to me...) Only a few albums and on a few ocassions I like to listen to more carefully. Only those few I have in FLAC and then mostly for the comfort of knowing that I'm listening to the highest quality available.

Most of what you stated here have been said already but this thread is getting long enough so it is good that some key points do get repeated. Here's another one that can sort of summarize what has been talked about so far. https://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-flac-the-high-def-mp3-explained/

Another one that's been posted elsewhere more than once but wouldn't hurt repeating; and gzubeck's may find some answers to his question he asked in post# 106, at least partially in the article linked:

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[PietjePuk]

There's one other thing I'd add to the discussion, which is bass. Although I can agree with sounds outside the spectrum which are not audible bass is sometimes felt, not heard. The kick of a drum loses some of its dimension compared to live performances.

 

[Irvrobinson]

There's one other thing I'd add to the discussion, which is bass. Although I can agree with sounds outside the spectrum which are not audible bass is sometimes felt, not heard. The kick of a drum loses some of its dimension compared to live performances.

128Kbps MP3 encoders had this reputation. There have been theories floating around about why the lowest bass octaves seemed weaker, and most likely it was due to the time window for the discard selection being optimized for high frequencies and being sub-optimal for 50Hz and lower bass. (Bass sounds tend to have a longer time duration than high frequencies.) When I tested 320Kbps MP3 I didn't notice bass deterioration, though I didn't try it with big-venue organ pieces. It seems all about how much sophistication and compute power you put into the encoder software. I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect Apple, Amazon, and Google use proprietary encoder software, and they don't talk about what they're optimizing for publicly, sound quality or speed of encoding.

 

[gzubeck]

I found this nice comparison between different formats.

 

[cel4145]

You are now confusing me if you are confused by post# 92 lol!!. If no difference is detected between A and B, then how can we prefer A over B or vice versa? To me, if DBT reveals preference (Irv said it did, in post# 92), then it must have revealed difference too. The reverse is not necessarily true because one may not have a preference, regardless of the difference.

Irv is wrong about DBT testing if people are doing ABX testing, such as with Foobar's ABX Comparator module that is commonly used for testing lossy vs lossless music. ABX is a specific type of DBT. It is not designed to test preference, but whether or not you can reliably identify between two audio signals. It is not an evaluative test. It never asks you which is better. It plays A and B for you, and then X and asks you to identify whether X is A or B. If you want to identify preference, then you would do some additional/other kind of DBT A/B comparison.

 

[killdozzer]

I found this nice comparison between different formats.

Proving/showing what, I'm sorry, I don't get it. This is a YouTube clip. These are three digital samples of music. What is analogue in any of them?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Irv is wrong about DBT testing if people are doing ABX testing, such as with Foobar's ABX Comparator module that is commonly used for testing lossy vs lossless music. ABX is a specific type of DBT. It is not designed to test preference, but whether or not you can reliably identify between two audio signals. It is not an evaluative test. It never asks you which is better. It plays A and B for you, and then X and asks you to identify whether X is A or B. If you want to identify preference, then you would do some additional/other kind of DBT A/B comparison.

I agree. I chose my words poorly, and admitted the error in a previous post.

 

[gzubeck]

Proving/showing what, I'm sorry, I don't get it. This is a YouTube clip. These are three digital samples of music. What is analogue in any of them?

Its in there...theres actually a section showing the record spinning on the turntable. I know its off topic a little bit but still interesting none the less.

 

[lovinthehd]

Proving/showing what, I'm sorry, I don't get it. This is a YouTube clip. These are three digital samples of music. What is analogue in any of them?

What are you referring to?

 

[killdozzer]

What are you referring to?

YouTube being the bottleneck for sound quality as well as the necessity of digitizing everything in order to upload it. I've seen the TT in the video, but what can I expect to hear?

 

[lovinthehd]

YouTube being the bottleneck for sound quality as well as the necessity of digitizing everything in order to upload it. I've seen the TT in the video, but what can I expect to hear?

I meant what youtube video are you referring to? You didn't quote a post so not sure what you're looking at....

 

[killdozzer]

I meant what youtube video are you referring to? You didn't quote a post so not sure what you're looking at....

oh, sorry, I didn't want to re-post. It is in the post I'm quoting first. From gzubeck.