Another double blind study on CD vs mp3 quality - Can a difference be heard?

[Irvrobinson]

In my collection of discs the best sounding SACDs do not sound better than the best CDs. I do think I can hear the difference between CD and the best (320) MP3 at least that's what I found comparing my CDs to those ripped from the same CDs to 320 MP3. To me it is surprising to see that in the study it shows most people couldn't hear the difference. Put it that way, the difference betwee MP3 320 and CD is much more obvious than that between my amps.

I agree. I've done this test, between 320kbps MP3 and a CD, and on some MP3-320 recordings it is very difficult to tell the difference, but on some recordings it is obvious, especially once you notice the difference. Annoyingly, you can train yourself to notice the difference. I know a lot of people don't think so, but listening acuity is often a matter of training.

One recording I can hear a discernible difference with is the Telarc CD of Michael Murray playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor, played at a relatively low level, like a 70db average in a very quiet room. Feel free to try it for yourself. Murray plays one wrong note, and I think it is obvious on the CD. I have trouble hearing it on an MP3.

On the other hand, I've never heard a difference or an advantage with SACDs, or deep-word or high sample rate recordings. I like to record with 24bit words, only because it makes it easy to avoid overload with sloppy gain setting, but I can't hear a difference between CDs and SACDs on commercial recordings, or my own if I'm careful with the level control.

 

[PENG]

On the other hand, I've never heard a difference or an advantage with SACDs, or deep-word or high sample rate recordings. I like to record with 24bit words, only because it makes it easy to avoid overload with sloppy gain setting, but I can't hear a difference between CDs and SACDs on commercial recordings, or my own if I'm careful with the level control.

In my stupid effort to try comparing my amps in the last few weeks I realized there was a HDtrack I have not listened to yet. After listening to it a few times I concluded it was the best recording I have bought from them so far. It is only 96/24 but it really is excellent. When I have more spare time (if ever..) I will try converting it to CD quality and then compare. Maybe that one could reveal some difference, I doubt that very much but will force myself to be open minded.

 

[IanU]

What is really important is the quality of the source recording.I find that if you take a well recorded album recorded in high resolution lets say 24bit 96khz you will still hear that it is a great recording at the lower bit rates but also easier discover differences in stereo imaging or the quality of a decaying sound or the firmness of a low note or a more rounded treble.
However if the source recording has been done in let's say 16/44.1 or has been remastered poorly from the original tapes or LP,
the difference is less obvious in various formats.
Musicians in general are not very good listeners for High End audio.
Normal listeners listen mostly with their right brain half,the intuitive holistic part of the brain,while musicians listen equally with their left intellectual brain half.
And indeed you can train yourself to hear the difference,but don't forget that if you start out with listening to the same peace of music in the higher quality,your brain will compensate for the lesser quality as you go down in bit rate.

 

[JerryLove]

What is really important is the quality of the source recording.I find that if you take a well recorded album recorded in high resolution lets say 24bit 96khz you will still hear that it is a great recording at the lower bit rates but also easier discover differences in stereo imaging or the quality of a decaying sound or the firmness of a low note or a more rounded treble.

Erm. No.

The move from 16-bit to 24-bit accomplishes exactly one thing. It increases the dynamic range from 95db to 143db. Which is, admittedly, a big change; except that I can't think of an instance where I actually *use* that kind of dynamic range.

Most rooms have a noise floor of about 40db. Even if I imagine I can hear sounds at 1/100th that power (20db), that would still allow 16-bit to cover from my lowest hearing (20db) to 115db... which is the limit of what my speakers can actually accomplish. And I can't imagine a soundtrack that would actually use that entire range.

Moving from 44Khz to 96Khz moves your maximum frequency from 22Khz to 48Khz. Since my hearing doesn't push past 17Khz, and since even a teen is unlikely to hear past 19Khz, I'm not sure how this would affect anyone except your dog.

An earlier poster has already mentioned the exception here. If the recording engineer didn't set his gain properly, then the added ability of the format can compensate for his error. But if he's done it correctly: any benefits are purely theoretical. I would be willing to wager no one could tell the two apart if properly copied from one to the other.

 

[Grador]

An earlier poster has already mentioned the exception here. If the recording engineer didn't set his gain properly, then the added ability of the format can compensate for his error. But if he's done it correctly: any benefits are purely theoretical. I would be willing to wager no one could tell the two apart if properly copied from one to the other.

Even in this case, once the recording gets to the mastering engineer the extra range will be once again of little utility.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Even in this case, once the recording gets to the mastering engineer the extra range will be once again of little utility.

Yup. In my experience, all that 24bit is good for is eliminating the need to do meticulously executed maximum level-checks before the recording begins. Nonetheless, the value of that headroom and the elimination of possible overloads is considerable. In the analog recording days a couple of peaks above 0 VU were no big deal, and likely inaudible. Do that with digital and it's a nastier scenario.

 

[JerryLove]

Even in this case, once the recording gets to the mastering engineer the extra range will be once again of little utility.

Which is an argument for 24-bit recording (to avoid unintended clipping from mis-set gain) before moving to a 16-bit gold version.

Of course: given the low cost of running 24-bit; I'd personally (were I running a studio) do everything in 24-bit until the final product. Just no real down-side.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
Moving from 44Khz to 96Khz moves your maximum frequency from 22Khz to 48Khz. Since my hearing doesn't push past 17Khz, and since even a teen is unlikely to hear past 19Khz, I'm not sure how this would affect anyone except your dog.

...

But, that doesn't challenge ones imagination to hear ultrasonics.
On the other hand, if you do have a dog, why entertain it too?

 

[fritz5089]

Can I get some help and have some people check out my thread and maybe give me some information... thanks

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/beginners-audiophytes/88308-i-need-information-about-equipment-i-own.html

 

[mtrycrafts]

... Since our hearing abilities are different and our brains which compute what we hear are different n...

I wonder how we can communicate with each other then, make sense of the world around us if this is the case.

 

[lovinthehd]

I wonder how we can communicate with each other then, make sense of the world around us if this is the case.

Well otoh that does explain things in the world, too

 

[BMXTRIX]

Thanks for shearing this.

Most necrobumps of necrobumps of the year.