Newbie Testing question

[m. zillch]

Iphones account for a dominant ~58% of cellphones in the US. To the best of my knowledge none of the 3 billion of them out there, ever made, will play FLAC files using the easy to access, built in music player app.

My point being everything, at least that I've ever encountered, plays MP3 but not all easily play FLAC.

 

[everettT]

Iphones account for a dominant ~58% of cellphones in the US. To the best of my knowledge none of them, or ever made, will play FLAC files using the easy to access, built in music player app.

I got tired of jailbreaking my daughter's apple products around 2017, I would have hoped they changed policy but I digress.

 

[Eppie]

Most iPhone users these days are more likely to stream music via Spotify rather than download MP3 files onto their phone. Since the op is looking to play files over his Yamaha he is not restricted by Apple foolishness. Heck, FLAC is open source and does not even require a license. Not that I'm going to argue over the dominance of MP3. Most music stores offer both and FLAC costs extra! At least MQA died a slow death.

 

[PENG]

I can imagine that the semblance for cymbals would stand out for familiar recordings and that would annoy me. I can certainly appreciate that.

That's an good example for why it is complicated, it depends on many things, one being the kind of contents, cymbals could sound different to most people, even those with some HF frequency loss.

To me, I only listen to MP3 stuff when I have no choice, otherwise CD and above quality for sure, and again, would pay more for >24b/44.1 kHz, preferably 24b/96 kHz as the odds of those having good recording quality are greater.

 

[Joe B]

That's an good example for why it is complicated, it depends on many things, one being the kind of contents, cymbals could sound different to most people, even those with some HF frequency loss.

To me, I only listen to MP3 stuff when I have no choice, otherwise CD and above quality for sure, and again, would pay more for >24b/44.1 kHz, preferably 24b/96 kHz as the odds of those having good recording quality are greater.

I have downloaded all those available 2L demo files and have listened to them many times. As someone else alluded to, if the masters are the same, base on all else being equal, CD quality meets humans requirements in terms of transparency. Unless you really follow the typical DBT protocols, you quite likely would perceive differences, something like the higher bit rate/depth would sound better to you, such as, you might find:

DSD256> 352/824>192/24>DSD64>96/24>44.1/16. If you do follow DBT protocol then I would bet (speculating only of course...) you 10:1 you could not score better than 70/30 or even 60/40, like many had tried before and made claims on forums.

I like DSD, at least DSD128 and above and 24/96 and above and would continue to buy them from the likes of HDtracks, NativeDSD etc., but not because of the formats, rather, only because from my experience, the masters of HR files tended to be of higher qualities, so it is more of a quality assurance thing for me. I believe recording/mastering quality is the determining factor, not the playback bit rate/depth/sampling rate. I am not sure why I found the HR files tended to have high quality masters but I can guess human nature is such that if they are going to put more efforts in the process, and aim for higher price/margins, they might just do their due diligence better in the master selection process. Obviously, there are always exceptions, I have quite a few 192/24, 96/24 that don't sound as transparent as many of my CDs or 44.1/16 digital files. A few MP3 stuff sounded great too lol...



I don't think I would generalize it so much, it really depends, such as on what you are comparing, the only thing I would not hesitate is that comparison listening should be done in consistent way so that if I am to compare the same master but say 44.1/24 vs 192/24, then the playback of the files must be done with the exact same gear and listening conditions (including seating positions, ear heights etc., and if DSP is used then it should be used on both and in the exact same way, same for pure direct.., but now I am stating the obvious.

I believe you are right on target with this. The very best recordings I have are direct to master recordings. Capturing the performance with no edits or manipulation of sound, the engineers and performers have to get everything right the first time, or the entire process must begin again. Sheffield Labs was, I believe, one of the first recording companies to fully embrace this approach.

The very best recordings I have in my collection are direct to disc binaural recordings. Some are CD's, others 96/24 FLAC and others DSD128 files. @PENG has made a good point. What distinguishes these recordings from others is the quality of the master, not the file format. They all sound awesome, whether recorded on CD or as a 'super hi-res' audio format.

 

[m. zillch]

When possible I personally try to avoid supporting the segment of companies that I feel push snake oil and lies on the public for corporate greed.

I love audio and agree it is "dying, largely by its own hand". Why? Because much of the industry has unfortunately become horribly corrupted by this corporate greed, deceit, and attempt at consumer manipulation.

J. Gordon Holt, founder of Stereophile magazine, explained this sad state of affairs well (at least in his later years). This taken from his final interview:

"Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..”

source

 

[everettT]

When possible I personally try to avoid supporting the segment of companies that I feel push snake oil and lies on the public for corporate greed.

I love audio and agree it is "dying, largely by its own hand". Why? Because much of the industry has unfortunately become horribly corrupted by this corporate greed, deceit, and attempt at consumer manipulation. J. Gordon Holt, founder of Stereophile magazine, explained this sad state of affairs well (at least in his later years). This taken from his final interview:

"Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..”

source

The Audio industry has always been inundated with snake oil since the 70s, the problem exploded with publications like Stereophile when they ignored their own measurements and went on with a rave subjective reviews that countered their measurements.

My issue with the current state of the industry is young people have a primary interest in headphones and with the lack of brick and mortar stores there is no opportunity for the younger generations to hear quality setups. (Not saying that they were always quality but they always had at least one room that showed off a good system). My daughter is 24 and she can't believe her friends don't have good audio setups beyond headphones...

 

[Verdinut]

The Audio industry has always been inundated with snake oil since the 70s, the problem exploded with publications like Stereophile when they ignored their own measurements and went on with a rave subjective reviews that countered their measurements.

My issue with the current state of the industry is young people have a primary interest in headphones and with the lack of brick and mortar stores there is no opportunity for the younger generations to hear quality setups. (Not saying that they were always quality but they always had at least one room that showed off a good system). My daughter is 24 and she can't believe her friends don't have good audio setups beyond headphones...

IMO, Absolute Sound mag has been worse than Stereophile with snake oil stuff and reviews.

 

[lovinthehd]

If you're talking about 192kBit/s bit rate for MP3s, yes, the difference is discernible vs CD. The quote I have heard from some recording engineers is that 256kBits is where people start having trouble hearing the difference. Your average listener can likely not tell the difference but there are some that can still notice the compression on good quality gear. I can usually notice it in the cymbals. I use 320kBits on all of my MP3s and it is indistinguishable from FLAC at that rate. I have compared FLAC files to 320kBit MP3s in Audacity and the differences are difficult to spot. Remember that MP3 is lossy, though. You can't get back what has been taken out through compression. I use MP3 copies on my phone to save file space, but I keep FLAC master copies of everything to preserve the original content at home.

192kbps for MP3? What?

 

[Eppie]

192kbps for MP3? What?

When making MP3 files you can choose the sampling rate used and it is expressed as kBits/second. 128k makes very small files but sounds crappy. 192k can be ok for some but the compression is still pretty noticeable in the higher frequencies or with high dynamic range. At 256k you start to approach CD quality but the compression can be noticeable to some. At 320k you get very close to an exact copy. Obviously the file size increases as you increase the sampling rate. Some encoders also support variable bit rate where the sampling rate actually varies throughout the file depending upon the type of content detected.

 

[lovinthehd]

When making MP3 files you can choose the sampling rate used and it is expressed as kBits/second. 128k makes very small files but sounds crappy. 192k can be ok for some but the compression is still pretty noticeable in the higher frequencies or with high dynamic range. At 256k you start to approach CD quality but the compression can be noticeable to some. At 320k you get very close to an exact copy. Obviously the file size increases as you increase the sampling rate. Some encoders also support variable bit rate where the sampling rate actually varies throughout the file depending upon the type of content detected.

LOL I know that, but I for an unknown reasons reacted to 192 as if it were a khz sampling rate. D'oh!