[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
CatBus wrote: There's three ways any discussion like this can end: 1) Agree to disagree. Nobody other than me wants to do an ABX test, either because it's too hard or they don't think the results will be favorable (or they're waiting for some expensive equipment they'll never get ;) ) 2) Perform the ABX test, fail to distinguish the MP3s with certainty. Claim that this proves ABX testing doesn't really work (people really do this). Refuse to post your results. 3) Perform the ABX test, fail to distinguish the MP3s with certainty. Discover that it's okay to be human. Post your results here, showing humility. 4) Perform the ABX test, distinguish all of the MP3s with high certainty. Post your results here for all to see* That's four ways. :) R. ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
We amused ourself with such a test on a forum. Someone used a wav to start, made an mp3 of it and brought it back to wav. Offered both tracks as wav without more info. See who can tell them apart. I agree it is very hard, and most (90%) won't be able to do it. You could do it with more types of music to check if it makes a difference. -- Havoc Havoc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5064 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
CatBus;152374 Wrote: But remember, don't compare FLACs and MP3s derived from the CDs to the HDCD--you'd likely hear plenty of differences totally unrelated to the compression codec. You're kind of helping to illustrate my point here. HDCD's also contain the standard CD version, which is heard unless your external DAC can decode the signal. You probably own a few HDCDs and didn't even know it. HDCD FLAC files can be decoded by an external DAC (FLAC is bit perfect), so in effect you're listening to the HDCD (20bit). HDCD Mp3 files will not be decoded by an external DAC (Mp3 is not bit perfect), so you're in effect listening to the CD version (actually a compressed generation of it). And yes, you're right- you're likely to hear plenty of differences, but they are TOTALLY related to the compression codec. -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Skunk;152497 Wrote: You're kind of helping to illustrate my point here. HDCD's also contain the standard CD version, which is heard unless your external DAC can decode the signal. You probably own a few HDCDs and didn't even know it. HDCD FLAC files can be decoded by an external DAC (FLAC is bit perfect), so in effect you're listening to the HDCD (20bit). HDCD Mp3 files will not be decoded by an external DAC (Mp3 is not bit perfect), so you're in effect listening to the CD version (actually a compressed generation of it). And yes, you're right- you're likely to hear plenty of differences, but they are TOTALLY related to the compression codec. I strongly doubt the CD version and HDCD version are mastered the same--in which case the FLACs for the two versions should sound markedly different. You've got to route everything through the same DAC and other hardware or it's not a valid test, sorry. Otherwise you can't say for certain the difference you're hearing isn't from the difference in quality between the two DACs, and not the compression at all. That's the breaks when you go the science route. All variables have to remain constant except the one you're examining. i.e. if one sample is resampled to 48KHz (ugh!), ALL samples have to be resampled to 48KHz. And as for hearing the differences, all you need is proof! -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
I more value the time it takes to encode since my server/ripper sits on a very slow pc (but it doesn't use much current). This also means that every device could play the data back. The audio doesn't have to travel to other devices, so the format doesn't matter. I do have a lot of recordings that are saved as 24 and 32 bit wav files, so that would also be work saved. If I ever need to burn a cd from the files when a disc gets bad, it is less work again than having to transcode first. I don't feel 40% saving is worth the hassle compared to dropping in another disk. -- Havoc Havoc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5064 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Well my system doesn't compete with some of the stuff the 'Audiophiles' talk about but one thing is quite clear. Listening to a well recorded track from an MP3 and the sound comes out of the fireplace. Listen to the same track in Flac and the image comes from the whole wall. There really is no comparison. I can see that somebody would rip their entire collection to MP3 and regret having to do it all again later. I can't imagine that happening with lossless. Craig -- Craig MC2Slim - Windows Shell and J River Media Center Integration for Squeezebox. http://www.duff-zapp.co.uk Craig's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=96 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Craig;152325 Wrote: Well my system doesn't compete with some of the stuff the 'Audiophiles' talk about but one thing is quite clear. Listening to a well recorded track from an MP3 and the sound comes out of the fireplace. Listen to the same track in Flac and the image comes from the whole wall. There really is no comparison. I can see that somebody would rip their entire collection to MP3 and regret having to do it all again later. I can't imagine that happening with lossless. Craig Not intending to throw any ice-water on this good discussion, but it's important to bear in mind that not all MP3s are created equal. I'm assuming for the purposes of THIS discussion we're talking only about MP3s ripped straight from the source CD using a good ripper, and encoded at the highest bitrate the MP3 format allows, preferably using LAME. I don't mean to pick on Craig, and that's not my intention, but I really do hear MP3s sound bad all the time. When in fact they mean MP3s created with iTunes at 128kbps sound bad, or some such thing. But we're not talking about low-bitrate MP3s created with sub-par encoders, we're talking about the best-quality MP3s possible with today's encoders. I've got problems with the MP3 format myself (I don't use it for anything I own), but at high enough bitrates, an MP3 will sound exactly the same as a CD for the vast majority of music, to all human listeners, period, and that's a statement which can be proven or disproven with an ABX test any time you like. Whether or not a format is transparent at a particular bitrate for a set of tracks for a particular listener isn't a matter of opinion or religion--you can test this yourself scientifically and get an answer. And if it's not double-blind, it's not a valid test. And yes, I'm the same person who posted the name of a sample which completely wrecks MP3 at 320kbps. My point was that killer samples are not representative samples, which is rather the point. -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
I have heard another killer track is -Kalifornia- by Fatboy Slim. The synthesized voice at the beginning of the track is quite problematic. Earlier MP3 encoders had a tough time with the rapidly changing high frequency component. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Once I did a comparison: I listened to a song with a folk-guitar and a violin as a 320Kbps mp3 and a wav-file. The difference was that the mp3 sounded much less transparent. Accoustic instruments generate many harmonics which make up the characteristic sound of each instrument. The high harmonics give the instrument a brilliance. These are very high frequencies, which are not completely reconstructed with any mp3-bitrate. If you use in the test electronic music or rock (etc.), you will probably not hear the difference between 320 and lossless. But with quality recordings of accoustic music, I think many people would hear the difference when listening on a good stereo. I guess it all comes down to your personal expectations, taste and priorities. Aaaah, how long is mankind discussing this topic... :) -- Wasaia Wasaia's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7289 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
I also did a comparison between 320 kbps MP3 and the original, and was easily able to tell the difference. Then I did the exact same test double-blind, and suddenly my superhuman hearing abilities disappeared. Just saying...knowing which sample is which can do great things for your perception. Incidentally, if anyone is able to ABX a representative sample of 50 music tracks from their collection at 320kbps, post the results here or call a newspaper. It's never been done before--maybe there's a prize! -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Skunk;152370 Wrote: Never? What if HDCD's are compared Mp3 vs. FLAC? I have over 50 HDCD tracks, maybe I should buy an Assemblage DAC just to prove you wrong :-) Sure, as long as the HDCDs are the source for the FLACs and MP3s. Although you must realize that increasing the number of channels while maintaining a constant overall bitrate lowers the bitrate per channel, which some might just consider cheating ;) Inventing a 320,000-channel audio format is a sure way to ABX 320kbps MP3s--let's stick to CDs to avoid having to argue about this. There's three ways any discussion like this can end: 1) Agree to disagree. Nobody other than me wants to do an ABX test, either because it's too hard or they don't think the results will be favorable (or they're waiting for some expensive equipment they'll never get ;) ) 2) Perform the ABX test, fail to distinguish the MP3s with certainty. Claim that this proves ABX testing doesn't really work (people really do this). Refuse to post your results. 3) Perform the ABX test, fail to distinguish the MP3s with certainty. Discover that it's okay to be human. Post your results here, showing humility. 4) Perform the ABX test, distinguish all of the MP3s with high certainty. Post your results here for all to see* * And then wake up, and curse loudly! -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Unless you do an ABX yourself you won't know. Some people maybe able to hear a difference, others may not. I can't tell the difference myself. But you must ABX, just swapping tracks whilst knowing which format you're using is biasing the results. I only rip to FLAC on my server as I have the disc space and it makes it easy to convert to whatever new lossy format comes along for my portable player without having to rerip :) -- probedb Paul. 'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb) 'myspace.com' (http://www.myspace.com/l328nud) probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
If slim would support broadcast wave where you can add info in the headers, I would not even consider to save the space going to flac. A terabyte or two isn't that expensive anymore. And the bandwidth needed isn't that large either. -- Havoc Havoc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5064 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Havoc;151997 Wrote: If slim would support broadcast wave where you can add info in the headers, I would not even consider to save the space going to flac. A terabyte or two isn't that expensive anymore. And the bandwidth needed isn't that large either. But FLAC is lossless, is natively supported on the SB and has tagging, why would you choose WAVE? It has zero benefits. -- probedb Paul. 'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb) 'myspace.com' (http://www.myspace.com/l328nud) probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
probedb;152079 Wrote: But FLAC is lossless, is natively supported on the SB and has tagging, why would you choose WAVE? It has zero benefits. Well, transcoding time from WAV-lossy might be slightly shorter than FLAC-lossy. That's like .03 percent of one benefit ;) -- CatBus CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Especially on my actual stereo--there's no comparison on any music. 320Kbps MP3 does sound really good, but FLAC always sounds better. I have a harder time telling on my work PC over computer speakers, but only between 320Kbps and FLAC. I can tell the difference between every other bitrate. Now, just because I can tell a difference doesn't mean I don't mind listening to lower bitrates, or that I don't enjoy them. It just means I can tell. Actually, I find MP3s of any bitrate annoying on my home system, but that's just because it's good enough to play back the bad stuff too. -- mrfantasy --Mike mrfantasy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1127 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
Havoc;151997 Wrote: If slim would support broadcast wave where you can add info in the headers, I would not even consider to save the space going to flac. A terabyte or two isn't that expensive anymore. And the bandwidth needed isn't that large either. I'd hate to give up the 40% or so of diskspace that Flac encoding saves me, with no loss of audio quality. The larger the library, the larger the savings in disk drive cost. And if you backup to disk, as I do, you need twice the drive space, so the savings can be considerable. The space savings can also be convenient. If I can fit my entire Flac library on a single moderately priced 400GB disk, and can fit the backup on a disk of the same size, then not having to use multiple drives, particularly for the backup, makes life much easier. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
I'm listening :-) (all my music is 320k LAME mp3) -- KBP KBP's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5817 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
alderash;151565 Wrote: Is there *really* an audible difference to you between FLAC and an MP3 at 320 kps? Ever do a direct comparison? Is there really a meaningful saving in HD space? What if you upgraded your hi-fi and then could tell the difference? The thought of reripping and retagging again, after having to do so once going from 192kbps AACs (iPod) to FLACs for the SB. -- adamslim SB3 and Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost cables adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
I think there is a meaningful savings in hard drive space. A typical FLAC file might be 30 MB, whereas the same song as a 320 MP3 is maybe 6 MB. That's a quarter of what the FLAC file is. I realize memory is getting cheaper all the time, but still . . . if you are achiving hundreds or thousands of songs, I think the space between the two is substantial. The other issue is encoding multiple times for various purposes. Right now I encode as FLAC for home listening on my main system, but if I want to grab an iPod and go, I need to recode as an MP3. It would be easier to just have one folder of songs that serve a variety of situations. An MP3 encoded with LAME at 320 kps would handle both scenarios -- it's just a question of whether the sound quality REALLY supports going lossless. -- alderash alderash's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6784 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
[SlimDevices: Ripping] Re: Audible difference between FLAC and 320 kps MP3s?
It depends entirely on your system and your ears. There's no point whatsoever in asking someone else's opinion, as they will be listening with their system and their ears. From a scientific POV they are clearly and demonstratably different, but it all comes down to perception and sensitivity. Do the test yourself, if you can't tell the difference, then great, you can save a few gb. Whether that's worth it given the cost (in time) of reripping is quite another thing. I'm much more concerned about the amount of time it would take me to rerip to FLAC in the future than I am about using more disk space. My time is worth a lot :) -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29286 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
