- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 3,129
- Points
- 0
Audiophile Myths Part 1: MP3 VS FLAC, Cables, Sample Rates, Tube Amps, ETC.
- Thread starter denom
- Start date
nonsense, snobbery....what the hell do these guys think? untrained ears. feel like bludgeoning them with my mono blocks, stifle with my 100% OFC ICs, and electrocute them with gold plated power cables! don't they know that when they upload anything on you tube the sample frequency of different sources are normalized? how are we supposed to make out the difference 
Abhinav_Rakesh
New Member
Hearing capabilities becomes less with ageing process. So a new born baby has golden ears rather than someone in his middle 30's..They are too young. It takes years to grow golden ears.
Abhinav_Rakesh
New Member
Well i must say this.. Most of the time it is the placebo effect.nonsense, snobbery....what the hell do these guys think? untrained ears. feel like bludgeoning them with my mono blocks, stifle with my 100% OFC ICs, and electrocute them with gold plated power cables! don't they know that when they upload anything on you tube the sample frequency of different sources are normalized? how are we supposed to make out the difference
If i talk about 320kbps mp3 and FLAC. There is no noticable difference. However if one thinks he listen something different. He'll surely gonna listen.
Good quality cables do make difference however the changes are subtle. But for that minor change would you really want to spend 1000's of dollar..?
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
CDs do not include all sounds that human beings can hear --- because some very young children can hear even above 20kH.
So the HiRes people should really check their marketing. Are they including enough nursery rhymes in their material? Do DSD DAC advertisements appeal to infants? Or are they missing the real market and targeting all the wrong people?
hyeah: :lol:~
Abhinav, there is a distinct difference and it comes around in the harmonic content (which gets cancelled out)
a very good area to look at is High treble music like Triangles/Bells and even sitar etc where the trailing edges are not very clear or missing in 320kbps when compared to a lossless.
Hearing acuity and golden ears are not the same thing.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
An aside abut MP3...
Apparently, MP3 was originally developed with broadcasting in mind, and high quality was very much a part of the brief. I learned this from a post made by one of the MP3 developers, on another forum.
I guess that, once it got into the wild, with various versions of the encoder, and low-low-low bitrates in regular use, youngsters judging portable music by quantity rather than quality, and internet streaming attempting to cram the most via the least bandwidth, the quality aspect got rather forgotten. MP3 became the byword for bad music.
Now that 320kb is becoming a habitually used bitrate, maybe that can be reversed. I know I can listen to it perfectly comfortably, but I really do not have the hearing to listen for high-frequency clues any longer, so I can only take account of what others say as to whether it really does sound as good as lossless compression. Whilst most of the tests/reports/etc I have chanced upon say that it does, in that same post (on Gearslutz, I think) JJ Johnston also said... it's no longer relevant: use FLAC!
Apparently, MP3 was originally developed with broadcasting in mind, and high quality was very much a part of the brief. I learned this from a post made by one of the MP3 developers, on another forum.
I guess that, once it got into the wild, with various versions of the encoder, and low-low-low bitrates in regular use, youngsters judging portable music by quantity rather than quality, and internet streaming attempting to cram the most via the least bandwidth, the quality aspect got rather forgotten. MP3 became the byword for bad music.
Now that 320kb is becoming a habitually used bitrate, maybe that can be reversed. I know I can listen to it perfectly comfortably, but I really do not have the hearing to listen for high-frequency clues any longer, so I can only take account of what others say as to whether it really does sound as good as lossless compression. Whilst most of the tests/reports/etc I have chanced upon say that it does, in that same post (on Gearslutz, I think) JJ Johnston also said... it's no longer relevant: use FLAC!
I agree to that, the difference is very subtle but it is present. At the same time it takes attention and dedication to the music to discern the difference. A casual listening session is not enough to take into account such subtle nuances.
I will also admit however that I am not always tell the difference between lossy (320 Kbps mp3) and lossless content, but I think mastering of the track plays a good role in this. I feel a well mastered track is more easy to tell apart than one which is not so well mastered, the genre of music, nature of the album and instruments involved, and of course the equipment (!) all are significant here.
subhobh
Active Member
Undoubtedly there is a big difference between 320 kbps MP3 with Lossless 16bit 42 kHz sound or higher. However, to figure that out it requires experience and proper music reproduction system.
Not everyone can figure out the difference between a cheap IMFL whiskey with 21yrs old single malt.
Not everyone can figure out the difference between a cheap IMFL whiskey with 21yrs old single malt.
Last edited:
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
subhobh, have you compared the MP3 with the uncompressed version of the same music? Have you taken a lossless file, converted it to 320-MP3 and compared? Preferably blind test? Is the difference really big?
I only ask because much of the rest of the world doesn't seem to think so. And they are probably not deaf. Almost certainly less so than I am: with hearing tailing off from 8k, I'm not really able to follow this up in practice.
By the way, here's another interesting thing I read about MP3 recently. The term is perceptual compression, and it works by removing that which people cannot perceive. Apart from removing frequencies towards the higher end of the hearing spectrum (that's the easy bit) it works by removing sounds that are masked by other sounds: there are lots of things happening in music that we cannot hear because of... other things happening at the same time. If a listener has selective-frequency hearing loss, that perceptual algorithm may not work for them.
If sound A at frequency a masks sound B at frequency b, sound B may be cut --- but if the listener is deaf to frequency a, this will not work. They will hear a huge difference.
I only ask because much of the rest of the world doesn't seem to think so. And they are probably not deaf. Almost certainly less so than I am: with hearing tailing off from 8k, I'm not really able to follow this up in practice.
By the way, here's another interesting thing I read about MP3 recently. The term is perceptual compression, and it works by removing that which people cannot perceive. Apart from removing frequencies towards the higher end of the hearing spectrum (that's the easy bit) it works by removing sounds that are masked by other sounds: there are lots of things happening in music that we cannot hear because of... other things happening at the same time. If a listener has selective-frequency hearing loss, that perceptual algorithm may not work for them.
If sound A at frequency a masks sound B at frequency b, sound B may be cut --- but if the listener is deaf to frequency a, this will not work. They will hear a huge difference.
sarith
Active Member
:thumbsup:
Agree. Although It may not be so much about experience. And the word big is pretty subjective!
I really don't rate my ears as that great, but I really believe Anyone can as long as a system can bring out the differences
eg I use a M-audio FireWire pro device for computer audio which feeds into my Dac and which also has a headphone out.
My headphone setup is not really great but there's is a subtle difference between the two outputs. But on the full blown rig it's very much more obvious . Again in in my car the difference is superfluous hence all my car music is ripped to 320 and I am very happy with it and no difference with that and lossless I can make out there.
Otoh when it comes to single malt differences I can make out some differences when the experts have guided me on what to look for.. Same with regard to wine ..Else I would not have cared for any difference other than basic taste and how long it takes to hit you
Last edited:
Just heard the Video. Why are they mixing up the hearing frequency range ( 20 Hz to 20 K Hz) with the sampling rate of the recording - 44, 96 and 192 etc.
My understanding is that the two parameters are entirely different - one deals with ear sensitivity , the other deals with closely following the Analog Waveform in the digital form.
My understanding is that the two parameters are entirely different - one deals with ear sensitivity , the other deals with closely following the Analog Waveform in the digital form.
Abhinav_Rakesh
New Member
Not different actually.. Anything encoded above 44khz will not be audible to human ears. It is same as putting 1 pair of jeans in suitcase. You can only wear that pair of jeans however the whole package is too big, thus wasting space.
With due apologies to Thad and arj, for stealing their tag lines, which appear to be very relevant to the on-going discussion -
The most important cables are the ones in your brain ( and I suspect that this line applies equally well to the power chord discussion going on in another thread)
"The whole problem with the audiophile world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Cheers !
The most important cables are the ones in your brain ( and I suspect that this line applies equally well to the power chord discussion going on in another thread)
"The whole problem with the audiophile world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Cheers !
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
No apology needed: I'd be delighted to hear my motto used more often!
Yes, it is wiser and healthier to have doubts.
I have a doubt, and that is (to steel somebody else's tagline!) how many of the people who are so sure of the differences have actually done the AB comparison. If they haven't, then they can't even say that there are differences. If they have, then fine, but I'd like to know that they checked their own results with a blind test.
I'm not saying it is impossible. For starters, I haven't tried. All my 320kb-MP3 stuff is 320kb-MP3 because it was not available to me any other way. Well, I could do the test I personally suggested. In the end, it is irrelvant, because, as Digital Grand-daddy and co-inventor of MP3, JJ, says... hey, just use FLAC. Where there's a choice.
Yes, it is wiser and healthier to have doubts.
I have a doubt, and that is (to steel somebody else's tagline!) how many of the people who are so sure of the differences have actually done the AB comparison. If they haven't, then they can't even say that there are differences. If they have, then fine, but I'd like to know that they checked their own results with a blind test.
I'm not saying it is impossible. For starters, I haven't tried. All my 320kb-MP3 stuff is 320kb-MP3 because it was not available to me any other way. Well, I could do the test I personally suggested. In the end, it is irrelvant, because, as Digital Grand-daddy and co-inventor of MP3, JJ, says... hey, just use FLAC. Where there's a choice.
Get the Wharfedale EVO 4.2 3-Way Standmount Speakers at a Special Offer Price.
Similar threads
