Lossless Audio Does Not Sound Better Than MP3?
- Thread starter Analogous
- Start date
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
What is Dynamic Range and why it matters?
https://darko.audio/2023/06/what-is-dynamic-range-and-why-does-it-matter/
www.hifivision.com
audiophiles are habituated to sweariing. They swear
1) cable x is better than y when cost of x > y
2) ethernet cables make a difference.
3) class a is better than all other class
4) R2R sounds better than delta sigma
5) valve sounds better than solid state. It doesn't matter that high end is lost.
6) LPS makes a huge difference powering puny devices consuming < 100mA current
7) For music you should listen to 2 channel audio. Multi channel is blasphemy for music. Doesn't matter that music can never be recorded original to its form due to limitation of the microphone and recording methodology
8) AVR is bad for music and ASR is bad for audiophiles
...
∞) ... xxx yyy zzz
Last edited:
Wonder what ASR says 
But again so many people swear vaccines make no difference and is a big pharma conspiracy.
Technically MP3 removes from music. if one is so particular that they want stored music instead of streamed, why would anyone want a lesser product at a time where storage price is so low
But again so many people swear vaccines make no difference and is a big pharma conspiracy.
Technically MP3 removes from music. if one is so particular that they want stored music instead of streamed, why would anyone want a lesser product at a time where storage price is so low
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
Wonder what ASR says
But again so many people swear vaccines make no difference and is a big pharma conspiracy.
Technically MP3 removes from music. if one is so particular that they want stored music instead of streamed, why would anyone want a lesser product at a time where storage price is so low
Because it sounds different. Depending on the song I prefer the FLAC or MP3 version from the same source. Just my preferences. It has nothing to do with prices of storage. I will note you think of it as lesser, I think of it as different.
Thats interesting. so by removing of certain overlapping frequencies makes the sound different from the source which you prefer ..is it the tonality or does that make the sound more Dynamic even at the db levels you seem to like ?
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
I actually don't prefer sound that's too dynamic, most music as I said before has low dynamic range, I enable leveling to make it more similar. The tone does change, so does the total musicality of the song, mind you these differences are minimal compared to other things in the system but if offered the choice there can be a preference, at times. For reference, though I stated this before, my normal listening is about 105-110db at the listening spot. The music can also be smoother to listen to, in general depending upon the genre my thoughts are that FLAC is harsher, sharper. MP3 is generally smoother but it has less detail,clarity, most of the differences are, as mentioned in the post I linked to, due to extra HF in the FLAC file.
sachinchavan 15865
Well-Known Member
Most people don’t listen intently enough. Yes, the difference between a 320 kbps (eg Spotify) and lossless stream (Tidal/AM) is not easy to discern unless heard carefully and back to back, but that between 128 kbps (Internet radio) and lossless is very obvious. I think 320 kbps allows the dynamic range to be maintained considerably intact. Also, sometimes other factors affect DR - for example, Spotify Connect, playing natively from a streamer could sound more dynamic than Apple lossless played through AirPlay from MacBook (additional stages involved).
Look for the definition in the bass (or the richness of the highs) - one usually finds the effects of compression there. Good compression doesn’t alter the mids significantly and most listeners listen to vocal/mids, hence may not perceive it. Understandably as well, if heard on less resolving system, music compressed as above might even sound cleaner (hence better) to some. The other way to discern lossless quality from compression is to observe (the difference in) your emotion and physical response to the song.
(Also, those who prefer listening to their music loud, might prefer a compressed, low DR sound like one respondent above. But preference also means they sense the difference)
Last edited:
You're Talking Sense and honest experience on planned audiophile bashing thread...
How Long before we're offered 4 Samples of same song and asked to vote which ones are Lossless and which ones are Mp3? And prove that audiophiles are bluffing after analysis of the voting results? Its as same as proving expensive wine can't be differentiated in a blind test from a relatively cheaper wine by many wine tasters?
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
If you are not aware, much of the definition for bass comes from the mid bass, mid range and treble. The extra HF in a FLAC file will offer more defined/tighter bass. Preference upto the user. You need some serious subs to differentiate bass definition with a 80Hz LPF. MP3 also does not sound cleaner in my experience, it can however be more musical. There is a fallacy in audio circles where something must be better rather than understanding human limitations and recognizing that things are different. A lossless can only be said to be "better" if one's sole yardstick is accuracy to the source and not enjoyment of music. One's mind does not care about lossy or lossless, it only reacts based on variables, if the bias is taken out then different people at different times will prefer either format. In general this will be determined by an individuals preference for less or more HF at a given point in time.
sachinchavan 15865
Well-Known Member
l
The contention of the thread is not about ‘which sounds better’ but ‘whether the difference can be perceived’. A preference for one over the other implies a perception of difference.
Thanks for illuminating on this. What I wrote is experientially true. My attempt at analysing the reasons for the experience are limited by my (close to zero) knowledge of sound engineering. My hypothesis that the bass is chopped off comes from my listening experience. For example, most of the Hindi film CDs (films from 70s and 80s) from Universal have chopped off bass. I suspect they made the prints from compressed files rather than the original recordings. I hate listening to them, but I doubt it matters to 90% of listeners listening on Rs 1000 radio/earbuds/boomboxes even notice/care.
The contention of the thread is not about ‘which sounds better’ but ‘whether the difference can be perceived’. A preference for one over the other implies a perception of difference.
Last edited:
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
You are most welcome. Please don't quote me on this but as I recall the leading edge of a kick drum is somewhere in the 2-6KHz range. I don't remember but I do remember it is in the upper mid/lower treble, far from the bass frequencies. Also while it is true it is notable that the difference in bass is from the higher frequencies.
My perception of the thread was both that whether a difference can be perceived and the implied traditional thought that lossless was "better". Perception is strange that it is dependent on a multitude of factors. For the most part most people can not perceive a difference most of the time.
The article is talking of 'Richness". Richness mostly comes from resolution of harmonics which are at a lower amplitudes and adds to the timbre of music...I always found Mp3s to have a sharper edge to music and most probably thats because of the higher harmonics being cut off.
As @sachinchavan 15865 / @Decadent_Spectre have both alluded to, the rhythm , noise etc can get removed and hence the sound can seem be cleaner depending on how the system has been setup.
Add: but in the end you would have felt to have lost something from the music only if the system has the ability to reproduce it in the first place...else its like someone robbed you of something you never knew you had.
As @sachinchavan 15865 / @Decadent_Spectre have both alluded to, the rhythm , noise etc can get removed and hence the sound can seem be cleaner depending on how the system has been setup.
Add: but in the end you would have felt to have lost something from the music only if the system has the ability to reproduce it in the first place...else its like someone robbed you of something you never knew you had.
Last edited:
Reading through the discussion it seems there is no clear or unanimous agreement because there is no standardisation in:
1. The playback equipment used to compare
2. The source file of the recordings used to master to hires or very compressed MP3 files
3. Our hearing ability
4. Listening skills and experience
5. Preference for loudness or quieter playback volumes
And more….
Like many other aspects in our lives; kind of messy?
1. The playback equipment used to compare
2. The source file of the recordings used to master to hires or very compressed MP3 files
3. Our hearing ability
4. Listening skills and experience
5. Preference for loudness or quieter playback volumes
And more….
Like many other aspects in our lives; kind of messy?
sachinchavan 15865
Well-Known Member
I understand the discussion is about the compression introduced through the codecs for storing and transmitting of music. But this lucid article can help us understand the nitty-gritties of compression and its adverse impact on the music if done injudiciously though it is referring to the compression at the music production end. The writer has taken pains to elucidate each effect through audio samples of uncompressed and compressed sound for us to comprehend it. He has explained all the aspects of compression (gain, threshold, ratio, attack, release, knee), the valid reasons for compression (which might explain why some prefer certain music compressed) and the adverse effects of over-compression (distortion, low DR, missing transients etc). I found it helped me to read end to end and listen to all the comparisons.
soundadventurer.com
Audio Compression Explained (Finally In A Way That Makes Sense) | Sound Adventurer
It took me so long to figure out what compression in audio terms means--but after exhaustively researching the concept, I not only figured it out,…
soundadventurer.com
Last edited:
A very clear explanation indeed.I understand the discussion is about the compression introduced through the codecs for storing and transmitting of music. But this lucid article can help us understand the nitty-gritties of compression and its adverse impact on the music if done injudiciously though it is referring to the compression at the music production end. The writer has taken pains to elucidate each effect through audio samples of uncompressed and compressed sound for us to comprehend it. He has explained all the aspects of compression (gain, threshold, ratio, attack, release, knee), the valid reasons for compression (which might explain why some prefer certain music compressed) and the adverse effects of over-compression (distortion, low DR, missing transients etc). I found it helped me to read end to end and listen to all the comparisons.
Audio Compression Explained (Finally In A Way That Makes Sense) | Sound Adventurer
It took me so long to figure out what compression in audio terms means--but after exhaustively researching the concept, I not only figured it out,…
But…
As we know evidence and facts don’t always change minds. Emotional appeals are more successful in this regard even if they are contrary to facts and evidence.
Maybe the emotional impact of compressed audio is more attractive to some than lossless or Hires playback?
Last edited:
Prateek-Epitome
Member
I have had Tidal Subscription for 2 years and I have not yet heard a difference between Hi Res and 256 kbps AAC on Windows Desktop from Apple Music.
It would be helpful to get some context of the set up you are using while hearing no difference between the two streams.
bobbyprajan
Active Member
For me Tidal is an improvement over Spotify @ 320 Kbps
Prateek-Epitome
Member
Hifiman Susvara, Focal Vestia N4, Burson Composer DAC, Gustard R26
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
Similar threads
