Interesting information in there.
The video editing was a tad annoying, seems to jump around a lot.
The test they use is here:Posted 5 months agoshindiggyMember
5/6 on whilst listening via my HD650’s and Vali amp,incorrectly picked the 320kps Neil Young Track but all of them sound flat and compress due to the recording.
The three sample rates were very noticeable whilst listening at home, but if i’m listening to music on the go I wouldn’t have cared.Posted 5 months agoMr WoppitMember
I used to use my Samsung Note 4 and a pair of AKG N60’s on my commute.
The difference in quality between Spotify 320kbps and Tidal 1411kbps was obvious.
Of course, my humble £250 AKG’S didn’t have all that attractive moulding that Michelle’s headphones are sporting in the video, so I suppose I wasn’t actually hearing any difference at all…Posted 5 months agoretro83Member
I got 4/6 and the two I got wrong I picked the 320 KBPS MP3 (katy perry and jay z). For me Coldplay was by far the easiest, the drums sounded really wrong in the second part of the sample.
I don’t have fancy equipment, I used Creative Aurvana Live! headphones on my laptops normal headphone out. I think it just depends on how sensitive your ears are to certain traits in the compressed sound, for me it’s slight slurring on percussion type sounds I always hear with MP3.Posted 5 months ago
I tend to find that AAC even at 128KBPS is indistinguishable though.
Audio interfaces makes a massive difference opposed to onboard laptop sound. Listen through my focusrite 2i4 improves audio no end, even with my Sennheiser in ears. The sony mdr-7506 monitoring headphones I have are clear as a bell through that. Can be quite harsh to listen to at times though as ye hear all the mistakes in audio due to the flat response.Posted 5 months agoiffoverloadMember
Audio tech, well old, I used a pair of bluetooth phones no aptX, could hear all of them apart from the classical piano surprisingly… the recording sounded compressed and noisy in all of them to me?
Sometimes lossy encoded files do nice things to certain tracks…. ❓
It just suits them.
MP3 is rubbish and kills some carefully crafted, music but the encoder is the important part and has improved hugely.
All the high end 192/24 HDRs do not sound the same either.
NS 10’s are used as they are rubbish and if it sounds OK on those you are unlikely to have troble with a mix played back on nearly anything.
I have to laugh at some purist drivel you hear as most recorded music has passed through miles of standard cable and processing circuitry before it gets anywhere near the mastering stage and encoding for different formats.
Dolby SR Ampex 499 1/2″ @ 30 IPS > Vinyl(good quality heavy stuff) still sounds the nicest to me 🙂Posted 5 months ago
Point is get a system you are happy with, all systems colour audio to their own flavour. (It’s why audio engineers use flat response speakers and headphones and test on a range of vastly different speakers, as they need to get a balance that will play nicely on all systems, from tinny computer speakers, to car stereos(with all the external noise), to 30k systems in sound treated rooms. They aren’t mixing stuff to play nicely only on the most expensive systems.)
I’m also willing to bet those that have spent 10k on their system will tell themselves they are hearing differences, much more than those that haven’t. 😆
Very much a law of diminishing returns going on here, and by diminishing, I mean imperceptible. Once you get by a certain level.
I’m not saying it’s not worth investing in decent gear btw, it obviously is, to a point, that point isn’t really to distinguish the difference between 320k and wav, a decent system will make a 128k mp3 sound better. (better being relative to the listener.)
tbh if my system was making 128k mp3s sound that much different, I’d take it back and get something else.Posted 5 months ago
I’m also willing to bet those that have spent 10k on their system will tell themselves they are hearing differences, much more than those that haven’t.
Seems logical. After all, they’d have far more chance of hearing any difference.
a decent system will make a 128k mp3 sound better.
No, it really won’t. There’s just too much information missing.Posted 5 months ago
tbh if my system was making 128k mp3s sound that much different, I’d take it back and get something else.
I’d be more concerned if you couldn’t tell the difference on anything better than a cheap mobile phone, and maybe think about taking yourself back to the doctor’s for an ear test.Posted 5 months ago
I’m perfectly willing to change my mind.
More clarity, especially between timbres in a complex piece. More contrast beteen volumes e.g. sharp attack of a snare. Whilst putting this into words is obviously fraught, probably the easiest way to describe it would be less tiring listening at volume, a bit like an intimate gig vs wall of noise in an arena.
I come at this as someone who was very sceptical for a long time, and made up a downmixed set of files of a 192/24 track through CD and 320 to 128, so I wasn’t judging based upon a crap mix vs a good mix.
Ultimately ymmv, but I’m happy with my system, and enjoy listening to it. I enjoy it less when I put an MP3 through it, but that’s easily fixed by buying it at a higher bit rate. Having over the years spent several grand on my hifi, it would be a bit daft if I wasn’t willing to spend on the quality of the source too. And it’s not like HD space is an issue these days, even for 192/24.Posted 5 months ago
To a point… but if a listener can’t tell the difference between a 128 and a 320 MP3, I’d still suggest theyre listening to an astonishingly crap system, or their ears are shot.
And if they can tell the difference, then clearly one is better than the other. I get it if a person has no interest in music and it’s just background noise, but it seems odd to mix to appease that audience at the expense of the listener who does care. Bit like optimising a 4K Blu-ray so it looks good on a 14″ CRT.Posted 5 months agostilltortoiseSubscriber
And if they can tell the difference, then clearly one is better than the other.
Someone might hear a very clear difference, but prefer the “lower quality” version. It reminds me of the days before MP3, when the boominess of the bass was the measure of how “good” a system was for some people. Even the perception of big, loud and boomy is still a selling point of systems; just take a look in the shops at what some music systems look like. The point being that it’s one thing to be able to hear a difference, it’s another thing to assume everyone thinks the higher bit rate version is the preferred version.
I only got 2 right in that test, but the Suzanne Vega one was the one I found easiest to pick the WAV for. That was the most minimal mix. Is it a reasonable conclusion that the more complex the mix, the less likely someone is able to discern the difference between different bit rates?Posted 5 months ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.