Do you consider yourself an audiophile?
- Thread starter Doctor Carrot
- Start date
Athos
Well-Known Member
Still a lossy format, so the point remains.
Different lossy format, and demonstrably superior to mp3 at the same bit-rate, as well as being open source.
fractionMan
Custom Title
I'd be amazed if anyone could tell the difference. Astounded even.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Maybe so. But still not so good so high res digital audio.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Between mp3 and ogg vorbis, or between ogg vorbis and high res digital?
What do you mean by "high res digital audio"?
fractionMan
Custom Title
I drank some nano filtered water yesterday. I think it tasted better without the nanos in it.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Better than red book.
I take it that you didn't read the link I posted to xiph.org? Please read it.
24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
Outside of music recording/mixing/production, there is no point in using anything beyond 16bit 44.1/48kHz.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yeah, 48kHz at 16 bit would be classed as high res. And, on a decent system, will sound noticeably better than any lossless format. I don't get the point you're trying to make.
My point was that lossless formats with a much greater bandwidth than lossy formats sound better (although, as I've already said, I can't tell any difference above 24/98).
Do you really think mp3 or ogg vorbis sound as good as FLAC?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I'd say in the vast majority of domestic setups nobody could tell the difference...
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, I specifically referred to that qualification; you edited it out of my post that you quoted.
The point of using 48kHz over 44.1kHz is for compatability with standards set by the TV and movie industries. No-one can hear the difference between them (all other things being equal).
My point is that lossy formats can be transparent at suitable bit-rates. To find what is an acceptable bit-rate for you requires that you do double blind listening tests.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't deny that people have different thresholds of acceptability. Some can't perceive the difference (because of their own hearing and/or the system in which they're listening), and some don't care.
But, do you accept that, on a suitable system, there can be a noticeable difference between lossless and lossy formats, for some people.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
When I ripped my entire CD collection a few years ago I did it as lossless files but the main reason for this was future-proofing - if I ever want to convert them to a different format I'm not starting out with something that's already had information removed (even if I couldn't hear the difference).
There can be, but I would contend that if the bit-rate of the lossy format is high enough, there will come a point at which the differences are inaudible. The specific rate at which this occurs will vary from person to person.
Very sensible approach. I rip all CDs to FLAC - converting to MP3 for portable listening.
If they have developed a technique for cloning electricity you'd think they might have rather more important uses for it than making a hifi sound better.Electronically cloned
Athos
Well-Known Member
Agreed. With one caveat: some lossy formats have a bandwidth ceiling which might fall below the point at which a given listener on a given system would perceive transparency; that's to say that for some people, certain formats could never be transparent.
The fact is that lossless formats are transparent per se, whereas lossy formats are transparent at best.
That is for those people to prove by way of double blind testing - all the tools to do this are freely available. They would then be doing the audio codec development community a great service if they could then submit their results to the codec developers.
Yes.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I know, I've used the ABX plugin for foobar; that's how I know I can't perceive anything over 24/98, and that (when listening on a good system) I've yet to come across a lossy format that I can't reliably discern from a sample at red book or higher.
You are unique, and should submit your findings to the scientific community.
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's not true. Lots of people can perceive the lack of transparency of lossy formats.
What are you referring to when you say "anything over 24/98"?
Edit: Idiotically quoted myself
Athos
Well-Known Member
What are you referring to when you say "anything over 24/98"?
Edit: Idiotically quoted myself
24 bit 96kHz (not 98 - my mistake). Which I can discern from 16/44 about 65% of the time. The latter I could discern from 320kbps mp3 over 90% of the time (falling to around 70% for some other lossy codecs).
ETA: I cannot tell any difference by moving from 96 to 192.
Last edited:
Are you saying that you can tell the difference between 2 identical recordings (the only difference being that one is 24bit/96kHz and the other is 16bit/44.1kHz)?
The largest ever double blind test comparing hi res audio vs 16/44.1 was done by the Boston Audio Society in 2007, involving over 500 participants. No-one could tell the difference. There hasn't been any evidence to refute this. So, if you can provably demonstrate an ability to tell the difference then you are unique and of interest to the scientific community.
Please read the first 3 posts here for details:
CD vs SACD vs DVD-A - Long but interesting read
Athos
Well-Known Member
To be honest, a mate supplied the test files, so I cannot guarantee that they are indentical. And, in fairness, I'm no scientist or statistician, so I'd have to concede that the methodology might be flawed, and/or sample size insufficient.
But, leaving aside the diminishing gains as you progress through increasingly high resolution, I remain certain that I can tell the difference between a FLAC and any lossy format (which is the point you initially seemed to dispute), where the findings from the blind testing are sorted by thousands of hours of listening. So much so that I would happily submit to any online testing you want.
