MP3 or Lossless - almost impossible to tell the difference, apparently

[editor]

Interesting piece:

Think you can tell the difference between CD quality music and compressed MP3s? This simple test can prove once and for all whether storing your music in lossless is worth your time (and hard drive space).

Lossless music, as we've talked about before, is music that hasn't been compressed to a smaller format like MP3. Technically, MP3 is lower quality, since it's lost data from its original format. However, while many auidophiles will tell you they can totally tell the difference between the two, the truth is it's very difficult for the human ear to tell them apart. Most people are either trying to impress you or are subject to the placebo effect.

I've been storing my music in lossless for awhile, though I never really tested myself to see if I could tell the difference.

After reading a number of forum threads like this one, I figured I should give it a shot—and hell if a 320kbps MP3 doesn't sound exactly the same to me as a FLAC file. And, while I don't consider myself a serious audiophile, I officially challenge all lossless addicts to take this test and see for themselves whether their ears are really as sensitively attuned as they think they are.

Storing your music in a lossless format has its own advantages—it's still the most digitally pure representation of your music—but if you really want to know whether you can tell the difference, an ABX test is the best way. An ABX test is essentially a way of comparing two known files (the lossless A and lossy B) and two unknown files (X and Y, which are the same as A and B, but you don't know which corresponds to which).

AFter playing all four, you tell the test whether you think X is the same file as A, or the same file as B. After repeating this about 10 times, you count up how many times you were right—and if you didn't get a score of 95% (or in this case, 9 out of 10), you probably can't tell the difference.

You can run this test yourself in your favorite music program, but Windows favorite foobar2000 actually has an ABX plugin that makes the process easy. Check out the video at the top of this post to see how the plugin works, and try it out for yourself in foobar2000. The general consensus is that, while a low-quality MP3 (128kbps) might be discernible from a lossless file (~1,411kbps) file, higher quality MP3s (320kbps) rarely—if ever—are. Of course, this can differ depending on the type of music (classical music is often easier to discern), how familiar you are with the music, and how nice your audio equipment is. You'll need some high end audio equipment if you even have a hope of hearing the difference between the two.

The takeaway? Storing your music in lossless is great for futureproofing your library (since you can convert it to any other file type without losing quality), but if you're looking to get the most out of listening to your music, you might be fine sticking with 320kbps MP3s.

http://lifehacker.com/5903625/mp3-or-lossless-see-if-you-can-hear-the-difference-with-this-test

 

[grit]

I've never been able to tell the difference between a rate of 192 and up

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I've never been able to tell the difference between a rate of 192 and up

Doubt many could. Thing is these days a lot of people just download so they'll never hear a CD to know anyway...

 

[editor]

It's quite funny to think that a lot of kids listen to worse quality sound than their parents listened to.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

It's quite funny to think that a lot of kids listen to worse quality sound than their parents listened to.

except only it appears technically... as your OP proves...

 

[smmudge]

The biggest factor in the quality of sound undoubtedly comes from the equipment it's actually being played on. Mostly if an MP3 is at least 44.1khz sample rate and 192kbps then it sounds the same as any lossless format through normal speakers/headphones to me. In a professional studio I could tell a (44.1kHz/16 bit) WAV from a (44.1/192kbps) MP3 if played back to back, but 320kbps MP3, no chance!

Kids are probably more likely to listen to music through youtube videos on laptop speakers or on a mobile phone, while their parents would have listened on a hi-fi, so yeah kids probably do listen to worse quality sound!

 

[Kid_Eternity]

It's quite funny to think that a lot of kids listen to worse quality sound than their parents listened to.

Have to be honest I'm less concerned by this these days than the general state of music.

 

[editor]

There's still as much great music being made as there's ever been.

 

[free spirit]

There's still as much great music being made as there's ever been.

maybe, but there is also far more shit being made as well.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

maybe, but there is also far more shit being made as well.

Indeed. I don't think there's anywhere near the same proportion at all these days...moreover what breaks through into the mainstream in terms of quality is at an all time low.

 

[gentlegreen]

I almost envy people with such poor hearing...

 

[editor]

Indeed. I don't think there's anywhere near the same proportion at all these days...moreover what breaks through into the mainstream in terms of quality is at an all time low.

Mainstream has almost always been shit, and there's always been shit bands at all levels.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

The proportions aren't the same. There's more shit music now then ever.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Also the kids are ruder, and the exams are easier, and the police are younger, and it used to be all fields

 

[smmudge]

The proportions aren't the same. There's more shit music now then ever.

There's just better access to more shit music now than ever.

There's always been shit music, but for obvious reasons the shit music doesn't stand the test of time, so it seems like it was better "back then". But look at the charts in the heyday of the biggest 'old' bands/artists and most of it is stuff that people don't even remember now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I almost envy people with such poor hearing...

Because, after all, you've got great hearing, and prove that to yourself every time you use your electrostatic speakers, valve amps and customised CD player.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's just better access to more shit music now than ever.

There's always been shit music, but for obvious reasons the shit music doesn't stand the test of time, so it seems like it was better "back then". But look at the charts in the heyday of the biggest 'old' bands/artists and most of it is stuff that people don't even remember now.

Heh, and "back then" (for me, that's the '70s/early '80s), if a pub advertised live music and the pub wasn't the Hope & Anchor or the Fulham Greyhound, the live music advertised was usually a bunch of '60s rejects noodling about half-heartedly on some old standards and fantasising about re-living their glory years. Some of them made Vic Reeves' "club singer" pisstake look positively attractive.

 

[gentlegreen]

Because, after all, you've got great hearing, and prove that to yourself every time you use your electrostatic speakers, valve amps and customised CD player.

Exactly what do you mean by that ? Just because you spent your yoof with yer head in a bassbin ... I wore earplugs and stayed near the back of the room.

I paid less for my HIFI than many people spend on a tobacco habit or even running a car - a few thousand quid averaged over the 15 years amounts to £4 a week or 50p per day. I spend 67p per day on tea.
I've spent a great deal more on CDs over the years.And "back in the day" it cost me a tenner a week to get into my local hop.
Of the whole chain, electrostatic speakers make the most difference and one day I may even buy some brand new ones. (my current two pairs cost me £700 = £1 per week or 14p per day)

I listen to music in all sorts of contexts and at varying qualities. I'm perfectly content with 128k MP3s and my little Sennheisers when I'm on my bike, and even when chilling at my picnic spot I'll put up with their limitations - though I'm thinking I may treat myself to some different cans - my decision will be swayed when I can reasonably carry a copy of my whole music collection around ripped to lossless ....

On the whole though, these days I'm listening to music that isn't very demanding of the reproduction chain and the set and setting are more important than the absolute sound quality.

 

[Firky]

Good read.

Youtube and Spotify sound god awful to my ears, especially Spotify. They seem to compress the hell out of tunes leaving none of the delicate nuances that add depth. Perfectly OK if I am out and about but if I am at home, with my decent headphones / speakers, I want to be able to hear everything. However, I have noticed I can't hear things I used to be able to when I was younger :\

@Gentlegreen I have a pair of Rokit speakers

Going to ebay them shortly though, want a new set up. Quite fancy a pair of Harman Kardon and since I don't drink any more I can splash out on things.

maybe, but there is also far more shit being made as well.

And more people listening and buying the shit.

 

[teqniq]

This risks re-igniting the old debate of 'well vinyl is always better than cd's....'. Having ripped quite a bit of stuff to flac I'm of the opinion that you get better bass response with flac as a pose to mp3 (funnily enough the same or similar argument used in the vinyl/cd debate). It does though imo indeed become rather more difficult to tell if the mp3 has been transcoded at maximum quality, except imo for bass (though I'm willing to concede that a number of factors have to be taken into consideration such as the genre and quality of the original recording).

 

[FaradayCaged]

Yeah I have highend headphones and between a 320kbps mp3 and a FLAC or raw WAV I cant tell much of a difference; if anything it probably is placebo. But between anything below say 240kbps and a FLAC it certainly gets very noticable and below 192kbps is a joke compared to FLAC/WAV.

 

[newbie]

Has anyone got a good enough handle on the maths to know whether playback MP3 is ever bit-for-bit indistinguishable from the original .wav, and if so, at what bitrate that starts to occur?

 

[gentlegreen]

I have to say I've been surprised recently in this world of ripped-off 128K MP3s to see adverts on mainstream TV for expensive, bling, but probably actually rather good headphones as well as portable, (presumably Class A ?) headphone amps.

Back in my audiophile days (a fairly short-lived phase), as well as looking at schematics for solid state class A amps, I considered making a portable valve one

Ironically this was often in association with DIY electrostatic headphones made of perspex and cling-film that cost under a fiver to make.
I gave up on the DIY headphones when I effectively acquired a giant pair I didn't have to wear on my head. Hopefully in retirement I will manage to have a converted barn with adequate breathing space to get the best out of electrostatics.

Does anyone have a handle on the cost-benefit for reasonably portable headphones ?
(Ones that don't shout "Dr. Dre Bling Bling, Steal Me !")
When I first got my HIFI I had Huge, open-sounding Wharfedale Isodynamics that ultimately turned me onto the whole electrostatic thing (or rather up until I got those I had more or less written off loudspeakers because those phones were so good - albeit the perforated magnets seemed to lose their strength over time).



They used to cost just under £20 in the 70s - which was a week's wages back then.

Much as I loved them, even if they were still made, I can't see myself carting them off to my favourite listening room :-



EDIT :- there's a pair of circa-£30 JVC 'phones which are getting good reviews - I may treat myself later ...

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

The proportions aren't the same. There's more shit music now then ever.

Well it goes without saying. Because what has happened has people have added to the shit music that already existed. Just the same as there is more good music now. In fact your sentence should have just read "there is more music now than ever" And tomorrow there will be more music.

It's called history or something.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Exactly what do you mean by that ?

Exactly what I said.

Just because you spent your yoof with yer head in a bassbin ... I wore earplugs and stayed near the back of the room.

Don't make assumptions, there's a good chap.

I paid less for my HIFI than many people spend on a tobacco habit or even running a car - a few thousand quid averaged over the 15 years amounts to £4 a week or 50p per day. I spend 67p per day on tea.

You do realise that the comparison you're making is fatuous, don't you? You're comparing perishables with fine-quality consumer goods.

I've spent a great deal more on CDs over the years.And "back in the day" it cost me a tenner a week to get into my local hop.
Of the whole chain, electrostatic speakers make the most difference and one day I may even buy some brand new ones. (my current two pairs cost me £700 = £1 per week or 14p per day)

Thanks for the spurious cost/benefit analysis, but you do realise that the world doesn't reduce to "bang for buck", and that you couldn't have estimated the life expectancy of your kit when you purchased it, don't you? That reveals your attempts at pennies per day VfM calculation for what they are - post-event justification.

I listen to music in all sorts of contexts and at varying qualities. I'm perfectly content with 128k MP3s and my little Sennheisers when I'm on my bike, and even when chilling at my picnic spot I'll put up with their limitations - though I'm thinking I may treat myself to some different cans - my decision will be swayed when I can reasonably carry a copy of my whole music collection around ripped to lossless ....

On the whole though, these days I'm listening to music that isn't very demanding of the reproduction chain and the set and setting are more important than the absolute sound quality.

And yet you make such a big deal about your kit, when you get round to mentioning it! Your post reeks of "sound snobbery". You "put up" with limitations that you believe are inherent to particular types of equipment and format, and very clearly believe that some genres aren't "demanding" (while others, as a corollary, must be!).

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have to say I've been surprised recently in this world of ripped-off 128K MP3s to see adverts on mainstream TV for expensive, bling, but probably actually rather good headphones as well as portable, (presumably Class A ?) headphone amps.

Back in my audiophile days (a fairly short-lived phase), as well as looking at schematics for solid state class A amps, I considered making a portable valve one

You can now buy them (ones that use the "starved circuit" idea") for about the same price as a good solid state one. Don't really see the point of replacing a tiny file player with a tiny file player plus Walkman-sized portable headphone amp, though.

 

[gentlegreen]

And yet you make such a big deal about your kit, when you get round to mentioning it! Your post reeks of "sound snobbery". You "put up" with limitations that you believe are inherent to particular types of equipment and format, and very clearly believe that some genres aren't "demanding" (while others, as a corollary, must be!).

Dub and heavily processed dance music clearly is a lot less demanding than "classical" music with high strings and woodwind - both genres are very important to me.

Perhaps some people who enjoy boy bands / Cliff Richard appreciate good sound, but I wouldn't know ...

Oh and my kit was already decades old when I bought it. I did do a back of an envelope calculation when I bought it as that sort of money was a lot to me back then - a small investment matured.

 

[gentlegreen]

I've just ordered some bonkers cheap (£13 ) Koss clip-on cans which have rave reviews :-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koss-155540-KSC75-Stereo-Headphones/dp/B0006B486K/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
since I'm fed up with my Sennheisers' fragile neckband that I've emailed them about.

Was pointed in their direction by a feature on"safe" headphones for cycling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/mar/26/bike-headphones-music-cycling

This is my main domain for enjoying music these days - an hour per day - Erik Satie would have had something to say about it ...

EDIT :-

There are even some mods for the Koss earphones :-

http://www.head-fi.org/t/124243/kramer-mod-ksc75

 

[ViolentPanda]

Dub and heavily processed dance music clearly is a lot less demanding than "classical" music with high strings and woodwind - both genres are very important to me.

If the difference is that clear, then please elucidate it.
From where I'm sitting, no music is more "easy" or "difficult" to listen to, or less or more demanding of the listener than any other. Both cover a similar frequency range, both contain elements that are less or more complex in terms of their frequency compositions. Any perception that one is more or less demanding than the other is exactly that - a perception. What does vary is the amount of attention listeners give some music over others, and which such listeners mistake for one music being more demanding than others. Psycho-acoustically the amount of "demand" made on a listeners faculties doesn't vary between types and genres.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've just ordered some bonkers cheap (£13 ) Koss clip-on cans which have rave reviews :-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koss-155540-KSC75-Stereo-Headphones/dp/B0006B486K/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
since I'm fed up with my Sennheisers' fragile neckband that I've emailed them about.

Was pointed in their direction by a feature on"safe" headphones for cycling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/mar/26/bike-headphones-music-cycling

This is my main domain for enjoying music these days - an hour per day - Erik Satie would have had something to say about it ...

EDIT :-

There are even some mods for the Koss earphones :-

http://www.head-fi.org/t/124243/kramer-mod-ksc75

I've been using Koss 'phones on and off for about 30 years (they've only really been available as an entire range over here for about the last 10. Before that we just used to see mostly the "flagship" models), mostly because they sound (i.e. I perceive them to sound) more "natural" than a lot of their "bass-boosted" equivalents