Anybody Out There Who Hears a Difference Between 320 kbps MP3 and Red Book CD? What Differences Do You Hear?

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I realize this thread is a year old, but I'm having a hard time understanding your above posts. You seem upset that there are cases where people can successfully ABX lossless and high bit-rate lossy encodings but it's not clear why.

It's because the circumstances under which it's been proven possible to discern the difference are pretty specific and actually require an effort to create and very few people actually can do so (and I don't necessarily believe everyone who thinks they can) while at the same time, the common criticisms of high br lossy on various audio forums blow the differences so far out of proportion to reality that it's ridiculous. Stuff like "Spotify is shit you need lossless for good sound" is a common mantra on reddit for instance. The reality is that Spotify Extreme is very good - for 99.9% of real world users under 99.9% of real world circumstances it's indistinguishable from Tidal.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

What's the point of focusing on an obsolete codec, especially on ASR?

It slots right in nicely alongside all manner of other audiophool mythology like exotic wires, burn in, and esoteric crystals where people claim to be able to hear things that they can't actually hear. Companies sell stuff based on the premise that one thing is better than another. Tidal sells subscriptions based on the premise that lossless is better than the high BR lossy of for instance Spotify Extreme. If it isn't actually better, then what are people paying for?

 

[FrantzM]

I notice no differences between 320 mp3 and lossless on most music, Under the best conditions of known music on my own system, I may discern one thing or two that I was taught by the Internet to listen to... and that while straining and repeating the passages. I m not alone. I know the vast majority of audiophiles out there can't hear the differences either.., It goes further: Untrained listeners and that include the vast majority of precious-metal--eared audiophiles aren't able to discern lossless from compressed even if differences are detected.

Training is that: it takes an amount of study and time... Audiophiles of the, "dark background", "organic" PRaT. country-sized soundstage kind are the worst offenders when faced in serious test situations. they invoke fatigue, stress, etc., to explain their subpar to poor showings. Their vaunted aural abilities disappear into space vacuum, once the visual clues are removed...


There is a distortion test on http://www.davidgriesinger.com/ (strangely , I can no longer access this site). Take it and let us know how you fare.

 

[MRC01]

... the common criticisms of high br lossy on various audio forums blow the differences so far out of proportion to reality that it's ridiculous. ...

Everything in audiophilia is over-dramatized. If people can hear a difference, any difference, they get excited and exaggerate it. At least in this case, the difference (however small) actually does exist, which can't be said for other kinds of things people claim they can hear.

It slots right in nicely alongside all manner of other audiophool mythology like exotic wires, burn in, and esoteric crystals where people claim to be able to hear things that they can't actually hear....

Yet in this specific case, it doesn't slot alongside because unlike exotic wires, burn-in and esoteric crystals, it's actually true that 320 kbps MP3 is not 100% transparent. It's well documented that trained listeners can differentiate it when using the right recordings.

One can certainly take the position that 320 kbps MP3 is almost transparent, that the differences are tiny. I agree with that. But when people say the differences are so small they don't care, I wonder why they call themselves audiophiles. Caring about tiny differences in sound seems to be the defining characteristic of being an audiophile. Just because somebody loves music doesn't make him an audiophile. Plenty of people who love music, including many musicians, couldn't care less about sound quality.

Pragmatically speaking, there are 2 "tells" I use to differentiate MP3 encodings. First, they are low-pass filtered and if you focus on the extreme high frequencies with appropriate recordings, like jangling keys or castanets (or female vocalists recorded with excess sibilance, like Suzanne Vega), you can hear the slightly less crisp transient response. Second, they use masking so if you listen to a recording with layers of detail you can hear that the lowest level details are smeared, modulated or otherwise distorted. Both of these are subtle, but with practice you can pick up on it. Start with bad (low bit rate) MP3s where these effects are obvious to learn what to listen for, then incrementally ramp up the bit rate.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

For all meaningful purposes, high br lossy is transparent. The conditions under which the difference is actually discernible basically don't exist outside of a laboratory. Just like there are measurable differences between dacs and amps, we really only care about those if they are audible. And of course, the vast majority of the claims made regarding the atrocious quality of anything other than lossless files are not made by trained experts...they are made by run of the mill old dudes like me, lol.

 

[MRC01]

For all meaningful purposes, high br lossy is transparent. The conditions under which the difference is actually discernible basically don't exist outside of a laboratory. Just like there are measurable differences between dacs and amps, we really only care about those if they are audible.

Not true. Trained listeners can differentiate 320 kbps using musical tracks. Some were mentioned earlier in this thread. Sure, special recordings like jangling keys make it easier. But it is still possible with some music, so it's not just a laboratory thing.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Pragmatically speaking, there are 2 "tells" I use to differentiate MP3 encodings. First, they are low-pass filtered and if you focus on the extreme high frequencies with appropriate recordings, like jangling keys or castanets (or female vocalists recorded with excess sibilance, like Susan Vega), you can hear the slightly less crisp transient response. Second, they use masking so if you listen to a recording with layers of detail you can hear that the lowest level details are smeared, modulated or otherwise distorted. Both of these are subtle, but with practice you can pick up on it. Start with bad (low bit rate) MP3s where these effects are obvious to learn what to listen for, then incrementally ramp up the bit rate.

Why?

 

[MRC01]

To fine-tune one's perception and become a better critical listener.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Not true. Trained listeners can differentiate 320 kbps using musical tracks. Some were mentioned earlier in this thread. Sure, special recordings like jangling keys make it easier. But it is still possible with some music, so it's not just a laboratory thing.

It's possible with some music, on some systems, with really very perfect listening conditions - probably pretty high end headphones.

 

[MRC01]

Exactly! And that is what high fidelity is all about: chasing down that last fraction of % toward the ultimate transparency possible.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

To fine-tune one's perception and become a better critical listener.

I listen to music in my home. In my living room. There is a fridge in the kitchen that makes some noise every once in a while. There's a fairly large window in the room which even when closed allows a certain amount of traffic noise in. The ambient sound level is right around 40dbs at the best of times. My system is ok...certainly not high end. I have tinnitus and my hearing tops out at about 15khz. I'm not too worried about the edge cases of whatever infinitesimal differences there may be between 320kb mp3 and lossless. I have lots of music stored at anything from about 160kbs up - much of it lossless. I can start to maybe hear differences below about 192 (if I really work at it with really good cans)...over that it's fine.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Exactly! And that is what high fidelity is all about: chasing down that last fraction of % toward the ultimate transparency possible.

sure, but those aren't the conditions under which many people making claims about the horrors of lossy are listening.

 

[MRC01]

I listen to music in my home. In my living room. There is a fridge in the kitchen that makes some noise every once in a while. There's a fairly large window in the room which even when closed allows a certain amount of traffic noise in. The ambient sound level is right around 40dbs at the best of times. ...

This is an important point, one of the elephants in the room that audiophiles commonly ignore. For serious listening, I turn down the thermostat so the heat won't turn on. The difference that makes to hearing low level fine detail is tremendous, and that is no audiophile exaggeration. The other elephant in the room is room treatment. Both of these make a much bigger difference than 320 kbps MP3 or other things audiophiles debate, which in comparison are splitting hairs. Yet splitting hairs is much of the fun in this hobby.

 

[JohnBooty]

I notice no differences between 320 mp3 and lossless on most music, UNder the best conditions of known music on my own system, I may discern one thing or two that I was taught by the Internet to listen to... and that while straining and repeating the passages.

This is basically my experience. Typically, it's cymbal crashes and other percussion (against an otherwise quiet background) where I can sometimes hear a difference. If I really try. I have heard high bitrate lossy recordings that make cymbals sound like blasts from a compressed air container, versus the FLAC version where the cymbals definitely sound like cymbals.

That said...

Even though I have to really strain to consciously hear the difference, and I can only hear it in certain situations.... I do believe that our enjoyment can still be slightly affected by things that are difficult to consciously discern. Note that I'm not talking about unmeasurable "magic" or anything. I'm talking strictly about measurable phenomena.

As a matter of practicality though, most of my listening is indeed 256kbps+ AAC or mp3.

The ambient sound level is right around 40dbs at the best of times.

As others on ASR have pointed out from time to time, that background noise is typically concentrated in lower frequencies. The high-frequency components of outdoor noises are going to be particularly well attenuated by your walls and windows before they reach your ears (or your decibel meter).

You may have 40dB of noise in your room, but you probably don't have 40dB of background noise in the frequencies where a lot of the musical details live!

 

[Soniclife]

For all meaningful purposes, high br lossy is transparent. The conditions under which the difference is actually discernible basically don't exist outside of a laboratory.

Not true, read my posts earlier in this thread.

Short recap, lossy bothered me without reference to the lossless version. DBT using foobar proved I wasn't imagining it. This was done with speakers, in my lounge, at my normal listening volume, using my PC motherboard soundcard, and a very long unbalanced cable, and using rock music.

I totally get that lots of people either cannot tell the difference, or don't care about the difference, but extrapolating that to no one can tell the difference, or that what they hear isn't valid is complete BS. It isn't the biggest sq hit you can make to your system, it does not destroy music, anyone arguing for huge differences is deluding themselves, but I don't see anyone here claiming that.

FWIW I still use lossy a lot, in the car, with radio apps on my phone that don't offer an alterative, and it does not stop me enjoying music.

There are large parts of this thread that are weirdly anti ASR, this is probably the most DBT tested areas of audio, there is plenty of evidence it's an audible difference, but people seem to want to reject it because it conflicts with their own belief system.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Is there plenty of evidence of the audible difference? I have seen a fair number of tests but I don't recall many that showed a dramatic audible difference...lots of anecdotal evidence but that doesn't mean a whole bunch.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

This is basically my experience. Typically, it's cymbal crashes and other percussion (against an otherwise quiet background) where I can sometimes hear a difference. If I really try. I have heard high bitrate lossy recordings that make cymbals sound like blasts from a compressed air container, versus the FLAC version where the cymbals definitely sound like cymbals.

That said...

Even though I have to really strain to consciously hear the difference, and I can only hear it in certain situations.... I do believe that our enjoyment can still be slightly affected by things that are difficult to consciously discern. Note that I'm not talking about unmeasurable "magic" or anything. I'm talking strictly about measurable phenomena.

As a matter of practicality though, most of my listening is indeed 256kbps+ AAC or mp3.



As others on ASR have pointed out from time to time, that background noise is typically concentrated in lower frequencies. The high-frequency components of outdoor noises are going to be particularly well attenuated by your walls and windows before they reach your ears (or your decibel meter).

You may have 40dB of noise in your room, but you probably don't have 40dB of background noise in the frequencies where a lot of the musical details live!

Yeah that's true, but my hearing/ears has the high frequencies accounted for, lol.

It's always been the claim wrt lossy that the differences are evident in things like cymbal crashes and what not. I used to believe it too (that the difference was something I could hear). Then I ran through a bunch of the tests that are available online and discovered that blind A/B, I really was basically guessing.

 

[q3cpma]

Because it still sounds fine, there are still an awful lot of MP3 files out there and although cheaper memory negates the advantage of smaller file sizes it is still useful in some cases.

I may have been misunderstood. I meant obsolete compared to stuff like Vorbis, Opus, AAC and even Musepack.

 

[JohnBooty]

Is there plenty of evidence of the audible difference? I have seen a fair number of tests but I don't recall many that showed a dramatic audible difference...lots of anecdotal evidence but that doesn't mean a whole bunch.

There are a lot of tests showing that people can't reliably tell which is which: high bitrate lossy vs. lossless.

I do put a lot of stock in those tests.

However, I do think maybe they tell 98% of the story and not 100%. I think subtle differences in sound can affect people's enjoyment in ways that a double blind ABX can't uncover. I might not be able to pick out a bootleg shoe vs. a genuine article after a brief A/B session, but after I walk 100 miles in each shoe I bet my feet would be happier with one pair compared to the other.

 

[LuckyLuke575]

I always know when my TIDAL app starts playing the NORMAL (320 kbps I think) sound quality setting over celluar vs. the MASTER (96/24) or HIFI (44.1/16), because I look at the app and then see that a lower resolution is playing.

To me, the music on the Mp3 version sounds courser and shallower than the 96/24 for sure.