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

[ads_cft222]

So there could have been a level difference that could explain your perception.

I am not sure I get your point.

You think so? You omitted my explanation though...

We want low distortion high SINAD to get fidelity. Why we care about these numbers if what we hear is not from a high fidelity source?

 

[Julf]

You think so? You omitted my explanation though...

We want low distortion high SINAD to get fidelity. Why we care about these numbers if what we hear is not from a high fidelity source?

Define "high fidelity source". A lot of audiophiles consider LP players, with extremely poor SINAD and lots of coloration, "high fidelity". If something is audibly transparent, it is hard to get any "higher" fidelity than that.

 

[DJNX]

For anyone who chooses to use lossy, just make sure to encode in Apple’s AAC or in Opus.
That way you skip the whole argument of whether mp3 is transparent at 320kbps or not. Because the two codecs aforementioned are transparent below 200kbps. So you just rip at 256kbps, and call it a day, and can have all the peace of mind in the world.

 

[Zensō]

I find bluetooth listening comfy and sweet for late night blues listening from youtube music (aac 256). But yes tidal connect/qobuz lossless from wifi/ethernet sounds noticeably clearer and more real.

The limiting factor here is Bluetooth, not 256 AAC.

 

[Julf]

The limiting factor here is Bluetooth, not 256 AAC.

Depends on bluetooth version.

 

[Zensō]

Depends on bluetooth version.

We know the difference he’s purportedly hearing is not 256 AAC, and if he can truly hear a difference, then the difference must be Bluetooth. That’s assuming the same transducers, which is unlikely, in which case his entire statement is meaningless.

 

[Julf]

We know the difference he’s purportedly hearing is not 256 AAC, and if he can truly hear a difference, then the difference must be Bluetooth.

The difference could also be a level difference.

 

[Zensō]

The difference could also be a level difference.

True. It’s probably all of the above.

 

[ads_cft222]

Define "high fidelity source". A lot of audiophiles consider LP players, with extremely poor SINAD and lots of coloration, "high fidelity". If something is audibly transparent, it is hard to get any "higher" fidelity than that.

We know the difference he’s purportedly hearing is not 256 AAC, and if he can truly hear a difference, then the difference must be Bluetooth. That’s assuming the same transducers, which is unlikely, in which case his entire statement is meaningless.

Same sending device, same source, same dac. Wiim mini used as a receiving device in both cases. Bluetooth AAC specs cover aac 256 transmission. I cannot prove it. Psychoacoustic masking may not be perfect for my case.

 

[Zensō]

Same sending device, same source, same dac. Wiim mini used as a receiving device in both cases. Bluetooth AAC specs cover aac 256 transmission. I cannot prove it. Psychoacoustic masking may not be perfect for my case.

If you volume match with the exact chain from beginning to end and have someone else switch blind, it’s highly unlikely you will be able to pick 256 AAC from lossless. This is supported by numerous blind tests. If you can do this consistently, you are certainly a person with gifted hearing ability.

 

[escape2]

For anyone who chooses to use lossy, just make sure to encode in Apple’s AAC or in Opus.
That way you skip the whole argument of whether mp3 is transparent at 320kbps or not. Because the two codecs aforementioned are transparent below 200kbps. So you just rip at 256kbps, and call it a day, and can have all the peace of mind in the world.

Have there been any studies proving that 200 kbps AAC is transparent but 320 kbps MP3 is not? Can you share a link?

 

[ads_cft222]

If you volume match with the exact chain from beginning to end and have someone else switch blind, it’s highly unlikely you will be able to pick 256 AAC from lossless. This is supported by numerous blind tests. If you can do this consistently, you are certainly a person with gifted hearing ability.

Numerous? I saw one from fraunhoffer institute

 

[Zensō]

Numerous? I saw one from fraunhoffer institute

There are others. You can test yourself here. Let us know how you do.

ABX High Fidelity Test list

A set of browser-based ABX tests comparing lossless and lossy music samples

abx.digitalfeed.net

 

[ads_cft222]

There are others. You can test yourself here. Let us know how you do.

ABX High Fidelity Test list

A set of browser-based ABX tests comparing lossless and lossy music samples

abx.digitalfeed.net

In any case I wish that was the case for me .Fewer cables . I hear artifacts in bass

 

[Zensō]

In any case I wish that was the case for me .Fewer cables . I hear artifacts in bass.

I’m not clear what 256 AAC vs lossless has to do with cables? We’re not talking Bluetooth here. I hope you take the test and let us know how you fared.

 

[ads_cft222]

I’m not clear what 256 AAC vs lossless has to do with cables? We’re not talking Bluetooth here. I hope you take the test and let us know how you fared.

I could listen directly using Bluetooth aac from my iPhone without having a need for an external streamer directly though my amp .

Even if I do the test level matched following the procedure and tell you the same thing ,in your mind you will doubt it . Will one opinion or experience change your opinion or experience ? So why spend time and energy for this? I would have cancelled my tidal subs immediately if I did not perceive any benefit in sound quality.

 

[olieb]

Same sending device, same source, same dac. Wiim mini used as a receiving device in both cases. Bluetooth AAC specs cover aac 256 transmission. I cannot prove it. Psychoacoustic masking may not be perfect for my case.

If I understand correctly you compare two chains:
SourceA [Youtube AAC256] ---> Bluetooth codec [AAC?] -> DAC -> AMP/ Vol1 -> Transducer
SourceB [lossless] -------------> Wifi/direct?? [lossless?] --> DAC -> AMP/ Vol2 -> Transducer

As you did this sighted it is unclear whether the perceived difference is based on bias or on different sound quality.
If the perceived SQ is perceivably [edit] different (would have to be checked in blind test) this could result from one of three influences: Source codec, transmission, volume.

Why do you think the difference you perceive is from AAC256?

 

[Julf]

Even if I do the test level matched following the procedure and tell you the same thing ,in your mind you will doubt it . Will one opinion or experience change your opinion or experience ? So why spend time and energy for this?

Indeed, why spend time and energy for this - unless you actually care about the truth? If you produced proper listening test logs, it might even convince us...

 

[Deleted member 48726]

In any case I wish that was the case for me .Fewer cables . I hear artifacts in bass

Do the three tests in my signature. Let us know how it goes.

 

[DJNX]

Have there been any studies proving that 200 kbps AAC is transparent but 320 kbps MP3 is not? Can you share a link?

Formal studies? No.
The best we have is community research, like the hydrogenaudio ABX tests.

You know, unfortunately, it is pretty tricky to ask for formal research because audio, including pro audio, gets so little academic research done.
I would have loved if at the time, when this issue was the most relevant, an institution or university had jumped on it to provide the world with the testing, data and results.