DSD Vs. 1536kHz

[adultscare]

I think going the wrong way...

 

[escksu]

You hear those differences when your brain knows what's playing. Do a level matched double blind test to find out what the brain says when only the ears deliver information.

MP3 is lossy (Edit: fixed from lossless) and depending on bit rate and your ears may sound different compared to FLAC. However:

• FLAC is lossless and hence the truth even if you prefer lossy MP3.
• If any change in treble is audible I would expect MP3 to have less treble and air, at least for lower bitrates, where all content above 16 kHz is thrown away,

Oh yes, the difference between mp3 320kbps and cd 16/44.1khz is very obvious. You are right that the treble and "air" is mostly gone. And then, instruments sounded flat. As in the reveberation is gone. When you strike a piano key, the sound and how it decays is very obvious in cd format. In mp3, this decay basically vanished.

I have experience them myself when i download music. When i buy i sometimes get to choose mp3 (even 320kbps) and cd version. The mp3 version is clearly inferior. However, you will need very good equipment to hear the difference. I tried on my logitech PC speakers and they sounded the same.

 

[escksu]

Considering basically nobody can tell the difference between MP3 320 and 44.1/16 WAV... I'm not convinced at all of the value of high sample rates or DSD as release formats.

Fully disagree. Many people here including myself can hear the difference. I cant really tell the difference between flac and wav but mp3 and wav is easy to spot.

 

[solderdude]

Convert a WAV or FLAC yourself to MP3V0 or MP3CB320 and use the highest quality setting and it will be much more difficult when testing blind.
MP3 is not equal to MP3 There are many different MP3 quality settings, not just bitrate.

 

[voodooless]

Convert a WAV or FLAC yourself to MP3V0 or MP3CB320 and use the highest quality setting and it will be much more difficult when testing blind.
MP3 is not equal to MP3 There are many different MP3 quality settings, not just bitrate.

I bet that the differences are so obvious that a blind test is not needed

 

[voodooless]

And who needs MP3 when we have Vorbis?

 

[Foulchet]

Well MP3 320 vs FLAC is hard to tell but far from impossible. Yeah I know maybe there is the ultimate MP3 codec and all but I just tested regular material like the NPR test and I had 5/6 (or 4/6) most of the time. And actually 5 on 6 have audible differences, very thin sure, but you can hear it. The hard thing is to tell which is the "best" since subjectively compressed music can sound better on tiny details.
On an unconscious level, I noticed afterwards that during long sessions I set sound level a bit lower with lossless files to have te same satsifaction, so that I have less hearing fatigue.

But bottom line to me the debate is pretty much over in 2021 as storage is not an issue. So even if I wasn't able to hear a difference, I do not see why taking the risk while 1 To can hold like 2200 albums. I do not hear differences with HiRes however, but sighted maybe.

 

[Xombul]

This is hardly worth the bother of testing. PCM 24/1536 is 73.7 Mbit/sec (compared to measly CD at 1.4 Mbit/sec) so that's way more than DSD64 (2.8 Mbit/sec) or even DSD512 (22.6 Mbit/sec). PCM 24/1536 must sound at least 3x better than DSD512; it's practically approaching vinyl!


Oh c'mon, which one is better:

Sex

Or,

Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex
Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex
Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex
Sex Sex Sex Sex Sex

It depends if whether or not you stutter

 

[raif71]

And who needs MP3 when we have Vorbis?

don't forget Opus

 

[voodooless]

don't forget Opus

I won’t, it’s just that I don’t know of any streaming service that uses it. It’s either Vorbis or AAC these days (and flac obviously, and the Atmos stuff is some AC3 extension I think) both of which should be superior to MP3 of equal bitrate.

If I were to rip something these days, I’d just use a lossless codec. As some mentions before: storage is cheap. I’m just to lazy..

 

[raif71]

I won’t, it’s just that I don’t know of any streaming service that uses it. It’s either Vorbis or AAC these days (and flac obviously, and the Atmos stuff is some AC3 extension I think) both of which should be superior to MP3 of equal bitrate.

If I were to rip something these days, I’d just use a lossless codec. As some mentions before: storage is cheap. I’m just to lazy..

I rip to flac myself.

 

[dfuller]

Fully disagree. Many people here including myself can hear the difference. I cant really tell the difference between flac and wav but mp3 and wav is easy to spot.

I should hope you can't hear a difference between FLAC and wav because they're the same bitstream. And let's be honest: we're a self-selecting group, here. MP3 320 is good enough that the vast majority of people can't tell a difference.

 

[Music1969]

IMO, no it does not count. I can upsample CD to 1536 khz, but why?

There's been debates about upsampling so many times, like on the thread linked below.

But here @Miska (HQPlayer) has shown RME ADI-2 measures better fed highest sample rates, both PCM and DSD.

Audibility is a seperate thing but at least there are measurements showing higher quality high sample rates can objective improve technical performance at DAC output. Even with an already great performing DAC without external upsampling.

I think you were in this discussion at the time:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...es-dsd-sound-better-than-pcm.5700/post-152234

 

[Rialta]

For me, the bottom line is this: (much) higher frequencies sound a lot better to me vs. 44.1. So, I will buy things like DAC's to achieve those high frequencies. Maybe it's my ears playing tricks, but I have to go with what sounds best.

 

[LTig]

Oh yes, the difference between mp3 320kbps and cd 16/44.1khz is very obvious. You are right that the treble and "air" is mostly gone. And then, instruments sounded flat. As in the reveberation is gone. When you strike a piano key, the sound and how it decays is very obvious in cd format. In mp3, this decay basically vanished.

I have experience them myself when i download music. When i buy i sometimes get to choose mp3 (even 320kbps) and cd version. The mp3 version is clearly inferior. However, you will need very good equipment to hear the difference. I tried on my logitech PC speakers and they sounded the same.

You must have an extraordinarily good hearing and extensive training to be able to detect differecnes between a proper encoded 320kbps MP3 and the original WAV file at 16/44. Claiming the difference is very obvious instead of very subtle IMV requires kind of a proof that you can repeat this consistently in a blind test.

 

[Robin L]

For me, the bottom line is this: (much) higher frequencies sound a lot better to me vs. 44.1. So, I will buy things like DAC's to achieve those high frequencies. Maybe it's my ears playing tricks, but I have to go with what sounds best.

And my bottom line is: human hearing is limited to 20khz, is usually less. The actual amount of sound above 10khz is at a significantly lower volume relative to the midrange. Our hearing is far less sensitive at frequency extremes. Most recordings have very little going on about 20khz, if anything at all.

 

[thewas]

You must have an extraordinarily good hearing and extensive training to be able to detect differecnes between a proper encoded 320kbps MP3 and the original WAV file at 16/44. Claiming the difference is very obvious instead of very subtle IMV requires kind of a proof that you can repeat this consistently in a blind test.

Or using a Xing MP3 encoder from the 90s

 

[escksu]

You must have an extraordinarily good hearing and extensive training to be able to detect differecnes between a proper encoded 320kbps MP3 and the original WAV file at 16/44. Claiming the difference is very obvious instead of very subtle IMV requires kind of a proof that you can repeat this consistently in a blind test.

Good, then also please show evidence that they sounds the same in a blind test. Esp. since you are the who said that they have no difference in the first place, so you need to back your post with evidence. Else, they are just your own opinion.

Can't believe this forum has degraded to such a state. If you try to tell me FLAC and WAV sounds the same and no difference, I can accept. I too can't hear a difference... But comparing MP3, this is really an insult to high fidelity audio. Might as well say logitech PC speakers are all you need and everything else is snake oil......

Not interacting with such nonsense anymore. Put on ignore list.

 

[escksu]

Convert a WAV or FLAC yourself to MP3V0 or MP3CB320 and use the highest quality setting and it will be much more difficult when testing blind.
MP3 is not equal to MP3 There are many different MP3 quality settings, not just bitrate.

I don't want such nonsense anymore. Putting on ignore list.

 

[Zensō]

Good, then also please show evidence that they sounds the same in a blind test. Esp. since you are the who said that they have no difference in the first place, so you need to back your post with evidence. Else, they are just your own opinion.

Can't believe this forum has degraded to such a state. If you try to tell me FLAC and WAV sounds the same and no difference, I can accept. I too can't hear a difference... But comparing MP3, this is really an insult to high fidelity audio. Might as well say logitech PC speakers are all you need and everything else is snake oil......

Not interacting with such nonsense anymore. Put on ignore list.

https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP384.pdf
https://cdvsmp3.wordpress.com/cd-vs-itunes-plus-blind-test-results/
https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993