# Can You Hear the Difference between Uncompressed and MP3 Audio?



## Operandi (Aug 24, 2022)

This is older but I haven't seen it before.  NPR did put up a blind test of several tracks in different genres in uncompressed WAV, 320Kps MP3, and 128Kps MP3.  I never did anything like this before but always thought about trying to set something up but its seemed like it would be pretty big ordeal.   I had also always been pretty skeptical that there was really much of a difference between FLAC and high-bit rate compressed audio, and pretty skeptical I'd be able to hear anything given that 99% of what I listen to is modern music and not what the typical audiophile listens to in their dedicated sound room.




Link to NPR test

I have to say I was pretty surprised when I took this, both in what I was able to hear, and also by how I heard things differently on different setups.

I ran though it twice on my livingroom speaker setup, a pair DIY *Singularity* speakers, NUC HTPC, and *Pioneer A9* integrated amp with built in USB based *Burr-Brown DAC*, so pretty high-endish but not crazy (no room treatmeants or anything). On this setup I was able to pick out the Neil Young and Motzart lossless both times and it felt kinda easy, Jay-Z, and Katy Perry, Susan Vega I picked either 320 or lossless, Coldplay I really felt like I was guessing both times, this highly compressed song just didn't sound good on these speakers and I know I picked 128k once lol. This was done over the weekend and I only did it twice so I need to try again, which isn't enough to really indicate anything other than I could hear that 128k sounded worse than lossless and high quality MP3.

The other setup was my desktop setup which is a *NuFroce Icon HDP* hooked up USB, and *Sony MDR-V6* and *Grado SR80*,  so good but pretty basic (also have KRK V4s and JBL sub but I didn't try with that).  I spent way more time with with this setup cause I could crank it late at night and ended up really only relying on results with the Sonys as the Grado's bass response was pretty pathetic and I wasn't really getting any other appreciable benefits vs. the Sonys in other areas, I probably need better headphones.  I ran though this like 6-7 times with the headphones and the results where not at all what I expected.  I really felt like I had to listen in more critical way vs. what just sounded obviously better on the speakers. I was not expecting that at all and frankly thought it would be a breeze on the headphones.  Second is what I was listening for in the tracks on this setup wasn't really what I was thinking I would be hearing.  In the Jay-Z track I was picking which track I thought had the best bass and I was able to pick lossless all but once, this was big surprise to me.  Susan Vega was the same deal, lossless all but once and I was listening purely to the tone of her voice, none of the room reverb, or decay or anything like that, just voice.  Katty Perry skewed more towards lossless but I had some 320 picks too and I felt like I was leaning on which track had the best vocals. Mozart was more of toss up between 320 and lossless and may have had a 128k pick, not sure whats going there as it seemed pretty easy on my Singularities.  Coldplay was a mix but the more I went through the rounds I was able to pick 320 or lossless if I just listened to just Chris Martin's voice but I figured that out late in the game.  The really weird one is with this setup was the Neil Young track and I have no explanation as to why this is the case but I actually picked 128K every time. Which means I wasn't making random picks but picking the worst quality track as the best sounding?, no clue as to what was happening there.

The tests take a while but I would encourage anyone that has ever been curious to try it and post your results.  I will probably go through it again on both systems and actually track my results now that I know that I'm definitely able to hear something.  Maybe swap out the DAC too as I recently picked up Schiit Modi and JDS Labs Atom.

The other take away I didn't expect is Katty Perry - Dark Horse sounds sick on my speakers so try it on high-end set of speakers if you have the chance lol.

*Results System 1:* Passively cooled Intel NUC > Pioneer Elite A9 integrated amp (built in USB Burr-Brown DAC) > Singularity tower speakers: Two runs 3/6 each time.  Picked lossless on Neil Young and Mozart, 320 and lossless on Jay-Z and Katy Perry and Susan Vega, tossup on Cold Play.

*Results System 2: *Dekstop PC > Nuforce Icon HDP > Sony MDR-V6: Six runs about 50% overall picking lossless. Jay-Z picked lossless all but once, Susan Vegga lossless all but once, Katy Perry and Mozart 50/50 lossless and 320, Coldplay mostly lossless and 320, Neil Young 128 everytime.


----------



## ir_cow (Aug 24, 2022)

With the right speakers I can clearly here the difference between MP3, CD and SACD. Of course the master has be good as well 

For example. original release of pretty hate machine from Nine Inch Nails is all on tape, but the transfer at the time was poor. Recently (as in 2017), it was remastered and sounds much better. Same master tapes, just reworks with modern methods of transfer.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 24, 2022)

ir_cow said:


> With the right speakers I can clearly here the difference between MP3, CD and SACD. Of course the master has be good as well
> 
> For example. original release of pretty hate machine from Nine Inch Nails is all on tape, but the transfer at the time was poor. Recently (as in 2017), it was remastered and sounds much better. Same master tapes, just reworks with modern methods of transfer.


I grew up with MP3 so I knew what low quality MP3 sounded like, I just never sat down and tested any FLAC or other lossless.  My stuff at the time was all pretty mid level at best or vintage so there's also that.  I have pretty good speakers now but the electronics are probably the weak point at this point.

But yeah, the mastering is obviously a big deal, listening to the Coldplay track through the Singularities was rough didn't matter what the quality was, lol.  I'm pretty much only familiar with NIN's later stuff but I may have to check that out, thanks!


----------



## Lew Zealand (Aug 24, 2022)

On the orchestral, the uncompressed and 320mp3 sounded similar but the 128mp3 was flat.  I guessed the uncompressed but it was a tossup.  With Suzanne Vega's voice, the difference was subtle but I chose the 320mp3 over the uncompressed, also a tossup.

I chose the friggen 128MP3 on all the pop music.  Dunno what that means...

Honestly everything outside of the orchestral was pretty much a tossup.

HiFiMan HE 400S, 14" Macbook Pro internal DAC.  I'll try later with my DragonFly Black, curious if any detectable changes.


----------



## AM4isGOD (Aug 24, 2022)

I got 3 out of the 6 correct. USB DAC to Denon amp and Cambridge audio minx min 12 speakers with a yamaha sub


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 24, 2022)

Lew Zealand said:


> On the orchestral, the uncompressed and 320mp3 sounded similar but the 128mp3 was flat.  I guessed the uncompressed but it was a tossup.  With Suzanne Vega's voice, the difference was subtle but I chose the 320mp3 over the uncompressed, also a tossup.
> 
> I chose the friggen 128MP3 on all the pop music.  Dunno what that means...
> 
> ...



Pop music is a bit like the audio version of minecraft graphics -- you really dont gain much as the resolution increases .  You probably start noticing more artifacts.


----------



## ir_cow (Aug 24, 2022)

To be fair, the difference between CD and SACD/96-24 FLAC often comes down to the smallest of details. Each instrumental is more distinct and the highs are generally not a abrupt cutoff. Rather it rolls off and the whole track is less distorted and muddy. Once again it needs to a good mix from the master. Otherwise it will sound exactly the same.

Oh yeah.. you also needs like expensive headphones ($300) or speakers, otherwise it will sound the same no matter the source. Speakers can be a bit tricky. Price doesn't mean better but I can tell you that there is a massive difference between Klipsch and Polk speakers to something a bit more pricey like KEF or GoldenEar. I'm rocking these old KEF XQ40's for my front mains. Bought it super cheap. Craiglist FTW. GoldenEar is better, but outside my budget atm.


----------



## P4-630 (Aug 24, 2022)

Sorry, didn't have the patience for this test, but I had the first one correct...


----------



## 1freedude (Aug 24, 2022)

As said many times, garbage in, garbage out.

And that said, NY has a healthy obsession with superior sound on the masters.  Most classical labels are the same way....you must put the best audio into the recording.  That's prob why you chose the lowest bitrate, as it didn't really matter.

I haven't done the test, but .mp3s have this strange quirk of putting a wierd spatial inflection on "s" hiss type sounds, it seems at any bitrate.

I have three (four including car Pioneer) different sound systems...two in the shop and one in the living room.  LR is spatial simulated surround from Yamaha soundbar and sub.  The room acoustics make everything sound equally crappy.

The shop systems are powerhouses.  JBLs and Cerwin Vegas pushed by old Sony AV receiver and Pioneer THX, respectively.  Audio sources are flacs ripped from vinyl or CD, and and 44.1kHz 128kb/s mp3s.  I haven't tested the DACs in the Pioneer yet, but thia thread gives me the motivation to do so.  Noise is nonexsistant.  But the good sources (perfect engineering, nice mix levels, etc) are great to listen at any volume.

But, there is a band called Kyuss that has the shittiest recordings, and the music wants to be played loud but it cant, while King Tubby, all kinds of noisy can be played loud.

I will do the test in a couple weeks, I promise.


----------



## ir_cow (Aug 24, 2022)

With my cheap computer headphones, I can't hear the difference at all in these tests. I even picked 128kbps a few times lol. My second choice was always uncompressed and never 320 Kbps.

3 out of 6.  3 choices were uncompressed (correct) and 3 where 128 Kbps. Katty Perry sounded nearly the same on all three but the tossup with 128 or uncompressed. I picked the wrong one. JayZ and Mozart: Piano Concerto where easier. waay to much clipping going on in 128 Kbps. If you have shit audio in the first place, Lossless 96/24 tracks aren't going to sound any better


----------



## Sithaer (Aug 24, 2022)

Can't say that I notice much but thats a given since I'm using a ~60$ headset with on board sound on my B660 mobo. 

Tho it might be my imagination but the 320 Kbps sounds a bit different than the 128 but I can't really put my finger on it, I guess if I wasn't trying to hear the difference I wouldn't even notice.
Uncompressed vs 320 nope can't notice anything with my setup.

To be honest its no surprise, after all I'm peasant enough to listen music on Youtube and don't mind it at all.


----------



## Wirko (Aug 24, 2022)

phanbuey said:


> Pop music is a bit like the audio version of minecraft graphics -- you really dont gain much as the resolution increases .  You probably start noticing more artifacts.


So true - that Coldplay sound is like it went through some mobile phone compressor & codec chip with a low-res Realtek logo on it before it even reached the master tapes. It also changes quality from annoyingly dull to annoyingly bright in the middle of that half-minute sample, an effect I used to hear when setting the azimuth on my cassette player. I can't imagine I could tell WAV from 128k (or 64k, for that matter).



1freedude said:


> I haven't done the test, but .mp3s have this strange quirk of putting a wierd spatial inflection on "s" hiss type sounds, it seems at any bitrate.


mp3s often ruin the sound of cymbals, that's what I usually detect first when I listen to 128k-160k files. But even that isn't always true. I guess it's worse when music is more complex, meaning that the encoder must make more compromises.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 25, 2022)

Lew Zealand said:


> On the orchestral, the uncompressed and 320mp3 sounded similar but the 128mp3 was flat. I guessed the uncompressed but it was a tossup. With Suzanne Vega's voice, the difference was subtle but I chose the 320mp3 over the uncompressed, also a tossup.


Thats exactly how I felt about Mozart and Neil Young listening through the speaker setup.  128k sounded pretty dead and was easily eliminated and it was more careful listening to what I thought was 320 and lossless.


phanbuey said:


> Pop music is a bit like the audio version of minecraft graphics -- you really dont gain much as the resolution increases . You probably start noticing more artifacts.


Thats what I expected to happen but thats not what I got. I picked out the lossless Jay-Z track all but once from six runs and all but maybe once 320k or lossless with Dark Horse.


ir_cow said:


> To be fair, the difference between CD and SACD/96-24 FLAC often comes down to the smallest of details. Each instrumental is more distinct and the highs are generally not a abrupt cutoff. Rather it rolls off and the whole track is less distorted and muddy. Once again it needs to a good mix from the master. Otherwise it will sound exactly the same.


Interesting.  Did you verify that with a blind listening setup?  I mean I trust what I'm hearing but the psychology and the power of suggestion is real thing regardless.


ir_cow said:


> Oh yeah.. you also needs like expensive headphones ($300) or speakers, otherwise it will sound the same no matter the source. Speakers can be a bit tricky. Price doesn't mean better but I can tell you that there is a massive difference between Klipsch and Polk speakers to something a bit more pricey like KEF or GoldenEar. I'm rocking these old KEF XQ40's for my front mains. Bought it super cheap. Craiglist FTW. GoldenEar is better, but outside my budget atm.


All my speakers are DIY so few are going to even know what the fuck they even are.  The Singularities are pretty serious speakers though so I have a feeling my weak point is either electronics or the room.  I already have plans to building two different higher-end bookshelfs, one with all Peerless drivers from their higher-end range and one with Dayton RS woofer and Peerless/Vifa tweeter.  Also have a Schiit Saga+ pre and parts to build a IcePower class D amp as well as parts to build a Nelson Pass ACA class A amp.

I was pretty regularly nailing lossless on the Jay-Z and Susan Vega tracks with my $75 MDR-V6, granted the NuForce DAC/Amp as like $400 (when new) but I don't think there was a lot in that.  And I do have to say I was listening more diligently with the headphones to even weed out the 128k whereas that was easily picked out through the speakers on most tracks, and it all (aside from Coldplay) was just way more enjoyable on the speakers.  I think now that I know what to listen for I could probably hear the same things I heard on Singularities that I did on the headphones.



Sithaer said:


> To be honest its no surprise, after all I'm peasant enough to listen music on Youtube and don't mind it at all.


A lot my music listening is YouTube also and yeah, the other take away is I really don't _need _lossless or even high bit rate MP3 to enjoy music even on relatively high-end gear.


----------



## SpittinFax (Aug 25, 2022)

Their little "visual" illustration where the images become grainier is very misleading. In reality it's never such a blatantly obvious degradation in quality.

It's like trying to differentiate PNG and JPG image formats. It's possible but you've really got to concentrate while doing back-to-back A-B tests to notice any subtle differences.


----------



## erocker (Aug 25, 2022)

I missed it with the Neil Young song (just so so much mids), but I could differentiate the uncompressed audio on the others using what's in my system specs with the powered monitors.


----------



## nomdeplume (Aug 25, 2022)

Where to even begin.


There is no wrong or right.  Hearing, background noise, many many things vary in wide amounts within your own and everyone else's environment.
On the face of it this is a simple test.  Reality is not kind to that assertion.
Bias, you have it.  You have accomodated hearing things a certain way from certain transducers.  This determines what sounds better or worse.
Compressed music, as in compressors were used in production, sounds better in the car than on a good home system.
Uncompressed can have wide variances in the loudness and more accurately portray location of each instrument that sound better at home.
Compressed music makes Mp3 or wav sound nearly identical because so much information was thrown away in production.
MP3 are frequency limited to 16KHz.  CD quality lossless files (flac/wav/etc) are frequency limited to 22.05KHz.  Humans typically hear 20Hz-20KHz.
No recording sounds exactly like the live event.  Furthermore, same file on headphones, home stereo, and car stereo will sound different.
Almost everything newly released that isn't acoustic was shaped to be more pleasing on lower end equipment and in lossy formats.
Digital is tricky and highly complex.  Youtube sounds great on nearly everything despite outputting lossy frequency limited audio.  
Big corporate budgets and the best minds constructed WAV and are what set youtube apart.  As always, follow the money.
Flac is versatile.  You can compress files to be smaller or not at all.  On better equipment you will begin to find it is slightly inferior to wav.
Momentary listening is highly fallible.  Over time these test files will reveal their true worth if revisited with some attempt to listen seriously.
Memory across time is fallible.  30 seconds is more than enough.  Relax and takes notes if your ADD is going to contradict itself.
There is no wrong or right to be assessed.  One format is the least technically accurate and another is the most technically accurate.


----------



## kiakk (Aug 25, 2022)

Sithaer said:


> To be honest its no surprise, after all I'm peasant enough to listen music on Youtube and don't mind it at all.



Youtube uses OPUS that could reach a very good quality. Depends on the uploader you hear good quality audio or not.
But even a well parametered encoded mp3 could reach the listening quality of original CD. And only can spectrum analyzer can decide which does have more audio information but not human ears.
But, sadly many mp3 around the internet converted with some simply wizard program for dumbs with no chance to set paramters in the mp3 encoder. For mp3 encoding one of the best is LAME. EZ to make 192kbit mp3 that very hard to decide it is mp3 or the original CD. (Of course some material need more bitrate, but also EZ to encode them to VBR...)
I recommend to try LAME. I already convert most of my CD and i just listen them in mp3 while the CDs are in safe place.


----------



## MarsM4N (Aug 25, 2022)

Man, that's really a great find.  Bookmarked.

I got *3/6* correct with my low/mid grade combo _(AKG K702 & FiiO E10K Olympus 2)._
1, 4 & 6 was a miss, picked the 320kbps versions, though. Lousy 128kbps was easily spotted right away. I always had the impression there was no difference when comparing album downloads, so I sticked with 320kbps (or VBR, which I didn't hear a difference to 320kbps). But have to say back then my audio gear was a lot worse.

Have to say with my gear the difference between uncompressed & 320kbps is hardly noticeable. HD surround mixes (DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD) for movies on the other hand is night & day, on the surroud system. Still remember how I got the chills from Fast & Furious 1 or The Dark Night. Huge difference.


----------



## Ferather (Aug 25, 2022)

What happens when you can tell which is 128k and ignore that 1, but can still tell the difference between 320k and uncompressed, but don't which of the two is uncompressed.

I think hearing the original uncompressed, the guessing which of the 3 was the original you heard could produce different results.

----

The setup: Realtek S1220-A > DTS DCH driver > Optical > Logitech Z906 Class-D amp.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 25, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Bias, you have it. You have accomodated hearing things a certain way from certain transducers. This determines what sounds better or worse.


Certain speakers and headphones make different music sound better or worse but I'd expect that the track that is encoded in the highest quality would always sound the best regardless of what you are playing it back through.


nomdeplume said:


> Compressed music makes Mp3 or wav sound nearly identical because so much information was thrown away in production.


It really depends.  The Jay-Z track is highly compressed (low dynamic range kind of compression) and I was able to pick out the lossless 75% of the time, and at least 50% of the time on the Katy Perry track.


nomdeplume said:


> MP3 are frequency limited to 16KHz. CD quality lossless files (flac/wav/etc) are frequency limited to 22.05KHz. Humans typically hear 20Hz-20KHz.


I thought high-bitrate MP3s from modern encoders like LAME covered 20-20,000Khz?

Unless you are 13 years old its highly unlikely you are hearing 20Khz.  Doesn't really matter though as you are hearing various harmonics of higher frequencies in the music so even if you are not hearing everything in the upper ranges you are still _hearing _the material.  Thats why audio engineers can keep designing really good sounding gear and making good mixes well into their 60's and beyond.


nomdeplume said:


> Digital is tricky and highly complex. Youtube sounds great on nearly everything despite outputting lossy frequency limited audio.


Youtube sounds fine but sounds worse than my high bitrate MP3 encodes.  I guess I don't know for sure if its the same master but it sounds like the same mix.


nomdeplume said:


> lac is versatile. You can compress files to be smaller or not at all. On better equipment you will begin to find it is slightly inferior to wav.


Why would FLAC be inferior to WAV?


MarsM4N said:


> 1, 4 & 6 was a miss, picked the 320kbps versions, though.


 FYI, the tracks are randomized each time you load the page.


----------



## defaultluser (Aug 25, 2022)

*since lame alt preset standard, I haven't been able to tell the difference*

But before that you needed the whole 320 to get many tracks to be transparent. 

I don't have the patience to do these listening tests anymore


----------



## p-o-db-o-q (Aug 25, 2022)

The difference between compressed MP3 128kbps and uncompressed FLAC is the same as between PCM and DSD.


----------



## nomdeplume (Aug 25, 2022)

I believe this set of test files is intended to offer a slightly more subtle set of circumstances than my attempt to lay down a fairly simplified set of base knowledge sufficiently covered.



Operandi said:


> Certain speakers and headphones make different music sound better or worse but I'd expect that the track that is encoded in the highest quality would always sound the best regardless of what you are playing it back through.



Encoding doesn't add quality that was never there to start with.  Think of the file format as a package that does a better or worse job of protecting what is stored inside it.  Lossless packaging intends to not just keep what it stores in, but also everything else out.  In the modern developed world this is a whole lot. 



Operandi said:


> It really depends. The Jay-Z track is highly compressed (low dynamic range kind of compression) and I was able to pick out the lossless 75% of the time, and at least 50% of the time on the Katy Perry track.



Encoding to a lossy format can and does change the sound.  Per the statement above lossy also means gainy.  Intentionally limiting dynamic range by pushing everything upwards to near clipping is one way to hide noise and other interference that does find its way in.  When you then overload the middle range (KP) there is less contrast to differentiate with (Jay-Z).  Needless to say us and the animals are hardwired to place immediate mortal stress upon interpreting sounds of a threatening nature even inside a rap track.     

Again, making what sounds good to you on your equipment is a highly developed response the labels are deeply invested in creating.  I really wanted to point out how drastically they attempt to make the only release of certain material sound better through catering to the capabilities of known responses by commonly available equipment.  If it sounds better to you on a $100 set of headphones than during a demo of $3000 headphones you are not wrong.  Noting what expectation bias is can be equally important to anyone taking this test seriously. 

Relax and enjoy what you find impactful.    



Operandi said:


> I thought high-bitrate MP3s from modern encoders like LAME covered 20-20,000Khz?
> 
> Unless you are 13 years old its highly unlikely you are hearing 20Khz. Doesn't really matter though as you are hearing various harmonics of higher frequencies in the music so even if you are not hearing everything in the upper ranges you are still _hearing _the material. Thats why audio engineers can keep designing really good sounding gear and making good mixes well into their 60's and beyond.



MP3 have trouble storing frequencies above 16KHz which eventually resulted in some answers with higher bit rates.  Effectively this means they allow unwanted elements to pervade across a further range while losing more information (lossy) as well.  Size was their major benefit over lossless formats.  What I don't want to leave unexposed is the human element, artistry, that can be poured into making the best use of a chosen media format.  Someone who makes MP3 to their utmost is not worried about the constraints or benefits of other options they didn't choose. 

Hearing acuity and full range response are audiophile qualities.  Some people still have better than 20/20 eyesight at a rather advanced too.  This is where the normal person starts thinking they are crazy and believe me it drives those inflicted with such high level sensitivity in one sense crazy as well!  Audio pros are a mixed bag depending on how well they protected their hearing.  The great leveler being what is locked inside their heads doesn't actually require that great of hearing to conceptualize inside a high level of experience.

By this point you should realize I broadly generalized where it was safe to do so.  For the purpose of exposing what will determine success in this social experiment.  Limiting discussion out of the gate with high level maths and theory serves nobody. 



Operandi said:


> Youtube sounds fine but sounds worse than my high bitrate MP3 encodes. I guess I don't know for sure if its the same master but it sounds like the same mix.



Local playback compared to streaming essentially.  There are many reasons this might be the case.

When you listen to these high bitrate MP3 you open a player program which nowadays does a fair amount in cooperation with the OS to lessen the effects of other processes etc.  Chances are youtube follows a much simply chain to reach your ears.  Upload quality is another example already mentioned.  Don't overthink it but realize your hardware and software chain can be optimized for one or the other.  Doing both with realistic means?  Third party software that handles both streaming and local playback produce a more even output. 



Operandi said:


> Why would FLAC be inferior to WAV?



Which is to ask why do CD's still use Redbook PCM which is effectively WAV.  The non-audible problem WAV solved immediately is security in a constantly changing landscape over the duration of all content previously and yet to be released.  Apple's favored lossless format needed to meet this exact same accountability to secure distribution (which they still use for DRM).  Flac is a good thing lying outside the immediate realm of corporate interests taking hold if it with their interests.  WAV should be considered more of an institution.       

Better than 40 years of development and refinement is also part of the answer by now.  Flac is a much newer open source solution created to deal with digital delivery and storage (greatly reduced file size).  Until very recently bandwidth was too limited for even flac streaming (tip of the iceberg logistically and technically).  Not so long ago consumer hardware also struggled to unpack flac files as well as they handled reading uncompressed WAV that have been used since the inception of digital. 

The best answer is verify with your own ears.  If you hear a difference it may not be present on every file or every release of the same material.  With exceptional quality recordings that were turned into exceptional quality lossless flac and wav files which are played back to back on exceptional quality and well tuned equipment there is less difference with every software or firmware update.  Where you encounter discrepancies that are clearly audible is mostly reprinted/remastered/redistibuted albums.  When an album has never been out of print you find some timeframes or factories or files the distributor provided did a bit better at transferring the music.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Aug 25, 2022)

2/6 only identified Katy Perry and Coldplay using my speaker + integrated audio and had to listen carefully to even make a meaningful attempt.
I think I'm fine with 128 kbps as is


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 25, 2022)

Give me a FLAC vs any quality MP3 and ill pick em out one by one. Even regardless of speakers; Ill pick them out over mobile phone speakers 9 out of 10. The dynamic range versus static full range is enough.

128kbps is even easier, one hihat can tell it all.


----------



## MarsM4N (Aug 26, 2022)

Operandi said:


> FYI, the tracks are randomized each time you load the page.



Well, I did only one run.   IMO it's pointless. Randomized samples would be enough.
Didn't test it, but I hope the samples are randomized, lol.


----------



## QuietBob (Aug 26, 2022)

An interesting experiment! I attempted it with the knowledge that I cannot reliably distinguish between WAV/FLAC and 320k MP3. My results partly confirmed this, but there were a few surprises. I listened to every sample twice using headphones and a DAC at low volume. I got Mozart and JayZ correctly, and with Vega I chose 320K MP3. So more or less what I was expecting.

However, I picked the lowest quality for Katy Perry, Neil Young and Coldplay  That Coldplay track sounded terribly compressed regardless.

I believe that in the age of streaming media most consumers do not care for audio fidelity. But blind listening tests such as this one can prove that even people who claim to hear the subtle nuances in music would have a problem telling compressed from uncompressed.


----------



## Ferather (Aug 26, 2022)

"That Coldplay track sounded terribly compressed regardless" - that's why I said its better for me to hear the original and then compare.


----------



## Operandi (Aug 31, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Encoding to a lossy format can and does change the sound. Per the statement above lossy also means gainy. Intentionally limiting dynamic range by pushing everything upwards to near clipping is one way to hide noise and other interference that does find its way in.


Lossy media encoding doesn't the dynamic range of whats being encoded.


nomdeplume said:


> MP3 have trouble storing frequencies above 16KHz which eventually resulted in some answers with higher bit rates. Effectively this means they allow unwanted elements to pervade across a further range while losing more information (lossy) as well. Size was their major benefit over lossless formats. What I don't want to leave unexposed is the human element, artistry, that can be poured into making the best use of a chosen media format. Someone who makes MP3 to their utmost is not worried about the constraints or benefits of other options they didn't choose.
> 
> Hearing acuity and full range response are audiophile qualities. Some people still have better than 20/20 eyesight at a rather advanced too. This is where the normal person starts thinking they are crazy and believe me it drives those inflicted with such high level sensitivity in one sense crazy as well! Audio pros are a mixed bag depending on how well they protected their hearing. The great leveler being what is locked inside their heads doesn't actually require that great of hearing to conceptualize inside a high level of experience.
> 
> By this point you should realize I broadly generalized where it was safe to do so. For the purpose of exposing what will determine success in this social experiment. Limiting discussion out of the gate with high level maths and theory serves nobody.


192Kps MP3 covers up to 19Khz, 320 covers 19.5Khz, encoders like LAME might cover the whole thing.  Its removing information everywhere along the spectrum though and thats evident in the Susan Vega track which apparently the OG developers used as was pure example of the human voice which is right in the middle of the auditory range.  That said I found it one of the easier ones to pick lossless on, though if I tried to pickup on the differences I'd sometimes physc myself out and pick 320 but if I tried less and just picked the one that sounded more _correct_ I tended to pick the lossless one, kinda weird.


nomdeplume said:


> Local playback compared to streaming essentially. There are many reasons this might be the case.
> 
> When you listen to these high bitrate MP3 you open a player program which nowadays does a fair amount in cooperation with the OS to lessen the effects of other processes etc. Chances are youtube follows a much simply chain to reach your ears. Upload quality is another example already mentioned. Don't overthink it but realize your hardware and software chain can be optimized for one or the other. Doing both with realistic means? Third party software that handles both streaming and local playback produce a more even output.


In my case I'm playing them back on the same HTPC so it should be the same audio stack.  Could be a different master for sure but its the same mix in the tracks I used.  Still too many potential variables involved to really use to compare to anything I guess.


----------



## dgianstefani (Aug 31, 2022)

Yes - but you need appropriate playback hardware - I use a schiit Hel and M100 Master headphones, but my Nommo Pro also picks up quality well.

High end earbuds or wireless headphones can also play a good source in better resolution than mp3. 

Tidal Hi-Fi is a a decent high quality source, and what I use.


----------



## VSG (Aug 31, 2022)

4/6 on TV speakers lol, and 6/6 using a good set of headphones and DAC/amp. I am typically quite good with this, and I'd also suggest the Harman training software for those interested: https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/


----------



## Ferather (Aug 31, 2022)

That's one of, or the main, reason THX certificated audio devices existed, shame it still exists but not exactly used. There are plenty of high end devices without THX.

"THX Certification is *a globally recognized assurance of uncompromising quality, consistency and performance*.
We blend art, technology, and the dynamics of real-world listening and viewing environments to ensure products deliver the artist's true vision."

Would be nice if THX or even a new audio certificate that specifies a device can do true lossless (without change).


----------



## nomdeplume (Aug 31, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Lossy media encoding doesn't the dynamic range of whats being encoded.





Operandi said:


> 192Kps MP3 covers up to 19Khz, 320 covers 19.5Khz, encoders like LAME might cover the whole thing. Its removing information everywhere along the spectrum though and thats evident in the Susan Vega track which apparently the OG developers used as was pure example of the human voice which is right in the middle of the auditory range.



Lossy encoding resculpts the file contents which changes many aspects.  What and how much vary.  Dynamic range can certainly be heavily impacted.  Mp3 are known for being bass heavy and having reduced highs even if they technically have data as high as CD.  You are losing data points to establish the delta between softest and loudest elements dynamic range calculations use.

Along with quality and aptitude of equipment (classical may sound awful on equipment that pop amazes on).  Consumer equipment can have large swings in how it presents sound.  Typically lower end equipment degrades with heat and better built stuff gradually improves with it building up within electronic components.

The kicker is while most people will think the lossy file sounds good across multiple types of playback.  If they get propped up in front of behemoth speakers with large amps.  A high quality lossless version of that same file will be almost unrecognizable.  Unless you have especially good hearing the furthest it is advisable to go into audio reproduction is quite low.  Where it is still enjoyable, where most music still sounds good.  



VSG said:


> 4/6 on TV speakers lol, and 6/6 using a good set of headphones and DAC/amp. I am typically quite good with this, and I'd also suggest the Harman training software for those interested: https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/



Very good.  I removed a few bits about trained listening in my post above.  That site can be highly valuable if you are serious about establishing technical criteria that educates how you interpret sound quality and changes to it.

Which will indirectly move awareness towards understanding everything has a sound.  This is why people keep and repair/replace equipment once they know it works for them.  At some point better becomes more a point of being different and roughly equal.


----------



## Ferather (Aug 31, 2022)

A bit off topic:

Even they way the system is connected can cause loss, from research the only known way to transmit without loss is optical (digital). Conductive circuit has resistance and EMI (and requires more parts).
More parts normally equals more THD, THD-N. I notice a difference between analogue (which is electric) and optical, it also depends on DAC's (receiver).

For me the best way would be optical right up to the speaker, and just in front of the driver, a high output PowerDAC.

----

Just remembered, it was not that long ago your TV audio system would pickup and playback mobile phone signals. I guess phones used analogue signals back then.

====



			https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/soundbar-png.240662/
		



			https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/cables-png.240661/


----------



## VSG (Aug 31, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Very good.  I removed a few bits about trained listening in my post above.  That site can be highly valuable if you are serious about establishing technical criteria that educates how you interpret sound quality and changes to it.
> 
> Which will indirectly move awareness towards understanding everything has a sound.  This is why people keep and repair/replace equipment once they know it works for them.  At some point better becomes more a point of being different and roughly equal.


Given I review headphones and sources on TPU, I'd better have a good and trained set of ears haha.


----------



## delshay (Sep 1, 2022)

@Thread   ..YES

Chord Hugo with my Shure SE-545 or 846 earphones.


----------



## dirtyferret (Sep 1, 2022)

VSG said:


> 4/6 on TV speakers lol, and 6/6 using a good set of headphones and DAC/amp. I am typically quite good with this, and I'd also suggest the Harman training software for those interested: https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/


Doesn't Harmon have an "official" sweet spot for their speakers?  I recall they did a user study sometime ago.


----------



## nomdeplume (Sep 1, 2022)

dirtyferret said:


> Doesn't Harmon have an "official" sweet spot for their speakers?  I recall they did a user study sometime ago.



I believe you are referring to the Harman Curve. 

Which intends to create a flat profile response curve that in effect bumps certain bass frequencies and lowers the highs to be more pleasing on modern hardware.  There are separate loudspeaker and headphone curves.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 1, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> On better equipment you will begin to find it is slightly inferior to wav.


Calling bullshit.  FLAC is literally used 99% of the time as lossless compression.  Meaning it's the same.


----------



## dgianstefani (Sep 1, 2022)

Goldensound on YT has some good videos about lossless standards and audio hardware. Tidal has a "master" quality that is technically worse than their hi-fi due to altering the source.

He specifically tested their MQA standard by uploading a test file, then analysing the MQA file after they hosted it, in comparison to his original.


----------



## Яid!culousOwO (Sep 1, 2022)

Actually for most cases most people can't. But for those low quality mp3 such as 128 kbps it clearly has differences that we can hear.
Look at the frequencies of a HQ 320 kbps 44100 Hz mp3 which almost fill the whole graph all the way to 20000 Hz. A mp3 file like this sounds almost no different at all from a flac or ape or wav.
Though human ears have a range of 20 Hz to 20000 Hz but in reality your ears are very good if you can actually hear sounds above round 16000 ~ 18000 Hz.
And yes of course for audio engineers who have the right speakers and their excellent ears, it'll be easy and necessary for them to tell the differences.


----------



## ChosenName (Sep 1, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Flac is versatile.  You can compress files to be smaller or not at all.  On better equipment you will begin to find it is slightly inferior to wav.


.... only if the equipment is broken in some way.


----------



## lowrider_05 (Sep 1, 2022)

I got* 4 out of 6 *correct with a cheap Logitech H390 headset on my company laptop. Jay Z (128kbps) and Coldplay (320kbps) were my errors.


----------



## qubit (Sep 1, 2022)

I might give this test a go later. Shame they don't have any electronic music, like melodic trance.



nomdeplume said:


> Flac is versatile. You can compress files to be smaller or not at all. *On better equipment you will begin to find it is slightly inferior to wav.*


Sorry, I must challenge you on that. FLAC is lossless so there can't be any difference from WAV, by definition. Why do you think there is?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 1, 2022)

My 2 cents, at or above 256kbps it is very difficult to hear a difference between MP3 and uncompressed audio. 192kbps & 212kbps are very high quality and while telling the difference is possible to a discerning ear, such requires high end equipment to hear the differences. For most people, 192kbps is very good quality, 256 is very high quality and 320 is HIFI audiophile level.

While this is just my opinion, it is based on 35 years worth of AV equipment use. I'm one of the few people I know who actually have a quality component HIFI system(Onkyo). With my system, the differences can be heard, but as the bitrate increases, the differences become less distinctive. I personally stopped using FLAC years ago because 256 and 320 was excellent.


----------



## nomdeplume (Sep 1, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Calling bullshit.  FLAC is literally used 99% of the time as lossless compression.  Meaning it's the same.





ChosenName said:


> .... only if the equipment is broken in some way.





qubit said:


> Sorry, I must challenge you on that. FLAC is lossless so there can't be any difference from WAV, by definition. Why do you think there is?



Since we are in season.  Say I take a tomato and split the seeds between two gardens in reasonably close proximity tended by separate people.  To but a few intimately aware of them both will it be apparent one set of plants received better soil prep and nurturing.  Across a wide range of uses they portray less unwanted flavoring or other characteristics.  It is right that anyone should be happy with and freely mix the two. 

They are highly similar.  Not the same.  Regardless, my intent here was to provide a basis of examination that furthered interest.  Flac is a highly useful backend industrial streaming format.  Meaning it can be quickly converted to any number of other formats or compressed for delivery.  Portraying the term lossless as an absolute is a falsehood.  It describes meeting a level of mathematic proof having no bearing on any other element that determines quality of what is stored.  Both tomatoes proved insect resistant enough to ripen without flawed skin. 




RidiculousOwO said:


> Actually for most cases most people can't. But for those low quality mp3 such as 128 kbps it clearly has differences that we can hear.
> Look at the frequencies of a HQ 320 kbps 44100 Hz mp3 which almost fill the whole graph all the way to 20000 Hz. A mp3 file like this sounds almost no different at all from a flac or ape or wav.



Repurposing my example above, who can taste the bugs or that black pucker on the skin where they pooped from eating too much.  On a sandwich with so many artificial flavors and preservatives.  



RidiculousOwO said:


> Though human ears have a range of 20 Hz to 20000 Hz but in reality your ears are very good if you can actually hear sounds above round 16000 ~ 18000 Hz.
> And yes of course for audio engineers who have the right speakers and their excellent ears, it'll be easy and necessary for them to tell the differences.



Acute hearing ability and sensing air movement in other ways can have very similar effects in real life.  This applies at both ends of the perceptible frequency range.  Being aware of a low frequency rumble that registers over a longer period than is typically considered sound is the most common example  From two miles away you can tell if Spring snowmelt has arrived at a waterfall or not. 

This information didn't arrive within the few milliseconds or less that high frequency does.  These frequencies are easily blocked and reflected.  Losing all energy before they can reach your ears.  They are nonetheless detected as less threatening and more easily disregarded.  A tingle.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Sep 1, 2022)

> Since we are in season.  Say I take a tomato and split the seeds between two gardens in reasonably close proximity tended by separate people.   To but a few intimately aware of them both will it be apparent one set of plants received better soil prep and nurturing.  Across a wide range of uses they portray less unwanted flavoring or other characteristics.   It is right that anyone should be happy with and freely mix the two.
> 
> They are highly similar.  Not the same.  Regardless, my intent here was to provide a basis of examination that furthered interest.  Flac is a highly useful backend industrial streaming format.  Meaning it can be quickly converted to any number of other formats or compressed for delivery.  Portraying the term lossless as an absolute is a falsehood.   It describes meeting a level of mathematic proof having no bearing on any other element that determines quality of what is stored.  Both tomatoes proved insect resistant enough to ripen without flawed skin.


This is not what "lossless" means.

Lossless compression *by definition* must yield *exactly the same* output as was before compression. If there is any difference whatsoever, it is lossy, end of story.

If FLAC is lossless, it must sound exactly the same as uncompressed audio. If it does not, then it is possible that there was some lossy method involved with FLAC input.


----------



## qubit (Sep 1, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Since we are in season. Say I take a tomato and split the seeds between two gardens in reasonably close proximity tended by separate people. To but a few intimately aware of them both will it be apparent one set of plants received better soil prep and nurturing. Across a wide range of uses they portray less unwanted flavoring or other characteristics. It is right that anyone should be happy with and freely mix the two.
> 
> They are highly similar. Not the same. Regardless, my intent here was to provide a basis of examination that furthered interest. Flac is a highly useful backend industrial streaming format. Meaning it can be quickly converted to any number of other formats or compressed for delivery. Portraying the term lossless as an absolute is a falsehood. It describes meeting a level of mathematic proof having no bearing on any other element that determines quality of what is stored. Both tomatoes proved insect resistant enough to ripen without flawed skin.


Rubbish. What the tomato analogy has to do with it, makes no sense at all.

The fact is that:

1 Take a random WAV file
2 Losslessly compress it with FLAC
3 Decompress it with FLAC
4 Compare original file with the FLAC processed file: difference is zero and hence will sound exactly the same

It's as simple as that. That's precisely what lossless means. Please don't try to muddy the waters on something so basic and so settled. Google and Wikipedia are your friends if you're still unsure of this.


----------



## Vario (Sep 1, 2022)

One thing I have noticed about modern digital music is the replay gain is often excessive, I usually store music at 128 because I have a tin ear and want smaller file sizes, and normalize everything to replay gain of 89 decibel.


----------



## qubit (Sep 1, 2022)

Vario said:


> One thing I have noticed about modern digital music is the replay gain is often excessive, *I usually store music at 128 because I have a tin ear and want smaller file sizes*, and normalize everything to replay gain of 89 decibel.


Sacrilege: off with his head!


----------



## Regeneration (Sep 1, 2022)

I can only distinguish between 24-bit FLAC in high bitrate vs MP3s.

Average 16-bit FLAC vs 320kbps MP3 is almost the same.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 1, 2022)

qubit said:


> Rubbish. What the tomato analogy has to do with it, makes no sense at all.
> 
> The fact is that:
> 
> ...


I really, really tried to make sense of that analogy... but yeah FLAC is just a storage container that compresses the PCM data which is what WAV is.  Uncompressed its the same PCM data.

The only argument that I've ever heard that makes any kind of sense for WAV over FLAC is that decoding the file is more CPU intensive and puts more load on the powersupply components, creating more noise in the power delivery to rest of the system.  Not my argument but its one that you'll hear if you ask.


----------



## ChosenName (Sep 1, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Since we are in season.  Say I take a tomato and split the seeds between two gardens in reasonably close proximity tended by separate people.  To but a few intimately aware of them both will it be apparent one set of plants received better soil prep and nurturing.  Across a wide range of uses they portray less unwanted flavoring or other characteristics.  It is right that anyone should be happy with and freely mix the two.
> 
> They are highly similar.  Not the same.  Regardless, my intent here was to provide a basis of examination that furthered interest.  Flac is a highly useful backend industrial streaming format.  Meaning it can be quickly converted to any number of other formats or compressed for delivery.  Portraying the term lossless as an absolute is a falsehood.  It describes meeting a level of mathematic proof having no bearing on any other element that determines quality of what is stored.  Both tomatoes proved insect resistant enough to ripen without flawed skin.


An interesting, but ultimately irrelevant, analogy.

As a lossless CODEC, by definition, outputs exactly the same samples as went in. The ones and zeros of the bitstream are no different from the original, unless, as indicated, something is broken.

Unless the quality of the equipment in some way, in the possibly (confirmation) biased opinion of the user in a sighted test, makes the ones more "oney" and the zeros more "zeroey"....


----------



## qubit (Sep 1, 2022)

Operandi said:


> I really, really tried to make sense of that analogy... but yeah FLAC is just a storage container that compresses the PCM data which is what WAV is.  Uncompressed its the same PCM data.
> 
> The only argument that I've ever heard that makes any kind of sense for WAV over FLAC is that decoding the file is more CPU intensive and puts more load on the powersupply components, creating more noise in the power delivery to rest of the system.  Not my argument but its one that you'll hear if you ask.


It's true, the more compressed something is, the more processing power is required. And it doesn't matter if it's a zip file or audio, it's all the same bits and takes more out of the PSU as well. I wouldn't have thought it would be especially significant on a mains powered PC, but on anything battery powered, it could be quite significant.


----------



## ChosenName (Sep 1, 2022)

qubit said:


> It's true, the more compressed something is, the more processing power is required. And it doesn't matter if it's a zip file or audio, it's all the same bits and takes more out of the PSU as well. I wouldn't have thought it would be especially significant on a mains powered PC, but on anything battery powered, it could be quite significant.


FLAC decodes on my phone at over 5,000x realtime - which suggests that playing it in realtime uses a tiny fraction of the device's CPU capability.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 1, 2022)

FLAC does need decoding, there could be something if the decoder is not programmed perfectly, or has bugs, else lossless is lossless WAV (PCM) or not.
You will also find lossless is a reference to digital audio, compressed or not, I have never seen lossless analogue advertised.

Anyone ever seen lossless DAC's? If so please list them, the DAC its self must be advertised as lossless.
Without a lossless certificate or similar the difference between DAC's will vary.


----------



## ChosenName (Sep 1, 2022)

Ferather said:


> You will also find lossless is a reference to digital audio, compressed or not, I have never seen lossless analogue advertised.


Not sure that any analogue media are not prone to degradation with use.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 1, 2022)

CD-DVD still degrade overtime, but you are right mostly, its nothing like VHS-Tape. Even floppy disks would decay fairly rapidly, get to disk 12 of Windows 95 install, bad disk QQ.

----

If we pulled away from storage media, and converted that back into transmission method (like media), where digital transmission goes further (less decay).
On the same note, the difference again in distance between conductive copper and optical is quite different, optical being in front.

Wired internet vs optical (fiber broadband), distance, speed and response time (ms).


----------



## ChosenName (Sep 1, 2022)

Ferather said:


> CD-DVD still degrade overtime, but you are right mostly, its nothing like VHS-Tape. Even floppy disks would decay fairly rapidly, get to disk 12 of Windows 95 install, bad disk QQ.


Indeed - noting that a perfect backup copy of digital media can be made, even after some use, whereas the same cannot be said of analogue.


----------



## qubit (Sep 1, 2022)

Ferather said:


> You will also find lossless is a reference to digital audio, compressed or not, I have never seen lossless analogue advertised.



Indeed, lossless analog is impossible.

For clarity, the physical representation of the bits _is_ subject to "analog" effects and degradation, but as long as the bit is recognised correctly, then it's perfect. And of course, where the bit cannot be properly recognised is where error correction techniques come in.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 1, 2022)

Indeed, you can still get clock jitter with digital (example HDMI, SPDIF), which influences audio if it happens. However, both HDMI and SPDIF PCM is rated lossless, so I guess not much of an issue these days.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 1, 2022)

qubit said:


> Indeed, lossless analog is impossible.
> 
> For clarity, the physical representation of the bits _is_ subject to "analog" effects and degradation, but as long as the bit is recognised correctly, then it's perfect. And of course, where the bit cannot be properly recognised is where error correction techniques come in.


Yeah, lossless analog is not a thing.  Every medium, transmission and reproduction method has noise and distortion in it.  You can measure and compare how much noise and distortion is present in both and sort of compare them but its really kinda silly in my opinion.


Ferather said:


> Anyone ever seen lossless DAC's? If so please list them, the DAC its self must be advertised as lossless.
> Without a lossless certificate or similar the difference between DAC's will vary.


Same thing with DACs.  You can in theory get every bit from your PC, CD player, or streamer to the DAC in perfect timing but even that dosn't make the DAC lossless as the DAC has to do the (AC) analog conversion part and there is simply no _perfect _way to do that.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 1, 2022)

That's exactly why DAC's should be rated, and also why I said it should be digital (in my case I said optical) right up to the speaker, and a PowerDAC right in front of the driver, less than and inch for example.
This eliminates as much analogue as possible, as lossless as possible, this way you can blame only the DAC, or the HDA device. A crap HDA device + HDMI does not mean lossless.

----

Another thing, which some of you might not like to hear, is also speaker power resistance, since analogue is power in the circuit, the speaker resists audio.

My Idea above counts as active speakers, opposed to passive speakers, and could potentially be 0 ohm (already matched).

The Complete Guide To Speaker Impedance (2Ω, 4Ω, 8Ω & More)
How to Measure Speaker Impedance (with Pictures)

Ohm Speakers | Custom Audiophile Speakers (scroll down)

----

PowerDAC-S - ECdesigns  |  Wadia Digital – Power DAC



			https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/smart-speakers-png.234708/


----------



## nomdeplume (Sep 1, 2022)

qubit said:


> The fact is that:
> 
> 1 Take a random WAV file
> 2 Losslessly compress it with FLAC
> ...



Sir, I have randomly selected a portion of your response to deal with the logical fallacy being portrayed.

Lossless is a relative term.  Seizing upon it as an absolute will garner no further responses.  What is today reasonably low level criteria are being satisfied to meet the established technical conditions of lossless files.  To be perfectly blunt, I doubt many could tell the difference between files using the same hardware in the same conditions to the same ends as are being depicted with regularity across this site.  A fact I have until now politely dealt with by noting the production side of music currently favors that outcome.  You don't unhear noise until you realize it is gone.     

Here is fun little audio project to survey the correctness of your response internally.  For purposes of validation and proof of concept anyone can attempt.   

1.  Take a newly created WAV file.
2.  Ask your favorite encoding software to preserve the original file and make a flac which you will then encode back to WAV
3.  Continue with the resultant file until you have reached the 10th generation.
4.  Play back as much of the original WAV file and as much of the last WAV file you made as it takes to make a decision if any differences exist and why. 



@Ferather You are asking some important questions that lead away from popular opinion.  Don't grow upset if you find answers don't immediatly make sense in relation to what you've experienced.  Don't grow upset, grow wiser.  As with any hobby or interest it is the people who make it enjoyable.  Listen.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 1, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Since we are in season. Say I take a tomato and split the seeds between two gardens in reasonably close proximity tended by separate people. To but a few intimately aware of them both will it be apparent one set of plants received better soil prep and nurturing. Across a wide range of uses they portray less unwanted flavoring or other characteristics. It is right that anyone should be happy with and freely mix the two.


Except that flac is literally uncompressed pcm at the tail end.  Your analogy makes no sense.



nomdeplume said:


> Lossless is a relative term.


It's not.  If it was zip files, pngs, etc would not work.



nomdeplume said:


> Seizing upon it as an absolute will garner no further responses.


Good.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 1, 2022)

Question: If HDMI and SPDIF, PCM transmission is considered lossless, and they both only do up to 24bit, its 32bit a white elephant?


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 2, 2022)

Ferather said:


> Question: If HDMI and SPDIF, PCM transmission is considered lossless, and they both only do up to 24bit, its 32bit a white elephant?


I believe hdmi can transmit 32-bit but I have yet to see it used commonly.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 2, 2022)

This is kinda going off topic but I think you are some misconceptions here and you missing the point a bit.


Ferather said:


> That's exactly why DAC's should be rated


Rate it how?  You can look at a DAC's specs and see what formats its able to handle and the S/N ratio ratio, distortion figures, maybe a few other factors.  On their own thats all pretty overrated though as even the what formats the DAC can handle is misleading as there isn't a DAC on the planet that can resolve 24 bits of resolution.


Ferather said:


> and also why I said it should be digital (in my case I said optical) right up to the speaker, and a PowerDAC right in front of the driver, less than and inch for example.
> This eliminates as much analogue as possible, as lossless as possible, this way you can blame only the DAC, or the HDA device. A crap HDA device + HDMI does not mean lossless.


You mean an active speaker with a built in DAC like the KEF LS50 Wireless? Its been done before and in the case of the KEF the broad consensus is that the regular LS50 with its passive crossover sounds better. Class AB, and A amps are still generally considered the best sounding amplifers, class D is closing the gap when you get to into the stuff that Hypex and ICEpower are doing but if you look at the specs of the KEF its class AB on the tweeter and D on the woofer (thats done for a reason). You can also do an entire crossover network with DSP and they can sound good but the best speakers use passive resistors, capacitors, and inductors, and the better speakers use higher quality versions of those components that have better analog characteristics for their respective values. The limiting factor is not in analog components and it certainly isn't in the last few meter of wire between the amplifier and the speaker.

The thing to remember with all of this is that it starts analog and ends analog, being digital is only useful for preserving the signal along the way and as means to make (and preserve) perfect copies of that digitized analog signal.  Digital audio has a lot of advantages but also introduces a shit load of problems which is why a DAC like the Topping E50 is nowhere near perfect despite what its specs and measurements may lead you to believe.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 2, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I believe hdmi can transmit 32-bit but I have yet to see it used commonly.


By default, HDMI uses MPEG audio compression. It can be configured to use PCM but comes at the cost of using bandwidth otherwise allocated to video data.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 2, 2022)

Yes sorry for off-topic posts, well semi-related since playback equipment effects results. By rated DAC I meant rated lossless opposed to specs.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 2, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> By default, HDMI uses MPEG audio compression. It can be configured to use PCM but comes at the cost of using bandwidth otherwise allocated to video data.


What?  No PCM mode comes at the cost of channels if anything.  It never cuts into video data, they are on completely seperate wires...


----------



## Operandi (Sep 2, 2022)

Ferather said:


> Yes sorry for off-topic posts, well semi-related since playback equipment effects results. By rated DAC I meant rated lossless opposed to specs.


Thats not how that works though either.  You can have a FLAC file or an MP3, both will get decoded into PCM by your PC or streaming device and then sent to your DAC.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 2, 2022)

Don't think the MPEG is right, EDID defines LPCM, but the pins, I just double checked here. I remember doing something with the EDID on a converter and got some bandwidth issue, might of been the cable.

@Operandi, no I mean the audio coming out of the DAC is lossless, opposed to lossless in, but lossy out, hence rated a lossless DAC.


----------



## qubit (Sep 2, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Sir, I have randomly selected a portion of your response to deal with the logical fallacy being portrayed.
> 
> Lossless is a relative term. Seizing upon it as an absolute will garner no further responses. What is today reasonably low level criteria are being satisfied to meet the established technical conditions of lossless files. To be perfectly blunt, I doubt many could tell the difference between files using the same hardware in the same conditions to the same ends as are being depicted with regularity across this site. A fact I have until now politely dealt with by noting the production side of music currently favors that outcome. You don't unhear noise until you realize it is gone.
> 
> ...


Well, it would have been better if you'd have quoted my whole post as that last sentence is born from the previous paragraphs. Why are you afraid to Google it and find out the truth about lossless encoding? Also, note how all the other members are saying the same as me, in their own ways and from different angles, but the bottom line is that a FLAC file is an identical copy of the original WAV when expanded back out again, which you have not addressed. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Or are you just trolling to get a rise out of the members? On something so obvious, this possibility sounds quite plausible.

Assuming you're not trolling, then that's a cute little gauntlet you've thrown down there and valid, too. I might just take you up on it. However, I've not done any audio processing for over a decade, so what would be a good app to do this with, the free Audacity maybe?

If you heard a difference when you tried it, then it wasn't a lossless copy, end of story. Perhaps you converted to 320Kbps MP3 and didn't realise it? The first few copies would sound fantastic, but by the 10th copy would most likely sound quite degraded.

Of course, we both know what happens when I come back to you and say that there was no difference after 10, 15, 20, 30 copies or more. You'll come up with some other excuse to say that the process somehow produces different files and maybe come up with some other crazy analogy like a different vegetable or something to wind everybody up and you'll keep going round in circles.

If you really won't reply further, then that may probably be for the best.


----------



## Dr. Dro (Sep 2, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Except that flac is literally uncompressed pcm at the tail end.  Your analogy makes no sense.



I agree with you, they're greatly exaggerating, but if one wants to be exceptionally picky about data integrity, even raw PCM actually has a small degree of quantization noise, it's just that the data resolution is so insanely high that it's - IMHO - biologically imperceptible, unless you're Superman.

This article is amazing and it covers the "loss" from format conversion (mostly centered around DSD which normally uses 1-bit samples at a rate of 2.82 MHz instead of the Red Book CD's 16-bit samples at a 44.1 kHz rate), but honestly, it's nothing that anyone should be knocking themselves over unless they're at the mastering stage and absolute perfection must be achieved.









						DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs. Truth
					

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs Truth




					www.mojo-audio.com


----------



## Operandi (Sep 2, 2022)

Ferather said:


> @Operandi, no I mean the audio coming out of the DAC is lossless, opposed to lossless in, but lossy out, hence rated a lossless DAC.


Yeah, that dosn't exist and can't, won't never ever will so you'll never see that rating.  Besides lossless what?, the whole reproduction chain is lossy.


----------



## cvaldes (Sep 2, 2022)

I'm no audio guru but by definition isn't any analog audio signal lossy as soon as its goes through the digital-to-analog conversion due to  distortion caused by EMI, imperfections in analog circuits, resistance in wires, etc.?

Why do audiophile bros buy $1000 oxygen-free speaker cables?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 2, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> What?  No PCM mode comes at the cost of channels if anything.  It never cuts into video data, they are on completely seperate wires...


Are you sure?


----------



## Ferather (Sep 2, 2022)

@cvaldes, you missed my other posts. Lossless DAC was in part a joke, since I already pointed out there is no such thing as lossless analogue.
I just wanted to see if anyone managed to find-invent one, that I did not know about, or a better system such as the PowerDAC.

Lossless without a lossless DAC and 0 ohms, is already an odd subject. I prefer comparing sounds to an original on the same system.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 2, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> View attachment 260328


Maybe I am wrong about the pinout on modern connectors, but I am confident about the rest.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 2, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Maybe I am wrong about the pinout on modern connectors, but I am confident about the rest.


Sorry mate, but that's incorrect. Bandwidth for the HDMI protocol as a whole is always dynamic in realtime to properly manage and optimize on the fly data performance. IF you allocate some bandwidth for PCM audio, you take it away from the whole of the bandwidth pool and that means video bandwidth suffers. If running 1080p, this is not a problem as the bandwidth pool is substantially larger than the needs of 1080p+mutlichannel PCM. Even 1440p will be ok. 2160p however is another story. At 2160/30 PCM can be done on 2 channels only. 2160/60 and all audio must use compression, even for the 2.1+ spec.

I can't remember where I read this or I'd post the link, but this is a proper summery of the specs.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 2, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Sorry mate, but that's incorrect. Bandwidth for the HDMI protocol as a whole is always dynamic in realtime to properly manage and optimize on the fly data performance. IF you allocate some bandwidth for PCM audio, you take it away from the whole of the bandwidth pool and that means video bandwidth suffers. If running 1080p, this is not a problem as the bandwidth pool is substantially larger than the needs of 1080p+mutlichannel PCM. Even 1440p will be ok. 2160p however is another story. At 2160/30 PCM can be done on 2 channels only. 2160/60 and all audio must use compression, even for the 2.1+ spec.
> 
> I can't remember where I read this or I'd post the link, but this is a proper summery of the specs.


No, it can't be as I both run 4K@120hz 12-bit hdmi 2.1 daily w/ pcm audio, and have done 4k @60hz with the same pcm standard on this TV in the past via old TMDS hdmi 2.0.

Wikipedia also disagrees:



> For digital audio, if an HDMI device has audio, it is required to implement the baseline format: stereo (uncompressed) PCM. Other formats are optional, with HDMI allowing up to 8 channels of uncompressed audio at sample sizes of 16 bits, 20 bits, or 24 bits, with sample rates of 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, or 192 kHz.[5]: §7  HDMI also carries any IEC 61937-compliant compressed audio stream, such as Dolby Digital and DTS, and up to 8 channels of one-bit DSD audio (used on Super Audio CDs) at rates up to four times that of Super Audio CD.[5]: §7  With version 1.3, HDMI allows lossless compressed audio streams Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio.[5]: §7











						HDMI - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




You might be correct it is actually sharing bandwidth, but the standard is rated to allow for it.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 2, 2022)

Depends on the devices TMDS clock speed, Understanding HDMI Specs - Liberty AV Solutions (libertycable.com)






----

The link bandwidth shown in Radeon changes if I increase refresh to max.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 2, 2022)

Ferather said:


> Depends on the devices TMDS clock speed, Understanding HDMI Specs - Liberty AV Solutions (libertycable.com)
> 
> View attachment 260334
> View attachment 260333
> ...


Sounds like it's more convoluted than I thought and depends on the device then.  Interesting.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 2, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> No, it can't be as I both run 4K@120hz 12-bit hdmi 2.1 daily w/ pcm audio, and have done 4k @60hz with the same pcm standard on this TV in the past via old TMDS hdmi 2.0.
> 
> Wikipedia also disagrees:
> 
> ...


Your own quote is the key.


> For digital audio, if an HDMI device has audio, it is required to implement the baseline format: stereo (uncompressed) PCM.


Stereo PCM, IE 2 channels.



> Other formats are optional


Optional...



> with HDMI allowing *up to* 8 channels of uncompressed audio at sample sizes of 16 bits, 20 bits, or 24 bits, with sample rates of 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, or 192 kHz.


What PCM mode is possible greatly depends on the bitrates & sample rates selected and such is NOT decoupled from the bandwidth pool. At 1080p, all audio modes are possible because the bandwidth allows for it. At 2160p, that is not the case.

I too have a 4k TV and can only get 2 channel PCM in 2160/30. At 2160/60, PCM is disabled. Check your settings... I think you'll find that at 2160/60 you have no PCM at all. Granted, my TV came out when HDMI 2.1 was new so it is possible that my experience and observations are a bit dated, but I don't think so..



R-T-B said:


> Sounds like it's more convoluted than I thought and depends on the device then.  Interesting.


It really is complicated...


----------



## cvaldes (Sep 2, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Sounds like it's more convoluted than I thought and depends on the device then.  Interesting.



A lot of it is determined by what capabilities are present in Average Joe Consumer's equipment. Even if you can packetize 7.1 channel 192 kHz 32-bit audio to send over an HDMI cable, no one is going to encode consumer content that way because Joe Consumer's gear won't support it.

32-bit audio does exist but it's mostly used in production.

Theoretically a DVD disc could have multi-channel Dolby/DTS uncompressed audio in ten languages at the expense of video bandwidth/quality. That's not practical though.

Even alterations to HDMI standards over time are primarily market driven. What's more important, supporting 4K video resolution or ten streams of 7.1 channel 192 kHz 32-bit audio?

How much does Joe Consumer care about high resolution audio? I'll give everyone a hint: SACD. Regardless of what the HDMI spec theoretically allows, Joe Consumer isn't really interested.

I actually have a few Blu-ray Audio discs and the sound is wonderful. But that probably puts me in the top 0.01% and I don't have any really fancy stereo equipment. And it's pretty much limited to a handful of content types and listening situations/environments.

Most contemporary music today is written, recorded, and mastered for low-fidelity audio equipment used over lossy streaming services. And over the past ten years, it's mostly streaming so the public is listening to worse quality audio today than 10-15 years ago when they were still buying CDs.

Going back to the original topic, yes, I can hear the difference between lossy and lossless high-resolution audio but only in limited listening situations with limited equipment and a very limited type of content. And I _really_ have to be focusing on listening to the music.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 2, 2022)

Either way we are limited by HDA output, it can only do ~37mbps. Not 100% sure yet how HDMI works, but I gather if the TMDS clock only allows say 20 Gbps, and video uses all but 20 Mbps, 37 Mbps audio is not doable.

Anyway sorry OP, for all my unrelated posts. I'm going now.....


----------



## sam_86314 (Sep 2, 2022)

It's interesting. Since I got my Edifier R1700BTs, I've become pickier about highly compressed audio. These speakers seem to really highlight compression artifacts.

So something that I thought sounded fine before now sounds awful because I can hear all of the weirdness that compression does.

Please don't tell me I'm becoming an audiophile...


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 2, 2022)

sam_86314 said:


> Please don't tell me I'm becoming an audiophile...


It's a slippery slope...

I listen to music at work through a half-pair (stereo but one side only) of earbuds I have to bang on the table to prevent the speaker from buzzing against the casing. This is my strategy to prevent myself from caring about audio quality.


----------



## nomdeplume (Sep 2, 2022)

qubit said:


> Well, it would have been better if you'd have quoted my whole post as that last sentence is born from the previous paragraphs.



Reasonable complaint.  As tensions mounted I really didn't want to quote and reply to everything everyone said.  I didn't want to ruin the funner wider audience regardless of experience discussion.  OP seems to have stepped in as well hoping for a return to less tedium.  I did read all of the replies and consider them.



qubit said:


> Why are you afraid to Google it and find out the truth about lossless encoding? Also, note how all the other members are saying the same as me, in their own ways and from different angles, but the bottom line is that a FLAC file is an identical copy of the original WAV when expanded back out again, which you have not addressed. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Or are you just trolling to get a rise out of the members? On something so obvious, this possibility sounds quite plausible.



Perhaps a move to another location would be in order.  Let's put a pin in this bundle for the time being.  Instead maybe we could allow focus to redivert into letting others voice their results from this test.  



qubit said:


> Assuming you're not trolling, then that's a cute little gauntlet you've thrown down there and valid, too. I might just take you up on it. However, I've not done any audio processing for over a decade, so what would be a good app to do this with, the free Audacity maybe?



I'm as politely and conversationally stating my results as anyone who reported they couldn't distinguish separation between a higher bitrate mp3 and the other options.  Again, it is my feeling a broad and purposefully open discussion would avoid hijacking here.  Since this did lead back towards a more closely on topic listening test I will attempt a response.  

Audacity is a high quality centralized option for anyone technically competent.  You could also go command line or a gui of a command line for any of the required encoding (or playback).  Once you are comfortable with a program I'd actually recommend command line to program the sequential files and naming.  I didn't suggest a program so anyone could pick from the hundreds (tbh we are talking about repackaged SoX or libflac) of options.      



qubit said:


> Of course, we both know what happens when I come back to you and say that there was no difference after 10, 15, 20, 30 copies or more.



I repeat the exact statement that has been consistently featuring in my post.   

You are right.  What you heard was the right answer because there was no wrong one.  Unless you are being dishonest to yourself or choosing that option when you are not entirely sure.  If you find low res mp3 sound good or the same as a lossless copy, you are right!  



qubit said:


> If you really won't reply further, then that may probably be for the best.



 I only said I would fail to reply to avoid hijacking the thread.  I won't be replying to any end that doesn't tie up genuine interest leading back to an acceptable amount of on topic allowing anyone to report their interaction with the files linked in first post.    

Arguing on the internet is beyond passé.  I'm perfectly happy to accept your answers are the right answers for you.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 2, 2022)

I need really good quality gear to hear the difference between 320 kbps MP3 and uncompressed or analogue sound. It's more like a feeling, though. It's like the difference between a studio record and being at a concert. Uncompressed sound makes me feel more "there".

The difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps MP3 on the other hand, is night and day. Anyone with no serious hearing deficiency should be able to hear it.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 2, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Stereo PCM, IE 2 channels.


Thats all I was ever claiming.  That's probably where the confusion set in.  I've never bothered with surround.



lexluthermiester said:


> HDMI 2.1


HDMI 2.1 (at least the full implementation) isn't TMDS at all, but FRL and allows for up to 8K or 4K at high refresh.  I think you mean hdmi 2.0.


----------



## ymdhis (Sep 2, 2022)

I used to do blind testing between different formats in the early 00s, at low bitrates it was easy to tell compressed audio and the question was mostly which codec handled it better, not which one was transparent. At higher bitrates (320kbps LAME, musepack insane presets, etc) samples were almost always transparent. However there were some samples that each codec handled differently, computer generated music usually behaved worse with lossy compression (old videogame music mostly, SID, YM2612, etc). Audio codecs only improved since then, so I doubt I could tell the difference now, especially since I'm older and my ears will start to decline.

But I use FLAC simply because I don't want to worry if a certain sound is the result of a compression artifact or not. With verified FLAC rips, any artifact is the result of the audio engineers intention (or mistake). There are rare instances when they release mp3s-burned-to-disc as an album, but those are not common.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 2, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Thats all I was ever claiming. That's probably where the confusion set in. I've never bothered with surround.


Ah yes, agreed. I thought you were talking about 5.1/7.1 PCM at 2160p. I'll shut up now...


R-T-B said:


> I think you mean hdmi 2.0.


Maybe. The HDMI spec, while a technological marvel, is very complicated, has evolved in unexpected ways and I'll admit is been a hot minute since I sat down with the specs. Perhaps I should do that. Been thinking about Dolby Atmos...


----------



## puma99dk| (Sep 2, 2022)

When it comes to digital music, doesn't it also relay on the application, codec and so on that's being used for playback?

I know from video codecs that depending on what decoder with codecs and so on you don't always get the same colours, quality and more and some people recommend a codec pack for the best experience with their files and others like only install the basic codecs and then a player.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 2, 2022)

cvaldes said:


> I'm no audio guru but by definition isn't any analog audio signal lossy as soon as its goes through the digital-to-analog conversion due to distortion caused by EMI, imperfections in analog circuits, resistance in wires, etc.?
> 
> Why do audiophile bros buy $1000 oxygen-free speaker cables?


The point to where the bits hit the DAC is where its all _lossy _if thats the term you want to use. Even before the analog stage in the DAC its really all open to performance of the DAC and the engineers design decisions. Thats why there are so many different DAC topologies, and why many DACs let you adjust the reconstruction filter.


Ferather said:


> Anyway sorry OP, for all my unrelated posts. I'm going now.....


Its fine.  Other factors (like the DAC) play a pretty big part in how you hear and experience music regardless of it being compressed or lossless.  Better gear just makes it easier to hear the differences.  Back when all I had was my budget $75 Sony MDR-V6 headphones I used to wonder if it even mattered, I have nicer stuff now but turns out even back then it still did.


sam_86314 said:


> It's interesting. Since I got my Edifier R1700BTs, I've become pickier about highly compressed audio. These speakers seem to really highlight compression artifacts.
> 
> So something that I thought sounded fine before now sounds awful because I can hear all of the weirdness that compression does.
> 
> Please don't tell me I'm becoming an audiophile...


Yeah, that starts to happen.  What I find more annoying though is the other kind of compression (dynamic range compression) thats present in pretty much all the modern music I listen to.  On the other hand ultra high bit rate MP3 is what all my own music is and I certainly think that sounds better I still enjoy listening to YouTube through my high-end two channel setup so there is that.


ymdhis said:


> Audio codecs only improved since then, so I doubt I could tell the difference now, especially since I'm older and my ears will start to decline.


While I'm sure codecs have gotten better it dosn't really work like that unless you have had some serious hearing loss.  Lots of lead audio engineers doing the final voicing are in their 50's+ and unless they are just extreme outliers they have same drop off in high frequency the rest of us do (Nelson Pass is like 70, is a big proponent of listening tests and I think he's a one man show on the design front). The reason why how the psychoacoustics of human hearing works and how every note and sound is is compromised a multitude of frequencies.  So even if you can't hear anything past 16Khz what a DAC, AMP, even the speaker matters is doing matters well past that point.

In terms of lossy encoding you can use that Susan Vega track as an example.  Just the human voice so right in middle of our hearing range, and a range where our hearing is the most acute.  So while the OG engineers behind MP3 used that track to develop their codec you can still hear differences between high bitrate MP3 and lossless.


----------



## Mister300 (Sep 2, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> Where to even begin.
> 
> 
> There is no wrong or right.  Hearing, background noise, many many things vary in wide amounts within your own and everyone else's environment.
> ...


Good read here my take on audio in general
Hope this helps I am a retired professional chemist with a specialty in analytical instrumentation and have a relative in the recording industry. I have knowledge of the consumer and pro side of audio. I have been noticing a lot of posts about speaker and equipment recommendations etc.
Also, some are wondering why their setup disappoints at high SPL or when a quality SVS sub is added. SVS subs are musically accurate, low distortion and have minimal enclosure resonances or added unwanted vibrational modes when properly placed. With some rock music, they can be ruthlessly revealing of bad recordings.
Do not get to caught up in the specs or being a "measurebator" audio is very subjective and personal. Must listen to speakers and base purchase on your personal taste, all are voiced differently so I do not recommend one brand of speaker over another, feelings can be hurt depending on how critique is taken. For example, I was at a high-end dealer (Early 1990) when they were showcasing a Wilson WAMM setup valued at 100K. The customer pulls out a personal recording of an oboe and a bassoon solo that he performed. After listening he says I am done with the Wilsons, why was he not satisfied? It wasn’t the 100K sticker shock, it was the fact that the system couldn’t resolve a A440 hertz note properly. To the untrained ear they sound identical but have a slight timbre difference that is noticeable to a professional Oboe/Bassoon performer. He also would dump a speaker if it couldn’t resolve a piano recording with the lid up or closed. FYI, he settled with the B&W Nautilus at 30K, I believe.
*Cheap amp equals poor sound at elevated SPL. More power equals more volume assumption. *Sound output is logarithmic not linear, double power not twice as loud.
For example I am a metal fan, the sound system for Iron Maiden is approx. 300 KW at 117 dB this SPL projects thousands of feet. If I do not add speakers or change drivers, doubling power to 600 KW it is only 3 dB louder which is not noticeably louder to most.
The quality of the watt is crucial, for example a discrete Darlington hand wired transistor amp can run over 10K whereas your MosFET receivers are sub $500 (99% of gear bought today). I have a Yamaha DSP receiver, 5 ch which is MoSFET. Infinity frontend, Paradigm center and Paradigm rears, SVS SB2000 Pro sub.
The power rating is irrelevant most sound systems play sound best when at under 5 watts continuous give or take. *Efficiency rating will tell you how loud a speaker plays at 1 m away with one watt in*. My Infinity speakers are rated at 98 dB/watt. To reproduce distortion free sound field at ref levels you need massive reserves of power for transients.
So my system at 1 meter out outputs the following SPL
1 watt is 98 dB SPL, OSHA states no more than 90 dB @ 8 hrs. at this threshold without hearing protection.
2 watts is 101 dB
4 watts 104 dB
8 watts 107 dB Need to spend ton of money to experience clean uncompressed music at this level or above.
16 watts 110 dB
32 watts 113 dB
64 watts 116 dB
128 watts 119 dB Permanent loss of hearing
Why is this important let say speaker brand X is rated at 80 dB/watt, what power is needed to match my setup?
1 watt 80 dB
2 watts 83 dB
4W 86
8W 89
16W 92
32W 95
64W 98
128W 101 dB
256W 104
512W 107 dB
1024W 110 to get this I need to invest in a Krell, Mark Levinson mono-block in excess of $20,000. These high end amps are rated at 1 horsepower which is around 750 W at 8 ohms, 1500 W at 4 ohms continuous), No FET stages, discrete class A.
2048W 113 out
4096W 116 dB out
8192 W 119 dB out


----------



## thewan (Sep 2, 2022)

Its the year 2022 please. Your question is totally invalid.  Any streaming service worth its salt should be using AAC or equivalent in terms of efficiency of compression vs quality (Spotify uses OGG Vorbis iirc on non Apple platforms).  There is no place for mp3s in this age besides old school rips that people are lazy or not able to replace with better formats, or piracy, be it illegal downloads or illegal ripping of streams.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 2, 2022)

thewan said:


> Its the year 2022 please. Your question is totally invalid.  Any streaming service worth its salt should be using AAC or equivalent in terms of efficiency of compression vs quality (Spotify uses OGG Vorbis iirc on non Apple platforms).  There is no place for mp3s in this age besides old school rips that people are lazy or not able to replace with better formats, or piracy, be it illegal downloads or illegal ripping of streams.


You are missing the point.  If they had used ACC or OGG the lower bit rate samples would sound better but thats largely where the differences would be.  At higher bit rates and especially if you let MP3 use all the data it wants the differences are minimal to none between different codecs.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 3, 2022)

thewan said:


> Its the year 2022 please. Your question is totally invalid.  Any streaming service worth its salt should be using AAC or equivalent in terms of efficiency of compression vs quality (Spotify uses OGG Vorbis iirc on non Apple platforms).  There is no place for mp3s in this age besides old school rips that people are lazy or not able to replace with better formats, or piracy, be it illegal downloads or illegal ripping of streams.


I disagree. The world still isn't all about streaming, and I hope it never will be. I have a huge collection of MP3s that I started collecting around 20 years ago. I won't delete them just because Youtube and Spotify exist, and not everywhere I go do I have a stable internet connection. Not to mention that even cable internet is crap where I live. I only trust what I have stored on my own devices, thanks very much.


----------



## qubit (Sep 3, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I disagree. The world still isn't all about streaming, and I hope it never will be. I have a huge collection of MP3s that I started collecting around 20 years ago. *I won't delete them just because Youtube and Spotify exist*, and not everywhere I go do I have a stable internet connection. Not to mention that even cable internet is crap where I live. I only trust what I have stored on my own devices, thanks very much.


And of course the killer factor for me is no DRM on MP3s. The DRM is the primary reason why I don't subscribe to any music streaming services. I want to be able to do with my music as I please - and I don't mean pirating it. I don't want to have to keep paying someone to listen to my favourite tracks and only in a way that they prescribe.

When it comes to TV, I don't like the DRM, but accept it, because the programs that I actually want to permanently keep is vanishingly small.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Sep 3, 2022)

Also there are some rare remixes/editions of songs that are a pain to find uploaded anywhere.


----------



## Dr. Dro (Sep 3, 2022)

thewan said:


> Its the year 2022 please. Your question is totally invalid.  Any streaming service worth its salt should be using AAC or equivalent in terms of efficiency of compression vs quality (Spotify uses OGG Vorbis iirc on non Apple platforms).  There is no place for mp3s in this age besides old school rips that people are lazy or not able to replace with better formats, or piracy, be it illegal downloads or illegal ripping of streams.



Yeah, MP3 has gotta go. It's an obsolete format, but you see, the "problem" with MP3 is that... it works on _anything_, has no copy protection, and it sounds good enough for cheap sound systems/earphones and most importantly, it sounds good enough for the average joe, so just like the USB 2.0 type-A port (which is insanely obsolete at this point), it lingers because most people still judge them to be useful and do their job good enough to warrant keeping it around. I believe the same is beginning to occur with the SATA standard for PC HDDs/SSDs.

It all comes down to weighing cost against versatility against performance, and these standards have stricken perfect balance throughout the ages.

I've aggressively pursued FLAC/CD audio sources for the songs that I still keep around stored offline, but Spotify has taken over out of sheer convenience, Spotify Premium's sound quality is rather decent (not flawless, but decent), so it satisfies my needs for the most part. I have my favorite soundtrack album in 24-bit 48 kHz FLAC, and it's very easily the best sounding thing I've got. You can notice the difference in timbre and dynamic range compared to even the 16-bit files, but this obviously comes from the highest quality master there is and, again, not on junk tier monitors


----------



## nomdeplume (Sep 3, 2022)

puma99dk| said:


> When it comes to digital music, doesn't it also relay on the application, codec and so on that's being used for playback?
> 
> I know from video codecs that depending on what decoder with codecs and so on you don't always get the same colours, quality and more and some people recommend a codec pack for the best experience with their files and others like only install the basic codecs and then a player.










Mister300 said:


> Good read here my take on audio in general
> Hope this helps I am a retired professional chemist with a specialty in analytical instrumentation and have a relative in the recording industry. I have knowledge of the consumer and pro side of audio. I have been noticing a lot of posts about speaker and equipment recommendations etc.
> Also, some are wondering why their setup disappoints at high SPL or when a quality SVS sub is added. SVS subs are musically accurate, low distortion and have minimal enclosure resonances or added unwanted vibrational modes when properly placed. With some rock music, they can be ruthlessly revealing of bad recordings.
> *Do not get to caught up in the specs or being a "measurebator"* audio is very subjective and personal. Must listen to speakers and base purchase on your personal taste, all are voiced differently so I do not recommend one brand of speaker over another, feelings can be hurt depending on how critique is taken.



Thanks for noting your experience before validating certain principles apply to all levels of interest.  I appreciated your joke even if nobody else did.  Separating hard numbers into factual representative testimony carrying real world meaning (recreating test signal environment is beyond the average consumer) is as much a skill as advanced listening.  It can be very helpful to understand why your equipment is incapable of abilities that claims appear to have been made on.

Appreciation of end result - within the directions it can bring personally rewarding experiences should be the aim.  To amounts those pursuing it seek out intuitively better choices.



Mister300 said:


> For example, I was at a high-end dealer (Early 1990) when they were showcasing a Wilson WAMM setup valued at 100K. The customer pulls out a personal recording of an oboe and a bassoon solo that he performed. After listening he says I am done with the Wilsons, why was he not satisfied? It wasn’t the 100K sticker shock, it was the fact that the system couldn’t resolve a A440 hertz note properly. To the untrained ear they sound identical but have a slight timbre difference that is noticeable to a professional Oboe/Bassoon performer. He also would dump a speaker if it couldn’t resolve a piano recording with the lid up or closed. FYI, he settled with the B&W Nautilus at 30K, I believe.



Fear many reading this will misinterpret where decadence and image intrude.  Among the younger generations.  In 1990 a few grand well spent came a lot closer to the highest price stuff performance wise.  More people in average walks of life were involved. 

Price and product integrity are no guarantee of accuracy or enjoyment.  Voiced in a different manner, never shop for what you need or have become blinded by desire for.  A deeper message to be unearthed is recognizing that immensely broad needs of the full population rarely make it possible for anyone to secure their unique personally compelling item.  Shifting sands only rarely align even when constructing your own *x* to taste.  A mature even measured approach always means enjoying what is attainable.  Not what is attainable at the upper tier of your price limit.  In this case the gentleman enjoyed walking away having attained the facts he needed.

One could pick apart this dealer encounter in physically inescapable terms as well.  Out of the entire range of products available only a few get used on any given day in their showroom.  Capacitors and other base components designed to give a long service free lifespan in use daily require use to perform optimally.  This musician could very well have found his impressions to be quite different had the speakers already been used for a couple years before his audition of them.  We must also take into account the special characteristics of an acoustically prepared room (atypical sound reflection and absorption) impact on the finer elements that would determine exacting correctness attempt balancing disparate elements at cost of perfecting a single oboe note.



Mister300 said:


> *Cheap amp equals poor sound at elevated SPL. More power equals more volume assumption. *Sound output is logarithmic not linear, double power not twice as loud.
> *For example I am a metal fan*, the sound system for Iron Maiden is approx. 300 KW at 117 dB this SPL projects thousands of feet. If I do not add speakers or change drivers, doubling power to 600 KW it is only 3 dB louder which is not noticeably louder to most.
> The quality of the watt is crucial, for example a discrete Darlington hand wired transistor amp can run over 10K whereas your MosFET receivers are sub $500 (99% of gear bought today). I have a Yamaha DSP receiver, 5 ch which is MoSFET. Infinity frontend, Paradigm center and Paradigm rears, SVS SB2000 Pro sub.
> The power rating is irrelevant most sound systems play sound best when at under 5 watts continuous give or take. *Efficiency rating will tell you how loud a speaker plays at 1 m away with one watt in*. My Infinity speakers are rated at 98 dB/watt. To reproduce distortion free sound field at ref levels you need massive reserves of power for transients.



Of course you are.    Which makes the acoustic reference above believable as sticking out in your memory.

Appreciative of the fact you took time to (truncated for space) go into detail at the amp → speaker connection.  There is a dense accomodation to fast and dirty learning curves with impact being the primary aim.  I'd only note a bit more zeroing in on the qualities desired at output is especially critical here.

OK, upon further thought there are two additions.

1.  Impact all this impact puts back into every piece of equipment gets more important the louder you play.  Headphones excluded.
2.  Always turn off and unplug your amp before touching anything plugged into it or inside of it!!! !!


----------



## Ferather (Sep 3, 2022)

@Mister300, that's some very good info, especially on the system not producing 1 note/hz accurately. Nice info on power, and power requirements too.
Doesn't the units THD (since we are talking power) also influence the clarity at high levels? Different SPL different THD?

8 watts 107 dB, where you say you need to spend money, due to power based THD?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 3, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> 2. Always turn off and unplug your amp before touching anything plugged into it or inside of it!!! !!


+1 to this. 

My boss at work neglected to discharge the main capacitors before grabbing a main tube socket. He then stood back up, walked back over to the amp, discharged the rest of the caps, and removed the tube socket. Capacitors can hurt - a lot.


----------



## Wirko (Sep 3, 2022)

Ferather said:


> @Mister300, that's some very good info, especially on the system not producing 1 note/hz accurately. Nice info on power, and power requirements too.
> Doesn't the units THD (since we are talking power) also influence the clarity at high levels? Different SPL different THD?
> 
> 8 watts 107 dB, where you say you need to spend money, due to power based THD?


Just a tangential thought. There's a saying that goes something like ... If the first watt isn't good, why would you want a hundred more of those?


----------



## Mister300 (Sep 4, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> +1 to this.
> 
> My boss at work neglected to discharge the main capacitors before grabbing a main tube socket. He then stood back up, walked back over to the amp, discharged the rest of the caps, and removed the tube socket. Capacitors can hurt - a lot.
> 
> View attachment 260539


Yeah the 4 Sprauge electroytic power supply capacitors in the Threshold amp are rated at 250,000 microfarad.  You could unplug it and jump start a car.  Lethal voltages here.  Amp output was one HP (800 watts) at 8 ohms. Class A design all hand wired and matched Darlington transistors in a TO3 package.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 4, 2022)

Semi related question, is uncompressed sound actually lossless, shouldn't it be the same as the ADC that input it? Acoustic instruments need microphones correct?
I guess an electric drum set and guitar could possibly output PCM direct without an ADC for recording purposes.

Does the lossless part actually refer to the audio after the ADC, as in being PCM did not make it worse.


----------



## Mister300 (Sep 4, 2022)

Ferather said:


> @Mister300, that's some very good info, especially on the system not producing 1 note/hz accurately. Nice info on power, and power requirements too.
> Doesn't the units THD (since we are talking power) also influence the clarity at high levels? Different SPL different THD?
> 
> 8 watts 107 dB, where you say you need to spend money, due to power based THD?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 4, 2022)

Ferather said:


> Acoustic instruments need microphones correct?
> I guess an electric drum set and guitar could possibly output PCM direct without an ADC for recording purposes.


To be a bit pedantic, only the electric drumset would be true digital. Electric guitar pickups would still be outputting analog signal, so a digital output would just mean that the conversion was done in-body. If you used USB mics, it would be the same sort of thing.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 4, 2022)

Indeed, but would the digital audio from an electric set be based off a recording done via ADC, or is it possible to correctly synthesise each note directly in PCM?

Different amps with electric guitars produce different results, as much as microphones.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 4, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I disagree. The world still isn't all about streaming, and I hope it never will be. I have a huge collection of MP3s that I started collecting around 20 years ago. I won't delete them just because Youtube and Spotify exist, and not everywhere I go do I have a stable internet connection. Not to mention that even cable internet is crap where I live. I only trust what I have stored on my own devices, thanks very much.


Right there with you on every single point!!


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 4, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> Yeah, MP3 has gotta go.


Why?



Dr. Dro said:


> It's an obsolete format,


It is not, because:


Dr. Dro said:


> most people still judge them to be useful and do their job good enough to warrant keeping it around. I believe the same is beginning to occur with the SATA standard for PC HDDs/SSDs.


Exactly this. Obsolescence is determined by not being useful anymore, and not by time passed since release. MP3, just like SATA is still not obsolete at all.

The whole concept of streaming music and films makes me sad. It's the precursor of an Orwellian, "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" type of world.


----------



## Tomgang (Sep 4, 2022)

There is not that much of a difference to ears between a cd quality and and 320 kps. But from 320 kps and down to 128 kps. Yes there are definitely a sound difference in quality and it can be quite bad as well going that low.

So I voted for the middle.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 4, 2022)

Almost anyone can tell the difference if you pick the right material. I have 96kbps of simple pop/techno that sounds as good as FLAC, I have filled-out rock that sounds like it's lost a lot even at 320kbps

Just like with image and video compression, some things compress fantastically without losing much quality, others barely compress and look like shit if you try.


----------



## qubit (Sep 4, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> I have 96kbps of simple pop/techno that sounds as good as FLAC, I have filled-out rock that sounds like it's lost a lot even at 320kbps


I'm not surprised. I've looked at various kinds of music in an audio editor and zoomed right in until I could see the waveform. Rock music had a much more complex waveform than electronic music, so removing parts of it with lossy compression might change the character of the sound by a lot more than electronic music.


----------



## Mister300 (Sep 4, 2022)

Ferather said:


> Indeed, but would the digital audio from an electric set be based off a recording done via ADC, or is it possible to correctly synthesise each note directly in PCM?
> 
> Different amps with electric guitars produce different results, as much as microphones.


Choice of mic will dramatically affect sound.  _Stereophile_ magazine did a test where the editor spoke and recorded his voice with 15 diff mics and the sounds changes from mic to mic.  Some were smooth and some are sibilant and harsh.  For example here is a review of a pair of headphones and this is some of the headphones flaws. 



			https://www.techpowerup.com/review/hifiman-he1000se-planar-magnetic-headphone-hapa-audio-kn-t-full-size-cable/\
		


Piercingly bright in the treble region for most people
EQ doesn't fix this deficiency without losing technical performance
Some female vocals can sound hollow in the upper mids, and others can be sibilant
Too many flaws at this price could be the mics fault depending on what the engineer used.


----------



## Dr. Dro (Sep 4, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> It is not, because:
> ...



It's mostly semantics 

Technologically obsolete doesn't mean that it fell into disuse, it simply means that it was replaced by better technology. In the case of all of these three, they've already been replaced by significantly better technology, too. But I agree on principle.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 4, 2022)

Dr. Dro said:


> It's mostly semantics
> 
> Technologically obsolete doesn't mean that it fell into disuse, it simply means that it was replaced by better technology. In the case of all of these three, they've already been replaced by significantly better technology, too. But I agree on principle.


Instead of "replaced by", I'd rather say "complemented by". I see what you mean, though.


----------



## nomdeplume (Sep 5, 2022)

qubit said:


> I'm not surprised. I've looked at various kinds of music in an audio editor and zoomed right in until I could see the waveform. Rock music had a much more complex waveform than electronic music, so removing parts of it with lossy compression might change the character of the sound by a lot more than electronic music.



A flac file of solo piano will compress to a much smaller file size at the same compression level as a studio rock album.  When both have identical uncompressed file sizes.  For exactly the reason you have discovered.  

How are your explorations within Audacity coming along?  Appears you are making some good choices thus far.


----------



## qubit (Sep 5, 2022)

nomdeplume said:


> A flac file of solo piano will compress to a much smaller file size at the same compression level as a studio rock album.  When both have identical uncompressed file sizes.  For exactly the reason you have discovered.
> 
> How are your explorations within Audacity coming along?  Appears you are making some good choices thus far.


Yes, it's the amount of variation that causes that difference.

I don't know when I'll get round to it, I'm afraid, so please don't wait. I should explain that it was a really long time ago when I looked at those waveforms, as in years.


----------



## Wirko (Sep 5, 2022)

Ferather said:


> Semi related question, is uncompressed sound actually lossless, shouldn't it be the same as the ADC that input it? Acoustic instruments need microphones correct?
> I guess an electric drum set and guitar could possibly output PCM direct without an ADC for recording purposes.
> 
> Does the lossless part actually refer to the audio after the ADC, as in being PCM did not make it worse.


As others have explained, lossless audio (or video, or photo) does not exist. The lossless part of digital audio chain is data transmission over wire/fibre/air, writing to a medium, storing on a medium, and reading from a medium. If you have FLAC or other lossless audio compression somewhere in between then the compression and decompression process is also lossless. Encryption and decryption too if it's used.
Bit errors can occur of course but their number can be reduced to an arbitrarily low amount. And when they do occur, they can only be heard as clicks or pops and don't cause any other sort of noise and distortion.


----------



## Blaeza (Sep 5, 2022)

As long as my SVS pb1000 is belting out large quantities of dirty stinking bass, I really couldn't give a large poop.  I am a fan of drum and bass and I love BASS. 18hz is a very good amount of hz.  If I had the money, I'd have 4 SVS pb 16 ultra's.  In one room.  and progressively make myself completely deaf.  Flac, wac or wiggidy wiggidy wac.  I just don't care and love my System Check Remaster from Mr Ed Solo himself.  Lots of bass sweeps from a 720 watt RMS sub = me grinning like I'm on drugs.


----------



## Ferather (Sep 6, 2022)

@Wirko, indeed, its my way of pointing things out. Some people are under a false impression with lossless audio.

Edit:

There is however, making it worse:

Lossy equipment (unavoidable) > Lossless format of it (no further loss) > Converted to lossy format, re-processed, other.
Lossy equipment (unavoidable) > Lossless format of it (no further loss).


----------



## Operandi (Sep 6, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> Almost anyone can tell the difference if you pick the right material. I have 96kbps of simple pop/techno that sounds as good as FLAC, I have filled-out rock that sounds like it's lost a lot even at 320kbps
> 
> Just like with image and video compression, some things compress fantastically without losing much quality, others barely compress and look like shit if you try.


Thats pretty much nonsense, those types of analogies don't work, and loading a track in Audacity and looking at the waveform alone dosn't tell you how something is going to sound.

Did you run though the test samples?  I am able to hear differences between lossless and and 320K on the Jay-Z track.  Walk into a random audiophile room or even pro sound room and there is a good chance you'll hear Lorde used as a demo track.  128Kps is going to sound like crap with any kind of music, dosn't matter what the genre is.



Ferather said:


> Indeed, but would the digital audio from an electric set be based off a recording done via ADC, or is it possible to correctly synthesise each note directly in PCM?
> 
> Different amps with electric guitars produce different results, as much as microphones.


A synth or drum machine could be going straight to digital medium but I doubt thats really a thing (but maybe?).  Even if it did though does that really matter?, the track still has to be edited and manipulated in the mastering process in a recording session, or at the sound board in the live show.

More to the point though PCM isn't something you can listen to without going through the reconstruction filter of the DAC and thats really a approximate best guess by the DAC designer as how to recreate the (analog) sound.  Its not like the DAC is taking the bits, processing them, and putting the waveform back together the exact same way it was encoded.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 7, 2022)

Operandi said:


> 128Kps is going to sound like crap with any kind of music, dosn't matter what the genre is.


That's absolute nonsense. 128k sounds fine for most kinds of music. Not perfect, but doesn't stop the experience from being enjoyable. The situation where 128k is going to stand out is in high quality HIFI type audio systems in perfect(or near perfect) listening environments. Listening in your car, on your phone, on your laptop or even a PC, speakers or headphones, will sound just fine as ambient environmental "noise" will drowned out the imperfections of the 128k bitrate anyway. Sure, higher bitrates are preferable, but 128k is FAR from the end of the world for music listening.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 7, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Thats pretty much nonsense, those types of analogies don't work, and loading a track in Audacity and looking at the waveform alone dosn't tell you how something is going to sound.


You're misquoting me; I'm not the waveform inspection guy.

I'm just saying that not all content compresses equally and in some cases 128k is good enough to be imperceptible. If you're going to try and defend that with some subjective opinionated bollocks, let me remind you that at 128bps (yes, a thousandth of the 128k you're scoffing at), most codecs can compress a single pure square wave *losslessly*. That's not subjective, that's objective fact. Obviously a square wave synth tone is not music, but it provably establishes that compressibility is scalable depending on content - just as common sense dictates.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 7, 2022)

Warning, this is a highly subjective comment. I personally find certain sounds to sound better when lossless compression is used. The best way I can describe it is that individual sounds are more distinct and don't "blur together." That is, it's easier to isolate particular instruments for example. However, that gap really depends on the bitrate of the MP3 and the encoder that was used. It doesn't really matter if you're at 320Kbit constant bitrate if the encoder is garbage to begin with. A 128kbit MP3 produced many years ago is not necessarily the same beast as one encoded with a modern encoder.

So, unless you're an audiophile who wants to bask in the clarity of every tiny little sound, you probably don't really care about the difference between a reasonable bit rate, like 192kbit MP3s, and lossless. However if given the choice, I'll always opt for a lossless codec.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 7, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's absolute nonsense. 128k sounds fine for most kinds of music. Not perfect, but doesn't stop the experience from being enjoyable. The situation where 128k is going to stand out is in high quality HIFI type audio systems in perfect(or near perfect) listening environments. Listening in your car, on your phone, on your laptop or even a PC, speakers or headphones, will sound just fine as ambient environmental "noise" will drowned out the imperfections of the 128k bitrate anyway. Sure, higher bitrates are preferable, but 128k is FAR from the end of the world for music listening.


When I say sound "like crap" I mean you will hear the _crap _that 128Kps compression is doing regardless of the music. Certain genres or tracks might highlight it more but its noticeable 100% of the time, and once you notice it its impossible to not be aware of it. However I also agree compression dosn't ruin the enjoyment of music, wasn't trying to say that at all. YouTube music sounds just fine on my dedicated two channel setup, not as good as high bitrate rips or lossless but it still works.


Chrispy_ said:


> You're misquoting me; I'm not the waveform inspection guy.
> 
> I'm just saying that not all content compresses equally and in some cases 128k is good enough to be imperceptible. If you're going to try and defend that with some subjective opinionated bollocks, let me remind you that at 128bps (yes, a thousandth of the 128k you're scoffing at), most codecs can compress a single pure square wave *losslessly*. That's not subjective, that's objective fact. Obviously a square wave synth tone is not music, but it provably establishes that compressibility is scalable depending on content - just as common sense dictates.


Yeah I kinda combined those two things as I've seen people look at the waveform of a highly compressed (lack of dynamic range) modern pop, rap, or electronic and draw the conclusion there would be nothing to gain from a higher bitrate or lossless file and thats not the case at all.


----------



## HD64G (Sep 7, 2022)

Very easy to seperate the low quality from high or uncompressed when the track's uncompressed is of good quality. Some of them are terrible even uncompressed though.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 7, 2022)

HD64G said:


> Very easy to seperate the low quality from high or uncompressed when the track's uncompressed is of good quality. Some of them are terrible even uncompressed though.


Yes. Some tracks are just mastered so badly that compression is never going to be the biggest problem.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 8, 2022)

Operandi said:


> When I say sound "like crap" I mean you will hear the _crap _that 128Kps compression is doing regardless of the music.


While that's a fair point, it's still very situational and depends on personal "taste".


Operandi said:


> and once you notice it its impossible to not be aware of it.


Only if you really care and it bothers you. Some people, like myself, care only about enjoying the music. When listening through my home HIFI, yeah, I want the best experience and high bitrates rule the day. But in almost every other situation, the differences simply don't stand out.


Operandi said:


> However I also agree compression dosn't ruin the enjoyment of music, wasn't trying to say that at all.


Fair enough. That's kinda the way it came off. No worries.



Chrispy_ said:


> Yes. Some tracks are just mastered so badly that compression is never going to be the biggest problem.


This is true!


----------



## Bomby569 (Sep 8, 2022)

it doesn't depend on tastes or subjectiveness or even any compression quality, but what you are using to hear the sound.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 8, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> While that's a fair point, it's still very situational and depends on personal "taste".





lexluthermiester said:


> Only if you really care and it bothers you. Some people, like myself, care only about enjoying the music. When listening through my home HIFI, yeah, I want the best experience and high bitrates rule the day. But in almost every other situation, the differences simply don't stand out.



Yeah, just within the context of this topic is low bit rate "crap", otherwise I think our view points are pretty much the same.  I mean if you are trying to hear differences high bitrate / lossless and 128Kps or similar the low bitrate stuff is objectively crap, whether you care or not is different story.  

If I'm in the car, on the bike, or running I really don't care.  When I'm at home listening on two channel livingroom setup I do legit enjoy higher quality stuff more but even so I'll still listen to YouTube and it dosn't ruin it for me.  The question now that I know I can hear a difference is do I start keeping my own music in FLAC instead of alt EXTREME Lame MP3s? I'd say yeah but the only downside is storage on phones is still a consideration with FLAC and high bitrate MP3 always seemed like a good compromise.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 8, 2022)

Operandi said:


> Yeah, just within the context of this topic is low bit rate "crap", otherwise I think our view points are pretty much the same.


Ah that cleared up what you meant and agreed.


Operandi said:


> I mean if you are trying to hear differences high bitrate / lossless and 128Kps or similar the low bitrate stuff is objectively crap, whether you care or not is different story.


Right.


Operandi said:


> The question now that I know I can hear a difference is do I start keeping my own music in FLAC instead of alt EXTREME Lame MP3s? I'd say yeah but the only downside is storage on phones is still a consideration with FLAC and high bitrate MP3 always seemed like a good compromise.


For me, the file sizes are a factor and I don't like how large they are comparitively. A secondary concern is support. Everything supports MP3, not so much with FLAC. I realize today that's not such a factor anymore, but 10 years ago when I was remastering my entire music library, it was important. I settled on 320/256 MP3 which wasn't just good enough, but is still excellent in 99% of music listening situations and have stayed with it.


----------



## SchumannFrequency (Sep 10, 2022)

The difference between mp3 @ 320 kbps and FLAC 24 bit can often/usually be heard directly on some systems.

The OS with the best audio quality is FreeBSD in bit-perfect mode with vchans disabled so you'll hear the difference more easily there, especially in certain apps like Audacious.

 For example on the F&D F550X in combination with FreeBSD you can already hear the difference, the F&D F550X are rather high end speakers despite their price.

Here is a sound demo of some FLAC songs on the  F&D F550X:





						untitlednn.wav
					






					drive.google.com


----------



## Operandi (Sep 22, 2022)

So I tried this again the other day on my main system (Singularity tower speakers, Pioneer Elite amp/DAC)...  and got 5/6.

I have to say this process is pretty crazy different depending on what I'm using.  Last time when I was using my headphones (Sony MDR-V6) was just listening to how clean different parts of the song sounded not particularly how good I thought the song itself sounded.  I don't know if thats just my take on headphones but the headphone experience was more like blunt instrument than something I would experience music though in contrast to listening to the Singularities sounded way more engaging and the 320 and lossless tracks just having that much more life vs. just sounded cleaner on the headphones.

Also, I'm not sure what the proper way to do this with statistical meaningfulness is but I went though each track probably 2-3 times just to hear what each one sounded like and in the process got 320 and lossless mixed up again.  After 20 mins of that and getting used to what I was hearing I sat down and tried a complete run and got 5/6 correct and got the last or second to last one wrong and actually picked 128K but I think I may have psyched myself out I also really had to go to the bathroom, lol.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 22, 2022)

The only one I struggle with is Tom's Diner, which is just vocals.

There's not a lot of audio data there, so 128Kb/s seems to be good enough that I cannot tell the difference, so this one trips me up.

My worst device is a pair of Sony MDR1A headphones which are by no means shit, but they're a bit bassy and I guess this accentuates differences lower in the range than I'd normally notice. Whilst I can pick up the 128Kb version of Tom's Diner with those reliably, I'm picking it not because it sounds worse (it actually sounds cleaner to me) but because it sounds _different_ to the other two - and I'm making the assumption that the the 128kb version is most likely to be the odd one out. I'm comfortably middle-aged so my high-frequency sensitivity is definitely not great any more.

My other stuff isn't exactly high-end but the desktop I normally use has a pair of half-decent Eris E8 monitors with room-mode correction through an external DAC+DSP and acoustic corner traps to ensure they're as close to perfectly flat as they can possibly be. My living room has some pretty average Q-Acoustic speakers but I cut the sub out for music and the main drivers aren't terrible for accuracy - especially given that the Yamaha receiver has a dedicated mic and (basic) DSP to do room calibration and compensate for the worst of the room distortion.


----------



## Operandi (Sep 22, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> The only one I struggle with is Tom's Diner, which is just vocals.
> 
> There's not a lot of audio data there, so 128Kb/s seems to be good enough that I cannot tell the difference, so this one trips me up.


Thats probably the song I was most familiar with before doing this test and I thought it would be hard too for the same reasons.  Its also one of the tracks used to test during the development of MP3 so you think if any track would be hard it would be that one.  I think 128/320/lossless all sound good with this track but I can pick out 128 pretty easy and while I was pretty reliably picking out lossless on both the MDR-V6 and the Singularities I had absolutely no idea what I was listening for on either setup, just which sounded the most natural and going with my gut.


Chrispy_ said:


> My other stuff isn't exactly high-end but the desktop I normally use has a pair of half-decent Eris E8 monitors with room-mode correction through an external DAC+DSP and acoustic corner traps to ensure they're as close to perfectly flat as they can possibly be. My living room has some pretty average Q-Acoustic speakers but I cut the sub out for music and the main drivers aren't terrible for accuracy - especially given that the Yamaha receiver has a dedicated mic and (basic) DSP to do room calibration and compensate for the worst of the room distortion.



I have no experience with PreSonus but I have KRK V4 S4s on my desk and not considering what the setup cost I'm not super blown away.  I think the KRKs are pretty accurate but surprisingly not all studio monitors are, its more about their settings that are able to compensate for room and location and their pro interface than being absolutely 100% accurate.  I also really have to wonder what kind of design compromise they are doing when they design a 8" two-way like that.

I have heard good things about Q Acoustics though, and if your sub is giving you trouble you could consider adding second one opposite to cancel out the room modes?


----------

