bullshiat

I'm no audiophile, but I know what I like.

What you hear depends more of what's between your ears... not outside of them.

This is like ten years old information, RomerosPajamasMedia.

The Randi foundation already did a goddamn challenge on it.

This news isn't just dead, it's been entirely consumed by worms.

I can almost guarantee this study didn't use the fancy wooden volume knob or the audiophile quality electrical outlets.

Old news, yet it's been popping up more often as of late. Odd.

Why do I get the feeling that OGG and FLAC are taking enough ground from the various lossy formats (many of which are both proprietary and laden with DRM) to justify a word-of-mouth discreditation campaign?

zez: I can almost guarantee this study didn't use the fancy wooden volume knob or the audiophile quality electrical outlets.

Every audiophile knows that the most important part of their high-quality audio system are genuine Monster(TM) brand cables, or that failing, their metal coat hanger equivalent.

Test tells very little.

For most people, here's what you need:

- Speakers / headphones MATTER. Headphones give you much more bang for your buck if you can't afford much.

- Most people only really need a basic amp with enough power (none for many, a CMOY for others) to properly power headphones. Speakers you might need more, I have no idea. Amp doesn't affect sound anywhere near as much most of the time.

- Screw speaker cables and all that other crap.

- I have trouble detecting good quality 128 from FLAC on good headphones - have to listen carefully for cymbals and such. I care about good sound; it's harder to tell in a blind test than you think. I highly doubt you can tell 320+.

$500 wooden knobs, etc.

/Yawn. Old argument is old.

I've been a professional musician for more than half my life. Most of my music is 256k+ MP3 at this point, and for nearly all situations, that's more than fine. I listen in the car, in my house, whatever.

BUT

I've also had the pleasure of listening to Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl through a B&O turntable through a set of specifically tuned $100,000 Gryphon speakers each with its own specifically tuned tube amp. Blew. My. Mind.

So there's that. Unless $100,000 is pocket change for you, 256k MP3s are just dandy.

As someone with profound hearing loss.....what?
/guns
//chainsaws
///untreated ear infections as a child
////slashies

//Concerts

I'm no audiophile but won't mp3's inevitably go away as hard drives and download speeds increase? Isn't convenience of storage and shipment the only purpose of a "lossy" format?

Illidan: - I have trouble detecting good quality 128 from FLAC on good headphones - have to listen carefully for cymbals and such. I care about good sound; it's harder to tell in a blind test than you think. I highly doubt you can tell 320+.

I can absolutely tell a difference in V2 and lower if I play a song on my system (not bragging about my system.) 128 kbps anything sticks out like a sore thumb. 320 kbps is fairly indistinguishable from lossless for me. V0 has even tipped my "radar" before.

Gangway Fathead: I'm no audiophile but won't mp3's inevitably go away as hard drives and download speeds increase? Isn't convenience of storage and shipment the only purpose of a "lossy" format?

Lossless files are still pretty damn big, and there's still no universal format like MP3. Everyone prefers FLAC, but folks like Apple still won't get on board with it.

Audiophiles can be farking hilarious when you realize what some of them believe.

As an audiophile, I can say my mp3s sound better than yours. So I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

To be fair, Machina Dynamica people are the far right lunatic fringe of the audio world. Nuttier even that birthers. Probably somewhere along the Fred Phelps level.

I didn't read the details about how the study was conducted, but the listening environment has a lot to do with what you hear. If there's a blind test done in an environment you're not used to, it's going to be a lot more difficult to tell the difference than in YOUR car or on YOUR setup in YOUR listening room.

NorCalLos: I didn't read the details about how the study was conducted

I did, and there were SEVEN (7) total participants listening to FOUR (4) tracks each.

To the folks at trustedreviews.com making a conclusion on behalf of most or all listeners: Conducting a study, I do not think you grasp it.

Had to put my .02 into this discussion. With standard computer speakers, headphones, car audio, etc... it may be hard to distinguish between a highly compressed audio file vs. a lossless codec.

Sit behind a couple quality studio monitors (Mackie, Tannoy, Yamaha, etc) and the difference will be much more noticeable. The higher the compression, high sibilants will sound like aluminum foil and the bottom end will lose it's punch. The tradeoff, of course, is hearing imperfections in the original mix. "I Look To You"/Whitney Houston is a prime example of mastering fail. Can't imagine what this track would sound squished down to 128....Yikes.

So what the author is saying is that people cannot hear a difference unless they actually can? I can't wait for the next article about how people hate the color blue unless they like it.

StopDon'tTouchMeThere: Had to put my .02 into this discussion. With standard computer speakers, headphones, car audio, etc... it may be hard to distinguish between a highly compressed audio file vs. a lossless codec.

Sit behind a couple quality studio monitors (Mackie, Tannoy, Yamaha, etc) and the difference will be much more noticeable. The higher the compression, high sibilants will sound like aluminum foil and the bottom end will lose it's punch. The tradeoff, of course, is hearing imperfections in the original mix. "I Look To You"/Whitney Houston is a prime example of mastering fail. Can't imagine what this track would sound squished down to 128....Yikes.

Came here to say this.

You should try replacing your old bakelite knobs. ^{(^)} Then you'll really notice a difference.

went to assloads of rock shows. always wore earplugs. still wear earplugs when using a chainsaw or mowing the yard. i have excellent hearing to apply to my old cassette tapes played thru a walkman.

The Icelander: You should try replacing your old bakelite knobs. (^) Then you'll really notice a difference.

Redwood or teak ftw.



wouldestous: went to assloads of rock shows. always wore earplugs. still wear earplugs when using a chainsaw or mowing the yard.

I used to go to the movies once or twice a week, and I ALWAYS wore earplugs. I am 61 now, and maybe cannot hear the highs as well, but at least I can hear.

oldebayer: I used to go to the movies once or twice a week, and I ALWAYS wore earplugs. I am 61 now, and maybe cannot hear the highs as well, but at least I can hear.

Sometimes I wish I went to a bunch of concerts. Then I'd have an excuse when I don't remember something my wife told me.

\Did have tinnitus for a good week after the last concert I was at

I'm no audiophile...BUT! I can tell when a CRT TV is on the fritz from another room, while I have headphones on, listening to heavy metal full blast. The same can't really be said for today's LCD sets. Different frequencies.

I also can't vacuum my house without wearing earplugs because of the frequency in said vacuum. But I can use the shopvac (which is three times louder and slightly whinier) with no problems...and no earplugs.

/What can I say? I'm a mutant freak.

After playing in rock bands, punk bands, industrial music bands, I can't hear any difference. I am learning to lip read.

Illidan: Speakers / headphones MATTER. Headphones give you much more bang for your buck if you can't afford much.

This. I got a pair of Audio Technica ATH-ANC7 in January for $90 on Amazon, and it was well worth the price.

Metallica's Death Magnetic sounds perfect at 128kbps MP3. I can't tell the difference between that and the CD.

I admit I can't tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 & the original CD or LP. So that's what I rip all of my CDs, LPs & tapes to. And I have a reasonably good playback system. (Edirol USB > Yamaha preamp > QSC power amp > Polk mains & Dayton 15" Titanic sub.)

Of course, just because I can't tell the difference doesn't mean no one else can.

GibbyTheMole: Of course, just because I can't tell the difference doesn't mean no one else can.



320 kbps is close enough to lossless that I don't think anyone could tell the difference except under the most ideal conditions.

Glitchwerks

Interesting graphic, there... I'm not above believing in the possibility of even me someday hearing a subtle difference between 320kbps & lossless... But since it is soooooo close, it's worth the extremely slim possibility of a subtle difference for me to use 320kbps mp3 for the following reasons:

1) It's a truly universal format. You can play an MP3 on anything.

2) Hard drive space. True, I have a 750 GB drive (with another for backup) to archive my music to. But, I also have somewhere in the vicinity of 5000 albums on vinyl, CD, cassette, & open reel. And my music collection is growing constantly. So hard drive space is still a consideration for me.

So I rip my music at the highest quality I can get out of an MP3, using a LAME codec, from properly maintained good quality source components (Technics SP-25 broadcast turntable with Audioquest arm, Nakamichi cassette, TEAC open reel, Nakamichi CD player) and I'm happy with the results.

Juniper Jupiter: I'm no audiophile...BUT! I can tell when a CRT TV is on the fritz from another room, while I have headphones on, listening to heavy metal full blast. The same can't really be said for today's LCD sets. Different frequencies.

after years of concerts and playing in bands, i'm happy to say a CRT on in the other room no longer bothers me

Lossless is terrific, but it's too much of a hassle for me. I'm transcoding my lossless to 320 kbps, and in the future I'm just sticking to 320 or V0.

Bandwidth, PC performance, storage, compatibility, etc.

At worst, I figure I'm missing about 2,500 HZ of sound.
Average album in 320 = 150 MB.
Lossless = 450 MB

It doesn't sound like much, but when you really have a big collection, it just gets crazy, and I can't sling FLAC or ALAC onto my XBox 360, it soaks up all the space on my iPod. Just not worth the hassle for me personally any more.

I've been using WMA Loseless just because I have the space and it's compatible with Vista Media Center. Been using dBpoweramp to rip to WMA Loseless and you can also right click a group of files to convert them easily to another format, I'll do that to dump am album to mp3 when I want to put it on a portable.

It's a nice little app and would probably make converting your loseless files pretty easy.

Want to shut up the connoisseur? Always DO THE PEPSI CHALLENGE. You'll have fewer friends, but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing: people aren't as adept at discrimination as they think.

There was a series of discussions in the NYTimes by filmmaker Errol Morris about a guy who painted egregiously bad phony Vermeers. And fooled one of the leading art experts in the country. For years.

Painting. Wine. Beer. Hootch. Sound. Whatever. DO THE PEPSI CHALLENGE and shut 'em up. (And lose the friendship.)

Or endure their boorishness in silence.

mjones73: It's a nice little app and would probably make converting your loseless files pretty easy.

dBpoweramp is the music downloader's Swiss Army Knife. Invaluable program, I'm using it now.

In college we did a blind beer test with some beer snobs - myself included - and King Cobra malt liquor somehow came in at #2 - I don't remember what the others were. Neat. I still won't drink beer with HFCS, but still.

Also, I'd be stunned if people can't tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi in a blind taste test - I've done a for-real-by-Pepsi test and got it right, and I've done it since - Pepsi is so much more tartly metallic, and Coke is way more syrupy-sweet.

Also, while I can pick out a 128 kbps mp3 a mile away, 320 sounds perfect to my ears.

Glitchwerks: mjones73: It's a nice little app and would probably make converting your loseless files pretty easy.

dBpoweramp is the music downloader's Swiss Army Knife. Invaluable program, I'm using it now.

Agreed, you can convert anything to just about anything easily with it.

Glitchwerks: mjones73: It's a nice little app and would probably make converting your loseless files pretty easy.

dBpoweramp is the music downloader's Swiss Army Knife. Invaluable program, I'm using it now.

Don't forget Trader's Little Helper

morgankingrocks: In college we did a blind beer test with some beer snobs - myself included - and King Cobra malt liquor somehow came in at #2 - I don't remember what the others were. Neat. I still won't drink beer with HFCS, but still.

Also, I'd be stunned if people can't tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi in a blind taste test - I've done a for-real-by-Pepsi test and got it right, and I've done it since - Pepsi is so much more tartly metallic, and Coke is way more syrupy-sweet.

Also, while I can pick out a 128 kbps mp3 a mile away, 320 sounds perfect to my ears.

you have that backwards, my friend.

frepnog: you have that backwards, my friend.


I was thinking the same thing!

COWON S9

Just about the best Audio AND video quality in any PMP. It can play FLAC. Built-in FM radio and recorder. 32GB. Bluetooth. small and light. touchscreen. Amazing Battery Life. Voice recorder. Amazing EQ feature. JPEG view. TXT view. Flash. less than $250 for 32GB version.

its a thing of beauty.

kiteless: frepnog: you have that backwards, my friend.


I was thinking the same thing!

If only there was some popular taste comparison test so that we could be sure.

Audiophiles don't do MP3.

Hender:
Every audiophile knows that the most important part of their high-quality audio system are genuine Monster(TM) brand cables, or that failing, their metal coat hanger equivalent.

Hey man, it's all about the PRAT and danceability (new window) of your cables.

does anyone notice the difference in volume level between the bitrates?when i play a 128 and then a higher bitrate file they seem much louder.