Please help me understand this... - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 12:36 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
smnavare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I want to transfer my CD collection to the hard drive and am looking at the different formats. I understand that ALAC is lossless and gives identical quality to the CD. Which means that there should be no difference in how the music sounds. So i converted couple songs to ALAC and compared the sound quality to that from the original CD. This is my set up: I played both ALAC files and the CD in itunes on MBP. The output streams via airplay to apple tv connected to Yamaha Rx 667 receiver. Sound is output through Paradigm studio 20 bookshelves and SVS PC-12 sub. I was expecting the two formats to sound the same. But to my surprise, the songs from CD sounded much better ( clarity, richness, base and even a little louder) than the ALAC files confused.gif. The difference was not subtle. Why is this? Does Itunes processess the two files (ALAC vs directly from CD) differently? Am i stuck with listening to CDs? Is there any other way of reproducing the quality from the CD? It has to be a Mac, apple tv, airport express compatible solution.
Thanks in advance..
Sachin
smnavare is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 01:13 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,290
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 821
The part you left out is how did the CD ripping. With the right software and the right technique ALAC, FLAC and even high bit rate MP3 will sound identical to the CD. I have no experience with the Apple products so I can't comment on your equipment but your initial sentiment is certainly correct.
FMW is offline  
post #3 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 10:21 AM
Senior Member
 
bordo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
FMW, I like this your statement too, in addition to - SACD sounds same as as CD:
Quote:
MP3 will sound identical to the CD
Of course it is a facts based commentary and based on double/triple blind not biased auditioning you have performed.
Next step is my previously mentioned old fashioned magnetic cassette tapes at 4.78 cm/s, they will sound identical to CD smile.gif

Microphones....something could be going on with the "microphones"....
bordo32 is offline  
post #4 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 11:09 AM
Senior Member
 
Pet Motel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DeKalb, IL.
Posts: 471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by smnavare View Post

I want to transfer my CD collection to the hard drive and am looking at the different formats. I understand that ALAC is lossless and gives identical quality to the CD. Which means that there should be no difference in how the music sounds. So i converted couple songs to ALAC and compared the sound quality to that from the original CD. This is my set up: I played both ALAC files and the CD in itunes on MBP. The output streams via airplay to apple tv connected to Yamaha Rx 667 receiver. Sound is output through Paradigm studio 20 bookshelves and SVS PC-12 sub. I was expecting the two formats to sound the same. But to my surprise, the songs from CD sounded much better ( clarity, richness, base and even a little louder) than the ALAC files confused.gif. The difference was not subtle. Why is this? Does Itunes processess the two files (ALAC vs directly from CD) differently? Am i stuck with listening to CDs? Is there any other way of reproducing the quality from the CD? It has to be a Mac, apple tv, airport express compatible solution.
Thanks in advance..
Sachin

You mention the CD playback as being louder. The volumes must be precisely matched to compare, louder will always be perceived as better quality.
TheKrell and Audiophile2k like this.

Heavily addicted SACDBA member, starting the twelve steps tomorrow!
Jay
Pet Motel is offline  
post #5 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 11:44 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,290
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordo32 View Post

Next step is my previously mentioned old fashioned magnetic cassette tapes at 4.78 cm/s, they will sound identical to CD smile.gif

.

That is not something I ever said.
FMW is offline  
post #6 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 12:47 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
smnavare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
@ FMW, the CDs were ripped with iTunes ..
@ Pet Motel, since both files were played with same volume setting on iTunes , why would the CD sound louder...
smnavare is offline  
post #7 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 115
I won't participate in the apple universe, so I can't say in regard to your set up. However, I can rip a CD to FLAC, and then unpack it back to PCM and have it bit perfect identical to the original, so why would there be a sonic difference?
A9X-308 is offline  
post #8 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whoaru99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by smnavare View Post

@ FMW, the CDs were ripped with iTunes ..
@ Pet Motel, since both files were played with same volume setting on iTunes , why would the CD sound louder...

Because there are more places where the levels can vary than just the master volume control.
Audiophile2k likes this.

Just because there is a knob doesn't mean you should turn it.
whoaru99 is offline  
post #9 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 03:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pet Motel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by smnavare View Post

I want to transfer my CD collection to the hard drive and am looking at the different formats. I understand that ALAC is lossless and gives identical quality to the CD. Which means that there should be no difference in how the music sounds. So i converted couple songs to ALAC and compared the sound quality to that from the original CD. This is my set up: I played both ALAC files and the CD in itunes on MBP. The output streams via airplay to apple tv connected to Yamaha Rx 667 receiver. Sound is output through Paradigm studio 20 bookshelves and SVS PC-12 sub. I was expecting the two formats to sound the same. But to my surprise, the songs from CD sounded much better ( clarity, richness, base and even a little louder) than the ALAC files confused.gif. The difference was not subtle. Why is this? Does Itunes processess the two files (ALAC vs directly from CD) differently? Am i stuck with listening to CDs? Is there any other way of reproducing the quality from the CD? It has to be a Mac, apple tv, airport express compatible solution.
Thanks in advance..
Sachin

You mention the CD playback as being louder. The volumes must be precisely matched to compare, louder will always be perceived as better quality.

You did the comparison the hard way. A .wav file is exactly analogous to a CD - same data. Instead of your complex setup, compare ALAC files to .wav files using the same music player program.

If you have a PC running Windows look into Fobar2000 that includes an ABX comparator plug-in that will allow you to easily do time-synched, level-matched, double blind comparisons. This is really the most valid way to do comparisons of the same music in different file formats, and it is used by software developers of music coding software.
TheKrell and Audiophile2k like this.
arnyk is offline  
post #10 of 46 Old 12-25-2013, 05:59 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
FMW, I like this your statement too, in addition to - SACD sounds same as as CD:
Quote:
MP3 will sound identical to the CD
Of course it is a facts based commentary and based on double/triple blind not biased auditioning you have performed.

Do you have to lie to make a point? Ever heard about "QUOTE MINING"?
This is what he said:
Quote:
ALAC, FLAC and even high bit rate MP3 will sound identical to the CD.

Ahh, look at that - he said HIGH BIT RATE MP3, and guess what;

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html
Quote:
WOW! Remember that Set B was the MP3, yet for those who picked A or B, most thought A sounded inferior! Looking at just the ones who selected A or B, assuming a 50% chance of success in a "guess", the fact that only 45 respondents got the answer correct out of 123 is statistically significant with a probability <1%.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
Quote:
For those who used equipment $6000 and above, we see a similar distribution of preference for Set A, but look at what happened to the proportion for those using less expensive equipment. It appears that those using <$500 actually showed a more balanced preference of A and B - it seems like the participants with more expensive equipment preferred the lossy tracks.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
Quote:
Going into this endeavor, I expressed that my reason to do this test was to find out whether MP3 encoding resulted in significant deterioration in sound quality. From what I can tell with 151 responses from around the world, a majority did not find a significant deterioration, and surprisingly most thought it sounded superior! Let me know if you've seen any other tests show such a bias.

The real interesting thing that somewhat might support the claim that there is a difference: high bit-rate MP3 is perceived by a majority as superior to CD sound.
Go figure.
kraut is offline  
post #11 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 05:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by smnavare View Post

I want to transfer my CD collection to the hard drive and am looking at the different formats. I understand that ALAC is lossless and gives identical quality to the CD. Which means that there should be no difference in how the music sounds. So i converted couple songs to ALAC and compared the sound quality to that from the original CD. This is my set up: I played both ALAC files and the CD in itunes on MBP. The output streams via airplay to apple tv connected to Yamaha Rx 667 receiver. Sound is output through Paradigm studio 20 bookshelves and SVS PC-12 sub. I was expecting the two formats to sound the same. But to my surprise, the songs from CD sounded much better ( clarity, richness, base and even a little louder) than the ALAC files confused.gif.

I'd like to say that since ALAC is a bit perfect encoder the kinds of changes you believe you heard are impossible and you are imagining things, but the evidence does not seem to be there to make such a broad, clear statement.

Reality is that ALAC's data compression technology (Google calls it " a distinct lossless format that uses linear prediction") was compromised for operation on IOS devices with limited CPU power and its technology opens the door for the creation of uncompressed files that may not be bit-perfect copies of the originals. ALAC decoders that produce large, audible data errors are known to have existed and placed in the hands of the public.

Furthermore ALAC encoders are unlike FLAC encoders in that ALAC encoders don't grow on trees and a superficial search on my part turned none up. So I can't just run right out and test ALAC like I tested FLAC.

Kid, you are on your own with ALAC. If you want to eat mystery meat, I can't help you other than to point out that FLAC USDA-certified prime rib is free for the taking.

Your gun, your bullet, your foot!
arnyk is offline  
post #12 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 05:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,221
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2213 Post(s)
Liked: 2105
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smnavare View Post

I want to transfer my CD collection to the hard drive and am looking at the different formats. I understand that ALAC is lossless and gives identical quality to the CD. Which means that there should be no difference in how the music sounds. So i converted couple songs to ALAC and compared the sound quality to that from the original CD. This is my set up: I played both ALAC files and the CD in itunes on MBP. The output streams via airplay to apple tv connected to Yamaha Rx 667 receiver. Sound is output through Paradigm studio 20 bookshelves and SVS PC-12 sub. I was expecting the two formats to sound the same. But to my surprise, the songs from CD sounded much better ( clarity, richness, base and even a little louder) than the ALAC files confused.gif.

I'd like to say that since ALAC is a bit perfect encoder the kinds of changes you believe you heard are impossible and you are imagining things, but the evidence does not seem to be there to make such a broad, clear statement.

Reality is that ALAC's data compression technology (Google calls it " a distinct lossless format that uses linear prediction") was compromised for operation on IOS devices with limited CPU power and its technology opens the door for the creation of uncompressed files that may not be bit-perfect copies of the originals. Furthermore decoders that produce large, audible data errors are known to have existed and placed in the hands of the public.

Furthermore ALAC encoders are unlike FLAC encoders in that ALAC encoders don't grow on trees and a superficial search on my part turned none up. So I can't just run right out and test ALAC like I tested FLAC.

Kid, you are on your own with ALAC. If you want to eat mystery meat, I can't help you other than to point out that FLAC USDA-certified prime rib is free for the taking.

Your gun, your bullet, your foot!

 

Arny, I am bit of a ripping virgin and always just rip to WAV here. Is there any advantage to FLAC versus WAV? Or v-v of course.

 

BTW, I hope you are having a good Christmas and Boxing Day!  Best wishes from the UK.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #13 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 05:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

Quote:
FMW, I like this your statement too, in addition to - SACD sounds same as as CD:
Quote:
MP3 will sound identical to the CD
Of course it is a facts based commentary and based on double/triple blind not biased auditioning you have performed.

Do you have to lie to make a point? Ever heard about "QUOTE MINING"?
This is what he said:
Quote:
ALAC, FLAC and even high bit rate MP3 will sound identical to the CD.

Ahh, look at that - he said HIGH BIT RATE MP3, and guess what;

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html
Quote:
WOW! Remember that Set B was the MP3, yet for those who picked A or B, most thought A sounded inferior! Looking at just the ones who selected A or B, assuming a 50% chance of success in a "guess", the fact that only 45 respondents got the answer correct out of 123 is statistically significant with a probability <1%.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
Quote:
For those who used equipment $6000 and above, we see a similar distribution of preference for Set A, but look at what happened to the proportion for those using less expensive equipment. It appears that those using <$500 actually showed a more balanced preference of A and B - it seems like the participants with more expensive equipment preferred the lossy tracks.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
Quote:
Going into this endeavor, I expressed that my reason to do this test was to find out whether MP3 encoding resulted in significant deterioration in sound quality. From what I can tell with 151 responses from around the world, a majority did not find a significant deterioration, and surprisingly most thought it sounded superior! Let me know if you've seen any other tests show such a bias.

The real interesting thing that somewhat might support the claim that there is a difference: high bit-rate MP3 is perceived by a majority as superior to CD sound.
Go figure.

The legitimacy of the test is in question. Since the name of the Hydrogen audio forum was mentioned, and they are very rigorous, it seems resonable to see what they thought of the test. See for yourself here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98890. I don't see happy campers and my own indepdendent analysis shares some of their concerns.
arnyk is offline  
post #14 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 05:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


Arny, I am bit of a ripping virgin and always just rip to WAV here. Is there any advantage to FLAC versus WAV? Or v-v of course.

FLAC files are average about half the size of .wav files. If space is an issue and your player handles FLAC files, then FLAC is your friend.

I just finished a ripping project for my space-limited 4 GB Sansa Clip+. The ripper was EAC and the format of choice was 320k Lame MP3s.
Quote:
BTW, I hope you are having a good Christmas and Boxing Day!  Best wishes from the UK.

Thank you and yes myself, my wife, my daughter and her husband are with my grand children and their parents which is a rare treat due to distance.
arnyk is offline  
post #15 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 07:08 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,290
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

Do you have to lie to make a point? Ever heard about "QUOTE MINING"?
This is what he said:
Ahh, look at that - he said HIGH BIT RATE MP3, and guess what;

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
The real interesting thing that somewhat might support the claim that there is a difference: high bit-rate MP3 is perceived by a majority as superior to CD sound.
Go figure.

Thanks for the support. It seems some people take information that differs from their personal beliefs as personal attacks. Some people come here not to discuss, not to learn and not to teach, but merely to bloviate. It is the internet after all. Happy New New Year.
FMW is offline  
post #16 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 08:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

Quote:
FMW, I like this your statement too, in addition to - SACD sounds same as as CD:
Quote:
MP3 will sound identical to the CD
Of course it is a facts based commentary and based on double/triple blind not biased auditioning you have performed.

Do you have to lie to make a point? Ever heard about "QUOTE MINING"?
This is what he said:
Quote:
ALAC, FLAC and even high bit rate MP3 will sound identical to the CD.

Ahh, look at that - he said HIGH BIT RATE MP3, and guess what;

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html
Quote:
WOW! Remember that Set B was the MP3, yet for those who picked A or B, most thought A sounded inferior! Looking at just the ones who selected A or B, assuming a 50% chance of success in a "guess", the fact that only 45 respondents got the answer correct out of 123 is statistically significant with a probability <1%.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
Quote:
For those who used equipment $6000 and above, we see a similar distribution of preference for Set A, but look at what happened to the proportion for those using less expensive equipment. It appears that those using <$500 actually showed a more balanced preference of A and B - it seems like the participants with more expensive equipment preferred the lossy tracks.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html
Quote:
Going into this endeavor, I expressed that my reason to do this test was to find out whether MP3 encoding resulted in significant deterioration in sound quality. From what I can tell with 151 responses from around the world, a majority did not find a significant deterioration, and surprisingly most thought it sounded superior! Let me know if you've seen any other tests show such a bias.

The real interesting thing that somewhat might support the claim that there is a difference: high bit-rate MP3 is perceived by a majority as superior to CD sound.
Go figure.

That's one of the things about preference - the preference coin can land on either face, even quite counter intuitively.

Among encoder experts the word is that 320 k MP3s can sound different with rare pathological sources. If you know how a particular coder works, you may have an advantage when it comes to selecting test material that breaks it.
arnyk is offline  
post #17 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 09:18 AM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
I don't see happy campers and my own indepdendent analysis shares some of their concerns.

I have read the thread and criticism as to methodology seems justified, especially as this was just an AB test and there was a problem with the mp3 encoding that might have led to the preference of the lossy encoded material.
The test still to me has some merit as it points to the difficulty or impossibility to determine a loss in SQ in high bit lossy encoding.
The most astonishing fact was however that users of high and ultra high end equipment to the most preferred the (although flawed) lossy encoded versions, because I would not have expected any difference between the user groups.
kraut is offline  
post #18 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 11:21 AM
Member
 
oldmp3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

[...] opens the door for the creation of uncompressed files that may not be bit-perfect copies of the originals [...]

[...] ALAC decoders that produce large, audible data errors are known to have existed and placed in the hands of the public [...]

Arny, do you have any sources for these statements?
oldmp3 is offline  
post #19 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 12:21 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,290
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

I have read the thread and criticism as to methodology seems justified, especially as this was just an AB test and there was a problem with the mp3 encoding that might have led to the preference of the lossy encoded material.
The test still to me has some merit as it points to the difficulty or impossibility to determine a loss in SQ in high bit lossy encoding.
The most astonishing fact was however that users of high and ultra high end equipment to the most preferred the (although flawed) lossy encoded versions, because I would not have expected any difference between the user groups.

I think people have to do their own tests. There is way too much belief and preference to convince people that "lossy" doesn't necessarily lose any sound quality or audible information as long as it is encoded properly. A blind test is easy to do with codecs because you can do it all on a computer with a heaphone and a helper to do the random switching. I'm confident enough in my own tests that I use high bit rate MP3 for all of my encoding. 100% of my music listening is MP3. If I thought "lossy" was losing me anything, I would listen to the CD.s. It isn't necessary and I'm quite sure it isn't losing me anything. For those who don't believe that compression can be done with no audible downside, I say just try it and test it. Then you will know.
FMW is offline  
post #20 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 02:24 PM
Senior Member
 
bordo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Kraut, to say that I was lying is a bit harsh statement. The key message that FMW is giving - "MP3 will sound identical to the CD", it was a key fragment from his statement, other words from his sentence that I did not include: ALAC, FLAC, high bit rate, have nothing to do with what I wanted to point out: "MP3 will sound identical to the CD". Either high MP3 bit rate or low bitrate, as far as I know it is no any firm evidence that "MP3 will sound identical to the CD". I agree with Arnyk's opinion about legitimacy of the test you are referring. Would you have any reliable information proving that MP3 will sound identical to the CD?

FMW, I made a comment on your statement not because it differs from my personal beliefs, but because your personal beliefs used to make this statement were not supported by providing a proof.
bordo32 is offline  
post #21 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 02:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmp3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post



[...] opens the door for the creation of uncompressed files that may not be bit-perfect copies of the originals [...]

[...] ALAC decoders that produce large, audible data errors are known to have existed and placed in the hands of the public [...]

Arny, do you have any sources for these statements?

Item 1: If one understands the technical language in the Wikipedia article about ALAC, it makes that point. My previous post was based on that article, and goes into more detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

Item 2: I found an article on the web about a problem with the FFMEG decoder that caused the symptoms I mentioned with ALAC files. If it happened once,t probably happend more than once, and may have gone undiscovered in other circumstances. Probably just due to the relative newness of ALAC.

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2497

I was able to round-trip a .wav file through ALAC encode/decode with the corrected FFMPEG and the output file was not a bit-perfect copy of the input file.
arnyk is offline  
post #22 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 02:49 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,290
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 821
Quote:
FMW, I made a comment on your statement not because it differs from my personal beliefs, but because your personal beliefs used to make this statement were not supported by providing a proof.

I suggest you prove it to yourself. I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just expressing my experiences. No point in criticizing my test results when you haven't done any bias controlled tests at all. Go do some tests.
FMW is offline  
post #23 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 03:02 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
MP3 will sound identical to the CD

I stand by my assessment. You willfully misquoted when he said explicitly "high bit rate MP3 ".

From what I have gathered (I usually listen to FLAC encoded material) reading at various forums and blogs is that the bitrate quite demonstrably changes the perceived SQ and at rates above certain level (at or above 192 kps) becomes indistinguishable from CD or WAV. files.
I have some medium bit rate files (128) that cut off at about 16 kHz or so, while higher bit rates cut off at about 18 kHz as viewed in the spectrum display of my foobar2000 player.
I have not made a direct comparison between the formats, so can only speak about second hand experiences and tests. Although I have to say I would likely be unable to distinguish 192 Kps MP3 from FLAC based on what I uncritically listened to so far. On lower bit rates even at my age I seem to missing some high end extension.

http://www.keithstead.com/and_more/cd_vs_mp3.html
http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html

Unfortunately there seem to be a dearth of good quality listening tests available. Even at hydrogen audio they usually seem to compare only between lossy codecs.
kraut is offline  
post #24 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 06:26 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,290
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 821
The lowest bit rate at which I was unable to distinguish an MP3 from a WAV was 256KBPS. The difference between 192 kbps and WAV is pretty subtle actually. It isn't until you get to 128 kbps that it is easy to distinguish MP3's from WAV files. thinkI the audibility issue arises from people buying 128 kbps MP3's from the download services. Those do not sound like CD's. I use the audio streaming services quite a lot. I subscribe to MOG which delivers 320 kbps MP3 for a mere $5 per month. I sometimes use Spotify for casual listening and it delivers 192 kbps on the free (with advertising) service. That audio isn't bad at all. I would term it "good enough."

They say MOG is being taken over by the Dr Dre people for the upcoming Beats streaming service. Or at least it is going to be the delivery point. Listening on MOG is exactly like listening to your CD player. Hopefully they won't mess with the quality or the price.

I encourage everyone to do some testing. It isn't hard to do at all. You can put the files on a computer hard drive, listen to them with headphones and do the switching instantaneously with a mouse click. At my house we do it with me turned away from the monitor and my wife does the switching. Every time she switches I try to ID by writing A or B on a piece of paper. It is pure guesswork at 256 and 320 kbps. Try it. It is about the easiest ABX audio test you can do. Come back and tell us how you did.
FMW is offline  
post #25 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 06:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
67jason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordo32 View Post

Kraut, to say that I was lying is a bit harsh statement. The key message that FMW is giving - "MP3 will sound identical to the CD", it was a key fragment from his statement, other words from his sentence that I did not include: ALAC, FLAC, high bit rate, have nothing to do with what I wanted to point out: "MP3 will sound identical to the CD". Either high MP3 bit rate or low bitrate, as far as I know it is no any firm evidence that "MP3 will sound identical to the CD". I agree with Arnyk's opinion about legitimacy of the test you are referring. Would you have any reliable information proving that MP3 will sound identical to the CD?

FMW, I made a comment on your statement not because it differs from my personal beliefs, but because your personal beliefs used to make this statement were not supported by providing a proof.
;

the key info you are missing is the high bitrate part when fmw compares mp3 to cd.

i agree with him. there is no noticeable difference between HIGH BITRATE 320kbs mp3 and flac, wave or originally cd. (with the possibility of a few uber rare exceptions)

dont believer it huh? get fubar and headphones and fubars abx plug in and see for yourself.

seems like you just wanna disagree because some audiophool told you mp3's have cooties.

I don't need snobs to tell me how to think, thank you!
67jason is offline  
post #26 of 46 Old 12-26-2013, 08:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

dont believer it huh? get fubar and headphones and fubars abx plug in and see for yourself.

+1

People who rant hot and cold about the vast degradation allegedly caused by high bitrates and FLAC have IMO a profound need to listen for themselves with exactly the tools you mention. The phrase "listen for yourself" is bandied about the web pretty freely, and here is chance to do everything right with low effort.

Foobar2000 and its ABX plugin are freebies and reasonably easy to install and use. If there are any questions the folks over at the Hydrogen Audio forum including perhaps FOOBAR's author are generally ready to coach newbies. People who don't even try might be thought by some to be revealing the shallowness of their audio interest and their lack of honest curiosity. We're talking maybe an hour to get your feet wet.
arnyk is offline  
post #27 of 46 Old 12-27-2013, 05:19 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,290
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

;

the key info you are missing is the high bitrate part when fmw compares mp3 to cd.

i agree with him. there is no noticeable difference between HIGH BITRATE 320kbs mp3 and flac, wave or originally cd. (with the possibility of a few uber rare exceptions)

dont believer it huh? get fubar and headphones and fubars abx plug in and see for yourself.

seems like you just wanna disagree because some audiophool told you mp3's have cooties.

I had to look up cooties. I've never heard the term before. smile.gif
FMW is offline  
post #28 of 46 Old 12-27-2013, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
67jason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

;

the key info you are missing is the high bitrate part when fmw compares mp3 to cd.

i agree with him. there is no noticeable difference between HIGH BITRATE 320kbs mp3 and flac, wave or originally cd. (with the possibility of a few uber rare exceptions)

dont believer it huh? get fubar and headphones and fubars abx plug in and see for yourself.

seems like you just wanna disagree because some audiophool told you mp3's have cooties.

I had to look up cooties. I've never heard the term before. smile.gif

lol...i think it was arny who first made posts talking about cooties.

I don't need snobs to tell me how to think, thank you!
67jason is offline  
post #29 of 46 Old 12-27-2013, 06:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,221
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2213 Post(s)
Liked: 2105
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


Arny, I am bit of a ripping virgin and always just rip to WAV here. Is there any advantage to FLAC versus WAV? Or v-v of course.

FLAC files are average about half the size of .wav files. If space is an issue and your player handles FLAC files, then FLAC is your friend.

I just finished a ripping project for my space-limited 4 GB Sansa Clip+. The ripper was EAC and the format of choice was 320k Lame MP3s.

 

Thanks. Other than the space saving (which isn't critical for me but it is always good to save space where possible) would FLAC and WAV sound the same?  I am primarily interested in getting the best possible sound which is why I have always used WAV in the past. If FLAC will give me the same audible result at half the space it seems sensible to switch to that for future rips. If not, well, storage is fairly cheap these days...

 

I can also rip 320k MP3s - I have always shied away from MP3 mainly out of my own ignorance. Would you say that I would hear any difference between a 320k MP3 and a WAV played through high quality, fairly analytic gear?  I guess I could try it myself but it would be a sighted test and so I'd not really believe the results whatever they were. I’d be interested in a dispassionately objective view - thanks.

 

Quote:

 
Quote:
BTW, I hope you are having a good Christmas and Boxing Day!  Best wishes from the UK.

Thank you and yes myself, my wife, my daughter and her husband are with my grand children and their parents which is a rare treat due to distance.

 

Fabulous! Enjoy!

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #30 of 46 Old 12-27-2013, 06:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 19,221
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2213 Post(s)
Liked: 2105
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
 
I think people have to do their own tests. There is way too much belief and preference to convince people that "lossy" doesn't necessarily lose any sound quality or audible information as long as it is encoded properly. A blind test is easy to do with codecs because you can do it all on a computer with a heaphone and a helper to do the random switching. I'm confident enough in my own tests that I use high bit rate MP3 for all of my encoding. 100% of my music listening is MP3. If I thought "lossy" was losing me anything, I would listen to the CD.s. It isn't necessary and I'm quite sure it isn't losing me anything. For those who don't believe that compression can be done with no audible downside, I say just try it and test it. Then you will know.

 

Interesting. I just asked Arny the same thing, before I saw your post.  I have a totally open mind and storage space here isn't an issue. But if I can save space with no detriment to the SQ, then I may as well. Hmmmm....

kbarnes701 is offline  
Reply 2-Channel Audio

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off