Originally Posted by kbeam418
Originally Posted by A9X-308
I haven't had time to watch all of it yet, so why don't you
start by telling us what you think is right and wrong in it? And why.
Gladly will. First of all I'm going to admit that I haven't done my comparisons scientifically so please keep that in mind.
Like many people you managed to ignore the good advice that showed up on screen, which says get Foobar with the ABX plug in and do your own tests.
Doing good listening tests involving comparisons of MP3s to the original .wav files is pretty easy:
(1) Select a .wav file which should be BTW audibly indistinguishable from a well-played CD
(2) Convert the selected .wav file or the corresponding source CD track in a MP3 file at the desired bitrate.
(3) Convert the MP3 file back to .wav format.
(4) Examine the before and after .wav files using an audio editor such as Audacity to ensure consistent levels and timings. We need 1-2% tolerance on level and 5 milliseconds or better on timing.
(5) Compare using FOBAR2000 and its ABX plug in. A PC with a really good PC audio interface and monitoring loudspeakers, headphones or earphones is highly recommended.
As far as that PC with a good audio interface goes, you can test to see if you already have one by looking the Audio Rightmark score for your audio interface (usually shown in the Device Manager) on the web, or testing it yourself with the Audio Rightmark program (freeware). If your PC comes up short, I'd recommend a USB interface like the Behringer UCA 202 or a PCI or PCI-E card such as the Asus Xonar DGX or DSX. If your headphones or speakers come up short, I'd recommend the classic Sennheiser HD280, as prized by pros for years if not decades.
The guys in the video said that FLAC won't make a difference and provided a song to prove that. The song they chose was typical compressed junk and sounded like it was a lo-fi master to begin with, so of course there would be no difference between a FLAC and a 320 kbps, although I think at that bit rate it's going to be near impossible to tell a difference on headphones.
Audiophiles frequently entertain people who have done a lot of listening tests with their knee-jerk demand that program material used in listening tests actually sound good or be some kind of audiophile demo disc. In fact some of the best program material for sorting audio gear sounds like crap.
Then we've got the setup they're are using, they admittedly are using on-board sound which has it's own set of problems, plus I notice a smiley face eq in the background
Not going to mention the ABX test because like I said I didn't do that.
Audiophiles also frequently entertain people who have done a lot of listening tests with their knee-jerk demands that their own preferences in listening test environments be adhered to. The most important thing is that basic sound quality be good and that it be something that the listener is familiar with and likes on its own merits.
A lot of this posturing goes away when people actually do some DBTs of their own, which from the perspective of even people with limited DBT experience seem easy to understand.
In short, don't knock it until you have tried it.
Here's what really amused me; Tweedledee and tweedle dumb ass (pardon my french) though that sample rates only need to be 20k
After that I stopped watching because I didn't want to have a heart attack after laughing so hard.
Listen again. This information is at 6:30 in the video and they clearly say that "anything over 44,100 sampling is overkill, and that's actually overkill all by itself.
Tube amps are opinion but I haven't got that far yet.
No tube amps are a somwhat mixed bag that ranges from good amps that are just too big, too unreliable and too expensive to be practica,l to technical jokes that sound different every time you hook up a different speaker.
My opinion on FLAC vs lossy (AAC and MP3) is that on a stereo, or good (think Sennheiser with good amp) headphones, paired with a piece of music that has A; good dynamic range, B; guitars and drums, and C; echo, and reverb, will show the differences between a 256k AAC file. I noticed this on the song "Dogs" by Pink Floyd which has a good section of instrumental music, at low level, with echo, which really reveals the difference between it and the vinyl version. I still prefer the iTunes version though because 2011 re-masters sound so much better. Just my .02.
IMO your $0.02 is counterfeit ;-) until you do some actual listening with a DBT comparitor which is relatively easy to do, as I showed above.