Confused by the digital formats

[heisenberg]

Hello there,

I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been comparing regular 16
bit/44.1 khz to the lossy 320 kbps mp3 formats. Here is what's confusing
to me:

When comparing 16 bit lossless to 24 bit lossless, I can plainly hear
the differences. But when comparing 16 bit lossless to 320 kbps lossy
formats of the same song, I cannot, for the life of me, hear any
differences! How's that possible?

Anyone had similar startling discoveries?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
heisenberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59622
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Wombat]

Post by heisenberg
I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been comparing regular 16
bit/44.1 khz to the lossy 320 kbps mp3 formats. Here is what's confusing
When comparing 16 bit lossless to 24 bit lossless, I can plainly hear
the differences. But when comparing 16 bit lossless to 320 kbps lossy
formats of the same song, I cannot, for the life of me, hear any
differences! How's that possible?

If you compare the 24bit version offered by EMI to the 16bit version
they were treated different and sound different therefore, they are even
different in volume. For a fair comparison you may create 16bit versions
out of your 24bit files and compare these to the 24bit then.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[garym]

Post by heisenberg
Hello there,
I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been comparing regular 16
bit/44.1 khz to the lossy 320 kbps mp3 formats. Here is what's confusing
When comparing 16 bit lossless to 24 bit lossless, I can plainly hear
the differences. But when comparing 16 bit lossless to 320 kbps lossy
formats of the same song, I cannot, for the life of me, hear any
differences! How's that possible?
Anyone had similar startling discoveries?

A good high bitrate lossy file should be transparent to the listener
(for most music...i.e., not "problem samples", etc.). Perhaps the 16 vs
24 files you are comparing are from different masters while the 16 bit
vs 320kbs lossy are from the same master. The 24/44.1 tracks you refer
to....were they based on the original CDs, some later remasters, the
stereo box set, the mono box set, etc.? Before doing any testing, I'd
make sure that I'm comparing apples to apples (no pun intended) with
regard to the underlying track.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[heisenberg]

Post by garym
A good high bitrate lossy file should be transparent to the listener
(for most music...i.e., not "problem samples", etc.). Perhaps the 16 vs
24 files you are comparing are from different masters while the 16 bit
vs 320kbs lossy are from the same master. The 24/44.1 tracks you refer
to....were they based on the original CDs, some later remasters, the
stereo box set, the mono box set, etc.? Before doing any testing, I'd
make sure that I'm comparing apples to apples (no pun intended) with
regard to the underlying track.

The high-rez Beatles tracks (the 24 bit/44.1 khz) were obtained from the
2009 Apple USB dongle (sold in the shape of an apple). So these are, I'm
assuming, legit, no?

The 16 bit/44.1 khz tracks where ripped from the 2009 stereo box set in
the AIFF format. The 320 kbps lossy mp3s were obtained from the same
Apple USB dongle.

I'd think all these formats are legit, and we're here indeed comparing
apples to apples. But please correct me if I'm being delusional here.

Thanks.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
heisenberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59622
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[garym]

Post by heisenberg
The high-rez Beatles tracks (the 24 bit/44.1 khz) were obtained from the
2009 Apple USB dongle (sold in the shape of an apple). So these are, I'm
assuming, legit, no?
The 16 bit/44.1 khz tracks where ripped from the 2009 stereo box set in
the AIFF format. The 320 kbps lossy mp3s were obtained from the same
Apple USB dongle.
I'd think all these formats are legit, and we're here indeed comparing
apples to apples. But please correct me if I'm being delusional here.
Thanks.

I'm not an expert on the various beatles releases. I have the original
CD releases and the Stereo and Mono box set more recent releases. The
Stereo box set masterings are different from my original CDs for sure.
And your releases are legit. I recall that the 24/44.1 "apple dongle"
were from different masterings. So could very well sound different. I
don't have to test. You might try doing an ABX test though, using
something like the ABX comparator in Foobar2000.

p.s. Lots of discussion about the "dongle" releases here:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?72852-Beatles-24-vs-16-bits&highlight=apple+24%2F44.1+beatles+usb


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Mnyb]

Afaik there are different masters ,meaningntheynare produced to sound
different .

The way to compare these things is as Garym say to make you own 16bit
files from the 24bit files and also make your own 320k mp3 files from
that 16 bit file .

Ime , in other cases lets say an SACD or DVDA release you can be
relatively sure that the hirez and cd layers or not of the same master
.
Sometimes this is pure deception . In other cases the producers sees it
as an oportunity to release slightly different versions .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[garym]

Afaik there are different masters ,meaning they are produced to sound
different .
The way to compare these things is as Garym say to make you own 16bit
files from the 24bit files and also make your own 320k mp3 files from
that 16 bit file .
Ime , in other cases lets say an SACD or DVDA release you can be
relatively sure that the hirez and cd layers are not of the same master
.
Sometimes this is pure deception . In other cases the producers sees it
as an oportunity to release slightly different versions .

You can downconvert with dbpoweramp (which is a great ripping/conversion
program but not free). Foobar2000 may be able to do this too...not
sure.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Mnyb]

Or SoX , or r8brain .

Sox is commandline and has a plethora of filter settings , can take some
reading to find proper settings some of the recommended defaults are
good .

Off topic:
SOX is often used in a sub genre in audiophoolism , to up convert on
your computer before sending it to the DAC . The caveats are the
following IMO .

Due to SoX enormous flexibility , you find a wonderfully setting that
sound so good , but the fact is that you managed to make a filter with
clearly audible and measurable artefacts :P ( adjust your treble control
-0,5 dB instead ).

Your DAC or processor are not agnostic to samplerates and actually
perform different with different input ? Your server side up sampling
serves as a work around to defeat a defect in the DAC , are you solving
the rigth problem :P
A variant is that the DAC's own up sampling sucks ( Archimago measured
an Asus DAC with clear problems ).

Why I weared off topic is because I used sox to make my own test files (
and r8brain ) once and found an astonishing amount of disinformation .
I also sugests hydrogen audio as a good forum to get balanced info on
the subject .

I took a selection off well recorded music that I was sure off was
recorded digitally in 24bit 96k or better as a starting piont and made
my own test files , this was very interesting .

IMO you can't use >40 year classic rock recordings to test this . The
"intrisinic" sound quality is such that any modern format can code the
content fully .
The frequency response is so limited that 44.1 kHz sampling is more than
enough , the sample theorem rules here if the signal you sample is
bandwith limited you don't get anymore information by sampling more
often than needed it's simply redundant , this is a fact not a matter of
opinion .
The noise levels are so high that 16bit is more than enough especially
if properly dithered , I'll bet that 13bits dithered would be ok with
many of the classic rock recordings .

However the hirez version , can be a much better version than previously
released on any format ,so they are still valid .
But due to the state of this hobby the only way to sell this is if you
also can you can slap on a "hirez" sticker on the box 24/96 or DSD.
Previus "remastering " attempts for the CD media has not exactly helped
,they are often actually worse than the original release, this is a
massmarket adaptation to the compressed sound that is in rigth now :/


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Archimago]

Lots of good discussion here already.

2009 Beatles USB "hi-res" 24/44 was ~0.35dB or so louder in many tracks
compared to the equivalent 16/44 CD release.

High quality MP3 sounds very close if not identical to lossless 16/44...
If you missed it, there was the blind MP3 vs. lossless test from
earlier this year. Bottom line - out of 151 respondents, high-bitrate
MP3 vs. lossless - more people picked MP3 as "better". Guys with
expensive equipment preferred the MP3 even more! Needs larger study,
replication, etc... but I think it's clearly consistent with the idea
that high-bitrate MP3's do not sound like "crap" as some people would
have everyone believe.

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html

Welcome to the SB forums Heisenberg.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Mnyb]

Post by Archimago
Lots of good discussion here already.
2009 Beatles USB "hi-res" 24/44 was ~0.35dB or so louder in many tracks
compared to the equivalent 16/44 CD release.
High quality MP3 sounds very close if not identical to lossless 16/44...
If you missed it, there was the blind MP3 vs. lossless test from
earlier this year. Bottom line - out of 151 respondents, high-bitrate
MP3 vs. lossless - more people picked MP3 as "better". Guys with
expensive equipment preferred the MP3 even more! Needs larger study,
replication, etc... but I think it's clearly consistent with the idea
that high-bitrate MP3's do not sound like "crap" as some people would
have everyone believe.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html
Welcome to the SB forums Heisenberg.

There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Archimago]

Post by Mnyb
There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .

Yes. Completely agree.

Let me be clear. Although I do not believe there is significant
perceivable difference between good MP3 and lossless (for the majority
of listeners), I'm an advocate of archiving in FLAC and obviously
playing lossless with one's audiophile gear ;-)

The MP3 test was just to illustrate the point that it doesn't sound bad.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[garym]

Post by Mnyb
There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .

of course. Among other reasons, I'm hoping that eventually, perceptual
codecs are good enough that I can create really tiny quality lossy
versions of all my 10,000 CDs, and they all fit on a small chip that is
implanted in my arm. This will work well when I'm in the old folks home.
No DAC, no cables, no speakers..... just implant-->Brain. ;-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[bakker_be]

Post by garym
of course. Among other reasons, I'm hoping that eventually, perceptual
codecs are good enough that I can create really tiny quality lossy
versions of all my 10,000 CDs, and they all fit on a small chip that is
implanted in my arm. This will work well when I'm in the old folks home.
No DAC, no cables, no speakers..... just implant-->Brain. ;-)

+1 ;)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
bakker_be's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30369
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Julf]

I'm hoping that eventually, perceptual codecs are good enough that I can
create really tiny quality lossy versions of all my 10,000 CDs, and they
all fit on a small chip that is implanted in my arm. This will work well
when I'm in the old folks home. No DAC, no cables, no speakers.....
just implant-->Brain. ;-)

At that point contemporary popular music will anyway be reduced to the
point where it can all be reduced to a few autotune and drum machine
parameters, so it can be regenerated from a few hundred bytes... :)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[garym]

Post by Julf
At that point contemporary popular music will anyway be reduced to the
point where it can all be reduced to a few autotune and drum machine
parameters, so it can be regenerated from a few hundred bytes... :)

true, true. Which is why I'll need all my *old* stuff.....


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[bakker_be]

Post by Julf
At that point contemporary popular music will anyway be reduced to the
point where it can all be reduced to a few autotune and drum machine
parameters, so it can be regenerated from a few hundred bytes... :)

Who's talking about contemporary anyway. I don't even listen to much
that's considered contemporary now, probably much less so in 40 years ;)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
bakker_be's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30369
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[P Nelson]

Post by Mnyb
There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .

I use flac instead of high bit rate lossy because it is adaptable to
future formats without any loss in quality or having to re-rip.
Storage is cheap these days so there is not really a reason to store
your music in a lossy format.

Paul


------------------------------------------------------------------------
P Nelson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58158
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[heisenberg]

Post by P Nelson
I use flac instead of high bit rate lossy because it is adaptable to
future formats without any loss in quality or having to re-rip.
Storage is cheap these days so there is not really a reason to store
your music in a lossy format.
Paul

I agree. But I remain flabbergasted at the discovery that I cannot
(apparently) hear ANY differences between mp3 and lossless! All these
years I was lead to believe that by crunching the source data down to
mp3, we lose more than 50% - 60% of the content. If that were indeed the
case, mp3 would always sound different, but in my case, I hear no
differences.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
heisenberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59622
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[garym]

Post by heisenberg
I agree. But I remain flabbergasted at the discovery that I cannot
(apparently) hear ANY differences between mp3 and lossless! All these
years I was lead to believe that by crunching the source data down to
mp3, we lose more than 50% - 60% of the content. If that were indeed the
case, mp3 would always sound different, but in my case, I hear no
differences.

good perceptual codecs (lame mp3 and AAC for example) were designed to
throw away the info you can't hear (that's why these are
"perceptual"...throw out the content that human beings can't hear
anyhow). Don't feel bad, this is the way it is supposed to be! Very few
people can pass an ABX test on high bit rate lossy vs lossless, except
with problem samples.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Mnyb]

Post by garym
good perceptual codecs (lame mp3 and AAC for example) were designed to
throw away the info you can't hear (that's why these are
"perceptual"...throw out the content that human beings can't hear
anyhow). Don't feel bad, this is the way it is supposed to be! Very few
people can pass an ABX test on high bit rate lossy vs lossless, except
with problem samples.

And actually good hearing makes it harder ? The perceptual masking parts
of the codec relies on does not work properly in some case of damaged
hearing .

Funny enough really badly produced music with tons of dynamic processing
can actually stress the codec more , the scientist that designed these
codec was thinking about " natural " music when doing it , orchestral
work with a lot of ambience code well.

Also , some mp3 decoders are not 100% perfect the ones you use on a
computer is the bests especially if it is lame .
Mathematical compromises in portable players and actually squeezeboxes
,can produce artefacts in rare cases .
If you have a lot of high quality stuff in 320kBps mp3 it migth be a
precaution to let the server handle it , note that I've heard this in
one or two tracks over the years , so server side decoding is just to
cure the "audiophilia nervosa" .
Lossy codecs actually uses more CPU and math to decode than lossles
codecs , and squeezeboxes do decode lossles formats bit perfect .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[heisenberg]

Post by garym
good perceptual codecs (lame mp3 and AAC for example) were designed to
throw away the info you can't hear (that's why these are
"perceptual"...throw out the content that human beings can't hear
anyhow). Don't feel bad, this is the way it is supposed to be! Very few
people can pass an ABX test on high bit rate lossy vs lossless, except
with problem samples.

Interesting (and shocking, to me at least).

Would the same be true for ABX-ing red book vs. hi rez format of the
same track?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
heisenberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59622
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Mnyb]

Post by heisenberg
Interesting (and shocking, to me at least).
Would the same be true for ABX-ing red book vs. hi rez format of the
same track?

IMO yes , given given that it really is the same track ( the 16bit is
derived from the same source ) .

Given the hif in my sig , it has DRC tone controlls and cross overs and.
EQ all done digitally . Theoretically it would benefit from a hirez
source signal , it migth even be measurably so , but I have yet to find
it in practice . It does not seem to reach audible levels.
I've only done AB test on it no real X , simply taking my self made test
tracks give the 24bit and 16bit version exactly the same tags and press
the shuffle button , sometimes I have duplicated the same tracks lets
say 5 hirez and 5 low res versions and shuffled and then used skip to
flit arround to the next track . If I want to check what I'm listening
to I can pause the playlist and go down to file details and there you
can se bit and fs .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Mnyb]

A spanner in the works is that so many "hi res" tracks are not really
hirez either they have analog origin or are fakes ,upsampled 16/44.1 ,
or if the track has been mastered with typical modern " loudness war
methods " no subtleties will be audible .

So pick your best tracks if you ever try , some of them might be from
"audiophile labels" expect to be bored to tears .

Boston audio society did an interesting thing they inserted a 16bit AD
converter and 16bit DAC into existing systems with an hirez player with
an abx test box .
Test subjects could then listen to thier hirez files or SACD's or DVDA
and flick the switch and try to detect if hey where in the ad/da loop or
listened directly to,the player . This actually test more thannthe files
( or less ) but is interesting .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[darrenyeats]

In real life we have "natural" ultrasonic frequencies ... they do no
harm; we can't hear them.

In audio life (!) we have equipment like power amps and transducers that
distort in various ways that are not "natural" at all, one being
intermodulation distortion. However, IM distortion from ultrasonic
frequencies can appear in the audible band. If the ultrasonic
frequencies are absent then your equipment does not generate this added
distortion.

So it may be useful to use 44/48kHz as opposed to higher sampling rates.
Darren


------------------------------------------------------------------------
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Mnyb]

Post by darrenyeats
In real life we have "natural" ultrasonic frequencies ... they do no
harm; we can't hear them.
In audio life (!) we have equipment like power amps and transducers that
distort in various ways that are not "natural" at all, one being
intermodulation distortion. However, IM distortion from ultrasonic
frequencies can appear in the audible band. If the ultrasonic
frequencies are absent then your equipment does not generate this extra
distortion.
So it may be useful to use 44/48kHz as opposed to higher sampling rates.
Darren

yes dont even some tube amps have resonances with thier output
transformers ? somewhere above the audio band


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Julf]

Post by darrenyeats
In audio life (!) we have equipment like power amps and transducers that
distort in various ways that are not "natural" at all, one being
intermodulation distortion. However, IM distortion from ultrasonic
frequencies can appear in the audible band. If the ultrasonic
frequencies are absent then your equipment does not generate this extra
distortion.

Indeed. I guess it is once again time to link to '24/192 Music Downloads
...and why they make no sense'
(http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html).


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[SoftwireEngineer]

I think, you guys lost the OP. If at all OP is still reading, my
suspects are 1) amp 2) SB Touch. Just swap out with a more high-powered
amp and see the speakers "open up". Currently, I know my magnepans on
the wall are not being driven well by Panasonic receiver. The sound is
usually flat in this case. The DAC would be just nuances, noise/haze
etc.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
SoftwireEngineer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7000
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[heisenberg]

Post by SoftwireEngineer
I think, you guys lost the OP. If at all OP is still reading, my
suspects are 1) amp 2) SB Touch. Just swap out with a more high-powered
amp and see if the speakers "open up". Currently, I know my magnepans on
the wall are not being driven well by Panasonic receiver. The sound is
usually flat in this case. The DAC would be just nuances, noise/haze
etc.

An interesting thing happened to me yesterday. I've purchased Les
Nubians "Princesses Nubiennes" CD and ripped it to AIFF and then sat
down to listen in amazement. Why in amazement? Because I've previously
had that CD ripped in 320 kbps mp3 format and was listening to it for
years, so I am intimately familiar with the material and with the sound
quality (the origin of those mp3s is a bit, erm, shady). But now, when
listening to the same material on lossless AIFF, the differences in the
sound quality were, to say the least, stunning. Suddenly, the soundstage
opened, the bass extended deep down, the highs became 'civilized' and
silky, and on and on, I could rant the whole day about the
improvements.

So my question is: are the perceived differences to be attributed to the
differences in formats (lossy vs. lossless), or to the differences in
ripping the contents of the CD? (fyi, I've used the regular iTunes
ripping procedure).


------------------------------------------------------------------------
heisenberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59622
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Wombat]

Post by heisenberg
An interesting thing happened to me yesterday. I've purchased Les
Nubians "Princesses Nubiennes" CD and ripped it to AIFF and then sat
down to listen in amazement. Why in amazement? Because I've previously
had that CD ripped in 320 kbps mp3 format and was listening to it for
years, so I am intimately familiar with the material and with the sound
quality (the origin of those mp3s is a bit, erm, shady). But now, when
listening to the same material on lossless AIFF, the differences in the
sound quality were, to say the least, stunning. Suddenly, the soundstage
opened, the bass extended deep down, the highs became 'civilized' and
silky, and on and on, I could rant the whole day about the
improvements.
So my question is: are the perceived differences to be attributed to the
differences in formats (lossy vs. lossless), or to the differences in
ripping the contents of the CD? (fyi, I've used the regular iTunes
ripping procedure).

So you compare your newly ripped cd to some mp3 from a shady source?
Makes no sense. Better do mp3 files out of your recent purchased cd and
compare again.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[Julf]

Post by heisenberg
So my question is: are the perceived differences to be attributed to the
differences in formats (lossy vs. lossless), or to the differences in
ripping the contents of the CD? (fyi, I've used the regular iTunes
ripping procedure).

Just like Wombat suggested, I would suspect the difference is in the
different original material. How do you know they come from the same
master, and have you normalized the volume?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[probedb]

Post by heisenberg
An interesting thing happened to me yesterday. I've purchased Les
Nubians "Princesses Nubiennes" CD and ripped it to AIFF and then sat
down to listen in amazement. Why in amazement? Because I've previously
had that CD ripped in 320 kbps mp3 format and was listening to it for
years, so I am intimately familiar with the material and with the sound
quality (the origin of those mp3s is a bit, erm, shady). But now, when
listening to the same material on lossless AIFF, the differences in the
sound quality were, to say the least, stunning. Suddenly, the soundstage
opened, the bass extended deep down, the highs became 'civilized' and
silky, and on and on, I could rant the whole day about the
improvements.
So my question is: are the perceived differences to be attributed to the
differences in formats (lossy vs. lossless), or to the differences in
ripping the contents of the CD? (fyi, I've used the regular iTunes
ripping procedure).

So you compared a lossy rip of a CD which maybe from a different
release/master with a new lossless CD rip and you expected them to sound
the same? Was this a proper ABX test? I'm guessing not.

The comparison is completely invalid as a test of lossy vs lossless. The
only way to do that is to take the lossless rip you just did and convert
it at varying bitrates and ABX each lossy copy against the original
lossless. That way you'll check when you can start to hear a difference,
if at all.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[heisenberg]

Post by probedb
So you compared a lossy rip of a CD which maybe from a different
release/master with a new lossless CD rip and you expected them to sound
the same? Was this a proper ABX test? I'm guessing not.
The comparison is completely invalid as a test of lossy vs lossless. The
only way to do that is to take the lossless rip you just did and convert
it at varying bitrates and ABX each lossy copy against the original
lossless. That way you'll check when you can start to hear a difference,
if at all.
Oh and the ABX will just make you aware that you can hear a difference
not necessarily that one is better.

I think I'll ask my friend Bender Rodriguez to run these tests for me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
heisenberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59622
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591

[garym]

Post by heisenberg
Interesting (and shocking, to me at least).
Would the same be true for ABX-ing red book vs. hi rez format of the
same track?

yes, assuming that both the redbook and hi rez versions are from the
same mastering.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98591