Do I Have Subpar Hearing? (MP3s vs. Lossless)

[blackzarg]

I cannot honestly say that I can tell a difference between my FLAC, AIFF, and M4A files and my MP3 320kbps files. I've tried hearing the difference through my Sennheiser HD202 Headphones (Not super), my Sennheiser CX-300 earbugs (again, not super), my RS850 Sigs w/ an Onkyo Tx-SR876, and my newly arrived ELT525Ms* (powered by the Onkyo until the HK receiver comes).

I CAN, however, tell the difference if the source recording was bad (hissy, etc). But it drives me nuts sometimes deciding which file format to rip my discs to. I don't have a desktop, so I'm limited in hard drive room, but then the true audiophiles (who I'd like to be, maybe) always say that lossless formats are ftw.

Is it a blessing that my hearing isn't perfect, and that 320kbps MP3s of good recordings sound fine to me?

Songs I used to test:
Mahler - Symphony No. 9, Mvt. 4 (Leonard Bernstein w/ New York Philharmonic)
Brahms - Symphony No. 2, Mvt 4 (Herbert Von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic)
David Maslanka - Symphony No. 4, m. 712-End (Jerry Junkin, Dallas Wind Symphony) <--- probably no one knows this piece, but it is an AMAZING wind band repertoire (along with some other Maslanka symphonies).
Muse - "Glorious" from Black Holes and Revelations
Tech N9ne - "T9X" from Absolute Power

*Yes, pics are coming, just waiting for the receiver and some finishing touches.

[keenween]

At one point I had 850s and an Onkyo receiver...at that time I had trouble telling much difference. As I moved up the audio chain it became more apparent, starting when I switched to separates. I then switched away from a processor to a simple passive preamp and haven't looked back.

I ripped everything to FLAC and I'm much happier with the quality over mp3s. I still enjoy the mp3s I have but they give me listening fatigue, especially at higher volumes. I don't think there is a downside to ripping to a higher quality, except hard drive space which has become relatively inexpensive. Well, the other downside is telling your non-audiophile friends you listen to FLAC files and then get blank stares followed by eye rolls.

edit: I hope I didn't come across as a golden ear or anything. From my experience, the receiver just wasn't as clean sounding. Not less enjoyable, just less fidelity perhaps? I sometimes miss having the functions of a processor, made life easier from the couch.

[geekinthehood]

While I haven't yet begun my digital library, I plan on using Flac - and nothing else. My reasoning:

1. I don't know if I can tell the difference between Flac and a good MP3. I suspect not, but I've learned that our hearing gets more discriminatory with practice. It's possible that after a year of listening to Flacs, I'll appreciate the differences - not necessarily as more resolution or detail, but as music that's more pleasing to listen to.

2. I work with data and databases as part of my job. One of my cardinal rules is to never throw information away. You can produce subsets (MP3), if the need arises, but always keep the reference set (Flac).

3. Hard drive space is cheap and getting cheaper.

4. If you start with the best - Flac - you'll never be wondering if your system would sound better if only you had a better source format. Maybe it doesn't make a difference now, but maybe it will after you upgrade. (And you know you're going to upgrade. :eyebrows: ) And even if it doesn't make a difference... so what? (See #3)

[Jon Liu]

Geek, I 100% agree that our ears become more discriminatory with practice.

I find that on my typical computer speakers I cannot really tell a whole lot of differences, but when I put the lossless vs MP3 on my actual listening system there is a pretty big difference.

[woofersus]

mp3's ripped at 320kbps aren't bad really, but you'll notice it more on tracks that have a lot of high frequency material like cymbals, as that's where the compression artifacting is most obvious. A lot of classical music has less material in the area where it's easiest to hear the problem, and some of it has a high enough noise floor in my experience to make it a little tough to tell anyway. Now, as was mentioned above, some audio equipment is more revealing than others, and I've never used an onkyo reciever, but I can tell you that mp3 artifacts are more noticeable to me on my elt525m's/gizmo than on my yamaha/rs450 ht system so I'd say the amp definitely makes a difference.

If you want to learn what the artifacts sound like just rip a track at like 128, and listen. It will be painfully obvious. Then rip at 192k and note the improvement but listen for the artifacts that are still there if you're paying attention. At 320k it will require a discerning ear and good equipment, but you'll probably be able to pick it out if you know what it sounds like and you're looking for it.

Personally I could live with mp3's at 320k for most occasions when I listen from the computer, but I rip lossless because it gives me a) the best possible playback, and b) the flexibility to transcode without compounding lossyness. If I want to put it on a portable device in mp3 format at 256k or even 192k for space reasons I can do it without re-ripping, and if I want to burn a compilation for my car I can go to .wav and have original quality. Also, some portable devices will play other formats like ogg vorbis which will sound better at a lower bitrate and save space and if you want .ogg files for one player and .mp3 for another you can transcode on the fly while syncing (at least with wmp11 and I think j.river you can) to each device and never have to keep multiple copies on your pc. I have mine in .wma lossless because vmc won't recognize FLAC, but if I ever want to change for any reason I can just do a giant batch convert with dbpoweramp and the next morning all my files will be FLAC with no loss of quality. Besides that, I've now moved my entire collection to digital and plan to stop with the cd's once and for all via squeezebox duet/boom/etc so I'll be playing off the pc for all listening fairly soon. Ripping once for all is a beautiful thing.

[droht]

What Geek said...

[dvenardos]

Did you really expect us to tell you to use mp3? :D

[blackzarg]

If you want to learn what the artifacts sound like just rip a track at like 128, and listen. It will be painfully obvious. Then rip at 192k and note the improvement but listen for the artifacts that are still there if you're paying attention. At 320k it will require a discerning ear and good equipment, but you'll probably be able to pick it out if you know what it sounds like and you're looking for it.

Haha, yeah, I can tell the difference at 128 no problem - that is definitely a very sad situation. From the 192+ that's when I start having problems.

While I haven't yet begun my digital library, I plan on using Flac - and nothing else. My reasoning:

1. I don't know if I can tell the difference between Flac and a good MP3. I suspect not, but I've learned that our hearing gets more discriminatory with practice. It's possible that after a year of listening to Flacs, I'll appreciate the differences - not necessarily as more resolution or detail, but as music that's more pleasing to listen to.

2. I work with data and databases as part of my job. One of my cardinal rules is to never throw information away. You can produce subsets (MP3), if the need arises, but always keep the reference set (Flac).

3. Hard drive space is cheap and getting cheaper.

4. If you start with the best - Flac - you'll never be wondering if your system would sound better if only you had a better source format. Maybe it doesn't make a difference now, but maybe it will after you upgrade. (And you know you're going to upgrade. :eyebrows: ) And even if it doesn't make a difference... so what? (See #3)

Good points - I suppose I've only had my audio gear for a very short amount of time!

Did you really expect us to tell you to use mp3 :D

Haha, well no, not really. I just needed to vent my frustration at not being able to tell the difference!

Now....I guess on to buying a 2TB hard drive and some more ripping to do!

Shame that my PS3 doesn't read FLAC, though... anyone know an "on the fly" decoder like TVersity for the Mac? That Apple TV post looks like it's making more sense now for AAC and AIFFs.

And then....a few years down the road, just watch me switch to LPs. :hissyfit:

[Jason]

2. I work with data and databases as part of my job. One of my cardinal rules is to never throw information away. You can produce subsets (MP3), if the need arises, but always keep the reference set (Flac).

You must work for google...:fryingpan:

[Jason]

I can hear differences on many (but not all) at 320 vs apple lossless. But for casual listening, I think 320 is the lowest I'd go as it is 'tolerable'

[etcarroll]

Recently connected my pc to my Carver receiver to listen through my RS250MKIIs, and now notice the difference in the various rips.

Have both WMA for my Zune, and vatious sized rips in iTunes.

Is there a good converter for getting things to FLAC?

[mojave]

Recently connected my pc to my Carver receiver to listen through my RS250MKIIs, and now notice the difference in the various rips.

Have both WMA for my Zune, and vatious sized rips in iTunes.

Is there a good converter for getting things to FLAC?

You can use the free Media Jukebox to rip to FLAC or to convert to FLAC. However, if you convert to FLAC from a lossy format, the end result will probably be worse than the lossy format.

With Media Jukebox or J. River Media Center you can rip to lossless as FLAC, APE, or WMA Lossless. It will then convert on the fly to MP3 or WMA when copying to a portable device.

[bp2007]

2. I work with data and databases as part of my job. One of my cardinal rules is to never throw information away. You can produce subsets (MP3), if the need arises, but always keep the reference set (Flac).

3. Hard drive space is cheap and getting cheaper.

+1 :)

[bp2007]

Recently connected my pc to my Carver receiver to listen through my RS250MKIIs, and now notice the difference in the various rips.

Have both WMA for my Zune, and vatious sized rips in iTunes.

Is there a good converter for getting things to FLAC?

I wouldn't suggest converting lossy rips to lossless.

If you start afresh, you may also consider Exact Audio Copy (EAC). I use EAC and I am quite happy with it. There was a thread on EAC on av123forum, just in case you need it. :)

[dvenardos]

Exact Audio Copy (EAC). I use EAC and I am quite happy with it. There was a thread on EAC on av123forum, just in case you need it. :)

EAC is "generally" considered to be the standard and if you are using windows, no reason not to use it (it is free) and pretty easy to use in the latest versions.