Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 320Kb/s MP3 vs. WAV (Read 36966 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

320Kb/s MP3 vs. WAV

Reply #25 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
Can you explain about audible problems outside of ABX?  Shouldn't ABX expose audible problems?  Not trolling, but curious.


I'm assuming this was just a poorly constructed sentence. If there really is an audible difference, it's ABXable. That's the whole point of ABX.

320Kb/s MP3 vs. WAV

Reply #26 –
Quote from: yourlord on
I'm assuming this was just a poorly constructed sentence. If there really is an audible difference, it's ABXable.

You mean this?
Quote from: shadowking on
For certain genres and listeners there may be audible problems  outside abx or something small that may draw their attentions to it.

If the audible problem disappears or looks to be randomly assigned in an ABX test then we have a good idea where the "problem" manifested.

Re: 320Kb/s MP3 vs. WAV

Reply #27 –
Quote from: yourlord on
If there really is an audible difference, it's ABXable. That's the whole point of ABX.

ABX tests whether the differences are accurately identifiable.  That is not the same as audible. 
A failure for a K-pop newbie to be able to accurately ABCDEFGHX the members of Girls' Generation doesn't mean there's no perceptible difference between them, it means they haven't built up the memory and vocabulary yet to be able to express the differences.

The range of human experience is not summed up by the set of things that can be definitively, consciously verbalized.

Re: 320Kb/s MP3 vs. WAV

Reply #28 –
Quote from: kuchikirukia on
it means they haven't built up the memory and vocabulary yet to be able to express the differences.
That's no less flawed than the previous post you attempted to correct.

Quote from: kuchikirukia on
The range of human experience is not summed up by the set of things that can be definitively, consciously verbalized.
You should probably look elsewhere for a faith-based audio community.

Re: 320Kb/s MP3 vs. WAV

Reply #29 –
Quote from: kuchikirukia on
The range of human experience is not summed up by the set of things that can be definitively, consciously verbalized.
Let's just assume the worst case for the sake of your "argument": you cannot verbalize any experiences. So what? ABX is not a test where you need to write down your feelings or experiences...

You are just supposed to be able to tell if there is an audible difference or not. If this is based on your feelings or just hearing a plain difference does not matter.

What you seem to want to do is erring on the side of "there is an audible difference" when your feelings are so vague that they are indistinguishable from a test where you ABX two identical files ... Nope, doesn't work. You don't get to choose that there is an audible difference by default. Instead, your claims can simply be rejected and no audible difference is assumed until you've provided sufficient evidence to the contrary.
You should view the situation the same way.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: 320Kb/s MP3 vs. WAV

Reply #30 –
My opinion is, in general, the difference is really hard to tell apart.
But there are always exceptions.
If you use above-average earphones, and listen to some really loud and noisy tracks, mostly EDM and Syhth-rock, containing violent dynamic parts, which results in the bitrates of ALACs exceed 1200k (44.1k/16)... You may feel the lossless version a bit more "perfect".
If you're young as a teenager, the difference may seem greater.
Unfortunately I love those toilet-exploding noises much indeed... And keep storing ALAC files.

EDIT: The statements above only approve to "320kbps MP3" (maybe restricted to those by outdated but widely used LAME versions).
They cut off the high frequency part above about 16000hz, which is audible for teenagers. I don't know how the case is for iTunes plus aac.

Re: 320Kb/s MP3 vs. WAV

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Scrummble on
EDIT: The statements above only approve to "320kbps MP3" (maybe restricted to those by outdated but widely used LAME versions).
They cut off the high frequency part above about 16000hz, which is audible for teenagers. I don't know how the case is for iTunes plus aac.
You seem to be under the misconception that it is inherent in lossy encoding to apply low-pass filtering. It is not. If low-pass filtering is applied by default then it is probably done to improve the overall sound quality by allocating the saved bits to more important parts of the audio spectrum.