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: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless? (Read 4425 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

I'd like to work with opus and https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Opus I've seen that. I'm thinking 160 kbps in opus is fine for 99% of people but I'm not sure. I'd like some more insight from people who discuss this more than I think about this now.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #1 –
I use 140 kbps for high quality mastering/record quality, and 105 kbps for poor mastering/record quality.

The idea was to use slight edge above 128 / 96, and have the same ratio, but not an overkill above that. I only classify my music as per mastering/record quality, and I do not see point to give a lot of bits for already poor stuff.  I have average hearing, but listen to classical, jazz, pop, metal. I mainly use iphone for music listening with the standard earbuds.

I did not do ABX, but I do pay attention to music, and many of my high quality mostly classical and jazz sound great to me. Never suspected a problem.

I am sure if you train yourself for problem samples you could spot them, but I doubt you would spot them when listening for pleasure. a) those problem samples are rare b) most people struggle to spot them even when they merely have to focus on a few second long sample, let alone when you listen for pleasure.

I am happy with my choice. I keep my backup. I only use Opus for listening were I level all my music and cut out the long silence at the front and the back, etc, and I produce it from the original backup, not from lossy.

IMHO 160 kbps is more than enough in such a use case.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #2 –
Right on. Just checking to see what other people feel is good for the 99% as I can't decipher 128 kbps mp3, 320 kbps mp3, and a wav file. Maybe I need better headphones but I ask myself who else put there has spent like 500$ on just headphones? Not many I'd think.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #3 –
Maybe the difference is a lot less now than it was back in 2006.
I don't think headphones will make much of a difference.

Most of the music I had collected from 2006 to 2008 was in low quality mp3 or wma. No idea what settings I used. I just remember losing the desire to listen to several of those albums for no reason I could point out. Later on I ripped them again form the CD and gave them a listen. It was super easy for me to pick out the mp3 versions because of the distinct artifacts. They were why I didn't want to listen to those albums again.

Anyway, just now I thought I'd make a 128kbps mp3 and easily notice those same artifacts. Nope. I even set the advanced settings to the ones that I think will most likely give low quality. Still nothing as bad or as obvious as I remember. It's even more funny because right before that test, I was listening to a podcast on YouTube and those aversive compression artifacts were so obvious in it.
Processed audio in java and python.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: For Serious on
Maybe the difference is a lot less now than it was back in 2006.
I don't think headphones will make much of a difference.

Most of the music I had collected from 2006 to 2008 was in low quality mp3 or wma. No idea what settings I used. I just remember losing the desire to listen to several of those albums for no reason I could point out. Later on I ripped them again form the CD and gave them a listen. It was super easy for me to pick out the mp3 versions because of the distinct artifacts. They were why I didn't want to listen to those albums again.

Anyway, just now I thought I'd make a 128kbps mp3 and easily notice those same artifacts. Nope. I even set the advanced settings to the ones that I think will most likely give low quality. Still nothing as bad or as obvious as I remember. It's even more funny because right before that test, I was listening to a podcast on YouTube and those aversive compression artifacts were so obvious in it.

It's probably because back in 2006-2008 things weren't as good as they are now? That's all I can think of. I get what you mean though.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #5 –
It all comes down to earbuds, headphones, and the kind of loudspeakers used.
EZ CD Audio Converter / FLAC or WavPack

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #6 –
I have noticed that some encodings I have done sounded acceptable at lower bitrates on headphones and speakers but when I played it on my cellphones speaker I immediately heard, clearly, the artifacts in e.g. the cymbals.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #7 –
Quote
It's probably because back in 2006-2008 things weren't as good as they are now? That's all I can think of. I get what you mean though.

Also don't forget the inevitable reduction in hearing when getting older.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: zordaz on
Quote
It's probably because back in 2006-2008 things weren't as good as they are now? That's all I can think of. I get what you mean though.

Also don't forget the inevitable reduction in hearing when getting older.

I was going to bring that up in the first post but I was sure it'd get there.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: zordaz on
Also don't forget the inevitable reduction in hearing when getting older.
Yeah, but that only applies if you are the only one ever to listen to those tracks.
_My_ hearing may decline with age, but when I'm gone, my kids will probably want to keep some or all of my library for their own use.
Their hearing will at that point be less impacted than mine, so why would I limit it to lower bitrates just because my hearing doesn't hear the difference anymore?

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: d351r3d_ on
I'd like to work with opus and https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Opus I've seen that. I'm thinking 160 kbps in opus is fine for 99% of people but I'm not sure. I'd like some more insight from people who discuss this more than I think about this now.

You likely are right with that assessment as 160 kbps is as high as Opus goes on YouTube: https://gist.github.com/AgentOak/34d47c65b1d28829bb17c24c04a0096f#dash-audio

I do remember a discussion with YouTube's Steven Robertson (the guy who made the ABR algorithm for the HTML5 video player) many years ago where they had ran a study which showed that even 128 kbps AAC-LC was good enough (using their own optimized encoder), however, people were still able to easily tell the difference. After some back and forth the culprit was found: Their study's participants all were >25 years old, and the people complaining were younger than that.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #11 –
I'd guess 128 kbps is probably overkill given my experience with a public 128 kbps MP3 listening test years ago.

Personally I use 96 kbps when I encode to Opus and I don't notice anything obvious.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Just_Addict on
my kids will probably want to keep some or all of my library for their own use.
You think?   :D
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #13 –
This was surprising. People in defense of 128 kbps audio as well. On other forums I have seen, people won't relax until they have a single flac file that can sustain within itself probably a whole album.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: zordaz on
Also don't forget the inevitable reduction in hearing when getting older.
I would have mentioned that, except for that podcast I was listening to very much had the nasty artifacts. I stopped the podcast to give a listen to the mp3s I created.

About the headphones though—thinking about it more—they do make a big difference. If they don't reproduce 15kHz and above accurately, you're less likely to be able to hear the worst results of mp3.
Processed audio in java and python.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: kirk781 on
This was surprising. People in defense of 128 kbps audio as well. On other forums I have seen, people won't relax until they have a single flac file that can sustain within itself probably a whole album.

Those people clearly have too much choice anyway.

"can you hear the difference between mp3 and lossless?"
"i sure hope not"

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #16 –
On my iLoud MM monitors, to my surprise I can't tell a difference between the original HA castanets.wav and the 1999 Xing 128kbps MP3 encode.

I do have slight tinnitus on my right ear, but the flaws of a antiquated MP3 encoder should be immediately obvious as day and night...Right?

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #17 –
I guess you'll be of an age where you've lost sensitivity in the upper frequency range.  I'm the same...
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #18 –
Xing wasn't the bad guy, Try using bladeenc.  Sometimes louder playback is good but other times
it may cause  fatigue , masking and even temp tinnitus.  Try a lower volume as well.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: fooball on
I guess you'll be of an age where you've lost sensitivity in the upper frequency range.  I'm the same...

I dropped to 64kbps, I still can't detect any immediately noticeable difference at 60dB SPL. Background room noise is 28dBA.

Maybe the Win10 audio mixer is screwing with me, but I highly doubt that on my Topping E50 USB.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #20 –
In my case 160kbps aac (itunes encoder) is more than enough. I tried ABX 128kbps aac vs lossless few year ago. When I play the music loud enough and focus all my attention, I can tell 128kbps aac apart from lossless. But once the bitrate goes to 160, I can't.

Re: The bitrate normal people can't discern from lossless?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: d351r3d_ on
I'd like to work with opus and https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Opus I've seen that. I'm thinking 160 kbps in opus is fine for 99% of people but I'm not sure. I'd like some more insight from people who discuss this more than I think about this now.

Hey there! Opinions on Opus bitrate can vary, but 160 kbps is generally considered high-quality for most listeners. It strikes a good balance between audio fidelity and file size, making it a solid choice for the majority.