4 ms·

I dare you do blind tests! :) I also think the fact that the hi-fi system is modern has little to do with it.

by kreetx 9y ago

usrusr 9y ago
Depends. If the system more modern than actually hi-fi then chances are high that there is so much hidden DSP signal mangling that all the occlusions and illusions so carefully balanced by the encoder don't work half as good as expected.
- dTal 9y ago
  Absolutely this. mp3s wreak havoc with Pro Logic II decoders (stereo->surround processors), regardless of the bitrate, by stripping phase information which the DSP uses for sound steering. Also, the extra speakers allow you to spatially isolate sounds that would normally be masked - this can actually be a richer listening experience, but with lossy encoding it's a mess. More generally, this applies to any scenario where the sound is distorted or altered by something. A crappy speaker might have a perverse frequency response. A room reflection might manifest as a comb filter. Both will destroy the careful masking assumptions of any psychoacoustic model. Lossy compression should be avoided as an archival format whenever possible, even if you think you know better, because you never know when you might need the information you thoughtlessly threw away.
TillE 9y ago
You really don't need blind testing to tell that 128kbps MP3s are awful. Certain common instruments will produce blatant artifacting all over the place. 128 is just barely good enough to be tolerable for a lot of people, but nobody would claim it's transparent. AAC does a lot better at that bitrate.
- dagw 9y ago
  128 is just barely good enough to be tolerable for a lot of people As someone who grew up loving music while listing to Nth generation tape copies on a really shitty walkman I just don't understand this line of reasoning.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Same here. Also, I now have tinnitus and partial hearing loss, so the audio snobbery makes me incredibly envious of those people that could always hear so much better than I can, such that they just have to complain about hearing the little extra things (or notice the missing bits) that annoy them. It's great that audiophiles can hear so well, but when they start talking about tubes and premium cables and vinyl records and gold-plated contacts, I just want to give them an otitis media infection that cuts them down to my level. You just don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. I know that's wrong to wish such ill upon others, but it's so much harder to suppress my envy when I'm being inundated by what appears from my perspective to be superstitious nonsense. As someone who can still somehow enjoy music when it's encoded as a 64k/s MP3 file, I am baffled as to how someone can say the very same music can be bad at 128k/s. I'm just glad that I can still hear it at all!

I dare you do blind tests! :) I also think the fact that the hi-fi system is modern has little to do with it.

by kreetx 9y ago

I dare you do blind tests! :) I also think the fact that the hi-fi system is modern has little to do with it.

Depends. If the system more modern than actually hi-fi then chances are high that there is so much hidden DSP signal mangling that all the occlusions and illusions so carefully balanced by the encoder don't work half as good as expected.

dTal 9y ago
Absolutely this. mp3s wreak havoc with Pro Logic II decoders (stereo->surround processors), regardless of the bitrate, by stripping phase information which the DSP uses for sound steering. Also, the extra speakers allow you to spatially isolate sounds that would normally be masked - this can actually be a richer listening experience, but with lossy encoding it's a mess. More generally, this applies to any scenario where the sound is distorted or altered by something. A crappy speaker might have a perverse frequency response. A room reflection might manifest as a comb filter. Both will destroy the careful masking assumptions of any psychoacoustic model. Lossy compression should be avoided as an archival format whenever possible, even if you think you know better, because you never know when you might need the information you thoughtlessly threw away.

TillE 9y ago

You really don't need blind testing to tell that 128kbps MP3s are awful. Certain common instruments will produce blatant artifacting all over the place. 128 is just barely good enough to be tolerable for a lot of people, but nobody would claim it's transparent. AAC does a lot better at that bitrate.

dagw 9y ago
128 is just barely good enough to be tolerable for a lot of people As someone who grew up loving music while listing to Nth generation tape copies on a really shitty walkman I just don't understand this line of reasoning.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Same here. Also, I now have tinnitus and partial hearing loss, so the audio snobbery makes me incredibly envious of those people that could always hear so much better than I can, such that they just have to complain about hearing the little extra things (or notice the missing bits) that annoy them. It's great that audiophiles can hear so well, but when they start talking about tubes and premium cables and vinyl records and gold-plated contacts, I just want to give them an otitis media infection that cuts them down to my level. You just don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. I know that's wrong to wish such ill upon others, but it's so much harder to suppress my envy when I'm being inundated by what appears from my perspective to be superstitious nonsense. As someone who can still somehow enjoy music when it's encoded as a 64k/s MP3 file, I am baffled as to how someone can say the very same music can be bad at 128k/s. I'm just glad that I can still hear it at all!