20 ms·

> "If you download mp3/spotify" You are misconstruing Monty's argument here. He is very much against mp3...in fact he says he could tell the difference betwee

> "If you download mp3/spotify" You are misconstruing Monty's argument here. He is very much against mp3...in fact he says he could tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and 16 bit 44k wav. The real point of the video is that 16 bit 44k wav is beyond sufficient...don't need to go beyond that to 24-bit 192kHz.

lz400 9y ago
As far as I know, people consistently fail to tell the difference in blind A/B tests in listening between (any decent) FLAC and a well ripped mp3 from the same source. I know I can't. I can't link to proper double blind studies but that's the general consensus in the non-BS-audiophile community as far as I know.
- Tepix 9y ago
  c't magazine did a test all the way back in 2000 (see https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html) and even the best test listeners were unable to tell 256kbit mp3 and the original apart.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    Was this the Arny Krueger stuff? I did that. I ABXed 320kbit mp3 from an uncompressed original, I think 9/10 IIRC. It was a recording of castanets, and listening for frequency response differences was useless so I keyed off of 'personality' differences in the sounds and did it that way. I was also just as horrible at detecting wow and flutter, as I was good at detecting lossy compression 'changes of sonic personality'. Comes from my experience being with analog audio, which is less true of people these days. The idea that 'the best' listeners cannot tell 256k from even something as limited as 16/44.1 is ridiculous. Any mp3 format… any lossy format… is seriously compromised. Talk to techno/house DJs and producers about how useful it is to perform off mp3s, this is not a hypothetical argument.
- ycombinete 9y ago
  My anecdote is that I've done a number of these tests (Foobar has a plugin that allows you to do them on yourself), and I can reliably tell the difference between FLAC and 128 MP3, but can't tell the difference on 256 MP3 and up.
  - lz400 9y ago
    Yes, I've heard people putting the threshold in ~192kbps. Above that it's pretty much impossible these days. I can also tell the difference in 128kpbs, although sometimes it's a bit of nitpicking (can only hear differences in the sounds of hihats and things like that)
    - 72deluxe 9y ago
      I think the type of music you are listening to assists with being able to differentiate. To me (much rock, blues, guitar music) 128kbps MP3 sounds like somebody chewed it first. Cymbals and bizarre snares that sound like the snare is now made of paper indicate the low bitrate. But 256+ and I certainly cannot tell the difference reliably.
      - knute 9y ago
        I had satellite radio for a while but had to cancel it because I couldn't stand the sound of cymbals at whatever bitrate they encode at. Weirdly, when the phone operator asked why I was cancelling and I told him "audio quality" he acted like he had never heard that before.
        svachalek 9y ago
        I'm not an audiophile at all but satellite radio sounds worse to me than anything other than AM/FM radio. Spotify over LTE and Bluetooth sounds night-and-day better.
      - vkreso 9y ago
        The same in electronic music since there are many repeating sounds. 128kbps just sounds bad, especially on a proper sound system.
- CodesInChaos 9y ago
  You can't tell the difference on the vast majority of music. But encoders occasionally mess up, producing an audible difference. In the case of MP3 this often takes the form of a pre-echo. For example encoding cymbals and hapsichords seems to be difficult, though much less of a problem than it used to be. My understanding is that such killer samples exist for good MP3 encoders, even at 320kbit/s, but it has been a couple of years since I last looked into the topic. (Personally I downloaded some of those killer samples and couldn't tell the difference, but other people reliably tell them apart in an ABX test.)
xiphmont 9y ago
> he says he could tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and 16 bit 44k wav. In the early days, when all mp3 encoders were pretty bad, I could tell which encoder produced a given file. mp3 encoders today are vastly better. I've not been able to do that party trick in a long time.
- cellularmitosis 9y ago
  I remember the Xing encoder was blazing lay fast, but sounded worse than LAME. This was around 1999, IRRC.
  - philjohn 9y ago
    Yep, especially bad on cymbals - always a dead giveaway.
    - 72deluxe 9y ago
      Yes and hihats. But how am I to tell now that I have high frequency tinnitus?? Blasted drummers.
    - bitwize 9y ago
      And whenever someone said an 's'. It sounded like 'sshssh'
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  thank you for clarifying! It seems I slightly misrepresented your views...for that I'm sorry...I was going on memory of what I remember you saying.

lz400 9y ago

As far as I know, people consistently fail to tell the difference in blind A/B tests in listening between (any decent) FLAC and a well ripped mp3 from the same source. I know I can't. I can't link to proper double blind studies but that's the general consensus in the non-BS-audiophile community as far as I know.

Tepix 9y ago
c't magazine did a test all the way back in 2000 (see https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html) and even the best test listeners were unable to tell 256kbit mp3 and the original apart.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  Was this the Arny Krueger stuff? I did that. I ABXed 320kbit mp3 from an uncompressed original, I think 9/10 IIRC. It was a recording of castanets, and listening for frequency response differences was useless so I keyed off of 'personality' differences in the sounds and did it that way. I was also just as horrible at detecting wow and flutter, as I was good at detecting lossy compression 'changes of sonic personality'. Comes from my experience being with analog audio, which is less true of people these days. The idea that 'the best' listeners cannot tell 256k from even something as limited as 16/44.1 is ridiculous. Any mp3 format… any lossy format… is seriously compromised. Talk to techno/house DJs and producers about how useful it is to perform off mp3s, this is not a hypothetical argument.
ycombinete 9y ago
My anecdote is that I've done a number of these tests (Foobar has a plugin that allows you to do them on yourself), and I can reliably tell the difference between FLAC and 128 MP3, but can't tell the difference on 256 MP3 and up.
- lz400 9y ago
  Yes, I've heard people putting the threshold in ~192kbps. Above that it's pretty much impossible these days. I can also tell the difference in 128kpbs, although sometimes it's a bit of nitpicking (can only hear differences in the sounds of hihats and things like that)
  - 72deluxe 9y ago
    I think the type of music you are listening to assists with being able to differentiate. To me (much rock, blues, guitar music) 128kbps MP3 sounds like somebody chewed it first. Cymbals and bizarre snares that sound like the snare is now made of paper indicate the low bitrate. But 256+ and I certainly cannot tell the difference reliably.
    - knute 9y ago
      I had satellite radio for a while but had to cancel it because I couldn't stand the sound of cymbals at whatever bitrate they encode at. Weirdly, when the phone operator asked why I was cancelling and I told him "audio quality" he acted like he had never heard that before.
      - svachalek 9y ago
        I'm not an audiophile at all but satellite radio sounds worse to me than anything other than AM/FM radio. Spotify over LTE and Bluetooth sounds night-and-day better.
    - vkreso 9y ago
      The same in electronic music since there are many repeating sounds. 128kbps just sounds bad, especially on a proper sound system.
CodesInChaos 9y ago
You can't tell the difference on the vast majority of music. But encoders occasionally mess up, producing an audible difference. In the case of MP3 this often takes the form of a pre-echo. For example encoding cymbals and hapsichords seems to be difficult, though much less of a problem than it used to be. My understanding is that such killer samples exist for good MP3 encoders, even at 320kbit/s, but it has been a couple of years since I last looked into the topic. (Personally I downloaded some of those killer samples and couldn't tell the difference, but other people reliably tell them apart in an ABX test.)

xiphmont 9y ago

> he says he could tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and 16 bit 44k wav. In the early days, when all mp3 encoders were pretty bad, I could tell which encoder produced a given file. mp3 encoders today are vastly better. I've not been able to do that party trick in a long time.

cellularmitosis 9y ago
I remember the Xing encoder was blazing lay fast, but sounded worse than LAME. This was around 1999, IRRC.
- philjohn 9y ago
  Yep, especially bad on cymbals - always a dead giveaway.
  - 72deluxe 9y ago
    Yes and hihats. But how am I to tell now that I have high frequency tinnitus?? Blasted drummers.
  - bitwize 9y ago
    And whenever someone said an 's'. It sounded like 'sshssh'
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
thank you for clarifying! It seems I slightly misrepresented your views...for that I'm sorry...I was going on memory of what I remember you saying.