3 ms·
>It's crazy to me that people are saying that they can hear the difference between 24-bit 192khz recordings and something like 320Kbps MP3 or 192 VBR With some
by jdietrich 8y ago
>It's crazy to me that people are saying that they can hear the difference between 24-bit 192khz recordings and something like 320Kbps MP3 or 192 VBR
With some decent headphones and a basic knowledge of compression artifacts, it's not particularly difficult to tell the difference in a blind test. You can diff a FLAC and MP3 recording using phase inversion, which allows you to train your ears to recognise compression artifacts. Modern perceptual encoders are very good, but they're not perfect. It's not a difference I particularly care about, but it is there.
- posterboy 8y ago> 24-bit 192khz Chances are my soundblaster soundcard does not support either of those. Similarly, you can't just diff two different recording of two different sample rates without conversion, so the conversion would either introduce artifacts if upsampling (and if it wouldn't, you wouldn't hear a difference) or render any advantage obsolete if downsampling the high sample rate. Obviously depends on the algorithm used, but you should target whatever your soundcard supports.
- jdietrich 8y agoThe 24/192 part is irrelevant - there's no audible difference between properly-mastered 16/44.1 and 24/192 audio. No adult human can hear anything above 22kHz; 16 bits provides 96dB of undithered dynamic range and ~120dB of perceived dynamic range with shaped dither. You can hear the degradation from 16/44.1 bitstream to 320kbps or 192kbps VBR MP3, but you need good gear and good ears. I'm perfectly happy to listen to properly encoded MP3s because the difference is very slight, but I'd still use uncompressed or lossless formats for archival purposes.