4 ms·

> you also cannot tell the difference between lossless and properly transcoded MP3 I'm not sure what you mean by "properly transcoded," as though there's a sco

> you also cannot tell the difference between lossless and properly transcoded MP3 I'm not sure what you mean by "properly transcoded," as though there's a scourge of bad encoders out there and everyone has nutty encoding practices, but I really, really bet you can. Listen to an mp3 of a rock/pop track. Try to focus on the cymbals. See if you can isolate them aurally from the rest of the music. Can you hear how mp3 encoding completely munges high frequencies to sound like digital glass breaking? Then you shall finally understand why mp3 encoding has always sucked, and Napster really, really should have won.

Nav_Panel 4y ago
^ yeah exactly. Also, you really do need a pretty good sound system to hear it. I was with the poster above you for a long time, but then I did blind A/B testing on my buddy's $10k monitors, and the difference was clear. I wouldn't call it "night and day", but I had no trouble distinguishing even 320 MP3 from FLAC on his system by focusing on the very high frequencies (3/3, small N I know I know, but I felt like I could've gone on indefinitely). The MP3s lost some clarity in the highs which led to less dimensionality/sense of space ("soundstage"), because our spatial hearing is very attuned to minute transient differences in high frequencies in particular. But you need to be listening on a system that is adequately equipped to reproduce very high frequency transients accurately, which most people don't have access to.
conradfr 4y ago
The encoders of today create really good mp3 even at 192kbps (at 128kbps not so much which is a shame as a lot of internet radios use that). Do you have a favorite rock track we can do an ABX test with?
- user_7832 4y ago
  Not the person you replied to, but Hotel California’s Hell Freezes Over version is generally very well regarded in mastering. If I’m not mistaken one of those A/B/X test websites also tested that, and while I was using a very simple pair of headphones, the difference was noticeable.
  - conradfr 4y ago
    Why not. https://abx.funkybits.fr/test/the-eagles-hell-freezes-over-hotel-california https://abx.funkybits.fr/test/the-eagles-hell-freezes-over-h... (obviously there's a bug on the tracks display after round 1)
    - conradfr 4y ago
      (fixed)
      - user_7832 4y ago
        Thanks, I’ll try and take the test asap. (I need to find my earphones and usb c to 3.5mm adapter first). Is there any way I can contact you after taking the test, perhaps email?
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > Hotel California’s Hell Freezes Over version is generally very well regarded in mastering. Never heard this, but I know the original track is used for reference in studios from LA to NY, and is generally regarded as among the best mixes ever engineered. Another commenter suggested high end audio equipment and $10K monitors... not necessary. With any off the shelf hifi, $100 worth of equipment, one can easily hear mp3 high frequency problems. Focusing on the cymbals just makes it obvious.
kimixa 4y ago
Many mp3 encoders cut off really high frequency stuff - somewhere between 16khz and 20khz depending on the encoder. Often this isn't changed by any of the quality settings, e.g. on lame it's still enabled on the "insane" preset without manually disabling it. While that's on the very top-end of human hearing - most by middle age can't detect anything above 14-16khz, but it's certainly possible (especially for those younger) to have frequencies all the way up to 20khz as audible. So it is possible for some people to hear a difference with some mp3 encoders, no matter the bitrate or quality settings. And the psychoacoustic model is going to focus on the "average" listener, so it's perfectly possible that an lower bitrate encoding is transparent (IE: Completely indistinguishable) to one person, while another may be able to notice higher frequencies that have been cut off to provide more quality in the more noticeable parts of the spectrum. Or even the same person at different ages. This is completely physical difference, and no amount of training or harder listening would be able to bridge the gap. And I find many of the higher frequencies that are hit by such things are often not particularly noticeable unless you're actively looking for them, being able to tell there's a difference and knowing what to specifically look far isn't the same as saying the recording is somehow less enjoyable due to quality differences.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Nav_Panel 4y ago

^ yeah exactly. Also, you really do need a pretty good sound system to hear it. I was with the poster above you for a long time, but then I did blind A/B testing on my buddy's $10k monitors, and the difference was clear. I wouldn't call it "night and day", but I had no trouble distinguishing even 320 MP3 from FLAC on his system by focusing on the very high frequencies (3/3, small N I know I know, but I felt like I could've gone on indefinitely). The MP3s lost some clarity in the highs which led to less dimensionality/sense of space ("soundstage"), because our spatial hearing is very attuned to minute transient differences in high frequencies in particular. But you need to be listening on a system that is adequately equipped to reproduce very high frequency transients accurately, which most people don't have access to.

conradfr 4y ago

The encoders of today create really good mp3 even at 192kbps (at 128kbps not so much which is a shame as a lot of internet radios use that). Do you have a favorite rock track we can do an ABX test with?

user_7832 4y ago
Not the person you replied to, but Hotel California’s Hell Freezes Over version is generally very well regarded in mastering. If I’m not mistaken one of those A/B/X test websites also tested that, and while I was using a very simple pair of headphones, the difference was noticeable.
- conradfr 4y ago
  Why not. https://abx.funkybits.fr/test/the-eagles-hell-freezes-over-hotel-california https://abx.funkybits.fr/test/the-eagles-hell-freezes-over-h... (obviously there's a bug on the tracks display after round 1)
  - conradfr 4y ago
    (fixed)
    - user_7832 4y ago
      Thanks, I’ll try and take the test asap. (I need to find my earphones and usb c to 3.5mm adapter first). Is there any way I can contact you after taking the test, perhaps email?
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Hotel California’s Hell Freezes Over version is generally very well regarded in mastering. Never heard this, but I know the original track is used for reference in studios from LA to NY, and is generally regarded as among the best mixes ever engineered. Another commenter suggested high end audio equipment and $10K monitors... not necessary. With any off the shelf hifi, $100 worth of equipment, one can easily hear mp3 high frequency problems. Focusing on the cymbals just makes it obvious.

kimixa 4y ago

Many mp3 encoders cut off really high frequency stuff - somewhere between 16khz and 20khz depending on the encoder. Often this isn't changed by any of the quality settings, e.g. on lame it's still enabled on the "insane" preset without manually disabling it. While that's on the very top-end of human hearing - most by middle age can't detect anything above 14-16khz, but it's certainly possible (especially for those younger) to have frequencies all the way up to 20khz as audible. So it is possible for some people to hear a difference with some mp3 encoders, no matter the bitrate or quality settings. And the psychoacoustic model is going to focus on the "average" listener, so it's perfectly possible that an lower bitrate encoding is transparent (IE: Completely indistinguishable) to one person, while another may be able to notice higher frequencies that have been cut off to provide more quality in the more noticeable parts of the spectrum. Or even the same person at different ages. This is completely physical difference, and no amount of training or harder listening would be able to bridge the gap. And I find many of the higher frequencies that are hit by such things are often not particularly noticeable unless you're actively looking for them, being able to tell there's a difference and knowing what to specifically look far isn't the same as saying the recording is somehow less enjoyable due to quality differences.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]