Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Yosako | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 05:33 AM |
IDW Jr. Member Group: Members Posts: 58 Member No.: 47,398 Joined: Aug 18th 2016 Location: Update Profile | Can you hear the difference between Studio master quality (24-96), CD quality (44.1-16) and 320 kbps MP3 files? Find it out! FLAC, studio master quality [24-96-2.0] https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8nyWN8eP...QUN1aDNyWkh5a0U FLAC CD quality [44.1-16-2.0] https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8nyWN8eP...NVgwMkc0MGtkakU MP3 [320 kbps] https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8nyWN8eP...ak1qeEN2bU45bmc |
APX | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 07:32 AM |
Join the Empire today! Or die, rebel scum! Group: Advanced Members Posts: 13,455 Member No.: 1,473 Joined: Mar 18th 2004 Location: Update Profile | Can you? |
Yosako | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 08:40 AM |
IDW Jr. Member Group: Members Posts: 58 Member No.: 47,398 Joined: Aug 18th 2016 Location: Update Profile | Yep, even right at the beginning MP3 sounds "flat" and loses spatial clues, the difference between 44.1/16 and 24/96 perhaps could be perceived with better speakers than mine. |
APX | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 08:51 AM |
Join the Empire today! Or die, rebel scum! Group: Advanced Members Posts: 13,455 Member No.: 1,473 Joined: Mar 18th 2004 Location: Update Profile | Then I can tell the difference as well. |
Yosako | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 09:20 AM |
IDW Jr. Member Group: Members Posts: 58 Member No.: 47,398 Joined: Aug 18th 2016 Location: Update Profile | I used Poison Arrows from Mike Oldfield as source material because it has quite a bit of ultrasonic content above 20,000 Hz and up to 30,000 Hz in the 24-96 version (can be seen with Audacity's spectrum analyzer) which must be lowpass-filtered at 22000 Hz before converting to 44.1/16. It might require VERY good speakers or headphones to be able to play >20kHz ultrasonics to begin with, and you might be a bat if you're able to actually hear'em LOL. This post has been edited by Yosako on Aug 25 2016, 09:23 AM |
Nomake Wan | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 01:15 PM | ||||||
ShiMACHaze Group: Advanced Members Posts: 19,542 Member No.: 5,394 Joined: Feb 5th 2005 Location: Drydock |
So you're saying you can't. EDIT: Shouldn't this be in the computers/tech subforum? This post has been edited by Nomake Wan on Aug 25 2016, 01:16 PM | ||||||
Proud Contributor of IDW Forums and the Music Section Revival Project |
Tessou | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 01:24 PM |
More NEGATIVE than a black hole Group: ADMINISTRATOR Posts: 19,345 Member No.: 12,263 Joined: Sep 12th 2005 Location: Update Profile | IT SHALL BE DONE. |
Proud Contributor of IDW Forums and the Music Section Revival Project |
Yosako | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 01:35 PM | ||
IDW Jr. Member Group: Members Posts: 58 Member No.: 47,398 Joined: Aug 18th 2016 Location: Update Profile |
What I said is that while I can hear the difference from MP3 to the original 24-96 file, the difference between CD Quality [44.1-16] and [24-96] is harder to hear as my speakers (which come from a fairly dated 4.1 setup) have a response rated up to 18kHz which ain't the best when it comes to picking high pitched business; I'd need higher quality speakers to hear those subtle notes more clearly. This post has been edited by Yosako on Aug 25 2016, 01:43 PM | ||
Nomake Wan | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 02:01 PM | ||
ShiMACHaze Group: Advanced Members Posts: 19,542 Member No.: 5,394 Joined: Feb 5th 2005 Location: Drydock |
Right, so you can't. Come back when you've spent oodles of cash on your audio pipeline only to be able to just barely maybe sorta hear a tiny speck of audio artifact at some ridiculous range that's completely unrelated and unimportant to the music in question. That way I can laugh and go back to listening to music like a normal human being. | ||
Proud Contributor of IDW Forums and the Music Section Revival Project |
xiao | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 05:48 PM |
moon bunny Group: XIAO Posts: 5,735 Member No.: 13,323 Joined: Oct 4th 2005 Location: Update Profile | Here's the thing though. Every song is mixed & mastered differently, cause every sound engineer is different: ★ Some know how to make a song sound like vanilla-sex-sprinkles in your ears ♥ ★ Other sound engineers just make it sound good enough for a YouTube video. Kids have their parents' credit cards & can't tell the difference in the end ... I know xiao can't! ™ Is lossless audio better than lossy audio? YES. Can I hear the difference...? Does weeaboo-Jesus exist? That always depends on the song. |
APX | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 06:50 PM |
Join the Empire today! Or die, rebel scum! Group: Advanced Members Posts: 13,455 Member No.: 1,473 Joined: Mar 18th 2004 Location: Update Profile | Thought i was reading a lebon post. |
Nomake Wan | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 08:22 PM | ||
ShiMACHaze Group: Advanced Members Posts: 19,542 Member No.: 5,394 Joined: Feb 5th 2005 Location: Drydock |
That depends. There are lossy algorithms that sound damn good, and I'm sure there are lossless algorithms that don't work properly. Both of those facts are outside of the scope of this thread, however, which specifically asked if you can hear the difference between a 24-96 FLAC, a 16-44.1 FLAC, and a 320k (44.1? it's not specified by the OP) MP3 of some random song. The correct answer, and why this thread is completely bogus as per OP's usual threads, is that it depends both on the song (as Xiao correctly pointed out) and on the hardware. Assuming you have a properly-mastered track to work from where there would actually be a difference in audible frequency between the encoding schemes, you still need to have an audio pipeline (sound processor, interface, output device) that can correctly replicate those frequencies. At that point you're not talking a cheap setup, so of course the only people who can answer to the affirmative are people who've already spent the dosh. So either they say yes and are lying in order to justify their purchases, or they actually can. It's like if I posted a series of grayscale test images in different bit-depths and asked if anyone can see the dithering effect. The only way I can get a correct answer is if someone has a program capable of displaying that image's bit-depth accurately, a graphics card that can output that bit-depth accurately (10-bit OpenGL workflows are only supported on nVidia Quadro and AMD FirePro cards, plus apparently a few other random AMD desktop cards) and a monitor with at least a 12-bit LUT (10+2) and 10-bit matrix. If you have all of that, then yeah, you should be able to provide the correct answer. Too bad it'll cost you an arm and a leg and won't matter unless you're doing something that actually requires such a workflow. So, as they say on 4chan, here's your (You). | ||
Proud Contributor of IDW Forums and the Music Section Revival Project |
xiao | Posted: Aug 25 2016, 08:36 PM | ||||||||
moon bunny Group: XIAO Posts: 5,735 Member No.: 13,323 Joined: Oct 4th 2005 Location: Update Profile |
★ I ran my post through Google Translate's Lebonese filter and... the similarities are uncanny!
★ Yeps yeps, Nomake's also right on the ball. Scientifically you can make a gazillion tests with graphs... but in the end it'll depend on the song & person listening to it. Usually people don't need a bunny suit Intel Lab to figure out if a song sounds good or not, they'll tell you right off the bat... this song sounds like shit. (pardon my Mexicanese) This post has been edited by xiao on Aug 25 2016, 08:46 PM | ||||||||
Yosako | Posted: Aug 26 2016, 08:40 AM |
IDW Jr. Member Group: Members Posts: 58 Member No.: 47,398 Joined: Aug 18th 2016 Location: Update Profile | Lossless has another benefit beyond what you hear: if you ever want to monkey around with sound editors for mixing/fun/whatever, it's better to have a lossless source because otherwise you end up transcoding an MP3 of another MP3 all the way down to garbage. This post has been edited by Yosako on Aug 26 2016, 08:44 AM |
xiao | Posted: Aug 26 2016, 10:46 AM | ||
moon bunny Group: XIAO Posts: 5,735 Member No.: 13,323 Joined: Oct 4th 2005 Location: Update Profile |
It's better to reproduce the whole song with your own VST's, instruments, & vocals than to mix a .wave file into a DJ set~ ♫ or get the original producer to cough-up the whole Cubase project on their private FTP : instrumental, vocals, presets, & the whole 9 harukas than to work with .wave files... (のヮの)~ ☆ | ||
Nomake Wan | Posted: Aug 26 2016, 03:07 PM | ||
ShiMACHaze Group: Advanced Members Posts: 19,542 Member No.: 5,394 Joined: Feb 5th 2005 Location: Drydock |
This I can agree with. If you're actually producing music, then yes, it's definitely better to have lossless source to introduce as few potential artifacts as possible during production. Now, you could still make the argument that those artifacts are unimportant for 99% of the people who will be listening to your music, but even I cannot argue this point. After all, I follow the same philosophy with AMV Creation. I encode all my working clips into lossless video formats from their original source (DVD, Bluray, etc) and feed those lossless clips into my editor, only converting to a lossy format once I'm finished. Could I encode them to a decent lossy format? Sure, but I could potentially introduce chroma issues or visual artifacts unnecessarily, not to mention some video editing programs play more nicely with lossless frame-servers than they do lossy frame-servers. So you've got me there. Of course, all of that has little to do with the topic of this thread--whether the memberbase can hear the difference between 24-96 FLAC, 16-44.1 FLAC and 320k-???? MP3--so thankfully there's no contradiction to be had. | ||
Proud Contributor of IDW Forums and the Music Section Revival Project |