Do you listen to mp3s ?

[sam9s]

You can ofcourse magnify it till you can see individual pixels.

I am not talking about magnifying........at same resolution say 1600x1200 take a RAW image and a JPEG image and view them on 50 inch screen, and you will notice the difference.

anyway, why don't we try an ABX test in real life?
Send me CD/WAV/FLAC file of your favorite track that you know thoroughly.
And the one where you can make out difference even at mp3 v0.

We can do a listening test, wherein we see for ourselves - whether we can differentiate.

Why dont you try that......If you have/can arrange the equipment for the same. I have already done that.

 

[alcy]

Well regarding the picture analogy - I was talking about a photograph with a fixed projected size. Say 6"x4" or 7"x5".

You can ofcourse magnify it till you can see individual pixels.

And the same you can do about music by slowing it down so much that each and every quantum bit of digital file comes to your ear separately.

But I am talking about normal ppl, normal timescale, normal sensitivity.

mp3 V5 was just an example.

A more filling (freq spectrum) sound with more emphasis on higher end will obviously require more bits.



anyway, why don't we try an ABX test in real life?
Send me CD/WAV/FLAC file of your favorite track that you know thoroughly.
And the one where you can make out difference even at mp3 v0.

We can do a listening test, wherein we see for ourselves - whether we can differentiate.

Err...for normal people, sure it doesn't make a difference, who contested that ? (only of course, if by normal you mean people who are not into hi-fi/ have generic music systems/sources)

 

[suri]

alpha male seems to be out on a limb - and cutting off the limb - proximal to his (monkey) perch??

 

[esanthosh]

I am not an audiophile, just a zerophile with rusted iron ears

All I do is to listen to music and try to enjoy it - whether it is MP3 on my portables, background score in movies faintly heard through noisy dialogues and gun shots, FLACs on my PC via my headphones or CDs on my humble entry level "hi-fi"? setup. I sometimes seriously "think" about ABX. But, even if I get started on it, I usually forget what I was trying to do and end up listening to music

 

[suri]

I am not an audiophile, just a zerophile with rusted iron ears

All I do is to listen to music and try to enjoy it - whether it is MP3 on my portables, background score in movies faintly heard through noisy dialogues and gun shots, FLACs on my PC via my headphones or CDs on my humble entry level "hi-fi"? setup. I sometimes seriously "think" about ABX. But, even if I get started on it, I usually forget what I was trying to do and end up listening to music

tchah, tchah - eh - hehehe - power to you - but

audiophilia has nothing to do with the enjoyment of music - and much less with the emotions that the artist seeks to convey.

Uhuh! - the real audiophile does not enjoy the music - all the pleasure is derived from the electronic and mechanical perfection that his/her gear can reach/aspire to.

that pleasure is different - one that i try to experience every now and then - and has nothing to do with the content (stupid, romantic {incontinent} singers).

 

[alpha1]

I am not talking about magnifying........at same resolution say 1600x1200 take a RAW image and a JPEG image and view them on 50 inch screen, and you will notice the difference.



Why dont you try that......If you have/can arrange the equipment for the same. I have already done that.

OK. So what would you call viewing an image on 10" screen compared to 50" screen?
Thats not magnification? Magnification is not just using the zoom button on your PC.

Wish we could be at same location for testing the ABX on mp3.

Sam, I was just requesting a FLAC or lossless file.
You will come to know how many here are normal, and how many abnormal!

Somehow my earlier request for the same (on different thread, with different ppl) went un-attended.

 

[asliarun]

I actually find it surprising that on the one hand so many people are super-particular about the exact model number and exact specification of the amplifier, speaker, CD player, DAC, or even speaker wire they have used or heard in an audition.

On the other hand, many people will say that they threw out their mp3 collection after they heard a flac or a CD. Not mentioning the mp3 bitrate is akin to not mentioning the model and just mentioning the manufacturer. There is so much qualitative difference in the different bitrates of mp3s (and different models of speakers by a single manufacturer) that it is meaningless to use the term "mp3" by itself.

The other interesting thing that I find is that when it comes to audio equipment, most people ask you to listen for yourself and not just look at the technical details and specification. However, when it comes to mp3s, not many people tend to do a fair listening test for themselves to really compare a 320kbps mp3 with a CD and decide for themselves. I guess that the charts that show all the signals getting brutally chopped off by the "lossy" mp3 are too much of a deterrent for most people.

Again, I only make an observation. Not trying to promote one thing over the other. Just saying that the "listen for yourself" principle should be uniformly applied to not just equipment, but to music formats as well.

 

[sam9s]

OK. So what would you call viewing an image on 10" screen compared to 50" screen?
Thats not magnification?

Actually No....
Magnify means increasing the size, volume...... , we are not doing that (Technically)......as I said the resolution is same...... the image is just fitting itself on to a larger screen......

 

[cruise_1982]

I have her entire set too. However I am looking for her original CDs as I want to support the artiste. Yeah I like Nagumomo too, I like practically all her songs. Yes the arrangement is fantastic.

PS: Also look for the works of an artiste called Nadaka NADAKA - Contemporary Indian & World Music: Indian music, Guitar player, Indian musicians,Acoustic guitar, Indian Jazz fusion, Indian classical music, Folks, Hindustani & Carnatic music, Indian music albums & discography. He is one of the few western artistes I have heard who has properly internalized the lilting, meditative and inner spiritual seeking aspect of Indian Music. Great arrangement as with Susheela.

Cheers

Audition coming soon. Thanks.

Saw Susheela Raman albums under "FUSION" category in Landmark, Spencer Plaza yesterday. Should be available in Bangalore branch as well or in their online portal.

 

[alpha1]

Actually No....
Magnify means increasing the size, volume...... , we are not doing that (Technically)......as I said the resolution is same...... the image is just fitting itself on to a larger screen......

So I think you did get my point about magnification.
and then what about FLAC/WAV file which I was requesting?

 

[sam9s]

So I think you did get my point about magnification.
and then what about FLAC/WAV file which I was requesting?

This is not magnifying, as I said, the resolution is same. ...."Am I repeating myself"

 

[alcy]

@alpha1: Its really simple, a 640 x 480 wallpaper stretched, will look ugly on a 22 inch LCD with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 (of course depending on the graphics card). That's all what Sam meant, I guess.

Regarding the debate, its clear that the format & bitrate doesn't dampen the music listening experience, just like I am happy clicking photographs from my 5k worth Kodak camera. The photographs I take capture subjects nicely, but if I post them on a technical photography forum, I'll be banned in no time. That's because in that case, I can't talk sharpness, colors, apertures, lenses, focal length blah blah. But having said that, its also clear that with a few basic inputs from those folks , I could at least try to improve general photography skills.

 

[alpha1]

@alpha1: Its really simple, a 640 x 480 wallpaper stretched, will look ugly on a 22 inch LCD with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 (of course depending on the graphics card). That's all what Sam meant, I guess.

Regarding the debate, its clear that the format & bitrate doesn't dampen the music listening experience, just like I am happy clicking photographs from my 5k worth Kodak camera. The photographs I take capture subjects nicely, but if I post them on a technical photography forum, I'll be banned in no time. That's because in that case, I can't talk sharpness, colors, apertures, lenses, focal length blah blah. But having said that, its also clear that with a few basic inputs from those folks , I could at least try to improve general photography skills.

And all I am trying to say is that if you cannot make out difference between 640x480 and 1920 x 1080 on a 6"x4" screen/paper - it makes no sense to keep 1920 x 1080 resolution - unless you plan on playing around the image file.

Same is with mp3 vs WAV/CDA unless we are talking about audio tracks where only castanets and hi-hats are being played along with a white noise background.
Though, I know, any place where ABX test is the sole means of differentiation and substantiating your claims of golden ears is not held in high regards here (or any other audiophile forum) - do check this http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t72542.html
There are certain tracks which cannot be resolved perfectly by even the highest bit rate mp3 - but then are we talking about such tracks or music in general?

What about FLAC vs CDA/WAV - some ppl claim to hear differences between these two also.

 

[spirovious]

Well I started comparing mp3 with flac seriously & found that flac is much clean & close to original recording.It sounds sweater than mp3.

 

[sam9s]

And all I am trying to say is that if you cannot make out difference between 640x480 and 1920 x 1080 on a 6"x4" screen/paper - it makes no sense to keep 1920 x 1080 resolution - unless you plan on playing around the image file.

Same is with mp3 vs WAV/CDA unless we are talking about audio tracks where only castanets and hi-hats are being played along with a white noise background.
Though, I know, any place where ABX test is the sole means of differentiation and substantiating your claims of golden ears is not held in high regards here (or any other audiophile forum) - do check this Hydrogenaudio Forums > Is mp3@320kbps really transparent?
There are certain tracks which cannot be resolved perfectly by even the highest bit rate mp3 - but then are we talking about such tracks or music in general?

Yes I agree you might not make out the difference on a 6x4 paper......but the argument does not remain exactly same when talking about FLAC/MP3,
it might be possible that a MP3 song would sound equaliy good for certain tracks, but you would not know which MP3, coz when you compress, you can only decide the bitrate (kbps) but not which data to ommit. I will rephrease my statement that I posted in the previous page

its not always the algorithm omitts notes that are irrelevent. A song with a complex variation in amplitide would might need more bits to exists and the algo might ignore that information trying to keep the rest intact. This is the reason not all MP3 sound same......even for the same song, some would sound pretty close to CD some totally crapp, but CD in all probability would sound same and provide the same audio quality, so you have that trust/comfort that atleast you have the best source. With MP3 you would never know how would that sound even if given a high end amp and a spk

 

[ajinkya]

Well I started comparing mp3 with flac seriously & found that flac is much clean & close to original recording.It sounds sweater than mp3.

Spiro,
Flac is EXACTLY the original CD data. So why use the term "close to", which is misleading? Maybe you meant it in terms of how it sounded to you vrs. CD?

I don't know why many of us still feel that FLAC is somehow "inferior" to the data represented in CDs, when both datasets are bit-wise copies of each other. The only reason a FLAC recording can sound different from the CD it came from is because of the intermediate DAC, which may be different in the PC you play from, and the CD player you own. If someday, CD players have a hardware FLAC decoding unit, I can guarantee that FLAC and CD will also sound exactly the same, assuming the CD player filters the FLAC file through the same DAC as it uses for CD playback. Even today, I cannot make out the difference between FLAC and CD on budget to mid-fi PC+DAC and CD player comparison tests. As long as the PC is not overloaded with many processing tasks, the decoding time for FLAC is not an issue to the end listener at all.

 

[moktan]

here is an interesting article in The Telegraph today, though this issue has been dealt with earlier here in the forum...anyway thought i would share...
[/B]
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | International | Thanks to iPod, sound quality has taken a step back

this Joseph Plambeck article was originally featured here
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10audio.html?scp=1&sq=joseph plambeck&st=cse

 

[spirovious]

Hi Ajinkya,I said close as I dont have original CDs.I compared with mp3.
If I get one of the original CDs,I will post the details.

 

[rambo]

I no audiophile,but very specific abt SQ of music i listen..
That said, i dont find great diff between 320Kbps and FLAC..

 

[sam9s]

I no audiophile,but very specific abt SQ of music i listen..
That said, i dont find great diff between 320Kbps and FLAC..

what was the setup you played to check the difference........