OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD THAN MUSIC > Computers, Internet and Technology

MP3 vs. FLAC

<< < (2/9) > >>

APK:
Yep, I can't tell the difference between 320kbs and a CD/flac version either.

The reason for a properly controlled blind test to test this is that the compared files
must be listened to at exactly the same volume, otherwise the louder one will
usually seem better quality than the quieter, because volume affects how we perceive
frequencies. And it is not so easy to set this up.

mgriffin:
I agree, but I've seen many people argue that the differences are SO obvious that anyone who can't hear them must be completely tone-deaf.

I believe most of what is discarded in a well-encoded 320k MP3 is inaudible, either very high or very low frequency information. I don't doubt that there ARE some audio engineers with highly trained ears and esoteric playback devices who might be able to hear differences with SOME material, but I would wager a large amount of money that this is much less common (in other words, that the sonic differences in the human-audible range are less obvious) than some people claim.

drone on:
The files on iTunes are 128k?

APK:
iTunes was 128kbs (equivalent) when they first started, but they increased the quality at some point to around 256kbs I believe.

petekelly:
Something I find odd in these fidelity comparisons, is the nature of ambient music in comparison to say, acoustic instruments /  vocal recordings.

I can see purists having a problem with less than loss-less audio for certain types of music, but I think ambient is an odd one in that a large amount of 'electronic' sound is used in its production and while high fidelity is desirable (in my view), I'm wondering what the detrimental effects of 320 kbps mp3s might be in the case of ambient ?
Soundstage, stereo issues, high frequency distortions etc ?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version