People can't really tell the difference above 256kbps?

[caseyfriday]

I consider myself an 'audiophile', but like a couple people above me, not in the snobby way. It's more that I really enjoy listening to music, and I enjoy feeling like I'm either in the recording studio with the artists, or at the concert.

I enjoy music so much actually, that I started refurbishing old iPods with audiophile capacitors to get a clean output from the Wolfson DAC's inside these old classic iPods. The Wolfson DAC is very highly rated by lots of people, and I think it sounds great too.

I've done blind listening tests, and the highest bitrate I can discern a difference is 320kbps, so I rip all my music at that bitrate. I do still have to buy CD's (mainly from Amazon), since iTunes / Amazon MP3 don't provide 320kbps. I'm sure there are other ecosystems that do, but I prefer sticking with what I know, so ripping CD's to 320 works for me.

I have a nice setup in my car that I tuned myself - an older Alpine V-Drive 60W x 4 head unit running in 3-way active mode, powering a pair of Polk DB6501 component speakers. I also only have 6" bass drivers in the rear doors for nice rich midbass - as I'm not much of a basshead (any more). I have a 30-pin to RCA in converter cable to get audio from and charge my 30-pin iPods.

At home, I listen through an O2 headphone amplifier that I built and a set of Sennheiser HD595's. I've read that there are better headphones, and while I always want to buy new toys, these headphones really hit the sweet spot of neutrality for me, so I see no need to upgrade right now.

Anyway, I think it's all really about objective vs subjective - a subject which NwAvGuy wrote a great article about.

 

[cinematicme]

And we remember that attempts to sell 24-bit CD formats have generally failed to find much traction in the market. The marginal difference wasn't worth the extra cost for most people.

True but when you are doing a studio master for archiving you want it in the highest quality possible, so it can be mixed down to 16bit to go on a CD.

 

[snaky69]

There is definitely a discernible difference between 44.1k and 192k. You are confusing audio frequency with sampling frequency. One has not much to do with the other. Sampling frequency is how many times an audio wave is sampled per second. Even a novice with healthy hearing can hear the difference between 44,000 and 192,000 samples per second. Much more clarity and accuracy. The 20k limit for human hearing refers to audio frequency, not sampling frequency, and has no bearing on this discussion.

Have you heard of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem?

There is a reason for the sample rates. And that reason has EVERYTHING to do with audio frequency. According to the Nyquist theorem, to accurately reproduce a signal by sampling it, the sample rate must be at the very least twice the highest frequency contained in the signal.

Most humans fail to hear anything above 20kHz, by giving ourselves a bit more headroom and going up to 22.05kHz, and using the Nyquist theorem, you end up with a 44.1kHz frequency.

Now, the reason a 192kHz song would sound better is that there is still audio information above 20kHz. Information we cannot, as humans, hear, but we can still feel. Much like you would not hear much below 10-15Hz or so, yet would definitely feel it with a decent subwoofer. Sampling at 192kHz allows resonant frequencies up to 96kHz to be accurately recorded.

 

[nathan43082]

When I am mixing in a production setting, on say Pro tools, master files are always 24bit 96khz AIFF (Also called a golden master) A CD can only do 16bit.

Any apple product can play AIFF, but your looking at 30-100MB per song depending on length.

There is no need to ever go beyond 16-bits at 44.1kHz for music or speech that is intended for release to listeners.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[ggabriele3]

The most shocking thing to me about this is that some people feel such a strong need to challenge others on whether they can appreciate the difference in higher quality, or whether they need the higher quality.

I see this happen surprisingly often on the internet. For example:

• In cycling, you have people who will swear that aero bikes don't give any benefit, or if they do, it's too minimal to make a difference, or that any aero benefit is cancelled out by the rider.
  
• Also in cycling, you have people who will swear that the extra stiffness of carbon fiber bikes has no benefit for "the average rider." These people are often steel bike owners, who come back a few months later having just bought a carbon fiber bike and are now extolling its benefits.
  
• Also in cycling, you have people who will swear that light bikes are a waste of money, since the saving the last few grams will be imperceptible, or diminishing returns for the money.
  
• We also heard this type of thing with display resolution - there were people who used to swear that the human eye could not detect the difference between 720p and 1080p. Now it's 1080p vs. 4K.
  
• Also in gaming. Many console gamers swear that the "human eye cannot detect" framerates above 30, or above 60, or above 120, or above whatever.

I get the impression that there is something inside us that makes us feel the urge to invalidate anything that is greater than what we currently have.

It may be that "normal listening environments" don't have enough resolution for the listener to appreciate higher-quality recordings, but that's not a reason to stop at 256Kbps. People used to be very happy with SDTV, until they got used to HDTV. Now they can appreciate the difference.

The "normal listening environment" will change if the demand is there. In the late 90s/early 00s, I was using crappy headphones in cheap players, and they were OK, because that's what was available. Over the years I have upgraded equipment and source file quality, and have been repeatedly re-introduced to my music. Apple earbuds used to be enough for everyone, but now I see many people upgrading their headphones. I know everyone here has had that moment when you hear something in a track that you've never heard before. Why should you assume that it could never happen again?

Even if "most" people couldn't tell the difference - wouldn't you prefer having iTunes Match upgrade your audio to native AIFF or ALAC? Once you know your source material is as good as it could be, you can then play with improved hardware to see what their individual "upper limit" is.

I'm amazed this is even up for debate. If I ever have the option, I want all my video at 4K/120hz, I want my audio lossless, my games at 300fps, and my bikes at 8 pounds with aero benefits.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

[*]Also in cycling, you have people who will swear that light bikes are a waste of money, since the saving the last few grams will be imperceptible, or diminishing returns for the money.

For some people it likely would be. I mean, on my touring bike, which is equipped with lights, dynamo hub, fenders, and rack, a few grams here or there is not going to make much difference when I've got my panniers loaded with 40 pounds of groceries.

And of course, carbon is passe now. All the cool kids are getting titanium.

 

[ggabriele3]

For some people it likely would be. I mean, on my touring bike, which is equipped with lights, dynamo hub, fenders, and rack, a few grams here or there is not going to make much difference when I've got my panniers loaded with 40 pounds of groceries.

And of course, carbon is passe now. All the cool kids are getting titanium.

The thing is, it would make a difference. Even if it's imperceptible. Whether it makes a difference that is worth the price to you is another matter. So many of these debates come down to individual valuation.

Most people would be willing to spend a little extra to reduce the weight of their bike dramatically, but there are some people are perfectly happy spending thousands on parts that make their bike 20g lighter. That 20g isn't a huge difference doesn't make it any less valid.

Nobody laughs at the guy who spends $400,000 on a Lamborghini that has about 300 horsepower more than he could possibly use. Most people think - if I could afford it, it would be nice to have.

Same thing with audio quality. Even if the audio source I want contains sounds I literally cannot hear, I may be the type of person who wants to have the best possible source, regardless of whether I can otherwise sense it. Some people are happy with 96kbps MP3s they got via Napster in 1999. Some people find their sweet spot at 256K and Apple earbuds. Some people spend $500,000 on listening rooms.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Nobody laughs at the guy who spends $400,000 on a Lamborghini that has about 300 horsepower more than he could possibly use.

I laugh at that guy when I see him stuck in traffic as I ride by. I do not think "wish I had that car!" I think "what a maroon!"

 

[ChrisA]

..
Nobody laughs at the guy who spends $400,000 on a Lamborghini that has about 300 horsepower more than he could possibly use. Most people think - if I could afford it, it would be nice to have....

I think a LOT of people think "what a jerk" He buys a useless car just to show off.

There is nothing wrong with high-end audio equipment except what you start thinking you need solid silver speaker wires and become one of those anti-science UFO believers

Getting back to 256K audio files. Mostly you can't hear the difference. But I said "mostly". The thing is that the difference between 256K and lossless VARIES over times. The difference might be undetectable for 3 solid minutes then one drum hit hits "whacked" by the compression algorithm. So the 256K files sound bad for 0.1 seconds out of 3 minutes. That is what I find, the differences are very, very transient but obvious. For many cuts there is no difference. Acoustic instrument sound OK but some electronic ones compress poorly.

SO the difference is NOT uniform listening to a 30 second sample is not enough because you have to listen to the few seconds where is it noticeable and you just can't predict. But when yo find it, it is 100% repeatable.

 

[tonylarkin]

If I cannot tell the difference, is it my setup or my ears?

Hi,

I'm new to the world of digital audio and, having noticed that I cannot tell the difference between low res and high res, I was wondering if you guys could critique my setup. Specifically, is my equipment even capable of outputting the high res sound or am I one of those people who cannot hear above 256 kbps?

I have a Mac Mini connected to a Schitt Modi DAC via USB. That connects to a Schitt Magni amplifier and I listen on Beyerdynamic DT880 600 ohm headphones. The songs are stored in iTunes but I use Audirvana Plus to play the songs when listening on headphones. When playing to speakers, I use airplay to connect to stereo speakers connected to an Airport Express.

I listen mainly to Classical and have a mixture of CDs ripped to iTunes (Apple Lossless, 44.1kHz, bitrates typically > 256 kbps) and songs purchased from the iTunes store (AAC, 44.1kHz, 256 kbps).

The DT 880's sound resolution is better than the Bose or Audio Technica headphones I was using preciously, the DAC sounds better than playing straight from the Mac Mini and I also think that Audirvana sounds richer than playing straight from iTunes. So I was starting to appreciate the whole digital audio thing.

I decided that the next logical step was to start looking at high res files and I downloaded a couple of songs (The Tallis Scholars) in both high res (Apple Lossless, 88.2kHz, 2464 kbps) and normal (Apple Lossless, 44.1 kHz, 612 kbps). However, when I listen on headphones, I don't hear any difference.

Have I reached the law of diminishing returns (I'm not going to hear the difference without starting to spend thousands of dollars on audiophile equipment) or am I missing something (maybe the Mac Mini downgrades everything to 44.1kHz?)

I'd appreciate any advice.

 

[Markwinstanley]

i also agree with thread maker.i can feel difference between 128,320 and flac but when i says to anyone like my friends they call me mad coz of downloading big flac files.its does not matter to them but i don't compromise with quality . so consolation is people don't want to spend time on downloading quality content same with 1080p 8gb and 720p 2gb movies they cant see much difference and says its waste of bandwidth and time

 

[ChrisA]

However, I can totally tell the difference between a CD track and a digital song, regardless whether it is 256kbps or 320kbps or AAC or MP3. .....

You did not say how you conducted the tests. Did you know which version of the recording you were listening to? Did some one else select eithther the CD or 256K fils of the same song, play it and have you guess which was which? That is the only fair test. They have to flip a coin and play one or the other then you have to guess which is which. They CAN"t alternate and play it must be random.

Very few people ever do the test correctly so the results are biased.

Also there is another problem that makes testing hard. The difference in sound between CD and AAC/MP3 is not constant over time. For some musical passages the sound is nearly identical and then on one drum hit the MP3 is distorted. Or some times it is one instrument (usually an electronic synth.) that compresses badly. The if you only compare one music genre or short passages you get biased results. A fair test can take days of listening to random full length tracks. and you need a person with a coin to run the experiment.

Then to analyze the data. We know a deaf person could guess right 50% of the time simply by guessing. So to show that you can tell the difference you must guess correctly more then 50% of the time. It's hard, so hard that I've not seen anyone actually do it.

 

[ChrisA]

....
I listen mainly to Classical and have a mixture of CDs ripped to iTunes (Apple Lossless, 44.1kHz, nitrates typically > 256 kbps) and songs purchased from the iTunes store (AAC, 44.1kHz, 256 kbps). ...

Classical music is "easy" to compress. I'd expect fewer compression artifacts in classical then in other kinds of music. The reason is that classical music is entirely acoustic instruments that have nice waveforms and harmonics. This kind of sound is a good fit to the way compressed music is stored.

On the other hand a triangle wave made by a synthesizer does not compress as wall. Same for guitar distortion and electronic drum kits. Those un-natural sounds many times don't compress so well.

You have already spent to much money on audio gear. Upgrades will not help. Think about the gear the professionals in the recording studio use. Almost no one in the industry spends more then $100 for headphones nor do they use those "audiophile DACs" They use whatever DAC is built into a Presonus, Focusrite or whatever brand audio interface to have and a simple headphone distribution amp. They are mostly using headphones like the sony mdr-7506 or aka-k240. No all o them but those are the "classics". Spending more will not allow you to hear more than the recording engineer heard in the studio. But expensive gear does buy bragging rights. Yes the better headphones are nicer for other reasons but you don't hear more.

So my point is that you already have good enough audio gear. Over kill actually. The problem is with the recording. Even on CD. It's not the number of bits it's the master'd mix. It is not even intended to sound like a live performance.

If there is a band playing in a bar. Even if you are standing out on the sidewalk with the door closed you KNOW it is a band and not recorded music. It is THAT easy to hear the difference. recording always sound like obvious recordings. the reason is because you use speakers to play back the sound.

In a live band each musician chooses his own amp and speakers and the sound is not mixed until it is in the air. This does double for acoustic music, it is not mixed. It is the mixing process that introduces the "recored" sound. Upgrading your audio gear will not help[.

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

nvm

 

[Traverse]

4. With good headphones, I cannot tell _what_ the difference is. Even if I can tell that one version sounds more enjoyable than another, I couldn't describe _why_. Many people will think that because they can't describe what the difference is, they have to say they can't hear a difference.

I just got my first pair of non-Apple standard ear buds (ATH-M50x), and wanted to make a comment on this.

70% of my music has been ripped from CDs using iTunes defaults (I didn't know otherwise years ago). Even with the same files I am noticing a huge jump in quality just using the headphones. My most complex music are HD re orchestrations of Kingdom Hearts, Zelda Symphony, etc. I have re-ripped a few select songs as Apple Lossless and created playlists with the standard 256kb files. Without looking, I am shuffling these playlists to see if I can tell a difference.

I am not an audiophile and have learned most of what I know from these forums. I am just concerned with my perception. Thus far, I have picked the lossless each time without knowing. The difference is subtle and if I was doing other things like working while listening I probably wouldn't notice it. However, when really listening there is a slight difference, more pronounced with some songs than others. I can't explain it because I'm not knowledgable enough. Some background instruments seem louder or there is slight crispness to it. It seems fuller at some times. I'll continue my test to see if I'm full of crap. But so far I've pick the lossless each time.

 

[Tech198]

I don't really care that much detail level. But if u really like u'r music, then i guess this is something u'd care about.

As long as I can hear it, and its *acceptable* quality, 256K or above.. its ok by my.... but i don't care if its 256k...

If i find one that's 320k, i don't exactly scream my heard off either. so what?