Forum rules
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.
There's no issue with the sound quality when comparing high bitrate mp3's to wav files and vinyl however heres something interesting i learned studying audio in school:
The way the mp3 compression works is it removes frequencies that are masked, making the file smaller while sounding the same.
This has been shown to cause fatigue because your brain has to essentially 'fill in' those gaps and also has been known to cause ear damage as the song is louder than how its perceived, causing the user to turn the volume too high.
This isnt something thats stopping me from listening to mp3's but its def something to keep in mind, as you can choose wav. files or vinyl instead.
philly wrote:There's no issue with the sound quality when comparing high bitrate mp3's to wav files and vinyl
are you sure about that? doesn't sound right to me. this whole 320 thing is kind of new to me anyway. round these parts, people use vinyl, wav or cd audio when playing on big systems.
philly wrote:There's no issue with the sound quality when comparing high bitrate mp3's to wav files and vinyl
are you sure about that? doesn't sound right to me. this whole 320 thing is kind of new to me anyway. round these parts, people use vinyl, wav or cd audio when playing on big systems.
Definitely best to go with wav or vinyl. CD is the same as wav at 44.1 KHZ 16 bit.
If its properly encoded at 320 you couldn't tell a difference. Its all really subjective though, depends on the song, encoder, sound system etc...some audiophiles in tests couldnt even tell the diff between a 160...
philly wrote:There's no issue with the sound quality when comparing high bitrate mp3's to wav files and vinyl
Thats very debatable. I can hear the diference when I listen on some real expensive hifi speakers. Did a blind test and to be fair the 320 mp3 did come close, but we all noticed a diference with the treble.
I'd say there is a difference between 320's and lossy formats. The super high end for one and problems with instruments that have fast attack times (esp in the higher frequencies the nasty pre-echo is audible).
Mind you it wouldn't be noticeable to the average, or even above average listener; it's really on the A/B thing that it's noticeable.
Interesting post. I read the title and thought it was gonna be bullshit but you delivered. I guess people who have been in the game for some time can definitely tell the difference between FLAC and 320
aksys wrote:also, mp3's dramatically lose quality over the years when theyre stuck on your HDDs
Oh wait, are you being serious?
yeah, there's a test of it on a website, ill try to find it for you
Uhhh....... sorry, but that's bullshit. If anything happens to an mp3 file while in disk storage, you'll hear it, and it won't be subtle. It'll sound like a glitch or hiccup. Not loss of quality.
nowaysj wrote:No doubt, pretty lofi, but they are louder which can augment the artifacts of compression.
yea but the point of vbr is to filter out frequencies not in use, which is more like an automated graphic eq making the files smaller and not creating artifacts. plus even with vbr you can set quality guidelines
