^ Awesome 1337 editing skillz there.
Here's most of his posts, before he edits them out. Enjoy:
I've been listening to a lot of music from frou frou lately. Frou Frou's songs consists of many electroica sounds, along with absolutely beautiful vocals.
I first downloaded the all the songs, from the album, Details, in 128kbps quality. I burned all the songs onto a cd from the 128kbps mp3s, and played them on my onkyo amp. They sound amazingly clear on my Sennheiser HD-497. I later bring the cd and my headphones to my neighbor's house to his $400 philips cd player, and $2000 McIntosh amp. WOW, what a difference, it sounds 10x more detailed and clear.
Then I think to myself, if I had the cd, it must sound so much more clear than these low quality 128kbps mp3s!
The next day, I go out and buy the Details album, bring it back to my neighbor's nice setup, NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!
I absolutely do not understand what all this complaining about lossy formats is about. Seriously, can you hear the difference?
according to iis fraunhofer, the creator of mp3, 128kbps is CD QUALITY
OK, so provide an example of a song that would expose the vast differences between 128kbps mp3s, and original cds...
I bet it's in your head..
Did you miss the part that I used a $2000 mcintosh amp with a pair of sennheiser hd497 headphones?
B$
The bitrate doesn't clip the frequencies.
Obviously you guys are incapable of arguing against the fact that 128kbps mp3s are cd quality audio, and anything above it is CD TRANSPARENT AUDIO.
So stop trying to prove to me and yourself that you have superhuman ears with the can distinguish the difference, because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE TO THE HUMAN EAR.
Amazing how many people could convince themselves that there is a difference.
OK tell me if you can hear the difference in the beginning of Beware! Criminal! by incubus in
192kbps
and
128kbps
I've been listening to both, playing them over and over, for a few times now, on my Chaintech AV710 hi-res output(card burned in for over 100hrs), using foobar w/kernel streaming and 24bit mode, and my hd497 headphones, and I hear ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE. I'd be hard pressed if you claim you can hear the difference on your computer speakers.
quote:
not sure what kind of macintosh you have there, while most vintage amps have pretty robust headphone output (fisher 400, marantz 2260 comes to mind), post 80 stuff aint that great. hd-497 is definitely the bottleneck there, upgrade to something decent... say, at least hd-580 check my rig for my setup, i can definitely tell difference between bitrates on mp3s up to 320bps. even then flac/cds sound quite a bit better...
Nope, HD497 sound very nice on that setup, and sound LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than my $800 onkyo amp's headphone output.
I later tried my neighbor's quasar headphones(oldschool, but costed him $400), and they didn't sound much better than my HD497, besides the fact that the midrange were a tad more pronounced, and the highs were a tad bit smoother, nowhere near the sound quality gains I've gotten through the amps.
Yeah bash my hearing now because I don't have superhuman hearing to hear the difference between cd quality mp3s, and cd quality cds
The fact is that I hear TONS of difference between my onkyo amp that's already very high quality, vs my neighbor's very nice mcintosh amp.
So your, "you have poor ears which is why you can't hear the difference" argument is null.
Still again and again, you "superhumans", cannot prove that 128kbps mp3s do technically sound worse than cd audio, when everything else states that 128kbps IS CD AUDIO.
By DEFINITION, Transparent Audio Coding is a lossy compression that is INDISTINGUISHABLE TO THE HUMAN EAR from the original
So now you are claiming that hudreds of thousands of you guys can DISTINGUISH the difference between "HUMANLY INDISTINGUISHABLE" cd transparent audio, and original uncompressed cd audio?
Ooops, I just noticed I pasted the wrong link to cite my info about the transparent audio codec
transparent audio coding - A lossy audio compression algorithm is transparent if the original and decoded signal are indistinguishable to the human ear. The bit rate depends on the codec and the audio material. Some codecs (e.g. AAC, MP3) are optimized for transparent coding at a low data rate, others (e.g. VQF, MP3Pro, AAC+SBR, WMA) for distinguisable but pleasant reproduction at lower bit rates.
Yes the indistinguishable to the human ear is a DICTIONARY DEFINITION, not a subjective opinion from a "retard" with "sub-par hearing"
So go ahead and prove that you can hear a "glaringly obvious" difference between 160kbps mp3 cd transparent audio, and cd audio.
Oh wait, you never bothered to even trying comparing mp3 and higher quality sources, because you already accepted in your mind that it sounds considerably worse without even really listening to it and giving it good unbiased look.
Where on the definition does it say "standard human ear"?
It says human ear, which indicates, if you are a human, then this definition applies to you.
Yeah keep on misinterpreting the dictionary so it you can make your bs claims seem the a least bit plausible.
Just back down, I provided solid hard evidence that proved your bs wrong.
Yes 160kbps CBR = CD TRANSPARENT AUDIO
Wow you still don't get the fvcking logic to it.
Let me explain it to you in plain english.
Indistinguishable to the human ear means if you're a human, you won't hear the difference
Everyone hears differently means some people can distinguish it, and some people can't.
So by your fvcking retarded logic, indistinguishable and distinguishable mean the same thing?
PLEASE KILL YOURSELF!
Ironic...
I'm sorry everyone to downplay all your obsessiveness to lossless audio.
I know it made you guys feel really bad and defensive, but the truth hurts sometimes, and you need to learn to accept it, calmly.
Thanks for the link. You posted that just a few seconds after my last post.
128kbps audio received a 4.7 rating, which is 94% to "indistinguishable from the original", a 5.0.
The difference between 128kbps and 256kbps was a 4% difference, hardly "night and day"/"glaringly obvious on laptop speakers"/"you must be deaf to not hear the difference"
Harvey,
Thanks for your informative post about why current audio cds sucks. I don't dispute the fact that other mediums sound better than cds
I do understand what you are talking about when you talk about art and emotion as I am a musician myself, contrary to the belief that I'm acoustically challenged. I have played flute at a band/orchestra in all through gradeschool, and now college, and I have taken several private lessons. Believe me, playing the flute takes an immense amount of art and emotion.
My neighbor has a lot of very high quality recordings of classical music, and often plays a few of them for me on his $15,000 audiophile stereo equipment(the mcintosh is a "cheaper" amp for his son's room). A few pieces sounds almost like the real thing, but just not quite there.
I am disputing the fact that full uncompressed cd quality audio have very little/no distinguishable difference from a decent mp3 bitrate counterpart such as 128kbps for most recordings, and 160kbps for higher quality ones. So what is your own "professional" findings on this?
Facebook
Twitter