Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Sound Cards and Computer Audio › Whats yours best next thing after FLAC ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Whats yours best next thing after FLAC ? - Page 5  

post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous View Post

Well, I'm not a proponent of high end cables at all. But there is simply no way you can say that something like 'Money for Nothing' sounds the same in 320 mp3 compared to WAV. Listen carefully to the cymbals in any music and you'll hear mp3 compression instantly. In fact Meridian published a paper stating that even CD quality compressed cymbals, which it does. And it was perfectly audible.

I am a drummer and an audio engineer who record's and compresses cymbals quite frequently. I know first hand the sonic effect that these processes have.

Let me help you. I will prepare a 320/wav comparison special for you.
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by FEAST View Post

Anything above 128kbps - in any one of the codecs above - will be completely indistinguishable from the .wav it was ripped from. Period. End of story. I would choose mp3 for compatability and tagging.
Those spectrograms are not accurate. Even at 128kbps you are averaging thosands of sample points into one pixel. Even one different sample point could cause that visual pixel to render differently. The spectrogram is of such a zoomed out/broad view that it is averaging the data not showing the data. And this distorts the analysers ability to be accurate.
I have done the research. I have done my own listening tests in near perfect listening conditions. Humans cannot tell the difference and I dare anyone to provide one credible instance where anyone on the face of this earth has ever been able to tell the difference between 128kbps and .wav.

HA! I was just reading but this post really got me. I'm sorry but you are plain wrong or just have bad hearing. There is a huge difference between 128kbps and 320kbps, not to speak of FLAC. I was thinking FLAC was useless before I got myself a 300€ Beresford Caiman DAC and 600€ pair of Genelec 8020B monitors and oh my, there is a huge gap between FLAC and 128kbps. The difference between 320kbps and FLAC is somewhat indistinguishable, but it still can be heard.
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by FEAST View Post

Humans cannot tell the difference and I dare anyone to provide one credible instance where anyone on the face of this earth has ever been able to tell the difference between 128kbps and .wav.
Even with a good encoder, on a lot of tracks a lot of people can tell between 128 kbps and wav (well, specifically, lossless 16-bit / 44.1 kHz is what we're interested in here). This holds up with blind testing, like with Foobar ABX plugin, unlike a lot of audiophile junk.

With higher bitrates then most people can't, and if they can, the difference should be subtle at most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FEAST View Post

Interesting point. I think that if one was to take a high dynamic range track and digitally choke the volume down to 5-10% on a standard audio card then the difference might be discernible. But anyone who does that probably isn't very concerned with quality in the first place.
I think people tend to forget that lowering the bit depth is where real quality would be lost - not so much sample rate. Think of it like video. When you compress audio you are essentially lowering the framerate - not the resolution. So at what point will we notice a difference in lower framerate when keeping the resolution the same? In my opinion 128kbps is far beyond the threshold of human hearing.
Standard .wav's run at about 44,100 "frames" per second. Cutting that down to 4,000 "frames" per second is not noticeable. End of story.

Uh, honestly? With 4000 samples / second you can't even represent higher than 2 kHz sounds. If you have a piccolo playing a higher note, even the fundamental frequency would be above 2 kHz. You wouldn't be able to hear it at all on the 4000 samples / second recording lol, not to mention that a whole lot of energy that people hear in music is definitely 2 kHz and higher. Lots of percussive sounds have a lot of energy in that region.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesekiwi View Post

But the thing is, for practical reasons, Vorbis is better and a spectrogram shows that. A smaller file means that you can fit more in your limited storage that is your portable device. I used the cutoff of 320 kbps CBR mp3 / VBR -v0 mp3 (same exact thing on a spectrogram) as many people find that to be indistinguishable from lossless. Shown there is that ~192 kbps Ogg Vorbis represents more data and represents it more accurately compared to the lossless source than the VBR -V0 mp3.

I'm not sure how you can make this argument off of the spectrogram since that doesn't show anything like you're claiming. Or maybe you have a different idea of "represents more data" or "more accurately" means, so please explain that further. I mean, even doing some kind of mean-squared error analysis between the original and lossy versions (analyzing the difference between the two) doesn't tell you much about the perceived error by humans listening, and you can't even do that with any precision at all by looking at the spectrogram.

I think you have the right conclusion, but it's not based off of well-founded objective analysis, as far as I can tell. Maybe you can mark up a spectrogram and show how exactly you're reaching these conclusions based on that?
Edited by mikeaj - 3/31/12 at 5:21pm
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post


Uh, honestly? With 4000 samples / second you can't even represent higher than 2 kHz sounds. If you have a piccolo playing a higher note, even the fundamental frequency would be above 2 kHz. You wouldn't be able to hear it at all on the 4000 samples / second recording lol, not to mention that a whole lot of energy that people hear in music is definitely 2 kHz and higher. Lots of percussive sounds have a lot of energy in that region.

Yes, actually you can. Just because a full model of one wavelength (peak to peak) cannot be created does not mean a model of the sound cannot be created over thousands of such wavelengths. If the 2khz sound existed for 1/2000th of a second then it would be inaudible - however this rarely matters because sound without significant time = nothing anyways. It takes time for our brain to create pitch from sound and so such short "notes" aren't perceptible anyways.
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by FEAST View Post

Yes, actually you can. Just because a full model of one wavelength (peak to peak) cannot be created does not mean a model of the sound cannot be created over thousands of such wavelengths. If the 2khz sound existed for 1/2000th of a second then it would be inaudible - however this rarely matters because sound without significant time = nothing anyways. It takes time for our brain to create pitch from sound and so such short "notes" aren't perceptible anyways.

I'm talking about a sustained tone with a frequency above 2 kHz (C7 or higher--which is the highest octave on the piano), like a piccolo holding a note. Or a cymbal crash, or anything with significant content above 2 kHz.

If you can hear the tone when somebody hits a note in the top octave of a piano, you can hear something that cannot be reproduced with a 4 kHz sample rate. Are you sure you don't have the sample rate confused with something else? Check Nyquist-Shannon again maybe?

edit: this should be kind of intuitive too. Think about how you'd be able to represent any kind of 3 kHz signal (or maybe even think about 4 kHz or 10 kHz), sine wave or whatever, with 4000 samples a second. I mean, to represent even something as simple as a sine wave and retain its original frequency, you need at least one sample every time it goes high and another when it goes low, or something like that. Or maybe visualize 4 samples a second, and a 3 Hz signal. It's not possible. The high-frequency stuff above the Nyquist rate will just get aliased down into a lower frequency.
Edited by mikeaj - 3/31/12 at 5:48pm
post #46 of 67
Consider this:

320 vs wav

PROVE YOURSELF.
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by FEAST View Post

Consider this:
320 vs wav
PROVE YOURSELF.

I wish I had my Genelecs here now. Also you said 128kbps, 320kbps vs FLAC is much harder to tell.
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuxi View Post

I wish I had my Genelecs here now. Also you said 128kbps, 320kbps vs FLAC is much harder to tell.

I would happily do a 128 as well in a bit once everyone fails to distinguish between 320 and .wav.
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
post #49 of 67
I believe .WAV is a loss-less music format just like FLAC.
Bob's Computer
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 2500K MSI P67A-G45 MSI 6970 Lightning 2GB G Skill Ripjaws X (2x4GB) 1866mhz 9-10-9-28 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Corsair Force 3 SSD (60GB), X1 WD5000AAKS, X1 W... ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner Noctua NH-C14 Windows 7 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VH238H Logitech G510 HALE90 750W NZXT Phantom Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
Logitech G9x SteelSeries 4HD ASUS Xonar DGX / Audio-Technica ATH-AD700 Hauppauge! HVR-1250 TV Tuner 
  hide details  
Bob's Computer
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 2500K MSI P67A-G45 MSI 6970 Lightning 2GB G Skill Ripjaws X (2x4GB) 1866mhz 9-10-9-28 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Corsair Force 3 SSD (60GB), X1 WD5000AAKS, X1 W... ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner Noctua NH-C14 Windows 7 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus VH238H Logitech G510 HALE90 750W NZXT Phantom Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
Logitech G9x SteelSeries 4HD ASUS Xonar DGX / Audio-Technica ATH-AD700 Hauppauge! HVR-1250 TV Tuner 
  hide details  
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsa700 View Post

I'm just going to say it: you have a bad attitude.
You speak like someone who has no idea what he is talking about. I have many years of experience in my trade and I never tell people they don't know what they are talking about. A person may have less expertise, but that doesn't make them stupid.
Consider that......

Okay you do you, I'll do me. Enjoy.
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
Nightfire
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz @ 1.31v - LOAD: 57deg C ASUS Maximus V Z77 4 x 7750 Passive (up to 12 monitors) 32gb G-Skill Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
2 x OCZ Revodrive Raid1 2 x Samsung 840 Evo Raid1 4 x 3TB Seagate Raid1 Gel Mount D5 w/ Koolance Top on controller, Pas... 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 & (OSX VMware) 2 x Yamakasi Catleap + 2 x Dell U2312 Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 (Wish it was a Seasonic) 
CaseAudio
Silvestone RV-02 Cambridge Audio DAC 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Cards and Computer Audio
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Sound Cards and Computer Audio › Whats yours best next thing after FLAC ?