Debunking the higher the bit rate the better the sound quality myth

[Nostromo]

Play it through a real hi fi system. You'll hear the difference immediately.

I would tend to agree with you, but to quote myself:

Unfortunately, that wouldn't be a double blind listening test. You want to make sur its not the placebo effect you're hearing.

There's a lot of debunking being done in the high-fi world thanks to double blind tests.

Anyway, if I can't hear the difference, there's no point in encoding my songs at 224Kbps. I'm wasting my iPod's precious disk space for nothing.

[Agathon]

There is a lot of hifi bollocks around, but it simply is a fact that you'll hear the difference were you to play a CD burned from AAC compared to the original. Similarly, if you plugged your computer into your amp you'd hear the difference immediately. The lossy formats lose detail and presence. They are good enough for computers and portable audio (just – I've changed my mind about that since getting my flashpod, which has astonishing sound for the price), but they aren't going to give you the soundstaging and detail a CD will.

I encode at 192kbps. That seems to be OK.

[mrmitchell]

This guy either has magic ears or he's full of ****. I wonder if would be saying all this in a double-blind test? Maybe I could tell the difference on a high-fi system. Or at least with high-fi headphones...

He's not bull****ting. There really is a difference if you listen for it.

[Mr. Harley]

You can have your girlfried switch back and forth. You plug your ears (I use shooting ear muffs, works as well) or leave the room. She get the two synchronized, mutes them. You come back in and she A-B's them. It's a hassle, but it will show you that there really is a difference when listening to a good stereo system, and that headphones, in general, suck for serious listening (with a very few exceptions - which tend to be quite pricey).

[Kuciwalker]

I've found that the simplest solution is just to not care that much...

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I've found that the simplest solution is just to not care that much...

[Mr. Harley]

Yes - but if you are going to spend several dozen, if not hundred, hours ripping all your music, doesn't it make sense to maybe put in 30 minutes at the start of the project to make sure you get the rest of it right. Sort of like starting a Civ game without bothering to learn the fine points of the rules.

[Kuciwalker]

It doesn't take much time at all for me to rip CD's. I have it set so that as soon as I pop the CD in, it begins ripping, and it pops out when it's done. I surf poly or play a game while I'm ripping.

[Sikander]

My dad has done a lot of audio engineering (he rebuilt the sound studios for a couple of big recording studios in LA when they made the switch to recording for CDs), and it's always fun to shop for stereo components with him. He knows what can and cannot be discerned by the human ear which gives him instant audiophile bullsh!t detection. He recommends spending all of your money on the best speakers that you can lay your hands on first and foremost. With good speakers you can then perhaps discern the differences between other components of the sound system (including the signal quality from various compression schemes). As Aggie and others have stated, with poor or mediocre speakers / sound card / headphones you probably won't be able to make out much of a difference, but you should be able to note basic differences between compression schemes with good equipment and a recording that puts it to the test.

[Mr. Harley]

By the way, Sikander, mention to you dad I have some Magnapans (a subwoofer can always fix their one difficiency). I can hear the difference, even with 40 plus year old ears.

[MikeH]

Headphones, even good ones, suck.

Headphones through a cheap soundcard is a joke test.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by MikeH
Headphones, even good ones, suck.

I paid 80$ CDN for mine. They're Sennheiser PX-100's. They're good enough for my iPod, but to tell the the difference, maybe I would need a pair of Sennheiser HD 650's. They definitely do not suck and they're about 500$ US.

Headphones through a cheap soundcard is a joke test.

I used what I have. If you have a better setup, by all means, try the test. But you're all too lazy.

The best setup would be to plug a PC on a high-fi system through a good DAC. That way, it bypasses the soundcard.

Mmmmm... I think I'll try a similar test directly on my iPod. The iPod probably has a better sound quality than my cheap soundcard.

[Mr. Harley]

Nostromo - you're right about the DAC. But your current setup is not wasted - it's what you listen with. It tells you, given how you are listening, in the real world, at what point you reach diminishing returns.

Kuci - you've got to file and sort all the damn files you rip. That still takes time, plus all the manipulating, etc. It may only take two minutes per CD - but if you have 500 CD's, you're at 1000 minutes. Tha is over 16 hours. I am including taking the CD from the its case or binder, putting in the computer, going through your menus, removing and restoring aforementioned CD, and then naming the folder or subfolder you have put the music in.

[Nostromo]

Nostromo - you're right about the DAC. But your current setup is not wasted - it's what you listen with. It tells you, given how you are listening, in the real world, at what point you reach diminishing returns.

So it wasn't a joke test. Eat you shorts MikeH

[MikeH]

I have tried it, my former drummer has a recording studio and he did me a blind demo on his system as part of an argument about mp3s on our website. Blind comparison of:

CD
High bitrate MP3
Low bitrate MP3

Even I could tell the difference.