II Guys from Petra now on Spotify (and other tips)

[Boray]

I am no audiophile and listen to my music in 192 kbps mp3-files. I listened to the file Boray created and I do hear there's a difference, but for me it's almost impossible to tell which one is supposed to be better. My guess would be that the second one is flac, but I can't say why. I listen through my Acer Aspire 5740 laptop with Sennheiser HD 202 headphones.

I sent the result to you by PM so that more who wants to guess can do that. Thanks for listening.

[Boray]

I want to hear the difference between the actual CD and MP3/FLAC.

You can burn the file to a CD-R or CD-RW to make an audio CD if you want to compare it on your CD-player. But I guess sacrificing a CD-R (if you don't have a CD-RW) is a bit ... well....

Anyway, I will send the result by PM to everyone who wants to take a guess.

[p-freak]

Come on, Brent and exe! Don't chicken out now. Plug your headphones into your computer and give it a listen. Like Curt said, it only takes a minute.

[executioner]

Come on, Brent and exe! Don't chicken out now. Plug your headphones into your computer and give it a listen. Like Curt said, it only takes a minute.

Like I said before the only online access I have as of now is my HTC Smartphone and it will not get the quality from the CD that I'm searching for, plus putting in a file sending it will compress it to a point to where any advantages the CD has has basically been taken away. Until I get a laptop or get an internet connection for my desktop my opinion really won't matter that much.
BTW I have listened to the file and both versions sound deluted and not so good and really make the CD shine even more.

[curt]

It seems that Brent and Exe are going to chicken out. Lots of excuses, but it all comes down to the fact that the test takes less than a minute and they both claim you can easily hear the difference. It seems it's not that easy...

Being very certain about anything (in this case the difference between CD and mp3) is often a lot easier when you're not confronted with reality or facts.

By the way, Exe. If you download Boray's file it will NOT be compressed. If you burn the file to a CD-R the Flac-part of it will be of the exact same quality as the original CD. No difference at all. The mp3 part of it might or might not sound different. But a CD does not “shine” any more than a Flac. Since this is 2012 I'm sure that there are a lot of options for you to test this even if you haven't got your own computer.

[executioner]

It seems that Brent and Exe are going to chicken out. Lots of excuses, but it all comes down to the fact that the test takes less than a minute and they both claim you can easily hear the difference. It seems it's not that easy...

Being very certain about anything (in this case the difference between CD and mp3) is often a lot easier when you're not confronted with reality or facts.

By the way, Exe. If you download Boray's file it will NOT be compressed. If you burn the file to a CD-R the Flac-part of it will be of the exact same quality as the original CD. No difference at all. The mp3 part of it might or might not sound different. But a CD does not “shine” any more than a Flac. Since this is 2012 I'm sure that there are a lot of options for you to test this even if you haven't got your own computer.

Nice being thrown under the bus here, but I guess its all in good fun. If I had a viable internet option to where I could listen to the file in the correct manner(which would be transfering to CD-R) than by all means I would complete the test. I did listen to the file with my phone and also ran it thru my docking station with my Bose Wave System III and both were not that good, and both sounded very different quality wise from the actual physical CD that I played in the same Bose System before and after. Now if Boray can't hear the differences or chooses not too and chooses to stick with his MP3 quality, thats fine by me and I see it as his loss and not mine.

This all started because Boray feels there is no or small difference in quality from MP3/CD but Brent, mine, and most professional industry insider opinions are different from his which in turn is fine; Its doesn't make anybody right or wrong its just a difference in opinions and preference in how we all enjoy our music.

[curt]

Well I agree with you, Exe, on your idea that people should listen to what they like, no matter if it's mp3 or CD. No doubt about that.

I just find this subject interesting. To some extent I think it's an example of how people use their eyes instead of their ears when they listen to music. You need good ears and good equipment if you really want to hear a difference. I'm not claiming it isn't there. I'm just claiming that it's not that obvious that it's there. Brent's idea that MP3s consist of 50 % distortion still strikes me as absurd.

You wrote: “I did listen to the file with my phone and also ran it thru my docking station with my Bose Wave System III and both were not that good, and both sounded very different quality wise from the actual physical CD that I played in the same Bose System before and after. Now if Boray can't hear the differences or chooses not too and chooses to stick with his MP3 quality, thats fine by me and I see it as his loss and not mine.”

In this case the difference between CD and Boray's file is most likely due to the soundcard in your smartphone. It's not due to any lack on the file. It contains the same data quality as your CD (the flac part of it). In other word you've yet to prove that there is a loss (that can be heard) given that all other conditions are the same.

What professionals and industry insiders think is not that important if you (or they) are not able to hear the difference unless they know there is one. Like I've said earlier I've read a lot of texts about this subject and the general impression is that the difference is very hard to find if you have some of the better quality mp3-files.

[Boray]

There sure is a difference between mp3 and lossless audio, but the thing is, if you KNOW that something is of worse or better quality, then your brain will play along with this knowledge; even if your ears + sound equipment can't determine which sound better, you will think that the one sounds better that you KNOW is of better quality. That is why you have to make true blind tests when comparing things like this. But that is not as easy as you may think; for example; louder will be perceived as better if two identical sounds are played back at slightly different volumes. Encoding to mp3 will in most cases increase the volume a bit. I have tried to compensate for this in this test.

I would say mp3 encoding colors the sound slightly in a similar way that recording to tape does. In the case of 320kbps mp3, it would be a tape recorder very very superior to the consumer cassette decks of the 80's.

[rexreed]

MP3's stink. The only reason I tolerate them is because of the convenience and there is no way I can afford to pay for every physical cd. emusic is cheap mp3's but they are at least legit and not illegal. Comparing a clean cd from the master to an mp3 is absurd. It's kinda like when someone tells me that a video on youtube is hd, just like the bluray disc.

[brent]

It seems that Brent and Exe are going to chicken out. Lots of excuses, but it all comes down to the fact that the test takes less than a minute and they both claim you can easily hear the difference. It seems it's not that easy...

Being very certain about anything (in this case the difference between CD and mp3) is often a lot easier when you're not confronted with reality or facts.

By the way, Exe. If you download Boray's file it will NOT be compressed. If you burn the file to a CD-R the Flac-part of it will be of the exact same quality as the original CD. No difference at all. The mp3 part of it might or might not sound different. But a CD does not “shine” any more than a Flac. Since this is 2012 I'm sure that there are a lot of options for you to test this even if you haven't got your own computer.

Dude, I just saw this, because I a have a life and I am busy with a church sound system install, have kids graduating, etc. Sorry I didn't rush out and do this, just because someone wants me to. Oh, yeah, I squeezed in a Van Halen concert the other night too. Forgot about that.

Anyway, when I get a free moment in about a week, I will post a file of stereo tones, and use the best MP3 codec to convert four different files from broadcast wav to MP3. Anyone that is not deaf will hear a difference. Now, hearing a difference in sample rates is splitting some split hairs. But hearing a difference between MP3s and wavs is not that hard, unless you have poor hearing, poor playback equipment, etc.

[p-freak]

And still Exe and Brent refuse to test their gifted hearing abilities by determining which of the two snippets in Boray's file is actually lossless. If you are so convinced of the fact that you can clearly hear the difference between lossless and compressed, how easy should it be for you to just listen to the file and write down A = lossless and B = compressed, or A = compressed and B = lossless. I takes even less time than me typing this post. Unbelievable... Step up to the challenge, guys.

[Boray]

And still Exe and Brent refuse to test their gifted hearing abilities by determining which of the two snippets in Boray's file is actually lossless. If you are so convinced of the fact that you can clearly hear the difference between lossless and compressed, how easy should it be for you to just listen to the file and write down A = lossless and B = compressed, or A = compressed and B = lossless. I takes even less time than me typing this post. Unbelievable... Step up to the challenge, guys.

The thing is that Brent don't even believe that FLAC is lossless so he probably thinks my test is bad or of no interest or something.

[Boray]

For someone like Brent it should be pretty easy to cheat though. Just look up the very same part from the CD and compare the waveforms in an editor.

[brent]

Flac is lossless, and the audio is bit for bit. The problem for me is tagging/headers. I have seen native WAV files converted to FLAC and then back again having different lengths than the original because of it. I have done the null test once the files are aligned and they have nulled on one system, but not on a friends. I believe the problem is with codecs and/or how they are implemented into software packages/DAWs etc, since they are "off the shelf". For this reason, I have to throw the baby out with the bath water. If there CAN be a possible difference, then I cannot use it, especially since I am shuffling audio files back and forth from Italy, Germany, Canada and Brazil, and they must be sample accurate, and my video syncs to and the time code is written to the samples of the file.

IMO, There is no excuse for using FLAC now, with hard drives being so cheap, unless you have to tag. There isn't a dramatic difference in file size.

[executioner]

MP3's stink. The only reason I tolerate them is because of the convenience and there is no way I can afford to pay for every physical cd. emusic is cheap mp3's but they are at least legit and not illegal. Comparing a clean cd from the master to an mp3 is absurd. It's kinda like when someone tells me that a video on youtube is hd, just like the bluray disc.

AMEN!!!