251 posts / 0 new
Last post
eggontoast's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 23/02/2011 - 15:21
Posts: 1437
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Andrew Everard wrote:

eggontoast wrote:
You're as deaf as a post and posting on the wrong forum :O

Please don't attack other members.

Sure thing boss but technically my unedited post didn't.
The_Lhc's picture
Online
Last seen: 44 min 23 sec ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12980
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Cypher wrote:
There are many posts on the internet about this issue and almost everyone can't hear a difference. The few people who hear a difference must have great ears :)

So if you already knew the answer and weren't actually interested in any other opinion why did you bother asking? 

Oh, wait, I know...

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 03/03/2010 - 00:01
Posts: 3556
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Unlike the debate about lossless-compression vs raw (eg FLAC vs WAV, ALAC vs AIFF), or some pointless argument about the benefit of certain cables, it takes but seconds to prove that MP3s of any resolution or bit-rate are actually very different to their raw uncompressed form. When you invert the MP3 waveform in audio-editing software and overlay it on the original uncompressed file, the two waves don't cancel each other out. Not even nearly. So why is it so difficult to accept that many of us can hear that difference? If you're happy with MP3 and you can't hear the difference, that's absolutely fine, but why is it those who can hear the difference are rubbished and told by 'non-believers' that they are kidding themselves?

Cypher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 08/06/2007 - 06:45
Posts: 1405
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

If I knew some people get so agitated I would have never started this topic. That wasn't my intention at all.  I just wanted to hear different opinions on this and now I know there are people who hear a difference.

This topic can be closed.

Lee H's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 07/10/2010 - 12:20
Posts: 1465
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Cypher wrote:

If I knew some people get so agitated I would have never started this topic. That wasn't my intention at all.  I just wanted to hear different opinions on this and now I know there are people who hear a difference.

This topic can be closed.

 

This and cables - guaranteed every time

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 03/03/2010 - 00:01
Posts: 3556
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Cypher wrote:
now I know there are people who hear a difference.
Glad that you are so tolerant; there are people on this forum who cannot hear a difference and will dispute til the cows come home that anyone who says they can hear a difference is kidding themselves. That is pretty-much all that winds me up about the topic Smile
sonycentre's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 30/05/2009 - 22:30
Posts: 637
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

you decide what you are happy with,as long as you enjoy your music what does it matter what other people think.:)

Cypher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 08/06/2007 - 06:45
Posts: 1405
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Lee H wrote:

Cypher wrote:

If I knew some people get so agitated I would have never started this topic. That wasn't my intention at all.  I just wanted to hear different opinions on this and now I know there are people who hear a difference.

This topic can be closed.

 

This and cables - guaranteed every time

But why ? I respect all opinions. I would just like to know what the differences are..........I know the mp3 is compressed but what exactly is missing from the original WAV file ?

The_Lhc's picture
Online
Last seen: 44 min 23 sec ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12980
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Cypher wrote:
I respect all opinions. I would just like to know what the differences are..........I know the mp3 is compressed but what exactly is missing from the original WAV file ?

So why didn't you ask that question then?

Cypher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 08/06/2007 - 06:45
Posts: 1405
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

I should have asked that question first.......you're right. But I was also curious how many people here agreed with me or not.

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 03/03/2010 - 00:01
Posts: 3556
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Cypher wrote:
what exactly is missing from the original WAV file ?

It's a bit like JPG compression in so far as during the compacting stage, the codec dispenses with detail most people won't miss and during expansion it 'glosses over' the missing bits. The success-rate varies from person to person, from music to music and from system to system. Probably 99% of people don't care about the difference, or can't tell the difference, and and are perfectly happy with the quality. Same has how they'd probably never use anything but JPG file-formats on their digital camera, for the same reason. Though that doesn't make them bad people, except when a minority of them tell people who can hear the difference that we're fooling ourselves.
professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11026
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Cypher wrote:

The few people who hear a difference must have great ears Smile

Thanks, but I wouldn't say my ears are great. My eyes on the other hand...

 

The owls are not what they seem...

The_Lhc's picture
Online
Last seen: 44 min 23 sec ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12980
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

professorhat wrote:

Cypher wrote:

The few people who hear a difference must have great ears Smile

Thanks, but I wouldn't say my ears are great. My eyes on the other hand...

Your best feature I've always thought!  Wink

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

Well, I think this is good question no matter how many times it have come across.

For example I am probably more interested in real opinions rather pumping muscles of both sides.

I admit I never compared 320bps mp3 with wav, but I am perfectly happy listening to my mp3 player in 192bps and to my CDs at home stereo. I can find find the differences but many of them are due to the earphones and floor standers in the respective case. So in my opinion it doesn't matter much as long as you enjoy what you listen to depending on the circumstances.

Now, if you compare in strictly equal conditions (oh, yes, including the cables - funny I can hear the difference on those!) that is probably a topic for scientific research. And I don't buy the overlaying waves thing - yes teorythically they wouldn't overlap. The question is if mentally we can hear the difference between high bitrate mp3 and raw?

Just few thoughts...

Alec's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 17 hours ago
Joined: 08/10/2007 - 21:06
Posts: 6087
RE: MP3 (320 kbps) VS flac/wav

It's just the ridiculous terms people use to describe this supposed difference.

Please, don't anyone say "the difference is literally night and day" or I'll have to pick on your English aswell as your ears.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments