Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless (Read 5901 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Sorry for posting this... I'm sure you get enough of these kinds of threads. My friend and I are having an argument over the audio quality of a 192kbps mp3 and an original cd track. He is saying there is no difference, and I've taken the opposite side. Now I know for a fact that when I compare a 192kbps mp3 to a lossless audio file, the difference is huge. He claims to hear no difference. Now, am I just hearing things, or what? I've read some of the FAQs on the board, but I don't really understand them since I'm not an audio expert by any stretch of the imagination. I was hoping someone could shed some light onto this argument with some cold hard facts. Again, I apologize for posting this, but I simply must.

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #1 –
You could answer yourself the question... There is obviously a difference, or else lossless codecs ans bitrates over 192 would not exist

But, with a good mp3 encoder (eg lame), the difference is very hard to percieve at bitrates over 160 (except on a few killer samples)

Your friend was wrong about the theoric part, but he is almost right about the practical part

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #2 –
I agree with Zurman, but would like to add that the quality of a 192 kbps MP3 depends heavily on the encoder used. If you use Lame with the best settings the MP3 would be very difficult (if possible at all) to differentiate from the original. If however it was encoded with Blade or old versions of Xing, then i would guess most audio interested people would be able to differentiate it from the original.
 

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #3 –
depends on the kind of music too. It's much easier to hear the difference from some rock music file than some electronic song...
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #4 –
Also, when verifying that you can hear a difference, even if it's really obvious, you should do a blind ABX test.  The placebo effect is much stronger than most people realize.  An ABX test is easy to perform and can verify the existance of an audible difference with a high degree of certainty.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #5 –
Get him to listen to fatboy a few times. Last I ever checked was with Lame 3.89 but no abx was required.

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #6 –
Well, there are two kinds of "quality":

technical quality: how different is the data of the audio? A lossy file (mp3) obviously takes away something to make the file smaller. For listening, the technical quality doesn't matter - but for archiving and transcoding purposes, the technical quality is important.

perceived quality: can you hear the difference? Thats what lossy codecs like mp3 are about - taking away stuff which you cannot hear. Obviously, the perceived quality is the one which counts for listening - its about how the audio sounds, not how it looks like.

And then again - as already mentioned - do a simple abx-test, and the whole discussion has found a consensus - because a blind-listening test (abx) is not about "oh, i >think< i can hear a difference", but instead is a scientific proof(with a high degree of certainity - nothing is 100% certain in the world

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #7 –
Quote
depends on the kind of music too. It's much easier to hear the difference from some rock music file than some electronic song...

Not true... it does not depend of the kind of music.
Example of electronic killer samples : Spahm (trance music), Badvilbel (experimental electronica), Amnesia (acid music)... Example of classical killer samples : castanets, applaud...

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #8 –
Quote
...but instead is a scientific proof(with a high degree of certainity - nothing is 100% certain in the world

(ot) ah, but then it's certain that nothing is certain... 
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #9 –
Quote
Quote
...but instead is a scientific proof(with a high degree of certainity - nothing is 100% certain in the world

(ot) ah, but then it's certain that nothing is certain... 

mmh, i'd prefer to say "nothing is absolutely certain - not even the first part of this sentence". 
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #10 –
Quote
Quote
depends on the kind of music too. It's much easier to hear the difference from some rock music file than some electronic song...

Not true... it does not depend of the kind of music.
Example of electronic killer samples : Spahm (trance music), Badvilbel (experimental electronica), Amnesia (acid music)... Example of classical killer samples : castanets, applaud...

I was talking about it in generell...I didn't say that there are no killer samples...but it's no secret that rock music needs a much higher bitrate than dance music or whatever...of course, there are always exceptions
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #11 –
we all know that looking at a frequency analysis is not a good way to judge a codec, but it seems that for your buddy, that might just be enough to prove to him that there is a difference.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #12 –
Quote
I was talking about it in generell...I didn't say that there are no killer samples...but it's no secret that rock music needs a much higher bitrate than dance music or whatever...of course, there are always exceptions

Good point... VBR is so obvious for me that I never realized that this issue could exist in CBR.

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #13 –
Electronic music definitely requires higher bitrates. When I encode stuff to put on the web, I usually use LAME --preset ABR 128. When I did it for a guy who gave me some electronic music to toss up, it sounded abysmally bad when encoded. So bad I thought it had been transcoded as some point down the line, but he said no. It's just the electronic bleeps and bloops that throw it off, I guess.

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #14 –
Quote
But, with a good mp3 encoder (eg lame), the difference is very hard to percieve at bitrates over 160 (except on a few killer samples)

wishful thinking. do a listening test between the original and encode it at 160 and 192 kbits and i'd say at least 80% of the people here would be able to tell the difference easily, even on shitty equipment. and when one conducts blind listening tests it's best to use headphones because low quality computer speakers may not reveal everything. high quality headphones and soundcard will reveal a lot. 160 and 192 kbits are simply not enough if one wants some degree of transparency.
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

192kbps MP3 Vs Lossless

Reply #15 –
@Scr1ptk1ddY:

The concept that applies here is perceptual transparency, a term that refers to not being able to distinguish an encoded track or sample from its uncompressed (or losslessly compressed) source using a double-blind testing method (ABX).

Transparency threshold refers to the lowest bitrate at which an encoded track cannot be distinguished from it's uncompressed (or lossless) source.

If you think of it this way, then it's easier to understand why some music encoded in lossy formats (MP3, Ogg Vorbis, MPC, AAC, etc.) will be transparent at mid bitrates (128kbps-160kbps), and other encoded music may not be transparent even at high bitrates (192kbps+).

Perceptual transparency depends primarily on four things:  the person, the track or music sample, the encoding format and the bitrate or quality setting of the encoder.  Listening equipment plays little or no part in perceptual transparency, in my experience.  Something that's transparent to you on a $50 stereo would likely be transparent on a $2000 stereo as well.

As it's been stated in this thread, across many types of music, there are songs that can be transparent to many people at mid-bitrates or quality settings, and a few tracks that may not be transparent to some people with any kind of lossy encoding.  The only way to be sure is to ABX tracks whose transparency you are suspicious about.

I recommend this tool:  WinABX.  Read the info on the linked page to learn how to use it, and do a forum search here, as well, to "fill in the gaps".