96kHz/24bit vs. Mp3

[ernstinen]

Hey All,

Can you hear the difference between a high-resolution recording and an Mp3? I certainly can. How about you?

Cheers,

Ern

[Kolstad]

I would like to think I can, but if it is a high resolution mp3 and there is lots of electric gtr parts to distort the mix, I might struggle. Issues are especially with mp3 192kbps and below. https://www.crutchfield.com/S-51OaJs4M3 ... e/mp3.html

[Russell Landwehr]

I don't bother wasting processing power and disk space with 92k/24bit so I've never compared it to MP3.

I do record, mix, and render/export everything in 48k 24bit... and I always output to 320k MP3 when I need MP3 (the highest "quality" mp3 out there). I use the Fraunhofer encoder and make sure my encoder is set to "highest quality" (takes longer to encode... something like 500ms)

I can hear the difference when the MP3 is 128k and encoded with a crappy algorithm. Usually in the cymbals.

But other than that I don't fret myself with deep-diving the "quality" of this stuff... I'm happy with 24/48 and 320k and dithering when I go to 16bit... I've got better things to do than taste-test these standards that I've set for myself... plus... I can't really hear any difference between 320k MP3 and 24/48...

Too much Rock-n-Roll I suppose.

Russell

[marcblack30]

I don't bother wasting processing power and disk space with 92k/24bit so I've never compared it to MP3.

I do record and mix everything in 48k 24bit... and I always output to 320k MP3 (the highest "quality" mp3 out there). I use the Fraunhofer encoder and make sure my encoder is set to "highest quality" (takes longer to encode... something like 500ms)

I can hear the difference when the MP3 is 128k and encoded with a crappy algorithm. Usually in the cymbals.

But other than that I don't fret myself with deep-diving the "quality" of this stuff... I'm happy with 24/48 and 320k and dithering when I go to 16bit... I've got better things to do than taste-test these standards that I've set for myself... plus... I can't really hear any difference between 320k MP3 and 24/48...

Too much Rock-n-Roll I suppose.

Russell

+1

[ernstinen]

Well, I think that "young folk" who were raised on Mp3s and lousy ear buds can't hear any difference. But you're losing 90% of the sound by "compression" (which is NOT compression; you just lose 90% of the sound of the master).

Any audio engineer (I am one of them) will tell you that Mp3s are crap. I NEVER bought an IPod, because I knew what good audio sounds like. And you can't get that from an iPod and their ear buds.

NOW, I see people walking around with SERIOUS studio headphones. I have no idea what they're listening to, but it's a step up IMHO.

I've completely changed my musical library to 96kHz/24bit downloads from HDTracks. Sure, you can't find all music you want to find, but I must say it sounds SO much better than Mp3s!... I use my Samsung Note 4 with supports hi-res music. I added a 128 MB card that can hold a lot of music. To my ears, it's much, much better than Mp3s. Like hearing the master, vs. hearing it through an AM radio.

Just my opinion,

Ern

[SubRivers]

But 32bit 192hz is better - maybe your ears may not be able to tell the difference - but bigger numbers say otherwise.

I haven't hear 64 bit yet - but it is better.

[ernstinen]

But 32bit 192hz is better - maybe your ears may not be able to tell the difference - but bigger numbers say otherwise.

I haven't hear 64 bit yet - but it is better.

True. There's no doubt about that. When computer/cell phone memory gets larger and cheaper, that's the way it's going to go.

BTW, WHO decided that CDs should be 16bit/44.1 kHz? I'd like to know who decided that was the maximum that the human ear could hear (especially the 44.1 divided by 2 = 22.05 kHz top end). That's complete nonsense. None other than the genius Bob Moog PROVED that the human ear can hear up to 45-50 kHz! Sure, it may be upper harmonics, but even CDs are a compromise to save data space. And Mp3s save TONS of data space. That's why they originally existed, to dumb down music and fake young kids into thinking that they were hearing "High-Fidelity." B.S. It was nothing but a money-making scheme, to pack as many songs as possible into little iPods.

I sure hope someday soon, we'll have at least 32bit/192kHz audio as the standard. Memory is getting so cheap, it may happen next year. I hope.

Ern

[cosmicdolphin]

But you're losing 90% of the sound by "compression" (which is NOT compression; you just lose 90% of the sound of the master).

You don't "lose" 90% of the sound...it's data compression algorithms reducing the file size by up 90% ..completely different thing

Most people will struggle to hear the difference between a 44.1k 16bit CD track and a 320k MP3 made from the same WAV file. Of course it depends on your playback system , the encoder and the source material as well as your ears.

You can test out your theory here

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/ ... io-quality

BTW, WHO decided that CDs should be 16bit/44.1 kHz?

Sony & Philips..sometime in the late 70's or early 80's

PS...Did you know that production companies will sometimes grab MP3 previews and use those in the TV show instead of the proper 48k WAVs.

[SubRivers]

I was actually kidding - I did once hear a difference between a 24bit wav file and a 16 bit one.
It was due to an artefact/bug in a soundtoys plugin - it was several years ago and since been fixed.

Blind testing is the only way to prove these things as prior knowledge creates a bias that affects judgement in listening.
It's a sibling of the placebo effect and why science experiments are double blind.

[DesireInspires]

And Mp3s save TONS of data space. That's why they originally existed, to dumb down music and fake young kids into thinking that they were hearing "High-Fidelity." B.S. It was nothing but a money-making scheme, to pack as many songs as possible into little iPods.

That why Apple makes the big bucks.