i can still hear distortion in songs that are ripped in 320. just a thought.
Printable View
i can still hear distortion in songs that are ripped in 320. just a thought.
not a very profound one...
I never understand what people mean when they say they hear "distortion"...I never notice it?? Maybe it's because I don't really pay attention to it...or it could just be because I have shitty speakers (creative inspire 5200's)
i'd say. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Isezumi
not a very profound one...
Theres something wrong if your hearing distortion, you shouldn't be hearing distortion in mp3 files, unless there encoded wrong, or something in your setup is messed up, eq settings etc.Quote:
Originally posted by PinchyCM
i can still hear distortion in songs that are ripped in 320. just a thought.
no, it's just loss in the quality of the file.Quote:
Originally posted by Idiot356
Theres something wrong if your hearing distortion, you shouldn't be hearing distortion in mp3 files, unless there encoded wrong, or something in your setup is messed up, eq settings etc.
How can a digital file loose quality?Quote:
Originally posted by PinchyCM
no, it's just loss in the quality of the file.
It's not a tape...
There is no way that there oould be distortion, unless the source has distortion, or something is wrong with the way you encoded it. Or the media player your using has something messed up, like an eq setting, etc.
Unless you have really good ears, a 192Kbps MP3 will not sound any different than the CD.
Apparently someone was sleeping in class on the day that they went over the difference between a lossy and a lossless compression format.Quote:
Originally posted by Idiot356
How can a digital file loose quality?
It's not a tape...
There is no way that there oould be distortion, unless the source has distortion, or something is wrong with the way you encoded it. Or the media player your using has something messed up, like an eq setting, etc.
Unless you have really good ears, a 192Kbps MP3 will not sound any different than the CD.
Lossy formats (MP3) will "lose" data that is not stored in the sample. Depending on your sample size in comparison to the actual data stream dictates your loss.
Lossless formats (zip) don't "lose" data, they usually replace repeating fields of data with a token, then create a table so that when uncompressed the tokens can be replaced with the appropriate data.
Proof: Take any sound file that is in its origianl wave format and encode it to 320bps MP3...if the MP3 is smaller (which it most likely will be) then audio data was lost.
Idiot356, digital or not you are taking a .wav file of a song (upwards of 150mb each) and compressing it down to a 6-15mb file. If your expecting there will be 0 loss in quality just because it's "digital" you be wrong~
pwned.
if your hearing distortion, either your source material is distorted, something went wrong during encoding, OR you are getting clipping. try using MP3gain on that file, might clean it up.
"I can still hear distortion in songs that are ripped in 320. just a thought."
Sorry PinchyCM but something is wrong there. There is no reason for you to hear distortion at even 160 if its properly encoded. Please do give the tracks you are hearing the distortion on because it might be that you have your treble set to 75+? on your audigy? Or was that 007 from the klipsch forums? Anyway something is wrong with that because you should not get any distortion.
"Unless you have really good ears, a 192Kbps MP3 will not sound any different than the CD."
I would have to completely agree with you here. Only on certain classical and very detailed jazz peices can you actually make out the difference, and its very very slight between 192 and 320.
I would try re-ripping it, and maybe change some settings pinchy, no reason at all why you should be hearing distortion , its likely:
1.encoding of the mp3 file
2.the song itself was badly recorded aka stupid sound engineers(i have owned a few cds that had distortion straight out of the jewlcase.)
3.Soundcard settings aka treble - bass EQ - EAX - CMSS etc.. should all be at 0.
4.Speakers, the speakers themselves are makeing it sound distorted
Yes I realize it's a lossy format, yes you loose data.Quote:
Originally posted by Isezumi
Apparently someone was sleeping in class on the day that they went over the difference between a lossy and a lossless compression format.
Lossy formats (MP3) will "lose" data that is not stored in the sample. Depending on your sample size in comparison to the actual data stream dictates your loss.
Lossless formats (zip) don't "lose" data, they usually replace repeating fields of data with a token, then create a table so that when uncompressed the tokens can be replaced with the appropriate data.
Proof: Take any sound file that is in its origianl wave format and encode it to 320bps MP3...if the MP3 is smaller (which it most likely will be) then audio data was lost.
But that does not change the fact that an MP3 encoded with a qaulity encoder 192 and above, will more than likely not be distinguishable against a cd. It also depends on what kind of music it is.
But I remember hearing that Dolby Labrotories did a test in there refrence room, they encoded an MP3 I think at 160, and played the same song from the cd, switched back and forth, and could not tell the difference. Now, I don't know if this was true or not, but do me a favor, take your highest quality MP3 and switch back and fourth between the CD with that song, if you can tell a difference, you didn't encode it very well, or you have k9 ears.
And when I said a digital file shouldn't be loosing quality, I thought he meant his MP3 files were gradually loosing quality, of course the wav file and the original file will loose data, but quality if encoded right should not be lost.
Anyone ever heard of the placebo effect (sp??) Someone blind fold the buy. Play the same song, 5 from the CD and 5 from the 320 quality MP3 and lets see for real how many times he can diferentiatethe 'distortion' You'll notice him point out the CD to have distortion once in a while too : )
Psst, that someone can't be you pinchy : ) The test has to be given very carefully, such as attempting to have both output devices already playing (because you can hear an ever slight sound from a CD going into its spin).
i ripped a copy of that song off my CDs this time, and i still think i can tell at specific points, maybe the placebo effect :). i asked my roommate, and he says he can tell a difference, and i didn't tell him which was which. i used a frew tracks off the evanescence cd btw, a great selection to show off the range in the klipschs. but whoever says they can't hear the diff between 160 between 320 is deaf. if you know anything about sampling, even if encoded right, you lose quality. i mean, you take a continious signal x(t), you take points from it discretly -> x(k),from a fixed interval T, and you lose parts of it. oh, and i have fantastic hearing. :)
The point that was made was this:Quote:
Originally posted by PinchyCM
i ripped a copy of that song off my CDs this time, and i still think i can tell at specific points, maybe the placebo effect :). i asked my roommate, and he says he can tell a difference, and i didn't tell him which was which. i used a frew tracks off the evanescence cd btw, a great selection to show off the range in the klipschs. but whoever says they can't hear the diff between 160 between 320 is deaf. if you know anything about sampling, even if encoded right, you lose quality. i mean, you take a continious signal x(t), you take points from it discretly -> x(k),from a fixed interval T, and you lose parts of it. oh, and i have fantastic hearing. :)
Yes the format is lossy; however, there shouldn't be any audible distortion as a by-product of this. At certain bitrates, the differences between the reference source and the mp3 become inaudible. Having good hearing and hearing things that aren't physically possible are two different things.
Some people have noticed differences between songs ripped at 192 kbps and the reference, but not anyone that I've heard of has noticed any audible differences between any 200+ kbps bitrate mp3's that are properly encoded and the reference source. This is people using headphone systems like HD 600's with meta 42 amps.
Unless you have freakishly accurate hearing, you shouldn't be able to hear this. Even 'freakishly accurate' is an understatement.
i think i really used the wrong word. by distortion, i mean i can hear things i never herad before in higher bitrates, the sound isn't scratchy at higher volumes (which could be a result of hardware limitations), and the bass is muddier.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
The point that was made was this:
Yes the format is lossy; however, there shouldn't be any audible distortion as a by-product of this. At certain bitrates, the differences between the reference source and the mp3 become inaudible. Having good hearing and hearing things that aren't physically possible are two different things.
Some people have noticed differences between songs ripped at 192 kbps and the reference, but not anyone that I've heard of has noticed any audible differences between any 200+ kbps bitrate mp3's that are properly encoded and the reference source. This is people using headphone systems like HD 600's with meta 42 amps.
Unless you have freakishly accurate hearing, you shouldn't be able to hear this. Even 'freakishly accurate' is an understatement.
haha. freak hearing. score.
I happen to know quite a beat about sampling. Although if we change the argument to what you want it to be, which is 'whether quality is lost or not' then it's a pointless argument. Of course quality is lost. The argument is if you can really tell the difference between a well ripped CD song to 320 or is it more of a bias. Taking your route of learning this is simply to abstract because we never really put the individual to the test. Why not truly experiment with this and do a quasi-experimental study to truly find out. This way we'll find out to what degree you can tell the different between a well encoded 320 and the original CD. Again, my argument is to what degree you truly tell the difference between a well encoded 320 and the original CD.Quote:
Originally posted by PinchyCM
i ripped a copy of that song off my CDs this time, and i still think i can tell at specific points, maybe the placebo effect :). i asked my roommate, and he says he can tell a difference, and i didn't tell him which was which. i used a frew tracks off the evanescence cd btw, a great selection to show off the range in the klipschs. but whoever says they can't hear the diff between 160 between 320 is deaf. if you know anything about sampling, even if encoded right, you lose quality. i mean, you take a continious signal x(t), you take points from it discretly -> x(k),from a fixed interval T, and you lose parts of it. oh, and i have fantastic hearing. :)
Come on Pinchy, give me a true argumentative challenge, stop limiting yourself to what the core classes in your major/school are teaching you.
answer to that is yea, but it's minimal, but i was just trying to prove that there is quite some difference between a say, a 192 to 320. i can definitely hear the difference between a 192 and a 320. some people are saying that you can't tell the difference.Quote:
Originally posted by coolqf
Again, my argument is to what degree you truly tell the difference between a well encoded 320 and the original CD.
" but i was just trying to prove that there is quite some difference between a say, a 192 to 320. i can definitely hear the difference between a 192 and a 320. some people are saying that you can't tell the difference."
sorry pinchy thats ********. there is not quite some difference, ask anyone whos properly recorded at 192 and at 320 the difference is so slight its BARELY noticeable.
In some songs I have there is a noticable difference in quality between 128kbps and 192kbps (you can tell that the 'energy of the song' is lacking. Essentially just like dynamic compression.) however with that high of quality mp3's, I agree that it could be noticable but the extent of it would be like hearing one mishap in a fretless bass player. It's hardly noiticable and with most any source, you're not going to hear it.Quote:
Originally posted by Swerv
" but i was just trying to prove that there is quite some difference between a say, a 192 to 320. i can definitely hear the difference between a 192 and a 320. some people are saying that you can't tell the difference."
sorry pinchy thats ********. there is not quite some difference, ask anyone whos properly recorded at 192 and at 320 the difference is so slight its BARELY noticeable.
some and barley noticable is relative. that, and we can factor in bad rips. you guys are like stubborn mules!
Yeah, so here I am listening to 2 different versions of A Perfect Circle-Noose.
Wav. ripped via EAC
192 bps MP3 via dB PowerAMP Lame (encoded from the Afore mentioned Wav file)
320 bps MP3 via dB PowerAMP Lame (encoded from the Afore mentioend Wav file)
Through Audigy 2 and Senneheiser HD 535's and the Latest Version of Cool Player.
After just one play through I can tell differences between the 192 and 320 rip vs. the Wav mostly from characteristic nuiances in instraments like guitar string twang and snare drum rattle and some minor differences in voice undulations.
Some parts of Maynard vocals in the chorus are harsher on the entry (when he produces hard accentuation in charactrts like the "A" in halo or "S" in slipping) with the 320 rip...some of it disappears in the 192 rip. I am assuming this is from just having less data on the sample. However at 192 there are times when Maynards voice is given an uncharacteristic ceiling or a flatness, this is mostly when he is singing on top of a lot of additional instaramentation so I am going to attribute it to simply not having a high enough sample rate to cover ALL the data (relatively minor occurence at this bit rate). As a wav the intro seems more airy and rolling, something that was lacking in varying degrees in both the encoded rips. Also some minor difference in instrament tone between the MP3's and the Wav and white noise is a little more pronounced in the MP3's.
99% of the differences that I noticed would go utterly un-noticed if I was using my Polks and not the Sennes. God only knows what I would hear had I a more precise set of cans (good or bad).
Good call Isezumi, Although I must say that the above 'thought' is where the argument lies. Hence the comparison between a song ripped to 320 and the original wav file.Quote:
Originally posted by PinchyCM
i can still hear distortion in songs that are ripped in 320. just a thought.
The key isn't so much. The better way to test it is to put at least 5 different songs into the play list, in both t the 320 MP3 and the WAV file. Set it to play in random and listen to it repeatedly. If by the end you can't tell the difference.... Well, that's an interesting conclusion to reach....
Knowing and not knowing which is which is of great importance....