Not only can you not tell the difference between analogue and digital, you also cannot tell the difference between lossless and properly transcoded MP3.
Most audiophile mania is poorly informed at best and astrology at worst.
> you also cannot tell the difference between lossless and properly transcoded MP3
I'm not sure what you mean by "properly transcoded," as though there's a scourge of bad encoders out there and everyone has nutty encoding practices, but I really, really bet you can. Listen to an mp3 of a rock/pop track. Try to focus on the cymbals. See if you can isolate them aurally from the rest of the music. Can you hear how mp3 encoding completely munges high frequencies to sound like digital glass breaking? Then you shall finally understand why mp3 encoding has always sucked, and Napster really, really should have won.
Many mp3 encoders cut off really high frequency stuff - somewhere between 16khz and 20khz depending on the encoder. Often this isn't changed by any of the quality settings, e.g. on lame it's still enabled on the "insane" preset without manually disabling it.
While that's on the very top-end of human hearing - most by middle age can't detect anything above 14-16khz, but it's certainly possible (especially for those younger) to have frequencies all the way up to 20khz as audible.
So it is possible for some people to hear a difference with some mp3 encoders, no matter the bitrate or quality settings.
And the psychoacoustic model is going to focus on the "average" listener, so it's perfectly possible that an lower bitrate encoding is transparent (IE: Completely indistinguishable) to one person, while another may be able to notice higher frequencies that have been cut off to provide more quality in the more noticeable parts of the spectrum. Or even the same person at different ages. This is completely physical difference, and no amount of training or harder listening would be able to bridge the gap.
And I find many of the higher frequencies that are hit by such things are often not particularly noticeable unless you're actively looking for them, being able to tell there's a difference and knowing what to specifically look far isn't the same as saying the recording is somehow less enjoyable due to quality differences.
^ yeah exactly. Also, you really do need a pretty good sound system to hear it. I was with the poster above you for a long time, but then I did blind A/B testing on my buddy's $10k monitors, and the difference was clear.
I wouldn't call it "night and day", but I had no trouble distinguishing even 320 MP3 from FLAC on his system by focusing on the very high frequencies (3/3, small N I know I know, but I felt like I could've gone on indefinitely). The MP3s lost some clarity in the highs which led to less dimensionality/sense of space ("soundstage"), because our spatial hearing is very attuned to minute transient differences in high frequencies in particular. But you need to be listening on a system that is adequately equipped to reproduce very high frequency transients accurately, which most people don't have access to.
As a former orchestra player I can say that, with a good hi-fi system, the difference is audible, in terms of soundstage size/depth, not in details.
I have a couple systems, one is a proper hi-fi system. If the album is mastered without brick-wall normalization, the difference is easier to hear.
When I listen the same album via my DAC, from MP4, I enjoy it. When I listen the same album, from a CD, I sit in front of the system like a rabbit blinded by lights.
The DAC is the same. It’s a Yamaha CD-S300 with a proper iPod interface, which carries the signal digitally till DAC.
This ABX test is the same. You need a high fidelity chain to enjoy it. I have a nice sound card, but the speakers connected to it can’t handle the resolution put out by it.
I'm not a fan of analog, but a high-end analog system will sound far different than a similarly priced digital one. It's a very different type of sound.
Whether someone likes it or not is personal preference. But it does sound night-and-day different to listen to a vinyl from a turntable and using a DAC.
As for MP3 vs lossless, that's mostly true assuming a modern variable bit rate MP3 on OK hardware. The better the audio, the better the equipment, the more noticeable it gets. But yes, for 95%, it's basically not significant.
Badly transcoded mp3s are the worst. For most artists I couldn't tell the difference between a v2 and a flac. There were a few who you could but they're mostly not what people are listening to (intentionally very noisy artists). Realistically if I just heard them blind I don't think I would have cared.
As an anecdote I've noticed that while driving, the bass line in YouTube music jazz can be incredibly hard to hear despite my shelling out for the premium Bose sound system that can shake the vehicle. So I wonder whether this is the encoding or whether it's really supposed to be that quiet.
There's definitely some difference in quality with some music. For instance, the reverb will be slightly better with lossless, in my opinion. Some might say it's not much to bother with but it's definitely there.
MP3 is not monolithic, and has changed drastically since it was released.
You're going to get a pretty terrible experience with MP3 128kbps, whereas modern variable bit rate schemes can actually be quite decent. Personally I prefer to always go lossless, but for most people on most systems, the difference isn't noticeable. (Moreso the better the system gets, ofc)
Maursault|3 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "properly transcoded," as though there's a scourge of bad encoders out there and everyone has nutty encoding practices, but I really, really bet you can. Listen to an mp3 of a rock/pop track. Try to focus on the cymbals. See if you can isolate them aurally from the rest of the music. Can you hear how mp3 encoding completely munges high frequencies to sound like digital glass breaking? Then you shall finally understand why mp3 encoding has always sucked, and Napster really, really should have won.
kimixa|3 years ago
While that's on the very top-end of human hearing - most by middle age can't detect anything above 14-16khz, but it's certainly possible (especially for those younger) to have frequencies all the way up to 20khz as audible.
So it is possible for some people to hear a difference with some mp3 encoders, no matter the bitrate or quality settings.
And the psychoacoustic model is going to focus on the "average" listener, so it's perfectly possible that an lower bitrate encoding is transparent (IE: Completely indistinguishable) to one person, while another may be able to notice higher frequencies that have been cut off to provide more quality in the more noticeable parts of the spectrum. Or even the same person at different ages. This is completely physical difference, and no amount of training or harder listening would be able to bridge the gap.
And I find many of the higher frequencies that are hit by such things are often not particularly noticeable unless you're actively looking for them, being able to tell there's a difference and knowing what to specifically look far isn't the same as saying the recording is somehow less enjoyable due to quality differences.
Nav_Panel|3 years ago
I wouldn't call it "night and day", but I had no trouble distinguishing even 320 MP3 from FLAC on his system by focusing on the very high frequencies (3/3, small N I know I know, but I felt like I could've gone on indefinitely). The MP3s lost some clarity in the highs which led to less dimensionality/sense of space ("soundstage"), because our spatial hearing is very attuned to minute transient differences in high frequencies in particular. But you need to be listening on a system that is adequately equipped to reproduce very high frequency transients accurately, which most people don't have access to.
conradfr|3 years ago
Do you have a favorite rock track we can do an ABX test with?
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
bayindirh|3 years ago
I have a couple systems, one is a proper hi-fi system. If the album is mastered without brick-wall normalization, the difference is easier to hear.
When I listen the same album via my DAC, from MP4, I enjoy it. When I listen the same album, from a CD, I sit in front of the system like a rabbit blinded by lights.
The DAC is the same. It’s a Yamaha CD-S300 with a proper iPod interface, which carries the signal digitally till DAC.
This ABX test is the same. You need a high fidelity chain to enjoy it. I have a nice sound card, but the speakers connected to it can’t handle the resolution put out by it.
Night_Thastus|3 years ago
I'm not a fan of analog, but a high-end analog system will sound far different than a similarly priced digital one. It's a very different type of sound.
Whether someone likes it or not is personal preference. But it does sound night-and-day different to listen to a vinyl from a turntable and using a DAC.
As for MP3 vs lossless, that's mostly true assuming a modern variable bit rate MP3 on OK hardware. The better the audio, the better the equipment, the more noticeable it gets. But yes, for 95%, it's basically not significant.
MivLives|3 years ago
havblue|3 years ago
brigandish|3 years ago
Tao3300|3 years ago
Night_Thastus|3 years ago
You're going to get a pretty terrible experience with MP3 128kbps, whereas modern variable bit rate schemes can actually be quite decent. Personally I prefer to always go lossless, but for most people on most systems, the difference isn't noticeable. (Moreso the better the system gets, ofc)