Lossy vs Lossless audio: Can you hear the difference? - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

audacity · 2012-04-21, 10:19 PM

People say silly things. One of the silly things that audiophiles say goes along the lines of "I don't want lossy audio. Yes I can tell the difference."

Well, yesterday there was a Lifehacker post on this very subject. They show a audio application (foobar2000) which added a ABX testing feature so that you could compare audio files between lossy and lossless formats, and it'll even keep score and see how you do!

I thought this would be educational to anyone who believes they have super-human hearing.

cooper83 · 2012-04-22, 12:41 PM

I wonder if there's a flicker test too...

JamesK · 2012-04-22, 12:54 PM

I can certainly hear the difference between MP3 or OGG files and the original CD tracks. On some songs, the difference is significant. I often listen to MP3/OGG for casual listening, but if I want to really enjoy the music, I go back to the CD, often with headphones.

57 · 2012-04-22, 01:04 PM

The test was at 320kbps and many magazines/testers have already stated that it's difficult to consistently hear a difference at those sampling rates. I have two comments.

Firstly, most people don't record at those rates.
Secondly, if you do use 320, there's not much difference in file size compared to lossless. Since HDD space is so inexpensive, I'd go with lossless.

audacity · 2012-04-22, 01:28 PM

I've done the same test at 192kbps and cannot hear a difference when compared to WAV files that were ripped using Exact Audio Copy.

My main point is that I've run into a number of people who said they could tell the difference between a WAV file and a 192kbps MP3. In the two cases where I challenged them to tell the difference (and they can choose the CD as the source), neither of them could tell the difference.

I'm pretty sure that almost nobody does this sort of back to back testing, and just assume they have a golden ear.

Quote:

I can certainly hear the difference between MP3 or OGG files and the original CD tracks.

Did you do proper testing before you determined this? Or is that just based on faith?

JamesK · 2012-04-22, 03:04 PM

^^^^

It doesn't take a "golden ear" to hear the difference on some. For example, I have one recording, The Beatles "A Day In The Life", where there's one stretch where you can barely hear John Lennon's voice, whereas he's quite prominent on the CD. I have others that generally sound OK, but if you listen carefully, you can hear artifacts of compression, such as echo's spurious noise etc. The problem with lossy compression is that it removes what's supposed to be insignificant sounds. However, on occasion, those "insignificant" sounds may in fact be significant. Some new sounds that weren't in the original may also be created. Of course, there are also some people who are quite tolerant of distortion and can't hear what's plain to others. Years ago, I worked with a guy who couldn't hear power supply noise in his radio, yet I could hear it from quite a distance away. It was so bad you'd think he'd have to be deaf to not hear it.

As for comparing, the vast majority of my MP3 & OGG files are made from CDs that I own in my collection, so I'm very familiar with both compressed & uncompressed versions. I only listen to those files on my smart phone, either with headphones or through the stereo on my computer desk. In the living room, I listen to CDs exclusively, often with Sennheiser headphones and with the lights turned down. I suppose the best I could come to an A/B test would be to plug those headphones into my smartphone.

However, as I mentioned, compressed files are fine for casual listening. I just listened to a nice classical guitar piece by Sean Kelly and currently the "Lovin' Spoonful" are on with "Daydream". It's good enough while I'm at my computer.

runnin' · 2012-04-22, 04:00 PM

Two points. Not all hearing is equal, just as not all eyesight is equal. So to assume that everyone hears exactly the same, or exactly the same as you, is a big leap. Second, a HTIB or entry level system may not be able to demonstrate the difference. All systems are not the same either.

Jake · 2012-04-22, 04:06 PM

My lossless encodes are typically 650 - 1000kbps so the space is still a concern as is compatibility with mobile devices. But you must be careful what encoder you are using and its settings if you want to test your ears. They are not all the same quality. For example iTunes can (if selected) filter out 10Hz and there is also the "Sound Check" for playback which is basically a volume leveling setting. There is also a thing called "Sound Encoding Adjustments".

Also my receiver had this funky setting for restoring "lost data" in compressed music. I leave it disabled as it sounds like night and day.

2012-04-21, 10:19 PM	#1
audacity Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 1,815	Lossy vs Lossless audio: Can you hear the difference? People say silly things. One of the silly things that audiophiles say goes along the lines of "I don't want lossy audio. Yes I can tell the difference." Well, yesterday there was a Lifehacker post on this very subject. They show a audio application (foobar2000) which added a ABX testing feature so that you could compare audio files between lossy and lossless formats, and it'll even keep score and see how you do! I thought this would be educational to anyone who believes they have super-human hearing.

2012-04-22, 12:41 PM	#2
cooper83 Veteran Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Victoria, BC Posts: 2,537	I wonder if there's a flicker test too... __________________ Panasonic TH-42PE7U plasma, Toshiba HD-D3, PS3, Shaw DCX3400, Yamaha HTR-6160, Polk 6.1, Belkin PF30, Harmony 700

2012-04-22, 01:04 PM	#4
57 Moderator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto, Rogers, 8300HD, eHDD, Panasonic TCP65S1, Denon AVR4310Ci; 8300HD, eHDD & Sony KDL40W3000 Posts: 50,302	The test was at 320kbps and many magazines/testers have already stated that it's difficult to consistently hear a difference at those sampling rates. I have two comments. Firstly, most people don't record at those rates. Secondly, if you do use 320, there's not much difference in file size compared to lossless. Since HDD space is so inexpensive, I'd go with lossless. __________________ 57's Home Theatre (Latest equipment & photos) 57's Optimization Services (Home Theatre Optimization)

2012-04-22, 04:06 PM	#8
Jake Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Gatineau and Ottawa Posts: 10,193	My lossless encodes are typically 650 - 1000kbps so the space is still a concern as is compatibility with mobile devices. But you must be careful what encoder you are using and its settings if you want to test your ears. They are not all the same quality. For example iTunes can (if selected) filter out 10Hz and there is also the "Sound Check" for playback which is basically a volume leveling setting. There is also a thing called "Sound Encoding Adjustments". Also my receiver had this funky setting for restoring "lost data" in compressed music. I leave it disabled as it sounds like night and day. __________________ Tip: See an offending post? Don't reply, report it by clicking on the 'Report Post' icon.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2012-04-22, 12:54 PM	#3
JamesK Veteran Join Date: May 2009 Location: Mississauga Posts: 5,047	I can certainly hear the difference between MP3 or OGG files and the original CD tracks. On some songs, the difference is significant. I often listen to MP3/OGG for casual listening, but if I want to really enjoy the music, I go back to the CD, often with headphones.

2012-04-22, 03:04 PM	#6
JamesK Veteran Join Date: May 2009 Location: Mississauga Posts: 5,047	^^^^ It doesn't take a "golden ear" to hear the difference on some. For example, I have one recording, The Beatles "A Day In The Life", where there's one stretch where you can barely hear John Lennon's voice, whereas he's quite prominent on the CD. I have others that generally sound OK, but if you listen carefully, you can hear artifacts of compression, such as echo's spurious noise etc. The problem with lossy compression is that it removes what's supposed to be insignificant sounds. However, on occasion, those "insignificant" sounds may in fact be significant. Some new sounds that weren't in the original may also be created. Of course, there are also some people who are quite tolerant of distortion and can't hear what's plain to others. Years ago, I worked with a guy who couldn't hear power supply noise in his radio, yet I could hear it from quite a distance away. It was so bad you'd think he'd have to be deaf to not hear it. As for comparing, the vast majority of my MP3 & OGG files are made from CDs that I own in my collection, so I'm very familiar with both compressed & uncompressed versions. I only listen to those files on my smart phone, either with headphones or through the stereo on my computer desk. In the living room, I listen to CDs exclusively, often with Sennheiser headphones and with the lights turned down. I suppose the best I could come to an A/B test would be to plug those headphones into my smartphone. However, as I mentioned, compressed files are fine for casual listening. I just listened to a nice classical guitar piece by Sean Kelly and currently the "Lovin' Spoonful" are on with "Daydream". It's good enough while I'm at my computer.

2012-04-22, 04:00 PM	#7
runnin' Join Date: May 2007 Location: B.C. Posts: 500	Two points. Not all hearing is equal, just as not all eyesight is equal. So to assume that everyone hears exactly the same, or exactly the same as you, is a big leap. Second, a HTIB or entry level system may not be able to demonstrate the difference. All systems are not the same either.