Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[robertisonline]

I run JRiver Media Network on a dedicated PC, but use Apple laptops and tablets (Apple cringes when you call their iPad a tablet) to listen to my music with MC 21 and JRemote, respectively. If I really want the best sound quality, I don't like using Media Network. That's just my opinion.

I wanted to see if I could tell the difference between the exact same live concert songs tracked in CBR (MP3) 16/44.1 and 24/96 FLAC. Using a pair of open-backed Sennheiser headphones and a Cambridge Audio DacMagic 100, I had a friend que up the tracks randomly. We went back and forth with 10 songs, at ten-second intervals, and at one-minute intervals. The discernible difference was really a disappointment. I'm going to retest on a pair of Yamaha HS7 studio monitors and hope for a slightly better outcome. So far as musical fidelity is concerned, my confidence is wavering if the basis for that difference is purely based on bit-depth and sampling rate (omitting any form of remixing or remastering).

Your thoughts here...

[blgentry]

This is by no means any kind of complete answer.  Just some thoughts:

1.  Depending upon the bitrate of the MP3 file, MANY people (including me) can hear the difference between MP3 encoding and lossless.  At lower bitrates (128 to 256) it's pretty reliable hear the difference and to pick out the lossy file.  Other people claim that 320 kpbs MP3 files are nearly impossible to tell from lossless.  I don't have the motivation to find out.  Disk space is CHEAP and lossless files aren't very big.  So everything is lossless in my collection unless I have no other choice.
2.  In my own limited experience, the differences between lossy and lossless are the details.  Reverb trails, and other low level details.  On the other hand, the difference between 16/44.1 and higher sample size and sample rate audio were different.  It was more of a sense of "correctness" or realism, as opposed to specific details I could pick out.  If you're trying to do these types of tests, it's going to be MUCH harder to pick out differences on poorly recorded material.  It's going to be more difficult on material that has less realistic sounding instruments.  So high energy, low dynamic range rock is going to be harder to distinguish than say folk music with acoustic instruments.  Just an example.
3.  I've recently learned that short term A/B testing sometimes fails to produce differences, while much longer term A/B testing becomes more reliable.  This is an amazing conclusion to me, because it reinforces the idea that the subtle details are picked up by your subconscious brain and may not be immediately obvious in an A/B test that lasts 10 seconds, 1 minute, etc.  Then of course there is the psychological pressure that one feels when doing a "test" where we are switching back and forth.  With a longer term test, these effects are reduced.

Here's one person's experience with short versus long term AB testing:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/7725#post_11921090

What I have personally found is that I feel like listening for MUCH longer with lossless music.  I think my brain subconsciously tells me "this is correct" versus "there's something wrong" and makes me enjoy the music more.  Just a theory based on my experiences.  I don't have very many high resolution songs, so I can't comment on those in this context.

Enjoy.

Brian.