SATCHMO

I definitely see this, but for me in most cases it's the signal to noise ratio and the soundstage, i.e. the stereo separation and the perception of instruments existing in 3-dimensional space that tends to improve beyond the point of 192. For me seems to be the pivotal point where the frequency range quality becomes imperceptible, yet other variables in audio quality are still apparent.

music_phantom13

This is completely off topic, but depending on the quality and thickness of the vinyl and the type of music I can most certainly here a change between a record and a cd. I find it's hardly perceptible on music such as AC/DC, Iron Maiden, and other essentially straight forward music. But if I'm listening to something like Animal Collective's older work or School of Seven Bells, where there is a lot of different sounds in different frequencies that are all going on at once, it's quite easy to hear a difference. You might have pops and so on on older records, but where it's not scratched I think they'll still sound better. I haven't really tested with older records before, but I garauntee something like AC, SVIIB, or **** Buttons will sound better.

Back on topic of compression, I've done a blind test and can definitely hear a difference between 192 and 256. 256 and 320 I really don't hear too much of a difference at all. This could be because per Satchmo's comment, if the frequency range is more or less the same once you get to 256 kbps. But in all fairness, I can hear up to ~20 Khz, which I know because I recently had a hearing test for the Navy. There may be differences between 256 and 320 but I sure can't hear it.

noise

regarding vinyl, i can tell immediately when listening to an mp3 if it has been ripped from vinyl. the sound is much softer, much more muted. this is especially true for electronic music. i prefer digital over analog any day.

__________________
my flac collection

music_phantom13

Um... you do realize that an mp3 ripped from vinyl is digital right? Of course it's going to sound crappy if you rip analog to mp3, you are compressing the sound. Imagine a wave. An analog recording is just a straight, completely solid line, whereas a compressed file would be dots along the wave; the higher the quality the more "dots" or samples there are.

I really don't think there's any debate that vinyl recordings sound better than any mp3 compression...

noise

if my surprise that a 320 CBR mp3 ripped from a vinyl source sounds astonishingly different than an equal bitrate mp3 ripped form a digital source makes me an idiot, then so be it. i remain surprised.

vinyl is fine for rock and jazz and whatever else, but electronic music started life in the digital world, and that's where it should stay. i never understood why DJs release instrumental stuff on vinyl, when CDs sound so much better.

__________________
my flac collection

SATCHMO

It could be that more compression was added to the master before it was converted to digital for the CD pressing, but I have noticed that even homemade audio cassette recordings from vinyl retain that particular "fluid" quality that vinyl is famous for.

lucifer_sam

no, natural harmonics are always integer multiples of the frequencies which you already hear. so you might be missing out on some higher harmonics but they only go up from the base frequency.

the "noise" occurs when those harmonics are aliased -- meaning that the sampling frequency of the A/D converter (usually around 14.4 kHz, correct?) isn't sufficient to capture frequencies higher than ~7 kHz and aliases them to some lower frequency which manifests within the audible range. this might be what your friend was referring to.

__________________
first.am

Guybrush

Again, people who claim they can hear a difference - that's not really the question. So you can hear a difference between 192 and 256 - given 10 songs ripped in 192 and 256, could you tell which was which for the different songs with significance beyond the 50% chance you'll be correct for each attempt?

I mean that's what you have to ask yourself - not whether or not you can hear a difference. You could even play the same file to someone twice, tell them the BR is different when it's not and they'll come up with differences when there are none. Such is the human error.

When testing yourself, you have to know :

1. What are you after? You wanna be able to identify the higher quality file.
2. Your own weaknesses/error/bias as a human being. That's what blind tests are for, removing that error.

Sitting down listening to two files knowing the BR of both is likely not a reliable way to test this.

edit :

It's like my GF claimed she preferred Pepsi Max to Coke Zero .. I made her do a blind test. Know which one she preferred? Coka Cola Zero Sometimes, people trust themselves too much.

__________________
Something Completely Different

NumberNineDream

I just wanted to say that the difference is identifiable, but when you are listening to a song on the laptop speakers or on the iPod earphones the sound quality won't be as good as listening to that same song on quality audiophile speakers. So if you're listening to a song of 256 kbps bit rate or an uncompressed Audio CD of 44 100 kbps on that same laptop speaker, you will hardly notice the difference.

Studies on several people (using mostly the blind test) have showed that a file compressed to less than 256 kbps is mostly noticed. It's not the case of every person, it depends on how sensible your ears are, and how much you trained your hearing.

__________________

music_phantom13

Well I've done that before with a friend, trying to find out how high quality we really needed to rip cds. I could hear the difference between 192 and 256 every time, but after that point couldn't tell. So it's definitely identifiable, the thing is it's not a big enough difference that I actually care. I rip cds at 256, and download whatever I can find but preferrably 192 or better.

And noise, it definitely doesn't make you an idiot. I'm not arguing that a digital recording of a record will or should sound any better than an mp3 file. What I meant is that it's no longer an analog recording if you rip it to mp3. At that point, the music is digital. I was talking a comparison of an actual record played through speakers from a turntable versus an mp3 compressed file played through the same speakers on an mp3 player or computer or whatever. I definitely think the vinyl sounds a lot better.