s_k

Yeah, I hear that all the time.
I don't mind .
As long as I can hear the difference.

__________________
Click here to see my collection

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

If you care that much, then just rip them again. I don't know... I'd just play them and see if anybody even complains.

Guybrush

I'm with Noise on this one. Worth mentioning also is that you should not just be able to tell a difference when you test yourself. You should also be able to correctly identify the higher quality clip from the lower quality one. People are not good at this, but they like to believe they are.

I had a thread for testing this. I was very scientific about it and was hoping to get a lot of people doing it, but I think in the end less than 10 actually did the test and answered my little questionnaire. I asked people to rank some sound clips by quality (from 128 to 320) and I believe a lot of people started, but then noticed they could not separate them and so didn't bother with the ranking in the thread.

From those who did answer, though too few for serious analysis, there was little indication that people can confidently tell the difference from ~160+ kbps and up. There are lots of other tests out there that tell exactly the same story, but people just don't like to hear it, I suspect because they like the idea that they have better hearing than the rest of mankind.

You have to test yourself with a blind test when you do this. Just try it! I can tell 128 kbps apart from higher qualities, but a bit higher BRs and I can't anymore. I don't mind admitting it

__________________
Something Completely Different

s_k

I've been there so many times, I'm not going to prove it again.
Feel free to call me weak, but I don't mind not having proof. I just trust my own ears.
And then I really don't know anyone who's seriously into audio who can't hear the difference.
There's also people who don't hear the difference in different speaker cables or interlinks.
Hell I even hear a difference when you put a brick on my cd player. And that's no joke either.

If you can't hear the difference, don't bother ripping in high quality. But please stop trying to convince people who can hear the difference that they are fooling themselves, because they're not. Music is so much more than reproducing tones. There's a lot of music in the things you don't hear. The ''black''. There's stage, depth, stereo imaging. All these things are compromised in any mp3. In 192kbps and down it's even easy to hear the mp3 artifacts.
Eitherway, no one who has his rig set up properly (correct speaker placement, right cables, matching amp) likes to listen to mp3. It's just the people of the ''mp3 generation'' that don't care about the difference. But they usually listen to all in one stereo rigs, affordable surround sets or mp3 players. And in that case I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, either.

Edit: about your test: I'm having a hard time seperating mp3 from wav, too. One on one.
But because of the way the human ear and brain work, one on one comparisons only work when the difference is really big.
What you can try is ripping one of the cd's you know really well to 192kbps mp3, burn it, and then play it on your cd player instead of the original. See if you enjoy it just as much. I know hou won't.
Unless, as I said, you listen to a rig that just won't let you hear the difference.

__________________
Click here to see my collection

Guybrush

If you/they have not passed a blind test that shows you are able to identify f.ex 192 kbps mp3s from regular CDs, then how do you know that you can? I'm not saying a test definetly would show that you can't do it. Maybe you can, maybe you can't.

Because tests show most can't, when you claim you can, then you're the one who has something to prove, right? If you can hear a difference, then that skill can be demonstrated. If you test yourself and find that you can, then you have some proper support/proof behind your hearing claims. If you have belief in your ability, why not test it?

__________________
Something Completely Different

GuitarBizarre

I've had this argument so many times I'm sick of it. I've proven I can tell the quality difference before, and I'm not about to go proving it again for everyone who asks.

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

I think a lot of it depends on what you are listening to as well as the bitrate.

I've had modern digitally recorded stuff that has been ripped at 320kpbs that still sound like total crap.

But then on the other hand I've listened to analogue recorded music recorded in the 60s/70s/80s ripped at 128kpbs that sound identical the the CD they were ripped from.

I don't think you can tell just from the bitrate.

__________________

s_k

This ^

And I just explained that one on one comparison is not the way .
I never said I could do that, I just said I can hear the difference.
I would kick my rig out of my house if it sounded like mp3, at any bitrate, at any point.

But since I can't prove it to the ones who can't hear it... .
Let's get back ontopic, shall we?

__________________
Click here to see my collection

Guybrush

If you guys are able to hear differences in sound quality, then you should try out the new bitrate challenge. I know you, s_k, say that all mp3s sound like crap. That must mean you are able to hear a difference between lossy vs. lossless and, although that's not what's tested in the BR challenge, if you are able to do that, you should definetly be able to hear a difference between some of the bitrates in the challenge.

Try it

http://www.musicbanter.com/games-lis...ge-nr-2-a.html

__________________
Something Completely Different

s_k

No I can't hear the difference in a one on one comparison.
I explained that before.
But I did the test anyway.

__________________
Click here to see my collection