quote:

Originally posted by b i n k u n out of curiousity, what is your system?

My system is comprised of a 4 way configuration. Using
Parametrics for Ultra Highs, Mid Highs, & Mid Lows. The
lows are Aux fed, and uses its own crossover, bandpassed
from 100 - 27Hz 24 dB Octave.

A lot of technical talk, that may not whole much interest
to you.

Nevertheless, my ears don't lie, neither do spectrum analyzers.

When I compared a 44100 Khz 320 Kbs mp3 -vs- 44100 Khz 1411 .wav
file, their was around a 2 dB loss at 16Khz (There I go with
the tech talk again) which was evident on the Spectrum Analyzer
and to my ears.

Mind you, I'm using a soundcard that can offer a 96Khz/24 Bit output.
So, on my system, yes the sound difference is evident.

___________________
OMNIFEX

Are tracks from Audiojelly encoded in Joint Stereo or is it something in my eye???? *blink*

quote:

Originally posted by OMNIFEX My system is comprised of a 4 way configuration. Using Parametrics for Ultra Highs, Mid Highs, & Mid Lows. The lows are Aux fed, and uses its own crossover, bandpassed from 100 - 27Hz 24 dB Octave. A lot of technical talk, that may not whole much interest to you. Nevertheless, my ears don't lie, neither do spectrum analyzers. When I compared a 44100 Khz 320 Kbs mp3 -vs- 44100 Khz 1411 .wav file, their was around a 2 dB loss at 16Khz (There I go with the tech talk again) which was evident on the Spectrum Analyzer and to my ears. Mind you, I'm using a soundcard that can offer a 96Khz/24 Bit output. So, on my system, yes the sound difference is evident.

dun worry about technical talk, i did my degree in acoustics. i was curious what speakers you have though...not the crossovers.

I'm sure with an analyser you'll see the differences, but i'm skeptical that humans can "hear" the difference. A 2dB loss at 16kHz is not very substantial and i'm guessing you'll only notice the differences in a back-to-back listening test. if you didn't have a reference to begin with, can you still tell the differences?

note tho, i'm not doubting you, for obvious reasons, a compressed mp3 is technically less superior then a .wav. i just doubt most people in most listening environments would not be able to tell the difference.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by b i n k u n if you didn't have a reference to begin with, can you still tell the differences?

my thoughts exactly.

___________________
|||CHRISTOPHER THOMAS|||

^^^ According to the graph above at 320kbps there isn't any appreciable loss at 16 Khz but there is some at 18 Khz. However I suppose it depends on which MP3 encoder is used, the graph is for the Lame 3.93 encoder. Just dropping the bitrate to 254 kbps even with that encoder shows a few db of loss at 16 KHz.

I found this link on Psychoacoustics that says most adults don't hear above 16 Khz, although younger people can hear to 20 Khz.
(quote) "The human ear can nominally hear sounds in the range 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. This upper limit tends to decrease with age, most adults being unable to hear above 16kHz."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

Personally on my system I regularly compare WAV and MP3 files played through a 24 bit capable card (Echo Indigo DJ) to Sennheiser HD280 headphones. Good equipment, although not lab stuff. I loop a music sequence and rapidly switch between WAV and MP3 for a comparison and I can't tell the difference at 320 kbps compared to WAV. Even with 192 kpbs it is very hard to hear a difference. No doubt some people with really good hearing can tell the difference (especially in a quiet test setting), but at a typical noisy club/rave with not-so-good equipment maybe not.

320 mp3 does the job. even the hardest of audiophiles will have a tough time distinguishing between them. the difference is insignificant

___________________
...I'll be back for breakfast

binkun

I'm using EV's from Mid - Highs. Horn-Loaded.

I agree many having difficulty hearing the higher stuff as
much the lower end. However, I can. Will the difference
matter to all, no. To some, yes.

Seeing that I love music, I want it to sound right. And,
I do get pissed off if my system is not operating correctly,
in which, I won't rest until it sounds correct. It's the
reason why I use Parametrics.

As you stated a compressed mp3 or any compress format of
that matter, is less superior than .wav I think a lot of
people don't realize, compression is used in all MP3s.

Compression kills Dynamics, and Bandwith to a degree.

People trade .wav files for either more hardrive space or not
hearing a difference due to their ears or the system's inability
to deliver the goods.

tvmann

That photo is exactly what I needed for future references.
Thanks!

It could well be 18 Khz. My anaylzer states 16 Khz, however
the next step is 32 Khz.

Usually, the sound is more siginificant when you using more
of a burst, like cymbals, or siblance found in a Woman's
voice. So, its more of a Peak, than Average ratio.

How your headphones response to those frequencies under
those conditions would determine if you can hear a difference
or not.

BTW, I'm using Wavelab (Cubase) which uses the Lame encoder
you mentioned.


Tegu

Yes. You would definitely need to have a reference to
make the comparision. If you are only downloading mp3s
on the internet, you won't hear a difference transfering
mp3 - .wav

You will need to have the .wav format on hand, then
transfer to mp3.

___________________
OMNIFEX

depends on how the tune is mastered as well. i just got a couple wavs from BP a couple days ago. sounds more powerful in my opinion. not much different from 320 but there's some points i can make out that sound a lot clearer.

___________________
www.misterfalconmusic.com

quote:

Originally posted by kadomony depends on how the tune is mastered as well. i just got a couple wavs from BP a couple days ago. sounds more powerful in my opinion. not much different from 320 but there's some points i can make out that sound a lot clearer.

Yeah i've noticed that too, however I just download in 320, because it's not worth the extra $$ I don't have...I'm still a noob to CDJing (I mixed on TTs for two years, would like to get a TT again someday).

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Yeah i've noticed that too, however I just download in 320, because it's not worth the extra $$ I don't have...I'm still a noob to CDJing (I mixed on TTs for two years, would like to get a TT again someday).

haha yea i was considering getting 320 for these to save some money, but i really like em and they have awesome bass so i said to hell with it :P

fyi:
Armin- Blue Fear 2003 Album Version
Mr. Sam vs Fred Baker pres. As One- Forever Waiting (MIKE Mix)
Green Martian- Wizardry

was what i got

___________________
www.misterfalconmusic.com

quote:

Originally posted by kadomony haha yea i was considering getting 320 for these to save some money, but i really like em and they have awesome bass so i said to hell with it :P fyi: Armin- Blue Fear 2003 Album Version Mr. Sam vs Fred Baker pres. As One- Forever Waiting (MIKE Mix) Green Martian- Wizardry was what i got

Yeah I'll only download WAV files if it's a classic tune I know I like, or say a new tune I really like as well, but it would suck spending the extra $$ on a bunch of WAVs that wind up sucking!