Thanks Tom-I guess the way that this works for our personal listening is
that we each decide what we like to hear. I think that at this point in
time I don't hear very much above 10k, so most of the artifacts just go
over my head, or in one ear and out the other. I like to listen to how the
music is played; I like to compare different versions. Fortunately there
are folks like the denizens of this list who are making it possible for me
to have a choice of how I listen.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> I can hear high end artifacts in 320 kbps MP3. It's not nearly as bad as
> 256k, but it's there. A program that pays the fee rips MP3 better than
> LAME, in my opinion. At 320kbps, the differences are subtle. I do think
> what I like about the high-rez downloads are the better mastering and
> un-squashed dynamics, not necessarily the higher sample rates. I do think
> 24-bit helps with subtle stuff on classical recordings.
> Once you identify the lossy artifacts (some level of digi-swishies on
> things like background room tone and tape hiss, gets less as the kbps goes
> up but never goes away; "metallic" tone to treble percussives, lack of
> convincing reverb tails), you can pick them out all the time.
> Over-processing during production or mastering can create these kinds of
> artifacts at any resolution. There is also outright clipping distortion for
> lossy audio of super-loud toothpasted music, mainly rock and pop. The
> problem is that the perceptual encoding changes the EQ and brings some
> frequencies into clipping.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Greene" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 7:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] WSJ on "High end record collectors"
>> IMHO there are two interpretations of your question. (1) Across all
>> sources, the number of bits per second has no reliable meaning, because if
>> the original source is poorly recorded or overly compressed, no increase in
>> bits per second will improve its sound. (2) This is of course also true for
>> the same source if it's poorly recorded in the first place; but any source
>> that has good dynamic range and was well recorded will sound better in WAV
>> than 320 with good quality listening equipment and an ear attuned to
>> hearing such differences.
>> - David Greene
>> On Jun 16, 2014, at 4:10 PM, Frank Strauss wrote:
>> I am curious, can you
>>> always tell the difference between mp3 at 320 and WAV using high end
>>> headphones and a good quality headphone amp?
Frank B Strauss, DMD