Print

Print


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"


> Frank,
>
> 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?
>
>