[fertigaudio]

So apparently it was set to 96K not 192K

I was listening to a few bands that i had recently purchased & ripped to my computer. I was wearing headphones and after just a few songs I didn't feel like listening anymore; it was if the recording wasn't pleasant to my ears but I have listed to the same songs before without feeling the same. So after an hour of listening and reading a favorite book I was going to just shut it off but then remembered others talking about listening fatigue. I went in and checked the sampling and it was at 96K not the 192K that it should be at. I went back and checked my sound card settings... WOW! What a world of difference! I am now listening and feel completely different; not like I am listening to noise. I switched it back to 96K sampling and it was unreal that it made that much of a difference.

I have always sampled my music at high rates because I cared about content rather than saving space on my hard drive. This is my first realization of how important it is for your digital content to be loss-less or of high quality.

What I really want to do is run my RTA and Roomeq wizard on this stuff and show you all what i mean. I don't have my project/garage laptop with me so I have no software tools either. In fact that is one of the reasons for the settings being on 96 and not 192. I bought a new ASUS and am not a fan of Windows 7 since my software has to run on XP in some cases.

 

[goodstuff]

I was listening to a few bands that i had recently purchased & ripped to my computer. I was wearing headphones and after just a few songs I didn't feel like listening anymore; it was if the recording wasn't pleasant to my ears but I have listed to the same songs before without feeling the same. So after an hour of listening and reading a favorite book I was going to just shut it off but then remembered others talking about listening fatigue. I went in and checked the sampling and it was at 96K not the 192K that usually rip at. I went back and checked my sound card settings... WOW! What a world of difference! I am now listening and feel completely different; not like I am listening to noise. I switched it back to 96K sampling and it was unreal that it made that much of a difference.

I have always sampled my music at high rates because I cared about content rather than saving space on my hard drive. This is my first realization of how important it is for your digital content to be loss-less or of high quality.

What I really want to do is run my RTA and Roomeq wizard on this stuff and show you all what i mean. I don't have my project/garage laptop with me so I have no software tools either. In fact that is one of the reasons for the settings being on 96 and not 192. I bought a new ASUS and am not a fan of Windows 7 since my software has to run on XP in some cases.

Well with flame suit on:

**** mp3's/

If the source is flawed....

But I'm a purist.

As a cliche:

Quality over quantity.

I've never wanted to listen to more than one thing at once,
well maybe the flaming lips but other then that I only listen to one cd at a time.
Why do I need 100,00 songs at the touch of a finger? I don't.

Edit: Buy a Ferrari (high end system) and then run it on corn oil(mp3).

 

[t3sn4f2]

I was listening to a few bands that i had recently purchased & ripped to my computer. I was wearing headphones and after just a few songs I didn't feel like listening anymore; it was if the recording wasn't pleasant to my ears but I have listed to the same songs before without feeling the same. So after an hour of listening and reading a favorite book I was going to just shut it off but then remembered others talking about listening fatigue. I went in and checked the sampling and it was at 96K not the 192K that usually rip at. I went back and checked my sound card settings... WOW! What a world of difference! I am now listening and feel completely different; not like I am listening to noise. I switched it back to 96K sampling and it was unreal that it made that much of a difference.

I have always sampled my music at high rates because I cared about content rather than saving space on my hard drive. This is my first realization of how important it is for your digital content to be loss-less or of high quality.

What I really want to do is run my RTA and Roomeq wizard on this stuff and show you all what i mean. I don't have my project/garage laptop with me so I have no software tools either. In fact that is one of the reasons for the settings being on 96 and not 192. I bought a new ASUS and am not a fan of Windows 7 since my software has to run on XP in some cases.

I'm lost, are talking about ripping music at 96 or 192kbps or are you talking about recording music at a 96 or 192kHz sample rate. I ask because you mention ripping and soundcard settings.

 

[89grand]

I have found good MP3's even at 128k pretty much no different than the original source. I rip CD's at 192k, and I have some at 320, but they are nearly identical to me. As long as the initial rip was good.

I'm sure a few here with super hearing, those same ones than can hear distortion in an amp, will claim other wise, but I can't tell.

 

[fertigaudio]

I'm lost, are talking about ripping music at 96 or 192kbps or are you talking about recording music at a 96 or 192kHz sample rate. I ask because you mention ripping and soundcard settings.

The song was ripped at 192 but if you go into my sound card settings apparently you can set the output sample rate and the bit rate at the sound cards output level. It is a useless setting and should always be on the best but for some reason it can be set to output different qualities.

 

[fertigaudio]

I have found good MP3's even at 128k pretty much no different than the original source. I rip CD's at 192k, and I have some at 320, but they nearly identical to me. As long as the initial rip was good.

:laugh: true. have you read the Richard Clark Challenge?

 

[Lanson]

I agree, its not about hearing its almost more about feeling. There's an 'x' factor in the harmonics or something.

BTW win7 plays nice with XP stuff. You just have to adjust the compatibility to emulate XP. Worked for WinISD, and it will work for you.

 

[fertigaudio]

I agree, its not about hearing its almost more about feeling. There's an 'x' factor in the harmonics or something.

BTW win7 plays nice with XP stuff. You just have to adjust the compatibility to emulate XP. Worked for WinISD, and it will work for you.

So I have heard. I was using the WinISD with XP first then read lots of WIN 7 users having problems with the bit rate and sampling. Its just easier to have an XP computer with test software, box software, Dayton WT3, etc. Then i dont get my pretty ASUS banged up.

 

[t3sn4f2]

The song was ripped at 192 but if you go into my sound card settings apparently you can set the output sample rate and the bit rate at the sound cards output level. It is a useless setting and should always be on the best but for some reason it can be set to output different qualities.

Oh ok. FYI, you should set the output sample rate to 44kHz which is the native sample rate of a CD file. Any other setting will result in a sample rate conversion that does not improve quality. It could even degrade it if the software or soundcard codec is not of high quality.

High sample rate and bit settings are good for recording off an analog source or playing to an analog source where the increase resolution can be appreciated due to the ADC or DAC typically greater resolution potential then the CD's 44kHz/16bit format. Or when you need to manipulate the music in a mastering session, there the increased bit and sampling rate would give you more dynamic range freedom to finalize the track before converting back down to the CD standard.

 

[fertigaudio]

Oh ok. FYI, you should set the output sample rate to 44kHz which is the native sample rate of a CD file. Any other setting will result in a sample rate conversion that does not improve quality. It could even degrade it if the software or soundcard codec is not of high quality.

High sample rate and bit settings are good for recording off an analog source or playing to an analog source where the increase resolution can be appreciated due to the ADC or DAC typically greater resolution potential then the CD's 44kHz/16bit format. Or when you need to manipulate the music in a mastering session, there the increased bit and sampling rate would give you more dynamic range freedom to finalize the track before converting back down to the CD standard.

I don't think much of this basic software that is included with the ASUS, if I enable any of the equalization settings it drops the quality automatically to the lower 96K. That is why it may have done this recently.

Back on topic. I think the recording, if not using a CD, should be the best you can get it to and still feel comfortable listening to it.

 

[MarkZ]

Well with flame suit on:

**** mp3's/

If the source is flawed....

But I'm a purist.

As a cliche:

Quality over quantity.

I've never wanted to listen to more than one thing at once,
well maybe the flaming lips but other then that I only listen to one cd at a time.
Why do I need 100,00 songs at the touch of a finger? I don't.

Edit: Buy a Ferrari (high end system) and then run it on corn oil(mp3).

Zaireeka FTW

mp3s can be great if you use the right encoder and right encoding settings. 192k isn't that great, and 96k is just plain terrible. Might be able to get away with lower bitrates with AAC though.

 

[jperryss]

Funny this thread showed up. Last night I began one of my "Let's see if I can hear the difference" tests between my lossless audio files and those same tracks compressed down to 240k VBR (LAME v0). I picked about 6 tracks and listened to each 'pair' back and forth on my amp'd headphone rig, and honestly could not pick them apart. At least with the tracks I've tested so far (a couple Opeth and Tool tracks) I would not be able to tell them apart in a blind ABX test.

I've admitted here that a couple years ago I re-ripped my entire collection to lossless a year or two ago based on them 'sounding better' to me.

When I tested again last night, I wanted to hear a difference, but could not.

Maybe the kool-aid is wearing off.

 

[89grand]

Maybe the kool-aid is wearing off.

That's always a great thing!

 

[capnxtreme]

I've done a double-blind between 128k and 192K MP3's that I ripped myself, and I was able to tell the difference. Above 192K, I don't think I can, though.

 

[jperryss]

That's always a great thing!

I need to try a few more albums before I can say for sure.

I'd like to burn off a CD with both versions of like 5-6 different songs and let people listen to see who can really tell the difference. I'd even ship 'em out for people to try. Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to tell which is which by looking at the spectrals, so you wouldn't be able to really 'trust' who is hearing the difference unless you did it in person.

 

[t3sn4f2]

Has anyone compared 160k WMAs to the original, in a double blind fashion?

 

[jperryss]

I've done a double-blind between 128k and 192K MP3's that I ripped myself, and I was able to tell the difference. Above 192K, I don't think I can, though.

I agree. 128k, compared to 192VBR (or higher) the difference is pretty easy to pick out, even on a modest setup.

Above 192VBR it's pretty difficult to distinguish them IMO.

What's boggling is that I compared file sizes between my FLACs and the 240k LAME rips, and (as expected) the size difference is mind-boggling. You're quadrupling the file size, yet I'd be damned if there was more than a tiny audible difference.

 

[89grand]

I've done a double-blind between 128k and 192K MP3's that I ripped myself, and I was able to tell the difference. Above 192K, I don't think I can, though.

I accidentally ripped some at 96k, and they were borderline worse than 192k, but I ripped them. When you get an illegal download who knows what you're getting. When I do download, I look for the highest bit rate.

I think the quality of the music can be more revealing. I rarely actually listen to "audiophile" quality music, so that may very well be why I don't hear much if any difference. Like right now I'm listening to the Dead Kennedy's, so in that instance it makes no difference.

 

[tanakasan]

I think the quality of the music can be more revealing. I rarely actually listen to "audiophile" quality music, so that may very well be why I don't hear much if any difference. Like right now I'm listening to the Dead Kennedy's, so in that instance it makes no difference.

QFT!

Some bands/music sound fine @lower rip rates, some sound like ****e.

Robert

 

[MarkZ]

I don't think you'll hear a difference between V0 and flac. I've never been able to tell the difference between V0 and lossless. But I think it was Chris who commented recently that he could pick them apart on a certain Zeppelin track. Then I tried it and couldn't. So...