Originally posted by: andy_k_250Originally posted by: Moth3r
Straying off topic, I think the (lossy) compressed/uncompressed debate is interesting.
Obviously if you are doing any audio editing or processing, it makes sense to use the original PCM as a source.
For actual listening, I've seen quite a few members on here who claim they can hear a difference. I can certainly hear the "listening inside an oil drum underwater" type of compression in very low bitrate audio, such as on Youtube videos, but I find any MP3 or AC3 encode with a reasonable bitrate to be transparent. But then, I don't have a hugely expensive hi-fi, and I know my hearing response dips at high frequencies (kids - if you regularly go to nightclubs and value your hearing, wear ear protection, 'k?)
While working on the mono mix, I compared two samples of AC3; one at 448kbps and one at 96kbps. I thought I could percieve a difference - but was that because I knew that sample A was a higher bitrate? (I.e. this wasn't a 'blind' test).
I'm considering doing a blind trial on you lot - it wouldn't "prove" anything because there would be too many variables, but it would be interesting nonetheless. Who's up for that?
I also think this whole conversation is very interesting. I honestly encode all of my ripped music at 128 kbps. Gasp! The reason I do this is, for some reason, even though I can hear a quality difference between 128 kbps and, say, 320 kbps, in the end, I just don't care that much. For storage purposes, I'd much rather have a slightly-less quality rip than "bulky" ones that are only (to me, now, mind you) what I would consider a +7% improvement. I understand quality whores' argument, but the difference between something like 320 kbps vs. CD is (again, to me at least) negligible. The reason being? I can't hear the difference, and I don't have wrecked ears. But, maybe my equipment isn't high-tech enough for any difference to register. People can do whatever they want, but I really do wonder how much of it is just a "placebo" effect.
