MP3 Yeah

[EdGrip]

I can't hear a difference between 320kbps MP3 and FLAC. But my music collection is FLAC anyway - why not? Memory's cheap.
I had to copy it all to mp3 a few months ago because I got a new car with a USB media player, but it doesn't like FLAC.

Every DAW should've had MP3 as an option since the codec became free - but yeah, it's hardly game-changing.

[EdwardKiy]

Sorry about your hearing, mate.

Latest Reason has mp3 export.

Shouldn't be distracted enough to hear the difference while driving, but still, every car media player should have an option to listen to uncompressed audio.

[EdwardKiy]

ah sorry, missed the "should've had". my bad.

[EnochLight]

Meh... 20 years ago I'd say that MP3 was a pile of shite compared to FLAC and any other lossless format, and I could certainly tell the difference (but I also have a very high end audio system). But these days, due to tinnitus and just general age, I struggle to hear the difference between a 320 Kbps MP3 and FLAC/lossless, but I still have most of my CD library ripped into FLAC - because like EdGrip said, storage is cheap and MP3 is a permanently degraded format. I'd certainly never archive in MP3, and anyone who does is missing the entire point of archiving.

But for playback in the car or a typical household Bluetooth speaker? Yeah, I've come to terms with the fact that 320 Kbps MP3 works just fine. Anyway, these days I tend to consume most of my music via streaming services and those are all lossy. It is what it is.

Nice that Reason DAW proper got MP3 export, though. I'm sure that has made a lot of people happy.

[fev]

okay I took the test, got the top option right for classic, 2nd best option (state-of-the-art compression quality mp3) for jazz and missed the rock one completely, but holy moly was the mix terrible. So 3 tasks, 5 quality options each, 1 correct 1 second-best to correct and missed the 3rd one. This is almost 2/3, but over 50% anyway you put it.

You can take a hike now

Hey Edward, hope you are well.

Can you please explain why you are telling people to get their hearing checked if they can't hear a clear and obvious difference between wav and high quality mp3?

It seems that when you took this simple test you only identified one wav out of three yourself...

[EdGrip]

Of course in any blind test you could successfully identify half the samples, and that result could be average random chance.

I don't have a fancy sound system, just a nice little Bluetooth speaker and some headphones. In my car, with its fairly primitive system and tiny-glass-box listening environment, there would absolutely not be a difference.

Bopping around the internet dishing out comments like "sorry about your hearing, mate" just makes us all think you're somebody we'd want to avoid getting stuck talking to in a pub.

[FGL]

Being able to export MP3 direct from reason is handy as you then don't need to take a extra step of converting from wav in another piece of software. That said the only time I ever want to convert to mp3 is to email a copy to a client or collab during creation stages of a project. For me yes it's a nice addition but hardly game changing.

I follow tis exotic Idea, listening on many different devices and different places helps me to notice what really ging on.

[FGL]

Meh... 20 years ago I'd say that MP3 was a pile of shite compared to FLAC and any other lossless format, and I could certainly tell the difference (but I also have a very high end audio system). But these days, due to tinnitus and just general age, I struggle to hear the difference between a 320 Kbps MP3 and FLAC/lossless, but I still have most of my CD library ripped into FLAC - because like EdGrip said, storage is cheap and MP3 is a permanently degraded format. I'd certainly never archive in MP3, and anyone who does is missing the entire point of archiving.

But for playback in the car or a typical household Bluetooth speaker? Yeah, I've come to terms with the fact that 320 Kbps MP3 works just fine. Anyway, these days I tend to consume most of my music via streaming services and those are all lossy. It is what it is.

Nice that Reason DAW proper got MP3 export, though. I'm sure that has made a lot of people happy.

Thats it. It is like it is. Ever wished I could have one of this mega Soundsytems like they have on big rave events. But my neighbours would shot me. So I will never know how it sound like.

[Skimrok]

Meh... 20 years ago I'd say that MP3 was a pile of shite compared to FLAC and any other lossless format, and I could certainly tell the difference (but I also have a very high end audio system). But these days, due to tinnitus and just general age, I struggle to hear the difference between a 320 Kbps MP3 and FLAC/lossless, but I still have most of my CD library ripped into FLAC - because like EdGrip said, storage is cheap and MP3 is a permanently degraded format. I'd certainly never archive in MP3, and anyone who does is missing the entire point of archiving.

But for playback in the car or a typical household Bluetooth speaker? Yeah, I've come to terms with the fact that 320 Kbps MP3 works just fine. Anyway, these days I tend to consume most of my music via streaming services and those are all lossy. It is what it is.

Nice that Reason DAW proper got MP3 export, though. I'm sure that has made a lot of people happy.

Thats it. It is like it is. Ever wished I could have one of this mega Soundsytems like they have on big rave events. But my neighbours would shot me. So I will never know how it sound like.

they was the days

[EdGrip]

Thats it. It is like it is. Ever wished I could have one of this mega Soundsytems like they have on big rave events. But my neighbours would shot me. So I will never know how it sound like.

they was the days

[EdwardKiy]

Hey Edward, hope you are well.

Can you please explain why you are telling people to get their hearing checked if they can't hear a clear and obvious difference between wav and high quality mp3?

It seems that when you took this simple test you only identified one wav out of three yourself...

Hello Fev. Not my angle at all.

I'm telling people to check their hearing when they say that the difference cannot be heard as a blanket statement, where clearly it can be. I've been in this argument too many times and I took too many blind tests before to roll with this bullshit.

Even a consistent 51% result on a large enough pool of subjects with music that is new to the listener is adequate proof. It means that even an average joe CAN make out the difference. Now if you listen to material that you like and listen to over and over (which is how we normally do it) the numbers rise. Use a sound system that your ear is used to and the numbers rise further still.

The point of the test mentioned was not to identify whether people can discern WAV from MP3s, but to grade quality of multiple samples without any point of reference at all. Our brains don't work that way. In other words, such a test was designed to prove that the difference cannot be heard. This is also known as a "confirmation bias", synonymous with "shit science". A cleaner test would be just to identify a WAV in the batch, or have a long series of WAV-Mp-3 pairs, not batches of 999, all recorded inside of a trashcan. And yet, the "test" still failed to prove what it was designed to.

So, if:
you believe that mp3 sounds the same as Wav or
you like your tea with a bit of dust or
you prefer wearing glasses with scratches on them

by all means, please do. Just keep it to yourself, or at the very least have the courtesy of not telling everyone else there is no difference.

[EdwardKiy]

Of course in any blind test you could successfully identify half the samples, and that result could be average random chance.

I don't have a fancy sound system, just a nice little Bluetooth speaker and some headphones. In my car, with its fairly primitive system and tiny-glass-box listening environment, there would absolutely not be a difference.

Bopping around the internet dishing out comments like "sorry about your hearing, mate" just makes us all think you're somebody we'd want to avoid getting stuck talking to in a pub.

The test wasn't "binary" or "single choice", so average random chance doesn't apply.

Once again, I admit to having misread your post in the first place and I apologize. This thread in itself just grinds my gears. Avoiding assholes will not get you anywhere though.

[WarStar]

I think we've determined that 320Mp3s aren't that bad but it's still a degraded representation of a higher resolution recording.. mp3s are great for sending demos and allowing others to audition your music.... There's a reason skilled hiphop producers only release lower resolution mp3s on YouTube and other platforms, because you get a feel for the song but mostly likely, however this isn't always true, you won't want to pirate it your self and use it for your song cuz it's lower quality

[DaveyG]

Almost all the world listens to almost all their music in lossy formats. Streaming, MP3, whatever. And guess what.... the music is still music.

The only certainties in this world are death, taxes, purists and audio snobs. I prefer the first two.

[EdwardKiy]

Almost all the world listens to almost all their music in lossy formats. Streaming, MP3, whatever. And guess what.... the music is still music.

The only certainties in this world are death, taxes, purists and audio snobs. I prefer the first two.

Oh.my.god. Those damn purists and snobs with their round-Earth nonsense.

The very word "lossy" in the term "lossy" implies "losing data irreversibly". Get it?

.

lossy1.JPG (36.1 KiB) Viewed 2211 times

lossy2.JPG (30.22 KiB) Viewed 2211 times

lossy3.JPG (39.11 KiB) Viewed 2211 times

While you're there overturning the definition, I'll be thinking of words to call you, you filthist, audio simpleton, acoustic scum, you.

[EdGrip]

We know what lossy and lossless is, thanks.

[fev]

Hey Edward, hope you are well.

Can you please explain why you are telling people to get their hearing checked if they can't hear a clear and obvious difference between wav and high quality mp3?

It seems that when you took this simple test you only identified one wav out of three yourself...

Hello Fev. Not my angle at all.

I'm telling people to check their hearing when they say that the difference cannot be heard as a blanket statement, where clearly it can be. I've been in this argument too many times and I took too many blind tests before to roll with this bullshit.

Even a consistent 51% result on a large enough pool of subjects with music that is new to the listener is adequate proof. It means that even an average joe CAN make out the difference. Now if you listen to material that you like and listen to over and over (which is how we normally do it) the numbers rise. Use a sound system that your ear is used to and the numbers rise further still.

This is also known as a "confirmation bias", synonymous with "shit science".

...have the courtesy of not telling everyone else there is no difference.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not sure if you know much about statistics but from my understanding unless your sample size (people not audio) is in the tens of thousands then 51% is exactly the sort of result you would expect to get by sheer chance, or if nobody had a clue and everyone was just guessing.

Obviously there is a difference and I don't believe that I stated otherwise.

Data has indeed been lost as we can all observe. But with high end mp3 (which is all anyone should be talking about here) the audible difference is pretty subtle nowadays.

Yes, a trained listener listening to the right material in the right environment can presumably learn to tell the difference, however it seems from a bit of basic research that the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations can not.

[guitfnky]

Avoiding assholes will not get you anywhere though.

indeed, as we’re learning, it’s impossible to do, even on forums such as this.

[joeyluck]

Hey y'all, just a reminder to please be respectful to one another. Many valid points have been made from everybody. Please keep it civil.

[EdwardKiy]

Obviously there is a difference and I don't believe that I stated otherwise.

It may be obvious to you, but not the OP:

Nobody, her the difference between Aif and MP3 at high Kompression Rate. It is all Illusion, like the warm sound of Vinyl.

as to the statistics,

I'm not sure if you know much about statistics but from my understanding unless your sample size (people not audio) is in the tens of thousands then 51% is exactly the sort of result you would expect to get by sheer chance, or if nobody had a clue and everyone was just guessing.

I know a little bit. The 51% chance you are referring to applies to simple single-answer two-choice questions or an ABX-type test, not to single-answer multiple-choice questions (binomial distribution which is the basis for cross-country proficiency testing) and definitely not to multiple-answer multiple-choice questions with grading (I wouldn't even know how to calculate these).

Yes, a trained listener listening to the right material in the right environment can presumably learn to tell the difference, however it seems from a bit of basic research that the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations can not.

You are trying to take both sides here. Who cares about "the vast majority" if we are discussing principles?

And research isn't "basic". It's either research or it isn't. Even the "vast majority" statements don't hold up. Everything I could find online on people telling a difference is grade 4 or 3 evidence at best, which is to say, not evidence at all. If you can present me with a single instance of at least grade 2-B evidence, then I'd be glad to discuss this further.

[Tiny Montgomery]

I would post that ' I can't come to bed someone is wrong on the internet meme' but that's almost as stale as this debate

[Kalm]

MP3 is only useful to me for sending a demo version for collaboration as people has said. I still have yet to export MP3 out of Reason besides testing it but who knows, maybe there will be a time. .

[C//AZM]

As with most things, the universal standard doesn't mean the best. 16/44.1, VHS, Windows before 2006.
We've been here before. I'm glad they finally put MP3 as an option because I dislike having two copies of the six versions of the same song. I'm not yet on the latest version but they really should've added mp3 a decade ago.
It's odd that we're reading this argument in 2020.

[sublunar]

Just wanted to point out in case it wasn't brought up already..

Not only did pretty much everyone else provide MP3 export ~1-2 decades ago, but MP3 patents themselves expired back in 2017. This was only just added to our beloved DAW now, a full 3 years after the patent expired.

[plaamook]

I would post that ' I can't come to bed someone is wrong on the internet meme' but that's almost as stale as this debate

I've been stuck on farm for two months. Re-runs are fine w me.

Edit: Stuck is perhaps a strong word under the circumstances.