CD vs. mp3 ... a professional test

Trademark wrote: What's That? I can't hear you all over the tinitus that's now with me 24/7.

oliverstoned wrote: arcer wrote: ^Doubt I would be able to tell the difference - i've pretty much got cloth ears! I do think a lot of it is subjective...I actually don't imagine the Logitech's would help. Sure, I haven't heard them so can't categorically say but those bloody Alesis Ones cost me 250 quid so they should be good (but they aren't ). I knew I should have found a pair of Yamaha NS10s. BTW... F**k me! Just listening to Fear of A Blank Planet on the new speakers and damn if that ain't awesome!!! I swear you would, you really don't need gold eardrums.

No need to swear - but please explain - objectively this time?

arcer wrote: ^Doubt I would be able to tell the difference - i've pretty much got cloth ears! I do think a lot of it is subjective...I actually don't imagine the Logitech's would help. Sure, I haven't heard them so can't categorically say but those bloody Alesis Ones cost me 250 quid so they should be good (but they aren't ). I knew I should have found a pair of Yamaha NS10s. BTW... F**k me! Just listening to Fear of A Blank Planet on the new speakers and damn if that ain't awesome!!!

I swear you would, you really don't need gold eardrums.

^
Doubt I would be able to tell the difference - i've pretty much got cloth ears!  I do think a lot of it is subjective...

I actually don't imagine the Logitech's would help. Sure, I haven't heard them so can't categorically say but those bloody Alesis Ones cost me 250 quid so they should be good (but they aren't ). I knew I should have found a pair of Yamaha NS10s.





BTW... F**k me! Just listening to Fear of A Blank Planet on the new speakers and damn if that ain't awesome!!!

Ahhh, back again and the debate still rages on!

This is one where I can comfortably dip a toe in both camps.

Mike, I believe Glueman is talking about the average PC-based system - consisting of computer, soundcard and monitors of some shape - versus the average 'decent' hi-fi enthusiast's system of carefully matched components, where each element has been designed to fulfill a specific function (transport does its bit, DAC does likewise, cable are system matched, pre-amp does its thing into power amp and out to speakers.
In this case there is not comparison, a pc/soundcard/desktop monitor system can't hope to match the hi-fi.

Here's how I know: I have both systems. 1. a pretty good hi-fi with some good components that do individual things. There's even some lovely new sonus faber speakers picked up yesterdayt to make it even sweeter.
2. In my office I have a home studio with a decent pc which has i-tunes and a lot of music stored at bitrates between 192 and 320kbps. They're routed to Creative Soundblaster (the one before X-Fi) which is pretty decent by all accounts and I'm sure I've got some records recorded with one of those. All of it outputs to a couple of Alesis One studio monitors.
The sound compared to my living room hi-fi system is... errr... sh**e!
It sounds flat, boxy, dull and boring compared with the pre and power amps, buffer stages, decent speakers and cd player etc etc.
I listen to the pc a lot when I'm working at home and it's fine, for background listening. But for concentrating on what's going on? For hearing a deliciously decaying cymbal or perfectly accented hi-hat? Not a chance.
As for MP3s, I'll use them all the time. but they still don't sound as good. Don't know what it is (maybe it is all in the head) but I do think they sound a little more brittle in the top end than a CD.
Weirdly a good bit rate file will sound excellent on my Sennheiser in-ear phones and i-Pod but just doesn't sound  as good on a burned CD on my CD player.
However, it is bloody easy just to stick the i-Pod on the dock and let the playlists go to work...

Interesting disclaimer:

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article or section are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

But, let's see what happens here. Oliver, Glueman, votes please.

^ I'd love to get objective statements ... but usually audiophiles don't make them. That's why on some websites the struggle between audiophiles and non-audiophiles is referred to as "subjectivists vs. objectivists" (Example).

^ but the other sentences weren't simply an angry rant ... here's what I meant without the sarcasm:

Audiophiles claim that the difference between mp3 and CD is striking ... due to them it is so huge that you can't enjoy mp3 files at all, even at high bitrates. But the test showed that many people couldn't tell the difference. Now if that was due to a flaw in the system (like oliver suggested ... bad cables, power filters etc) wouldn't the participants have noticed that and protested?

In short: If the difference in quality was as huge as the audiophiles say, you wouldn't need a stellar system to hear it. Or the other way round: If you need a stellar system to hear the difference, then the difference cannot be that huge. Simple logic!

Angelo wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Angelo wrote: So, with that said - would someone here be willing or able to explain objectively what this test does and does not show? I'm confused by the white noise here....  The test shows that a bunch of people with solid background knowledge and experience on hi-fi had serious problems telling the original CD from the 256kbit mp3 on a reasonably good hi-fi system. The audiophiles can of course simply refuse the system ... blame it on the cables, or power filters, or any other detail that wasn't mentioned by c't which - in their humble opinion - could affect the quality so much that it becomes impossible to tell the samples apart. But I think that it's pretty obvious to everyone except them that this is a really lame excuse. After all, they claim that there is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between mp3 and CD ... This could have been an answer, if you stopped where I started crossing things out, and added some details on what 'a reasonably good hi-fi' system is. (And at this time, I'm happily enjoying my MPs and Oggs by connecting my notebook to my home theater set up. )

Of course only the first sentence of my reply was supposed to be an answer to your question ...

BTW: I don't know how to further define a "reasonably good system". I think what I meant was that the system which was used in the test was one that most people would agree with.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Angelo wrote: So, with that said - would someone here be willing or able to explain objectively what this test does and does not show? I'm confused by the white noise here....  The test shows that a bunch of people with solid background knowledge and experience on hi-fi had serious problems telling the original CD from the 256kbit mp3 on a reasonably good hi-fi system. The audiophiles can of course simply refuse the system ... blame it on the cables, or power filters, or any other detail that wasn't mentioned by c't which - in their humble opinion - could affect the quality so much that it becomes impossible to tell the samples apart. But I think that it's pretty obvious to everyone except them that this is a really lame excuse. After all, they claim that there is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between mp3 and CD ...

This could have been an answer, if you stopped where I started crossing things out, and added some details on what 'a reasonably good hi-fi' system is.

(And at this time, I'm happily enjoying my MPs and Oggs by connecting my notebook to my home theater set up. )