I usually don't watch your videos (nothing against you, but it's just that I don't have too much time to regularly watch all 20+ videos that people I'm subscribed to upload every day), but this was a very good, basic yet fundamental and informative video. I personally haven't gotten any "haters gonna hate" comments like you did with using lossy files, but I see this kind of stuff all the time on Head-Fi and people never confirm their observations fairly. To be frank, I only use full-sized lossless files on my devices because I'm too lazy to convert, not at all for the theoretical gain in sound quality over lossy files. The Beats example you brought up near the end is a great example. The new 2013 Beats Studios actually don't sound half-bad at all and I was surprised myself since I, admittedly, follow the general sheep in that the Beats suck. It always bugs me when people claim that HD music in particular is oh-so-much better than Red Book CD standard's resolution of music, when in fact upon down-sampling HD files, no detectable audio difference can be made. This was even done in multiple scientific studies with super sterile, non-ideal listening conditions that very few people in the real world would ever encounter. The mastering differences between the so-called HD format and the CD format makes all the differences in sound quality, not the format, yet people still deny this and they claim 24/96, 24/192, etc. are all superior. As you stated, sure, they may be technically better, but human ears can't detect those differences. That is, unless you have super-human hearing abilities with the help of a bionic ear that can hear above the Red Book standard's sampling rate, which is twice the amount needed to obtain the data that humans can hear (Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and Nyquist frequency): 44.1 kHz / 2 = 22.05 kHz signals. ;) pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl4007744 You should mention in your next video that ABX testing is only fair if the master is from the same source, and that the files are properly volume-matched. People often forget the volume-matching part and it's quite easy to do in Foobar2000 with the Replay Gain feature.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, I've already done the ABX testing video but I'll check how Foobar2000 actually does the replay gain adjustment in the ABX Comparator...
+miceblue425 Yeah, I tend to have some pretty high quality reference speakers and headphones, and even I cannot hear a difference between a Red Book CD rip and a hi-res version outside of mastering differences (clipping, dynamic range, etc.). So I usually buy the highest resolution version, back up the original files to a DVD-R, and then downsample the copies to 48kHz 24bit. The only reason I don't just compress them to lossy iTunes Plus AAC is because I do audio editing and don't want to recompress the files when I'm finished.
It is similar to "JPEG vs TIFF" war for people who do graphics for either casual or critical use. The Visualfiles. Reproduction equipment dependent, files must be supplied accordingly. However, only a few distinctive types of visual material - for example b&w line drawings that require ultimate visual crispness - require lossless TIFF file for even casual reproductions, because JPEG cannot cope with b&w drawings without polluting the drawing with another colour. However, there is no such analogy in the audio world, because unlike graphics, music is time dependent, and comparisons are done from MEMORY, which fades quickly. No one can compare audio files simultaneously. Thanks to quickly fading memory, high-bit AAC compression (256+) of music files can adequately substitute lossless formats for audio reproduction or all genres of music.
For myself, the biggest difference between lossy and lossless music files is in the sense of spaces of the sound stage. lossy file format drop too much data in the high frequency, make the sound become dull and harsh, and the sound stage feel much smaller.
Nice video. You can hear the differences with the right equipment and music genres. Listen to music with strings instruments you can but music that is bass heavy you cannot.
That ear at 13:00 was amazing Lachlan. And will you do a listening test? For some tracks I think it's easy to tell. As a violist, listening to sounds of an instrument setting a bow or being plucked sound much more like the real thing on FLAC than MP3. In actual performance settings and recording settings, the small differences in impact/sound are what shapes the listeners opinions on a performance. This is all just my opinion. I would love for you to continue this series.
I subscribed to you when I saw your review on the Sennheiser Momentum's and you actually made me pick them and no other pair, so far I am super happy with them, and I think that's why I am still subscribed to you and because I thought that your concept "likes a thing" was interesting. I probably haven't watched more than 3 of your videos since then, but this one really stood out from all the other videos on my list. This topic is really hot and I have never really understood it, though I love sound and always look for the highest quality lossy files, like 320kbps. Anyways... AMAZING way of describing the differences and I am looking sooo much forward to your next parts, super informative and enlightening. Will definitely share this video. Nice job!
Love this topic, I am considered by standards, an audiophile, but by having spent so much money, I can agree that the quality matters only when your at home, unless you have a completely silent room outside of your house that you go to everyday, bus, car commuting, it doesn't really matter, you're probably not going to notice much difference at all, but at home it makes WORLDS of differences :)
MP3 is a lossy format of audio using the principle of quantization. In layman's terms, it's nothing but an APPROXIMATION of the source track. Say your source has 44100 samples in one second of the track (little points defining a piece of a waveform), what MP3 will do is it will cut down that amount significantly and attempt to "approximate" (quantize) original waveform from this much reduced amount of samples (usually 100 fold). This boils down to DISTORTION. What you're hearing is not the same thing the producer and mastering engineer intended you to hear. People often bloat that "MP3 can do 44.1 kHz and even 48 kHz" - but the truth is exact opposite. It can't even do 16 kHz - as I've explained when I mentioned quantization earlier. Sample rate is essentially the amount of samples that define one second of a waveform exist. MP3 is far from 44.1 kHz rate.
+Philip Butkiewicz Thank you for that informed comment, I'm tempted to write a PHD thesis on how Lossy formats like MP3 have contributed to effecting parts (genres) of the music industry.
Couldn't agree more, though Lossless files have their own advantages, so they're better for certain things they're by no means better than Lossy files when just listening to music. A good Lossy file will sound just as good as any Lossless file because of our physical limitations.
They're certainly good for archival and I'm not going to delete master copies off my hard drive haha. Also I am honored by your presence in the comments section.
Well, here it is, flac or lossless files actually sounds better, but to be able to feel the difference you should listen on a high quality headphones or speakers, also it depends on what type of audio/ music you're listening to, a high quality recorded music with deep details and instruments more likely able to make you hear the difference, and not music made all digitally in the first place
I am all about optimization and the level of it in my control. Some people who complain about modern lossy formats don't realize that that a good quality lossy can almost go neck to neck with a good quality lossless. MP3 or AAC does not mean that it is 120 kbps all the time. Just like how people feel elite using iPhones and iMacs without a solid reason, that is exactly why people complain about lossies.
Flac vs. MP3 (these formats as an example, I have no experience with other formats) Personally I get a sort of listening fatigue with MP3’s. A friend of mine has the same. It is not that the sound is bad but there is something ‘wrong’. A time ago a mutual friend who is a doctor showed us an article in a magazine for neurologists. Most of it was too complicated for us to understand but the conclusion was very clear: some people have something different in their brain wiring and are sensitive to a certain distortion in MP3’s. This is no joke and the source was a respected magazine for neurologists. Is this the main reason for the fact that some people don’t like MP3’s apart from snobbery and other reasons? I would like to emphasis that for my friend and myself MP3’s does not always sound bad but something irritates us while listening them. I want to check if a have the same problem with other lossy file formats. To try out in the future.
+Rob Dequeecker Yes, to put it simply, Mp3 has a very unnatural waveform, that puts strain on the ear, causing fatigue, and ear damage from prolonged use. Basically, Mp3 uses a very rough compression algorithm that scoops out lotf of information in the waveform, and then digitally fills it back in. Flac, does the same thing, but a much more accurate algorithm. Unless you listen to music for a living (literally) like an engineer, musician or audiophile, then you won't hear the difference. Lots of people genuinely think mp3 and flac sound the same - and they do to many. Hearing is very subjective, but its amusing and slightly irritating for people to suggest its placebo or whatnot, because their ears can't hear it. :)
Yukino Takada 雪乃 鷹だ From re-reading what I said, it seems perfectly logical and constructive. Maybe you want me to 'simplify' it for you? If so: 1. Flac and Mp3 sound identical to some people, and very different to others - its subjective, and stems from experience etc. 2. Lower quality compression puts strain on the ear, and in turn causes hearing damage. 3. People who say there is no difference between the different audio types, are sonically ignorant.
I don't know exactly what the author of the comment wrote, but I think they might have a point. Nonetheless, you are probably right in that they're not going to hear much difference between their vinyls ripped to FLAC and their vinyls ripped to 192kbps MP3 files, but the point they are probably trying to establish is related to the source. If you were to emphasize that the reason some people prefer FLAC files is solely that the source of them is (often) vinyl, and that vinyl versions of music (especially in this day and age) are usually less remastered than CD versions (resulting in less undesirable characteristics such as clipping/loudness war), then you would be taking great strides in convincing them of your point. You could take a FLAC ripped from a vinyl, convert it to a reasonable-quality MP3 file and do blind tests with people who consider themselves "audiophiles" to see if they can distinguish FLAC from MP3, for example...
Keeping audio files that are 3x or more bigger in size than of a regular 320 kbps MP3 file just for the sake of not losing some of those sound waves that will just be inaudible during typical normal conditions of listening is something I find very impractical. Especially if you'll just listen to them through portable audio players.
It's funny because I'm sort of on both teams. I use 320 KB/s mp3 for on my phone when listening in noisy environments, takes up less space on my phone while still giving me something pleasurable to listen to. While at home listening I use FLAC's/WAV's. 192KB/s is too compressed and I can tell I'm listening to compressed but it's like a 80/20 for listening at home in ideal environments for FLAC and 320KB/s (my friend blind tested me). I really am impressed at how well these containers can compress though. It's fascinating how well even 192kb/s sounds for how small the file size is.
I think 128Kb/s vs 320Kb/s MP3 can be very obvious. Depending on how good you know the track, your equipment & headphones (the old denon dj headphones slaughter low bitrate HP500/700) I think the difference is smaller between FLAC and 320Kbs MP3, and sometimes it doesnt sound different to me, or when it does, it doesn't sound "worse" like with 128Kb/s just different. Considering MP3 320 is usually much smaller, I always go for 320 Mp3. More than good enough.
I found this a very well explained and informative video friend I enjoyed it thoroughly. Especially the art which was simply breathtaking and has changed me so much as a person, I now understand the reason I viewed ears differently to how you portrayed them is because my brain uses lossy jpeg condensing and therefore loses data from how the ear actually looks. (Insert troll face here)
What I meant by my comment is that a lot of people like to claim their ears are golden and can hear the difference between FLAC and mp3 in order to justify their preference but they always avoid abx testing.
Even if you can’t hear the deference it’s still better to use lossless anyway because store is super cheap you can get a 256gb so card or flash drive for like $30 it isn’t the 90’s anymore
really enjoyed this video mate. i'm no audiophile, I own m50s and I good quality sound, but from what I have heard, people have said that there is relatively no difference between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, and that people that say otherwise are kidding themselves.
I just got my fitear 333s and I can vouch that I hear a difference for sure. I'm not even using a DAC and listening on my iPhone 6. To be fair, the difference was not as big as I thought it would be. I've tried with inferior iems like beats etc and there is no discernible difference.
I agree that the Term "Audiophile" does seem to be an elitist term. I LOVE audio, and quality is very important to me. I personally would hate to say I am better than anyone else at enjoying music, simply because I spend more money and time (WASTE in most peoples opinion) On audio gear. With this said, after trying your ABX testing with some friends we had results that indicate that recordings that dont have that hiss you mentioned etc...there is no clear proof that the difference is that noticeable. I try to use the best source for at home, but as you said on the go, we cant be quite as picky.
Really informative video. I really like your manner of explanation. One thing I've never heard discussed regarding the compressed file formats vs the lossless is the actual feel of the bass pressure from the speakers. Not necessarily heard, but felt through the lungs, body, etc. I do feel as though my flac files do handle bass better, and are less prone to distorting the bass through my speakers. Your thoughts on this would be great.
Honestly, I only keep lossless files for transcoding purposes. That is, my library is lossless in case I need to batch-convert the whole thing to a lossy format, especially a high-efficiency one with a tiny bitrate like HE-AAC. Otherwise, yeah, once you get to like 96/128Kbit per channel (or 192/256Kbit total), there's clearly no perceivable diff.
I really like your video on this lossless and lossy audio, I only convert my most favorite albums to FLAC in order for them to last a long time... can you please talk about the loudness war and the importance of mastering in production of audio, this might fit well with the video!... :D
AAC being transparent is just what Apple wants you to believe. They can say that using a device like an iPhone or iPad as a indistinguishable comparison. It's not high quality to me. I have AAC files and FLAC. On my hifi stereo the FLAC files are better. CD's are also better that AAC.
+Mike P I'm still thinking it cannot be transparent with most high quality music. If you take a 16bit WAV file from a CD, encode it to FLAC, you can then take the FLAC file and convert it back to WAV and it will be the same as the original WAV file. You can not do that with AAC. I agree that in some cases AAC, MP3, WAV and FLAC can sound the same but only when the audio source they were made from is of lower quality or your stereo setup is not high quality. If you have a FLAC file that is an absolutely perfect recording, the MP3 and AAC lack in sound quality. But if you don't have a stereo that can product the difference it becomes much harder to tell and you get videos like this one on UA-cam. I have not found a headphone amp and headphones that are as good as a true hi-fi stereo either. In this video there is a comparison using jpeg compression, that makes sense for my explanation also. If you have a small monitor, lets say a 10" netbook and you look at a compressed jpeg, it will look very good because you can not see the compression. If you have a 19" HD monitor you might still think its ok but you may notice a little compression that you don't care about, then you look at it on a 27" HD screen and you can clearly see the compression. So the person that owns the 27" monitor would use higher quality compression settings naturally. On top of that, the experince on the 10" netbook only shows you some detail in the picture, when you look at it on the 27" you see much more in the picture including the compression. Same goes for audio and stereos, small medium large, volume level, frequency response, room noise etc...all play part in the experience. The better and quieter your audio room setup is the more you hear in the audio.
An "Audiophile" to me is someone who loves music firstly, then becomes addicted to the quest of finding replay equipment to do justice to the recordings collected. If you have money this can send you off into the snobby world of over-engineered high end components, though the clever audiophile will use his ears and money wisely. The format you choose to listen to has a lot to do with the system you playback on. Its no good trying to explain this as its something you need to experience. I'd say 90 - 95% of people have never heard a real genuine high resolution system. I'm not saying you need such a system. If you're happy with your music playback leave it at that. You'll save a fortune 😉
can someone help me in explaining this is my opinion, correct me if wrong 128kbps- average 160 - smooth but slight lower in volume compared to 320, but just as smooth because it is a product of 320? 192 - cd quality 256 - studio (but in my opinion is worse that 192 and 160) 320 - high quality
You are way off the mark there. None of those are CD quality and definitely not studio quality. 320kbps is the max that you can get from an mp3 file but still not even close to CD level. ALL mp3 files are compressed and will never sound as good as the lossless file on a CD. There is no exact CD quality since it varies on each track but in my experience of ripping them to wav and flac files they tend to range from 400kbps up to 1300kbps depending on the dynamic range of the songs. Studio quality on the other hand can be much higher than that of CD and is only limited by factors such as the bit depth (the number of bits per sample) and the sample rate (the number of samples per second, in this case 44,100 per second). A CD is limited to a bit depth of 16 bits and the sample rate is 44.1 kHz, however, in the studio there is equipment that can record at a 24 or even a 32 bit depth with sample rates up to 192 kHz (or 192,000 samples per second with 32 bits of information per sample). This can lead to high bit rates of 2,000 - 4,000 kbps making 320 seem like nothing in comparison.
About 20% of my collection is lossless the rest have poor quality recorded sound anyway or just music I listen to when out and about. Don't really need cd quality to hear ashity drum machine
nah I cant tell 320 from flac sometimes but its totally depend on the quality (and sometimes genre)when they record the music sometimes its easy to tell but sometimes not,but if possible I still prefer loseless file
***** Thank you for making this video, it's very useful and interesting :D And I always have a question I want to ask and maybe have a little discussion with all of you guys. If I mainly use mobile phone to listen to music and watch videos, is it pointless to have a rather high-end headphone e.g. Sennheiser Momentum or Shure SE535 ? It might be a silly question to all of you though :P
I can hear the difference between flac and red book vs mp3 and acc. I think it depends on the quality of the componets in you system. For example i use audience a3 the one speakers with a red wine audio amp and dac. Red wine audio use recharble batteries in the amps so im off the grid. When Listening to music in flac or alac i can really hear more spacial information in the song like the artist chair or coughing. The strings of the guitar have more decay or the notes linger for a longer of period of time. Most people dont have string of componets. For an iphone acc makes alote of sense due to the small memory( rotten apple should add sd card slote) inside the device and the noisey dac inside. Sorry for the crappy spelling. Im on an ipad. I like your vids lock, keep it up! Good job dude!
LOL Very fair description on the topic! Well done! You should be a teacher... Anyway I personally believe lossless or lossy it varies from person to person. Some may be able to hear the difference. Many may not. They both have pros and cons. As for lossless OCDs then yeah definitely lossless is better. But it eats up your storage. For outdoor portable use 320k or 256k is good enough. btw I completely agree with you on the points that you made at the beginning of the video. That whole "if you dont use lossless youre not an audiophile" thing is just...crap. Everyone has their preferences. I don't like the term audiophile either. I love music. And I love headphones so that I can enjoy music better. That's all.
***** I have done several tests and although I will admit I can't really tell the difference between 320 and lossless I could between 256 and lossless. I used to only use lossless format but now have a lot of my on the go music at 320. Great video. I like your reviews a lot.
I could distinguish 128kbps mp3 from higher bitrates (320,lossless) in a blind test (at a relatively high volume) and although 128kbps AAC is better I'm pretty sure it's still distinguishable from higher bitrates. Never done a blind test with AAC tho. Maybe one could only guess correctly 80 or 60 percent of the time but still better than random chance. If I was on a bus I wouldn't have a prayer though. EDIT: my foobar keeps crashing when I do ABX (and sometimes when I'm not) so I haven't seen any results from my tests, but it seems to me that the common knowledge about AAC is outdated. I'm having a hell of a time telling the difference from FLAC, unlike with mp3 128. Codecs must have improved significantly since AAC was invented
@Mike P every android device from 5.0 and onwards supports it, on top of that a lot of installable players have a software decoder for it as well. Since a bunch of car radio's are also android based they should also play the format just fine.
Lachlan, Lachlan… what are you doing? You’re contradicting yourself. Off Couse you can hear the defiance, that’s why you’re able to tell between bad, good, and excellence sounding headphones. Using JPEG file/image is like comparing apple to orange. Sure, most human eyes can’t see the individual pixels, unless you zoom in, but most of us can tell which picture looks good or better. For example, most people can tell the difference between picture taken from a mobile phone vs handheld point & shoot or DSLR camera (taking with same setting). Because it has to do more than just pixel, it’s the size of the lens, AV, TV, color gamma and so forth. Likewise with sounds, most human ears have the abilities to discern what real vs recording sound. It’s a simple math really, If you have a large bucket and a smaller one, which of the two can you put more things into it and that’s what a Lossless vs Lossy is. Try to download Lossless music file. You will see that it’s a much larger file. If you believe what you’re hearing is true, then you’re discrediting yourself when you’re making a claim about your headphones review. I am a fan and a subscriber, but I think you’re shooting yourself in a foot here. Best
Actually, you've just answered your own question. Comparing two different headphones is like comparing pictures taken by two different cameras. The differences can be very obvious. It's not nearly the same thing as comparing encoding algorithms. I think it hardly discredits me to say these things when I have failed the ABX tests and so does almost everyone else who performs the tests properly. Just try the ABX testing yourself, that was the entire point of making these videos.
If you are happy with MP3 that's all that matters. There is much more to enjoy there is no need to make a video like this to make people wrong. I understand what you are trying to demonstrate . Let people enjoy there high end as you want to be accepted for MP3 and headphones. Your happy they are happy so why do you all get on each other's cases for such silly reasons. Enjoy your music , as long as the sound makes you feel good it's right for you.
I prefer listening to lossless music, currently with the Tidal streaming service, but then most of the time I am at my desk at my PC. Where it goes through a tube DAC to another amp or to my HiFi. On the move, I can listen to lossless streamed from Tidal, but this is where "lossy" format like MP3 and AAC are actually very suitable, they're convenient. Anyone who says there's no difference between the two I would question how good their hearing is, or how much they care about their music. However, from a mobile device or to save bandwidth and storage, there's nothing wrong with MP3 and AAC.
Tom Dawson I do really urge you to try doing an ABX with properly encoded 256k AAC (iTunes Plus) or MP3 (LAME v0) files and see if you can pick out a difference. I do keep lossless files at home, but the differences are not nearly as obvious as you would suggest. My guide to ABX testing is here: ua-cam.com/video/nFEvFpzldJc/v-deo.html
What never gets mentioned in these types of videos or even articles, is that it has clearly been proven that recordings made at a "High Resolution" demonstrably sounds better than recordings made at lower resolutions or bitrates. The question isn't whether or not its worth recording at high resolution. That argument has been settled, and recording studios unanimously use 24/192 or DSD files and equipment for master audio files. The real question is whether or not its worth for the end user to listen to those high rez files vs a compressed one. If recording studios recorded at 16/44 or even worse 320 kbs bitrates, listeners would notice right away how awful their music sounds.
Bruh mp3 is 100% garbage , the compression algorithm used to compress the audio leaves audible crackles and pops. something that does not exist in lossless audio. using a substantial audio playing equipment such as a car or home audio system will make this very obvious. once you realise this and you are aware of it there is no going back. - ab testing consisted with lossless file and a mp3 320kbps and a aac made from the file all played through the same system. it is true the AAC file held up better, THERE IS compression artefacts left over.
You know I agree with the audio codoc part...... But beats headphones suck,no doubt at least their build quality is,um...,horrifying(I am praising them now)
There is a difference other wise they would Not be called different types of files think about that and all the sizes would be all the same size also if your player cannot play a file what does that tell you . Anyway keep researching and studying this topic it will help you later when you get a really nice home audio system .
why dont you do any professional research before you claim your half-knowlege. there are a bunch of companies out there, that develop High-End Components for people who care about sound quality. Of course they have serious playback equipment
If you are happy with MP3 that's all that matters. There is much more to enjoy there is no need to make a video like this to make people wrong. I understand what you are trying to demonstrate . Let people enjoy there high end as you want to be accepted for MP3 and headphones. Your happy they are happy so why do you all get on each other's cases for such silly reasons. Enjoy your music , as long as the sound makes you feel good it's right for you.
I usually don't watch your videos (nothing against you, but it's just that I don't have too much time to regularly watch all 20+ videos that people I'm subscribed to upload every day), but this was a very good, basic yet fundamental and informative video. I personally haven't gotten any "haters gonna hate" comments like you did with using lossy files, but I see this kind of stuff all the time on Head-Fi and people never confirm their observations fairly. To be frank, I only use full-sized lossless files on my devices because I'm too lazy to convert, not at all for the theoretical gain in sound quality over lossy files.
The Beats example you brought up near the end is a great example. The new 2013 Beats Studios actually don't sound half-bad at all and I was surprised myself since I, admittedly, follow the general sheep in that the Beats suck.
It always bugs me when people claim that HD music in particular is oh-so-much better than Red Book CD standard's resolution of music, when in fact upon down-sampling HD files, no detectable audio difference can be made. This was even done in multiple scientific studies with super sterile, non-ideal listening conditions that very few people in the real world would ever encounter. The mastering differences between the so-called HD format and the CD format makes all the differences in sound quality, not the format, yet people still deny this and they claim 24/96, 24/192, etc. are all superior.
As you stated, sure, they may be technically better, but human ears can't detect those differences. That is, unless you have super-human hearing abilities with the help of a bionic ear that can hear above the Red Book standard's sampling rate, which is twice the amount needed to obtain the data that humans can hear (Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and Nyquist frequency): 44.1 kHz / 2 = 22.05 kHz signals. ;)
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl4007744
You should mention in your next video that ABX testing is only fair if the master is from the same source, and that the files are properly volume-matched. People often forget the volume-matching part and it's quite easy to do in Foobar2000 with the Replay Gain feature.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, I've already done the ABX testing video but I'll check how Foobar2000 actually does the replay gain adjustment in the ABX Comparator...
Actually people regard beats at the greatest HP of all time, which is ridiculous.
+miceblue425 Yeah, I tend to have some pretty high quality reference speakers and headphones, and even I cannot hear a difference between a Red Book CD rip and a hi-res version outside of mastering differences (clipping, dynamic range, etc.). So I usually buy the highest resolution version, back up the original files to a DVD-R, and then downsample the copies to 48kHz 24bit. The only reason I don't just compress them to lossy iTunes Plus AAC is because I do audio editing and don't want to recompress the files when I'm finished.
Bwahahahaha! I died at "I count good!" You're so adorable!
Loving your videos and reviews of headphones. Keep it up!
It is similar to "JPEG vs TIFF" war for people who do graphics for either casual or critical use. The Visualfiles. Reproduction equipment dependent, files must be supplied accordingly. However, only a few distinctive types of visual material - for example b&w line drawings that require ultimate visual crispness - require lossless TIFF file for even casual reproductions, because JPEG cannot cope with b&w drawings without polluting the drawing with another colour. However, there is no such analogy in the audio world, because unlike graphics, music is time dependent, and comparisons are done from MEMORY, which fades quickly. No one can compare audio files simultaneously. Thanks to quickly fading memory, high-bit AAC compression (256+) of music files can adequately substitute lossless formats for audio reproduction or all genres of music.
For myself, the biggest difference between lossy and lossless music files is in the sense of spaces of the sound stage. lossy file format drop too much data in the high frequency, make the sound become dull and harsh, and the sound stage feel much smaller.
Nice video. You can hear the differences with the right equipment and music genres. Listen to music with strings instruments you can but music that is bass heavy you cannot.
Glad you decided to cover this
That ear at 13:00 was amazing Lachlan.
And will you do a listening test? For some tracks I think it's easy to tell. As a violist, listening to sounds of an instrument setting a bow or being plucked sound much more like the real thing on FLAC than MP3. In actual performance settings and recording settings, the small differences in impact/sound are what shapes the listeners opinions on a performance. This is all just my opinion. I would love for you to continue this series.
Yep, that's part 2! (And kind of part 3)
@GLXLR +++
I subscribed to you when I saw your review on the Sennheiser Momentum's and you actually made me pick them and no other pair, so far I am super happy with them, and I think that's why I am still subscribed to you and because I thought that your concept "likes a thing" was interesting. I probably haven't watched more than 3 of your videos since then, but this one really stood out from all the other videos on my list. This topic is really hot and I have never really understood it, though I love sound and always look for the highest quality lossy files, like 320kbps.
Anyways...
AMAZING way of describing the differences and I am looking sooo much forward to your next parts, super informative and enlightening. Will definitely share this video. Nice job!
Thanks so much :D
Love this topic, I am considered by standards, an audiophile, but by having spent so much money, I can agree that the quality matters only when your at home, unless you have a completely silent room outside of your house that you go to everyday, bus, car commuting, it doesn't really matter, you're probably not going to notice much difference at all, but at home it makes WORLDS of differences :)
MP3 is a lossy format of audio using the principle of quantization. In layman's terms, it's nothing but an APPROXIMATION of the source track. Say your source has 44100 samples in one second of the track (little points defining a piece of a waveform), what MP3 will do is it will cut down that amount significantly and attempt to "approximate" (quantize) original waveform from this much reduced amount of samples (usually 100 fold). This boils down to DISTORTION. What you're hearing is not the same thing the producer and mastering engineer intended you to hear. People often bloat that "MP3 can do 44.1 kHz and even 48 kHz" - but the truth is exact opposite. It can't even do 16 kHz - as I've explained when I mentioned quantization earlier. Sample rate is essentially the amount of samples that define one second of a waveform exist. MP3 is far from 44.1 kHz rate.
+Philip Butkiewicz Thank you for that informed comment, I'm tempted to write a PHD thesis on how Lossy formats like MP3 have contributed to effecting parts (genres) of the music industry.
This does not concern the frequency response of the format but SAMPLING RATE. Both are two totally different things.
Again, refer to my explanation in () for what sampling rate is.
I'd agree with you if we were on the same point.
Couldn't agree more, though Lossless files have their own advantages, so they're better for certain things they're by no means better than Lossy files when just listening to music. A good Lossy file will sound just as good as any Lossless file because of our physical limitations.
They're certainly good for archival and I'm not going to delete master copies off my hard drive haha. Also I am honored by your presence in the comments section.
***** lol
Well, here it is, flac or lossless files actually sounds better, but to be able to feel the difference you should listen on a high quality headphones or speakers, also it depends on what type of audio/ music you're listening to, a high quality recorded music with deep details and instruments more likely able to make you hear the difference, and not music made all digitally in the first place
I am all about optimization and the level of it in my control. Some people who complain about modern lossy formats don't realize that that a good quality lossy can almost go neck to neck with a good quality lossless. MP3 or AAC does not mean that it is 120 kbps all the time. Just like how people feel elite using iPhones and iMacs without a solid reason, that is exactly why people complain about lossies.
Flac vs. MP3 (these formats as an example, I have no experience with other formats)
Personally I get a sort of listening fatigue with MP3’s. A friend of mine has the same. It is not that the sound is bad but there is something ‘wrong’. A time ago a mutual friend who is a doctor showed us an article in a magazine for neurologists. Most of it was too complicated for us to understand but the conclusion was very clear: some people have something different in their brain wiring and are sensitive to a certain distortion in MP3’s. This is no joke and the source was a respected magazine for neurologists. Is this the main reason for the fact that some people don’t like MP3’s apart from snobbery and other reasons? I would like to emphasis that for my friend and myself MP3’s does not always sound bad but something irritates us while listening them.
I want to check if a have the same problem with other lossy file formats. To try out in the future.
+Rob Dequeecker Yes, to put it simply, Mp3 has a very unnatural waveform, that puts strain on the ear, causing fatigue, and ear damage from prolonged use. Basically, Mp3 uses a very rough compression algorithm that scoops out lotf of information in the waveform, and then digitally fills it back in. Flac, does the same thing, but a much more accurate algorithm.
Unless you listen to music for a living (literally) like an engineer, musician or audiophile, then you won't hear the difference.
Lots of people genuinely think mp3 and flac sound the same - and they do to many. Hearing is very subjective, but its amusing and slightly irritating for people to suggest its placebo or whatnot, because their ears can't hear it. :)
+another_internet_person logical explanation
nice one
Yukino Takada 雪乃 鷹だ From re-reading what I said, it seems perfectly logical and constructive.
Maybe you want me to 'simplify' it for you?
If so:
1. Flac and Mp3 sound identical to some people, and very different to others - its subjective, and stems from experience etc.
2. Lower quality compression puts strain on the ear, and in turn causes hearing damage.
3. People who say there is no difference between the different audio types, are sonically ignorant.
I don't know exactly what the author of the comment wrote, but I think they might have a point. Nonetheless, you are probably right in that they're not going to hear much difference between their vinyls ripped to FLAC and their vinyls ripped to 192kbps MP3 files, but the point they are probably trying to establish is related to the source. If you were to emphasize that the reason some people prefer FLAC files is solely that the source of them is (often) vinyl, and that vinyl versions of music (especially in this day and age) are usually less remastered than CD versions (resulting in less undesirable characteristics such as clipping/loudness war), then you would be taking great strides in convincing them of your point. You could take a FLAC ripped from a vinyl, convert it to a reasonable-quality MP3 file and do blind tests with people who consider themselves "audiophiles" to see if they can distinguish FLAC from MP3, for example...
exactly my reason
thats why I prefer loseless if possible but sometimes they are just indistinguishable
Keeping audio files that are 3x or more bigger in size than of a regular 320 kbps MP3 file just for the sake of not losing some of those sound waves that will just be inaudible during typical normal conditions of listening is something I find very impractical. Especially if you'll just listen to them through portable audio players.
Great stuff and I agree with your realistic view. Keep the good videos coming !
The difference was HUGE by me.
It's funny because I'm sort of on both teams. I use 320 KB/s mp3 for on my phone when listening in noisy environments, takes up less space on my phone while still giving me something pleasurable to listen to.
While at home listening I use FLAC's/WAV's. 192KB/s is too compressed and I can tell I'm listening to compressed but it's like a 80/20 for listening at home in ideal environments for FLAC and 320KB/s (my friend blind tested me).
I really am impressed at how well these containers can compress though. It's fascinating how well even 192kb/s sounds for how small the file size is.
Great explanation. I think you should seriously consider becoming a lecturer, Lachlan.
I think 128Kb/s vs 320Kb/s MP3 can be very obvious. Depending on how good you know the track, your equipment & headphones (the old denon dj headphones slaughter low bitrate HP500/700)
I think the difference is smaller between FLAC and 320Kbs MP3, and sometimes it doesnt sound different to me, or when it does, it doesn't sound "worse" like with 128Kb/s just different. Considering MP3 320 is usually much smaller, I always go for 320 Mp3. More than good enough.
I found this a very well explained and informative video friend I enjoyed it thoroughly. Especially the art which was simply breathtaking and has changed me so much as a person, I now understand the reason I viewed ears differently to how you portrayed them is because my brain uses lossy jpeg condensing and therefore loses data from how the ear actually looks. (Insert troll face here)
What I meant by my comment is that a lot of people like to claim their ears are golden and can hear the difference between FLAC and mp3 in order to justify their preference but they always avoid abx testing.
Even if you can’t hear the deference it’s still better to use lossless anyway because store is super cheap you can get a 256gb so card or flash drive for like $30 it isn’t the 90’s anymore
This is really great! Looking foward to the next one
really enjoyed this video mate.
i'm no audiophile, I own m50s and I good quality sound, but from what I have heard, people have said that there is relatively no difference between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, and that people that say otherwise are kidding themselves.
I'm using HDMI audio from my Nvidia 1060 6GB, through my TV, out through RCA, on my Turtlebeach P11s. Sounds fine.
Come at me.
🤣🤣🤣
I just got my fitear 333s and I can vouch that I hear a difference for sure. I'm not even using a DAC and listening on my iPhone 6. To be fair, the difference was not as big as I thought it would be. I've tried with inferior iems like beats etc and there is no discernible difference.
I agree that the Term "Audiophile" does seem to be an elitist term.
I LOVE audio, and quality is very important to me.
I personally would hate to say I am better than anyone else at enjoying music, simply because I spend more money and time (WASTE in most peoples opinion) On audio gear.
With this said, after trying your ABX testing with some friends we had results that indicate that recordings that dont have that hiss you mentioned etc...there is no clear proof that the difference is that noticeable.
I try to use the best source for at home, but as you said on the go, we cant be quite as picky.
"Herd behaviour". Quite so.
Really informative video. I really like your manner of explanation. One thing I've never heard discussed regarding the compressed file formats vs the lossless is the actual feel of the bass pressure from the speakers. Not necessarily heard, but felt through the lungs, body, etc. I do feel as though my flac files do handle bass better, and are less prone to distorting the bass through my speakers. Your thoughts on this would be great.
Honestly, I only keep lossless files for transcoding purposes. That is, my library is lossless in case I need to batch-convert the whole thing to a lossy format, especially a high-efficiency one with a tiny bitrate like HE-AAC. Otherwise, yeah, once you get to like 96/128Kbit per channel (or 192/256Kbit total), there's clearly no perceivable diff.
I really like your video on this lossless and lossy audio, I only convert my most favorite albums to FLAC in order for them to last a long time...
can you please talk about the loudness war and the importance of mastering in production of audio, this might fit well with the video!... :D
AAC being transparent is just what Apple wants you to believe. They can say that using a device like an iPhone or iPad as a indistinguishable comparison. It's not high quality to me. I have AAC files and FLAC. On my hifi stereo the FLAC files are better. CD's are also better that AAC.
+Mike P I'm still thinking it cannot be transparent with most high quality music. If you take a 16bit WAV file from a CD, encode it to FLAC, you can then take the FLAC file and convert it back to WAV and it will be the same as the original WAV file. You can not do that with AAC. I agree that in some cases AAC, MP3, WAV and FLAC can sound the same but only when the audio source they were made from is of lower quality or your stereo setup is not high quality. If you have a FLAC file that is an absolutely perfect recording, the MP3 and AAC lack in sound quality.
But if you don't have a stereo that can product the difference it becomes much harder to tell and you get videos like this one on UA-cam. I have not found a headphone amp and headphones that are as good as a true hi-fi stereo either. In this video there is a comparison using jpeg compression, that makes sense for my explanation also. If you have a small monitor, lets say a 10" netbook and you look at a compressed jpeg, it will look very good because you can not see the compression. If you have a 19" HD monitor you might still think its ok but you may notice a little compression that you don't care about, then you look at it on a 27" HD screen and you can clearly see the compression. So the person that owns the 27" monitor would use higher quality compression settings naturally. On top of that, the experince on the 10" netbook only shows you some detail in the picture, when you look at it on the 27" you see much more in the picture including the compression. Same goes for audio and stereos, small medium large, volume level, frequency response, room noise etc...all play part in the experience. The better and quieter your audio room setup is the more you hear in the audio.
An "Audiophile" to me is someone who loves music firstly, then becomes addicted to the quest of finding replay equipment to do justice to the recordings collected. If you have money this can send you off into the snobby world of over-engineered high end components, though the clever audiophile will use his ears and money wisely.
The format you choose to listen to has a lot to do with the system you playback on.
Its no good trying to explain this as its something you need to experience. I'd say 90 - 95% of people have never heard a real genuine high resolution system. I'm not saying you need such a system. If you're happy with your music playback leave it at that. You'll save a fortune 😉
Great video, very helpful thanks.
can someone help me in explaining
this is my opinion, correct me if wrong
128kbps- average
160 - smooth but slight lower in volume compared to 320, but just as smooth because it is a product of 320?
192 - cd quality
256 - studio (but in my opinion is worse that 192 and 160)
320 - high quality
You are way off the mark there. None of those are CD quality and definitely not studio quality. 320kbps is the max that you can get from an mp3 file but still not even close to CD level. ALL mp3 files are compressed and will never sound as good as the lossless file on a CD.
There is no exact CD quality since it varies on each track but in my experience of ripping them to wav and flac files they tend to range from 400kbps up to 1300kbps depending on the dynamic range of the songs.
Studio quality on the other hand can be much higher than that of CD and is only limited by factors such as the bit depth (the number of bits per sample) and the sample rate (the number of samples per second, in this case 44,100 per second). A CD is limited to a bit depth of 16 bits and the sample rate is 44.1 kHz, however, in the studio there is equipment that can record at a 24 or even a 32 bit depth with sample rates up to 192 kHz (or 192,000 samples per second with 32 bits of information per sample). This can lead to high bit rates of 2,000 - 4,000 kbps making 320 seem like nothing in comparison.
Hordes Of Nebulah thanks bro...needed this
About 20% of my collection is lossless the rest have poor quality recorded sound anyway or just music I listen to when out and about. Don't really need cd quality to hear ashity drum machine
Excellent video. Thought I was watching the discovery channel.....
nah I cant tell 320 from flac sometimes but its totally depend on the quality (and sometimes genre)when they record the music
sometimes its easy to tell but sometimes not,but if possible I still prefer loseless file
*****
Thank you for making this video, it's very useful and interesting :D And I always have a question I want to ask and maybe have a little discussion with all of you guys. If I mainly use mobile phone to listen to music and watch videos, is it pointless to have a rather high-end headphone e.g. Sennheiser Momentum or Shure SE535 ? It might be a silly question to all of you though :P
I can hear the difference between flac and red book vs mp3 and acc. I think it depends on the quality of the componets in you system. For example i use audience a3 the one speakers with a red wine audio amp and dac. Red wine audio use recharble batteries in the amps so im off the grid. When Listening to music in flac or alac i can really hear more spacial information in the song like the artist chair or coughing. The strings of the guitar have more decay or the notes linger for a longer of period of time. Most people dont have string of componets. For an iphone acc makes alote of sense due to the small memory( rotten apple should add sd card slote) inside the device and the noisey dac inside. Sorry for the crappy spelling. Im on an ipad. I like your vids lock, keep it up! Good job dude!
This really opened my eyes(or ears).. Haha Thanks
Wow! This is a very good video! Very understandable and clear!
This will make me pass my exam in a few days, thanks!
Alireza Mosawi You should have studied in place of watching UA-cam videos.
And I am a giant hypocrite.
+CapnTates why watch a video and study separately when you can so both at the same time 😕
+UA-camLogic
Yukino Takada 雪乃 鷹だ I need my monitors for homework.
Very nice topic! Hightlitghts for the cognitive biases!
It's a really fun list to read actually, I updated the description with the link!
Great video. I like how you responded to the hate.
nice vid I agree with your views.
I tested with Onkyo first, lossless files will play at a completely different level than lossy ones.
LOL Very fair description on the topic! Well done! You should be a teacher...
Anyway I personally believe lossless or lossy it varies from person to person. Some may be able to hear the difference. Many may not. They both have pros and cons. As for lossless OCDs then yeah definitely lossless is better. But it eats up your storage.
For outdoor portable use 320k or 256k is good enough.
btw I completely agree with you on the points that you made at the beginning of the video. That whole "if you dont use lossless youre not an audiophile" thing is just...crap. Everyone has their preferences. I don't like the term audiophile either. I love music. And I love headphones so that I can enjoy music better. That's all.
So what bitrate do you listen to?
After doing ABX tests I decided to go ahead and convert my iPhone music to 256k AAC.
***** I have done several tests and although I will admit I can't really tell the difference between 320 and lossless I could between 256 and lossless. I used to only use lossless format but now have a lot of my on the go music at 320. Great video. I like your reviews a lot.
audiophile is just crazy nerds that being fool by earphone brands
So are you saying you can't tell the difference between different headphones?
I could distinguish 128kbps mp3 from higher bitrates (320,lossless) in a blind test (at a relatively high volume) and although 128kbps AAC is better I'm pretty sure it's still distinguishable from higher bitrates. Never done a blind test with AAC tho. Maybe one could only guess correctly 80 or 60 percent of the time but still better than random chance. If I was on a bus I wouldn't have a prayer though.
EDIT: my foobar keeps crashing when I do ABX (and sometimes when I'm not) so I haven't seen any results from my tests, but it seems to me that the common knowledge about AAC is outdated. I'm having a hell of a time telling the difference from FLAC, unlike with mp3 128. Codecs must have improved significantly since AAC was invented
Just try with OPUS at 128kbps, you'll be having a very hard time on most samples (even more so then AAC).
@Mike P every android device from 5.0 and onwards supports it, on top of that a lot of installable players have a software decoder for it as well.
Since a bunch of car radio's are also android based they should also play the format just fine.
I watch music videos on YT with my SR009's
Lachlan, Lachlan… what are you doing? You’re contradicting yourself. Off Couse you can hear the defiance, that’s why you’re able to tell between bad, good, and excellence sounding headphones. Using JPEG file/image is like comparing apple to orange. Sure, most human eyes can’t see the individual pixels, unless you zoom in, but most of us can tell which picture looks good or better. For example, most people can tell the difference between picture taken from a mobile phone vs handheld point & shoot or DSLR camera (taking with same setting). Because it has to do more than just pixel, it’s the size of the lens, AV, TV, color gamma and so forth. Likewise with sounds, most human ears have the abilities to discern what real vs recording sound. It’s a simple math really, If you have a large bucket and a smaller one, which of the two can you put more things into it and that’s what a Lossless vs Lossy is. Try to download Lossless music file. You will see that it’s a much larger file. If you believe what you’re hearing is true, then you’re discrediting yourself when you’re making a claim about your headphones review. I am a fan and a subscriber, but I think you’re shooting yourself in a foot here. Best
Actually, you've just answered your own question. Comparing two different headphones is like comparing pictures taken by two different cameras. The differences can be very obvious. It's not nearly the same thing as comparing encoding algorithms. I think it hardly discredits me to say these things when I have failed the ABX tests and so does almost everyone else who performs the tests properly. Just try the ABX testing yourself, that was the entire point of making these videos.
If you are happy with MP3 that's all that matters. There is much more to enjoy there is no need to make a video like this to make people wrong.
I understand what you are trying to demonstrate . Let people enjoy there high end as you want to be accepted for MP3 and headphones. Your happy they are happy so why do you all get on each other's cases for such silly reasons. Enjoy your music , as long as the sound makes you feel good it's right for you.
I prefer listening to lossless music, currently with the Tidal streaming service, but then most of the time I am at my desk at my PC. Where it goes through a tube DAC to another amp or to my HiFi. On the move, I can listen to lossless streamed from Tidal, but this is where "lossy" format like MP3 and AAC are actually very suitable, they're convenient. Anyone who says there's no difference between the two I would question how good their hearing is, or how much they care about their music. However, from a mobile device or to save bandwidth and storage, there's nothing wrong with MP3 and AAC.
Tom Dawson I do really urge you to try doing an ABX with properly encoded 256k AAC (iTunes Plus) or MP3 (LAME v0) files and see if you can pick out a difference. I do keep lossless files at home, but the differences are not nearly as obvious as you would suggest. My guide to ABX testing is here: ua-cam.com/video/nFEvFpzldJc/v-deo.html
What never gets mentioned in these types of videos or even articles, is that it has clearly been proven that recordings made at a "High Resolution" demonstrably sounds better than recordings made at lower resolutions or bitrates. The question isn't whether or not its worth recording at high resolution. That argument has been settled, and recording studios unanimously use 24/192 or DSD files and equipment for master audio files. The real question is whether or not its worth for the end user to listen to those high rez files vs a compressed one. If recording studios recorded at 16/44 or even worse 320 kbs bitrates, listeners would notice right away how awful their music sounds.
"Kind of"
Bruh mp3 is 100% garbage , the compression algorithm used to compress the audio leaves audible crackles and pops. something that does not exist in lossless audio. using a substantial audio playing equipment such as a car or home audio system will make this very obvious. once you realise this and you are aware of it there is no going back.
- ab testing consisted with lossless file and a mp3 320kbps and a aac made from the file all played through the same system. it is true the AAC file held up better, THERE IS compression artefacts left over.
Thank you sir :) Great video~~
You know I agree with the audio codoc part......
But beats headphones suck,no doubt
at least their build quality is,um...,horrifying(I am praising them now)
well explained easy to follow ...........................
I use Apple MUSIC. . TO ME ITS THE BEST QUALITY I CAN GET, I USE IPOD TOUCH 6TH Gen with Sony XBA Z5
ALAC is a Flac imitation.
+Spark Zero2One Ever tried an ABX test with 256 AAC and 320 MP3? You won't hear any difference...
There is a difference other wise they would Not be called different types of files think about that and all the sizes would be all the same size also if your player cannot play a file what does that tell you . Anyway keep researching and studying this topic it will help you later when you get a really nice home audio system .
its called placebo...
gg
Who cares about audio -
why do you have internet explorer?
Just kidding ;)
I got 6/6 for the npr audio quality test!
you wrong . not every people know about sound
why dont you do any professional research before you claim your half-knowlege.
there are a bunch of companies out there, that develop High-End Components for people who care about sound quality. Of course they have serious playback equipment
If you are happy with MP3 that's all that matters. There is much more to enjoy there is no need to make a video like this to make people wrong.
I understand what you are trying to demonstrate . Let people enjoy there high end as you want to be accepted for MP3 and headphones. Your happy they are happy so why do you all get on each other's cases for such silly reasons. Enjoy your music , as long as the sound makes you feel good it's right for you.
Your money for placebo effect. Can go for something else for happines of course. He helping you from getting robbed