320 Kbps AAC vs FLAC (Lossless)

[Zikama]

Wondering if upgrading from spotify premium (320 kbit AAC) to WIMP HIFI is worth the double cost for the better lossless sound quality, can a normal human being hear any signicicant differnce?

[UnknownEngineer]

i can't, but then again, I can't say for others. It also depends on every single piece of hardware you have between the source and your ears.

[Volbet]

Personally, I can't hear a difference between high bitrate MP3 or AAC files, and lossless FLAC files.

And I don't think I can blame my sound equitment.

 

I have heard some people claim that they can hear a difference, but I have never seen it demonstrated.

You could always get a friend, download some FLAC and AAC files, and do a blind test.

Have your friend switch between the AAC and FLAC files, and see (listen?) if you can tell the difference. 

[elfensky]

Personally I can't even hear the difference between a 256kbit mp3 and above. I'd just download/listen to some samples of both and see if you can (probably not) hear a difference.

Cheers.

[.spider.]

Spotify uses ogg and you won't hear any difference.

You can proof this yourself by using the abx comparator for foobar2000

[linuxfan66]

As was said earlier from all the reading ive done on the subject as well. There is a whole bunch devices on the chain that need to high quality as well to notice increases(assuming you can). The DAC(Digital to Analog converter) on the output needs to be quite high unless you using optical audio/TOSLINK in which case the DAC on the device doing analog conversion needs to be quite high then. Also note a saying i once saw said, "If your audio equipment costs you more than your collection, you have probably missed the point."

[Goose Legs]

Also note a saying i once saw said, "If your audio equipment costs you more than your collection, you have probably missed the point."

 

 

This.

 

Full Disclosure: I took a Digital Signal Processing class at University and performed a significant amount of research outside so I'll weigh in and give my 10 cents worth.

 

The DAC itself should have a good design topology since it is what is generating the analog sound. Many cheap DACs I have come across have poor power sources which can cause them to clip or otherwise introduce noise or distortion. Whether or not you will be able to hear this is subjective, but after looking at an audio spectrometer, I have seen some evidence to support this theory. 

 

On top of that (and in my experience this is almost even more important) the content you're listening to has to be really well mastered. A lot of mainstream music that is recorded has very little dynamic range. This can useful if you're listening to cheap headphones since it will allow you to hear everything (which I'm sure many people do), but once you get up to the really high end gear, you'll find that same music sounds flat, 2-dimensional, and bleh regardless of what encoding it is in since everything is the same volume.

 

So, assuming you a two copies of a well mastered audio track: One is the uncompressed reference material, and the other is a derivative encoded in a compressed format. Can you hear the difference? If you have good hearing, every device in your audio chain is good, you have sufficient amplification, good speakers, and good room acoustics....I'd say very likely. At least I can. In that scenario, lossless tends to have a fuller body and sounds smoother across the frequency range. Voices, for me are what make the biggest impression. 

 

If you want to experiment, grab yourself a used SACD player and an SACD copy of Andrea Bocelli's "Andrea" and then grab a compressed copy of a song. Setup both sources, put on a blindfold, and ask someone two switch between the two sources. 

[.spider.]

If you want to experiment, grab yourself a used SACD player and an SACD copy of Andrea Bocelli's "Andrea" and then grab a compressed copy of a song. Setup both sources, put on a blindfold, and ask someone two switch between the two sources.

And this is comparing mix a and mix b but the thread is about comparing codec x and codec y

[GoldSrc]

If you want to experiment, grab yourself a used SACD player and an SACD copy of Andrea Bocelli's "Andrea" and then grab a compressed copy of a song. Setup both sources, put on a blindfold, and ask someone two switch between the two sources. 

There's no way an average human being can tell the difference between SACD, normal CD and 320Kbps mp3 or AAC.

[Goose Legs]

There's no way an average human being can tell the difference between SACD, normal CD and 320Kbps mp3 or AAC.

 

If you have good equipment, good source material, and a good room there are differences. They may or may not be huge, but they are audible. (This is assuming you aren't suffering from hearing loss). 

[GoldSrc]

If you have good equipment, good source material, and a good room there are differences. They may or may not be huge, but they are audible. (This is assuming you aren't suffering from hearing loss). 

Well, I was just reading this a few days ago when I was talking about that kind of thing with someone on youtube.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

 

 

[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard.

The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects.

The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables.

The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles.

The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

 

And since human hearing gets worse with age, unless you increase the volume, there's no way you can tell the difference in a double blind test.

[Stagea]

If you have good equipment, good source material, and a good room there are differences. They may or may not be huge, but they are audible. (This is assuming you aren't suffering from hearing loss). 

 

I purchase DXD and DSD256 files because I'm OC with losses. That doesn't mean that I'm truly positive that I can tell the difference. I think I can, but on really good lossy encodes I sometimes think... "gee this is awfully good." Normally I hear a difference when switching, but I keep in mind that either a different source device is playing, a different path is being used, or maybe the DAC behaves differently at different sample rates. I can't always pinpoint the difference to the source file, but it's easiest to discern with well-recorded and dynamic recordings (especially those with lots of things going on).

 

I used to be fairly deep into the HiFi stuff, signal purity and all. I used to switch gears a lot and in hindsight it's truly been a waste. I used to not listen to CDs because they sounded inferior in my system (my CD player isn't a bad one at all). I ditched CDs in 2009 because it sounded "too bad" (at least to me then). I became too obsessed that mainstream recordings gave me a headache because the dynamic range compression sticks out too much (and I can't keep my mind off it). It was fun while it lasted, but I eventually gave up and now actually barely turn on my HiFi and HT systems. Most of the music listening that I do now happens in the car (which still has a very good system and is sonically heavily-treated). Ironically, I playback lossy files that I re-encoded from the high res files that I paid top dollar for (high res was expensive 5-6 years ago). 

 

Nowadays, I work on other people's HiFi and HT systems more than I even get to touch my own gear. Oftentimes helping them setup (system layout, room treatment, etc.), making room and system measurements, and helping with response compensation.