Hi all - I've been visiting the forums for a good while, just don't post.

So on to topic. I must be nuts.

I can listen to a song encoded with version 3.20 of the nero AAC encodeer dll at 320 and at 128 - and while i can feel a difference, it seems like warmth... i canno tpass a listening test - I don't get it.. listening thorugh, t seem stha tthings are more chatoic and mixed.. less definition at 128 - but it's not that tangible to me..

Has NYC destroyed my ears - i mean i thought that virtually all people could hear a diff between 320 and 128 aac with an abx test...

I've been ripping mp3's for a long time.. first the standard 128 - they sounded terrible.. then as time progressed 192, better but tinny.. then to alt preset standard. 3.92 - now i have a nano (i walk a lot so the reduced pocket bulk is nice.. but i want to get more on there.. so i have been driving myself crazy over the listening test but can't pass one trying to do the comparisons..

is there a technique to the listening tests i am missing.. or am i crazy with bad ears?

You are not crazy at all. In fact, most people can't hear the differences between a lossless file and 128kbps mp3, mpeg-4 AAC, mpc (or whatever the equivalent bitrate is), etc. Keep in mind that when doind a ABX test, compare it with the original lossless file. Most people have sub-par hearing as it is. My friend claims to be an audiophile yet I nailed him on a ABX test. He stated that 128kbps mpeg-4 AAC was crap and that was why he never purchased songs via the iTunes music store. After sitting him down, I provided a sample that I ripped myself at the 96kbps mpeg-4 AAC format using iTunes. He failed the test and thought they sounded the same and all this was through his sound equipment (I don't know the details but it is pretty impresive).

You should really use iTunes to rip your music to the mpeg-4 AAC format for a couple of reasons:
1. It is already integrated with the iPod and you will have to rename the files encoded with Nero in order for the iPod/iTunes to play them.
2. The iTunes/QuickTime mpeg-4 AAC encoder is the highest ranked one in audio quality tests. In a test done at the 180kbps bitrate, Nero was not the best (though the iTunes mpeg-4 AAC encoder wasn't tested in that run).

So, since you have a iPod nano and can't hear a difference between a 128kbps mpeg-4 AAC, 192kbps mpeg-4 AAC, and a lossless file, then you should go with whatever you ahve the space for. If you are using the Apple supplied white earbuds then I would not go over 128kbps mpeg-4 AAC simply because those headphones lack the audio capabilities of exposing anomolies in the music.

You've just taken the first step to recovering from being an audiophile

Seriously though, this is a great example of why double blind tests are so important. Its very easy to convince yourself you hear something clearly, only to find out that you don't via ABX test.

if you are really interested in ABX, read ff123's website and "train" yourself of the art.

most people don't have dog hearing, but certain encoding methods leave tell-tale traces which can be easily discovered after training.

it's double-edged, tho (abx training), sorta like noticing a repetitive glitch during a movie in a theater - a time where you wish you hadn't noticed the error and just enjoyed the bliss of the experience


later

Thanks for the reply guys -

I think part of this is my change in habitat.. when i was PICKY about encoding, I was listening in a $4000 car system- not thumpy , NICE sound-- it was so warm(yah they aren't super super high end but i really really love xtant amps). Now I am listening through $50 Sony earbuds (71? i think) and they sound much better than the supplied phones obviously.. but the music just doesn't sound as good, it sounds "tinny" While i don't hear glaring differences, I do feel the "tinny" sound gets worse as I encode down. I am living in Manhattan now , and it's an extremely loud place - especially coming from Scottsdale... so even in my apt, there's just no real quiet.

I am thinking of getting the shure series 4 canal phones. ... originally I was thinking Ety's... I wonder how much of a difference i will notice over the sony phones I am using now.. one of my largest complaints with the sony phones is the build quality, i am going on my third pair (bought one, warrantied one.. maybe warranty again - dunno) so the shure reviews talking about the thick cord really appealed to me - but again, $180 for phones.. concerned I woun't hear that much of a difference.

Finally separation is something I am hearing a problem with.. I think that may be a symptom of the phones...which poses the ?

How do you know if the sound you are hearing and displeased with is codec based or cd based.. i assume by listening to the cd and seeing if it is still present.. in which case yes, i'm just not that thrilled with the sony. If the shures sound much better - maybe they will lead me to notice more artifacts--- then again, maybe i'm crazy.

Thanks for the feedback so far, it's appreciated.

edit to add, one of the rasons i asked about codecs is that allofmp3 uses nero v 3.20 - I have some damaged cd's that i am replacing which is another reason why i am doing this test.. so some things i can't rip using itunes - unless I am willing to repurchase the discs.

In order of importance for detecting artifacts(1 highest, 5 lowest):

1. training (probably amounts to more than 50%!)
2. hearing-abilities
3. how long you have been awake
4. noisefloor in your room (in case you use speakers)
5. equipment

As you can see, the equipment is the least important factor for detecting lossy-encoding-artifacts. I'm not making this up: some of the best encoders were tuned on laptop-soundcards with cheap headphones, if i remember right. Good studio-monitors may help a bit, but how many listeners own these?

- Lyx

Ah, that sucks. You can get a Skip Dr. to repair your scratched CD's, it did wonders for me. Unless your CD's are broken or cracked, then the Skip Dr. will work.

The shure earphones (or ear canals, or whatever they are called) are nice. My friend uses a pair of shure e4's I think and they are extremely nice.

unfortunately I have used it.. normally i support bands I like - but I don't feel so bad going to a grey area when I already bought the cd.

I tried the Skip Dr. - i have the auto one.. it does work great but not on the ones that are outstanding.

I think maybe my gripes are more with my headphones than my compression... in all honesty my hearing probably ISN'T good enough to notice the difference... although I have nailed some listening tests the majority i miss.

So now the question becomes which headphones are next.. $200 bucks or less the er4- are widely praised but i notice a ton of people saying they stink for bass are great for clarity.. i see altec lansing has supposedly released and adjusted model with more bass response - ??? - and now these jerks at head-fi have me thinking about 4 diff sets.

Thanks for all the info and help guys (gals too -sorry) Keep up the good info flow.. it's very helpful to people like me.

In high school my Music Technology teacher did. M-Audio actually sonically they were quite nice . I don't think equipment makes a large difference. It''s great if you have a pair of Sennheisers though.

Nobody suggested Sennheiser? Those blasphemists.
My personal suggestion would be - Buy Sennheiser. You will not regret.

Split.

jeez guys, sorry that this all spawned from my thread. I have abx'd more in the recent week or 2 -- i am passing the 128 now - 192 ,no way.. 160 i think i'll pass after listening more.

So the thing is now - what difference does it make to me.

I seemss (based on opinion only, not abx) that transcoding the ability to tell source from compressed becomes much more readily apparent. Initially i was trying to abx the diff between lame alt preset standard and 128 aac - that was much more difficult than wav rip vs aac 128.