i've converted an ape image to wav, then burned it in an audio disc, and well.. it sounds exactly the same than my 320 kbps mp3s of the cd i've burned
it's the first time i get this results, with other audio images the difference between wav and 320 kbps was appreciable, but this one not.. even with the abx test i couldn't hear any difference

it's a live concert cd, so i'm thinking that the audio recording maybe it's poor comparate to a studio recording?


i've uploaded the two files (wav and mp3) into one rar (2mb), it's a 15 seconds demo, just click in the link below..



isn't supposed to be that the wav could be clearly appreciable the higher quality from a 320 kb mp3?
i would like to know why this happens..


saludos!

No. It's very common not to be able to ABX difference between 320 kbps mp3 vs lossless. Did your earlier 'appreciable differences' comes from ABX tests?



psychoacoustic encoding works

You should be able to encode even lower bitrate mp3s (-v 2 or lower... even -v 5 gives me a hard time) without being able to tell it from the original. mp3 encoding are all about trying to compress as much as possible but with less artifacts. lame encoder especially have been improved a lot over the years.

Be sure not to make sighted tests. It will create a bias and fool your brain.

We need this on a poster or something.

well.. this time i've ripped from the wav source various mp3: 96, 112, 128, 192 and 320. (13 seconds each)

it's possible to hear the difference from 96 to 112, and from 112 to 128, but not from 128 to 192, or 128 to 320, so in this case, 128 sounds exactly like the wav

could be possible that maybe, at the moment of recording the concert, it doesn't get the high frequencys? (but still sounds nice)

Thats normal.



I don't think higher frequencies make much difference.

So, in the future, you can rip your music at 192, or V2, and be happy with it.

that's not the idea. in some cases one person try to get the maximum quality from a music file, so that's why i was surprised that it sounds same as an 128-mp3.


¿why?

See: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Transparency

Quality is a problematic word, which is why most people talk about transparency. For example you can argue that 320 kbps is better quality than 192 kbps because it has more bits devoted to its reproduction, but if in an ABX test you cannot tell either from the original then they are both transparent. Transparency (not so called "quality") is the goal of lossy codecs. It just so happens that they've got very good at what they do and thus as Mike Giacomelli said, it's now quite normal for an MP3 at 128 kbps to be transparent.

Hope that helps.

C.

EDIT: Typo