View Single Post
Old 11th March 2007
Lives for gear

Originally Posted by innesireinar View Post
Thank you, Paul for sharing you knowledge with us...
Talking about bit rate does the same rule work?
Or in this case more is always better?

Some weeks ago I and a my collab. did a listening test by importing in PT some commercial tracks in PT (Brian McKnight and the S John Passion intro) in their original cd format and in MP3 192 format (converted with iTune) and we were not able to listen to a difference between the two format. How it was possible?
And if we could not listen to a difference between 16 bit and a compressed file how is it possible that someone can listen to a difference between 16 and 24 bit?

We did the test by switching two stereo tracks without watching on the screen which file was playing.

I'd like to know if was a our ears problem or if there is not as much difference.

I don't know why you could not hear it? I have never yet found a complex programme track that is not changed audibly by bit rate compression. Some very simple signals (like a few sine waves) are of course fairly unchanged to the ear as the coder does not need to work hard.

But I suppose one possibility might be that the track had already been compressed and decoded again before the CD was made? In this case the further coding your end would change it very little? But this would seem very unlikely?

It has to be said that the artefacts of coding at high rates can be a bit subtle (and unusual) and when first meeting them it's necessary to learn what they are - after which of course you will hear them all the time and they may begin to get on your nerves :-( ALthough for some very compressed and saturated popular music the encoding actually improves it's sound IMHO..