Best Sturgis-esque metalcore reference album?

[crillemannen]

that's great! thanks for posting that link. I love controlled tests like that. There seems to be a lot of claims in the audio world about people saying they can hear a difference between this or that ( for instance a real amp vs a modeler or any other hardware unit vs a plug in), yet every time there is a controlled test, no one (or very very few) seem to win. I personally can't tell the difference between 320 mp3 (or probably even lower) vs wav/flac/etc.

I did test the whole 320kb/mp3 against .wav not long ago. I can hear the difference in my studio. The mp3 loses a little bit of the topend and also it sounds a bit more compressed aka loss of dynamics.

The .wav maybe sounds 5% better, nothing to be bother about really and when i reference listen i almost always have mp3's at hand and not .wave.

 

[Studdy]

It depends on the song, but most mp3's have something different in the high end going on almost smeared or washy. Im not saying I have the best ears and i'd be able to identify an mp3 or wav if i didnt know, but if i had a wav/flac file and the mp3 side by side I would be able to hear a difference most of the time. Mostly in the high end. I always listen to mp3's but if i was referencing a mix and my mix is also going to end in wav form i'd reference with a wav file if i could.

 

[Mago]

I haven't tried the 320kb mp3 vs wav thing for a while, but honestly I'm not sure if I'd hear a whole lot. I have no issues with listening to 320kb mp3s, they sound fine to me.

My guess is, that part of the reason why a lot of people "think" they can pick it out 100% also on 320kb, is because the earlier codecs where really easy to spot. I still don't like what 256kb does, but 320 is fine for me.
So maybe theres some "bad memory" playing a mind trick here, when thinking of mp3.

I did test the whole 320kb/mp3 against .wav not long ago. I can hear the difference in my studio. The mp3 loses a little bit of the topend and also it sounds a bit more compressed aka loss of dynamics.

The .wav maybe sounds 5% better, nothing to be bother about really and when i reference listen i almost always have mp3's at hand and not .wave.

did you do an ABX test? How did you test it, if not?

 

[Erik Monsonis]

It's all more of a placebo effect than real difference nowadays. I don't think anyone can differentiate between 320kb mp3 and wav/flac whatever if the mp3 has been coded with the proper tools. Not even the high end or dynamics (I'm not speaking of shitty codec rips). Anyways Youtube quality sucks, but the real point is if I want to check a snare or a bass or just a mix, the features of it that will get my attention can be heard even in youtube videos. If I want to reference overheads then I'll need more quality for sure.

 

[egan.]

Since I derailed the thread I feel I once again need to point out that we are talking about buying references and you have a choice between buying these as CD's or 256k MP3's. 320 isn't an option in this case. I stand by the statement, if you're going to buy a reference there is no reason to buy one that compromised. I accept that you can get what you need from a lower fidelity reference but we are talking about paying money for something.

 

[Studdy]

Well said Egan.