On 2017-01-24 20:19, Tony Quinn wrote:
On 24-Jan-17 8:16 PM, Tony Quinn wrote:
On 24-Jan-17 8:11 PM, Jeremy Nicoll - ml gip wrote:
I have some original recordings made in the last year or two at
choral concerts - mostly
24 bit, 44.1 khz, stereo uncompressed WAV files, made with ecent
quality condenser mics.
I was surprised how hard it was to tell the originals apart from eg
320kbps MP3 let alone
eg 160kbps. And I was listening extremely carefully, criticising my
own recordings.
I assume that you weren't doing a blind test, so one can expect some
sort of conformation bias to play a part here too.
Obviously that should have read "....confirmation bias"
Bias could have worked in either direction though.
I /expected/ to be able to discriminate easily, and couldn't. I didn't
listen to the whole
concert at each quality level, just snippets of audio which I thought
might be more or less
blurred depending on quality - rapid note sequences, very quiet passages
(but then audience
and venue noise was a problem there), very loud passages and so on. I
was listening for
detail I knew to be present on the original recording trying to assess
whether it wasn't as
precise in the MP3 files. It wasn't scientific and I know I could (and
probably will) do
a better job on that sometime, but nevertheless I didn't get the
impression that 360kbps MP3
was all that bad.
So am I keeping the 24 bit originals? Yes. Maybe younger ears can
still hear the difference.
--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own
_______________________________________________
get_iplayer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
