Archimago wrote:
I'll take option 3:
It sounds bad by design - nothing to do with pro-gear, audiophile gear,
etc... ie. tuned for radio, cheap car stereos, white iPod earbud,
mastered for iTunes.
I suspect many sound engineers must be ashamed of their work but realize
they just need the
Here's a first log of this morning. Not quite as good as yesterday, but
still obvious.
I'm somehow flabbergasted.
+---+
|Filename: Roll.txt |
|Download:
Quad wrote:
Here's a first log of this morning. Not quite as good as yesterday, but
still obvious.
I'm somehow flabbergasted.
That's pretty good Quad. Wondering what settings/program you used for
MP3 encoding?
I have that album so will have a good listen to the song myself...
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I have some test tracks (Chesky, I think) which have recordings of
instruments at different distances from the mic. It also has instruments
at different height relative to the mic. I or in my system I dont think
I can notice the height very well. But the distance is
Archimago wrote:
That's pretty good Quad. Wondering what settings/program you used for
MP3 encoding?
I have that album so will have a good listen to the song myself...
LAME 3.99.5 within foobar. For settings refer to the attachment.
The piano intro was easiest for me to distinguish
Here's another one. Harder but possible.
It is the infamous recording that caused discussions in the version of
HDTracks. I own the redbook version.
+---+
|Filename: Concerto.txt |
Archimago wrote:
I'll take option 3:
It sounds bad by design - nothing to do with pro-gear, audiophile gear,
etc... ie. tuned for radio, cheap car stereos, white iPod earbud,
mastered for iTunes.
In that vein... 'The Daily Mash: Tesco launces economy music range'
Kellen wrote:
I have tried all and cant tell a sound differences but have heard it
said its a possiblity.
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet - especially
audiophile forums. :)
Julf's Profile:
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I have not done much testing but Spotify is easily discernible for me
from my original FLAC tracks.
Didn't someone show that spotify was using dynamic compression?
Julf's Profile:
Julf wrote:
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet - especially
audiophile forums. :)
yupp - but everytime there is a background behind that makes (in some
cases) sense.
Since u USB Stick is in the USB Specs - a USB Stick will run fine.
Since a Harddisk is more complex it has two
DJanGo wrote:
So this background it too complex for those who are talking about
differences - but its quite simple and if more will tell others why
these audiophile nonsense would stay in the corner it belongs to.
I would so much like to agree with you. But there is one fallacy in your
Even harder, but still discernible.
The original here is 24/192 while the MP3 is 24/48, downsampled with the
built-in foobar SRC. I might hear the donwsampling algorithm and not the
codec.
+---+
|Filename: Sor.txt
Quad wrote:
Are p-values and result tables part of the automatically generated ABX
log? That's all I can post, I'm not a scientist. Give me some time...
yep, the log, thanks.
garym's Profile:
Julf wrote:
Didn't someone show that spotify was using dynamic compression?
As far as I can tell they don't.
However, there are PLENTY of examples where the master they have ripped
is different to the master for my particular CD rip (and as always this
can manifest in dynamic compression, EQ
Julf wrote:
Didn't someone show that spotify was using dynamic compression?
Yes, but I can't locate the info where I saw that right now. Definitely
some evidence was provided that documented that there was additional
processing of the Spotify tracks. So any mp3 FLAC comparison should
I'm not sure I understand this conversation ... Spotify is Ogg Vorbis?
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98374
SoftwireEngineer wrote:
I have some test tracks (Chesky, I think) which have recordings of
instruments at different distances from the mic. It also has instruments
at different height relative to the mic. I or in my system I dont think
I can notice the height very well. But the distance is
darrenyeats wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this conversation ... Spotify is Ogg Vorbis?
correct. So none of these mp3 vs FLAC tests are valid if the comparison
is to spotify (not to mention the evident extra compression folks have
found in spotify files)
garym wrote:
correct. So none of these mp3 vs FLAC tests are valid if the comparison
is to spotify (not to mention the evident extra compression folks have
found in spotify files)
Please see my previous post re: dynamic compression.
darrenyeats wrote:
Please see my previous post re: dynamic compression.
got it. can't seem to locate it (maybe it was a different forum), but
someone had done digital captures, etc. to try and show this
compression. But as you point out use of different masters could also
explain this
Quad wrote:
Even harder, but still discernible.
The original here is 24/192 while the MP3 is 24/48, downsampled with the
built-in foobar SRC. I might hear the donwsampling algorithm and not the
codec.
Aha. You're interpreting the test results incorrectly. (You must be
thinking that a high
Julf wrote:
In that vein... 'The Daily Mash: Tesco launces economy music range'
(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/tesco-launches-economy-music-range-2013032763966).
Tesco is wasting their money since American Idol already fills that
roll.
garym wrote:
Aha. You're interpreting the test results incorrectly. (You must be
thinking that a high percentage is good...in fact a high percentage
means something very different here) The log you posted indicates that
you can't distinguish between the lossy and lossess tracks. You would
Quad wrote:
Hmm... Did you have a look at all 3 logs I posted? The first two have a
p-value of 5.5% and the last one 24%. I'm not sure if those percentages
are indicating the p-value though. But 5.5% means, 8 out of 10 were
guessed correctly.
I only saw the one log you posted. the one with
Quad wrote:
Hmm... Did you have a look at all 3 logs I posted? The first two have a
p-value of 5.5% and the last one 24%. I'm not sure if those percentages
are indicating the p-value though. But 5.5% means, 8 out of 10 were
guessed correctly.
that's not exactly the interpretation. 5.5 means
garym wrote:
that's not exactly the interpretation. 5.5 means that there is only a
5.5% probability (about 1 out of 20) that you correctly identified the
source (lossy) is from pure chance. But yes, the results indicate that
one can reject the null hypothesis that you can't distinguish
ralphpnj wrote:
Tesco is wasting their money since American Idol already fills that
roll.
Fills that roll? With cheese?
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
darrenyeats's Profile:
darrenyeats wrote:
Fills that roll? With cheese?
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Correct, everything about American Idol is pretty cheesy.
ralphpnj's Profile:
garym wrote:
And without getting two bogged down in statistics, when one runs
multiple tests, the p-values have to be adjusted to account for this.
(think of the idea that one asserts he can correctly predict heads or
tails in a coin flip 10 times in a row. If one runs this test enough
Quad wrote:
Even harder, but still discernible.
The original here is 24/192 while the MP3 is 24/48, downsampled with the
built-in foobar SRC. I might hear the donwsampling algorithm and not the
codec.
Quad, why don't you try downsampling with the best downsampler you have
to 16/44 and
Quad wrote:
Ok, I tested the same track as this morning again. This time I tried to
be more focused and clicked the answer only when I was really sure. Is a
p-value of 1.1% in the second shot enough to eliminate the doubts on the
first with 5.5%?
I suspect that it could be so easy for me
garym wrote:
seems clear that you can distinguish well with this track. But you
yourself have noted why this might be the case for this particular
track. There have always been problem tracks that people can tell
differences in. And by problem track I just mean a track with
something
garym wrote:
seems clear that you can distinguish well with this track. But you
yourself have noted why this might be the case for this particular
track. There have always been problem tracks that people can tell
differences in. And by problem track I just mean a track with
something
Archimago wrote:
True, he can distinguish the 2 tracks based on the ABX results, but as
far as I can tell, there are still too many unanswered questions... As I
suggested above, MP3 needs to be tested on CD data, not hi-res input
shoe-horned into a lossy encoder after SRC and bit-depth
Quad wrote:
But my personal null hypothesis was: Under no circumstances I'm able to
hear any difference between FLAC and 320kbps on a properly converted
radio-friendly track.
For this case, the null hypothesis has to be rejected.
correct. but you should really follow archimago's advice
Quad wrote:
I have posted 4 ABX logs so far. No. 1 and 4 are done with Roll, Roll,
Roll. But no. 2 is a track from a Händel Organ Concerto and no.3 is a
guitar tune by Fernando Sor.
Just the last one was hi-res. The others were all 16/44 for Flac and
MP3.
That's really good!
You should
Quad wrote:
I have posted 4 ABX logs so far. No. 1 and 4 are done with Roll, Roll,
Roll. But no. 2 is a track from a Händel Organ Concerto and no.3 is a
guitar tune by Fernando Sor.
Just the last one was hi-res. The others were all 16/44 for Flac and
MP3.
Ah. Ok. So to clarify, if we
Archimago wrote:
That's really good!
You should get onto Hydrogen Audio and be one of their CODEC testers!
I agree. There are people with uniquely good* hearing for these sorts of
things and you appear to be one of them. (And you've documented this
with ABX tests, unlike the many other
garym wrote:
Ah. Ok. So to clarify, if we ignore the hires downsample track, you
tested 3 tracks and on two of them you were able to distinguish based on
ABX test. Correct?
Exactly. Not more and not less.
garym wrote:
I agree. There are people with uniquely good* hearing for these sorts
Quad wrote:
I actually like the assumption posted in that other blog. If a codec
thinks something is overshadowed by other frequencies and decides to
eliminate that, this might just work for the average (good) ear. As soon
as the the information which supposedly should be dominant is longer
Archimago wrote:
That's pure BS Waldo and you know it! Hex coding sounded prickly as
hell with all those 16 sides...
BINARY is where it's at! Makes PCM sound DSD! Music of the gods, my
friend...
:-)
OK. I will try using a laser to zap those cells in the ROM one by one
:)
Sadly I work
You can't really make this up :)
http://www.lessloss.com/laminar-streamer-sd-player-p-207.html
These are the clowns behind the blackbody a product I usually link
too when we are having fun
Mnyb's Profile:
Mnyb wrote:
You can't really make this up :)
http://www.lessloss.com/laminar-streamer-sd-player-p-207.html
These are the clowns behind the blackbody a product I usually link
too when we are having fun
Funny thing is one of your fellow Swedes linked to the laminar streamer
on the
Latest goings on in the world of clowns.
It's now official: PCM, regardless of bit depth and sample rate is
dead.
Long live DSD!!!
http://www.stereophile.com/content/news-flash-oppo-now-plays-dsd-files
ralphpnj's
Sigh .
The oppo itself is good stuff .
But a pity (but expected) that stereophile is jumping on the DSD
bandwagon .
The last thing the audio world need is even more consumer formats
especially as we have several that are perfectly fine and transparent to
human listeners (pcm equal or greater
ralphpnj wrote:
Funny thing is one of your fellow Swedes linked to the laminar streamer
on the Stereophile forum back in December
(http://forum.stereophile.com/content/i-cant-wait) and of course I
responded by calling the product pure BS and of course I was dismissed
with some typical
46 matches
Mail list logo
