For the MP3 versus CD test your ran, I did pick out the metal track as
different (9/10 times no cherry picking using randomised playlists I
correctly identified A versus B) although I couldn't actually say which
one was CD i.e. couldn't say which was better! But it shows a
difference is audible.
Archimago wrote:
As typical for that site.
For more details around that 44 vs. 88kHz paper, have a look at this
thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264
Remember, only 3/16 listeners in that paper got significant results
overall and all admitted to feeling
SBGK wrote:
with mp3 vs cd all that is required is to find a complicated bit of
music and it will be evident that the psychoacoustics employed by mp3
cannot resolve the detail and it becomes slurred, no A/B testing
required just listen to a 10s segment for slurred detail compared to the
CD
Julf wrote:
Without doing it under controlled double-blind ABX conditions, you won't
know if the lack of detail is due to your hearing or your belief system.
Some people seem to trust their belief system more than their ears.
I really don't understand.
How is it that relatively informed
Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said during an interview on The Colbert
Report, Once science has been established, once a scientific truth
emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way
of the world. What Im saying is, when different experiments give you
the same result,
get.amped wrote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said during an interview on The Colbert
Report, Once science has been established, once a scientific truth
emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way
of the world. What Im saying is, when different experiments give
Julf wrote:
Without doing it under controlled double-blind ABX conditions, you won't
know if the lack of detail is due to your hearing or your belief system.
Some people seem to trust their belief system more than their ears.
There is a simpler way. Using AudioDiffMaker often gives the
darrenyeats wrote:
For the MP3 versus CD test your ran, I did pick out the metal track as
different (9/10 times no cherry picking using randomised playlists I
correctly identified A versus B) although I couldn't actually say which
one was CD i.e. couldn't say which was better! But it shows a
SBGK wrote:
with mp3 vs cd all that is required is to find a complicated bit of
music and it will be evident that the psychoacoustics employed by mp3
cannot resolve the detail and it becomes slurred, no A/B testing
required just listen to a 10s segment for slurred detail compared to the
CD
Something I came across when I subscibed to WiMP:
The difference between their 256 kB MP3 files and their lossless FLAC
files is VERY evident.
This is quite contrary to my my previous experiences, when I converted a
96/24 Flac file down to 44.1/16 FLAC, 320 kB MP3 and 128 kB MP3. Only
with the
foxx wrote:
Something I came across when I subscibed to WiMP:
The difference between their 256 kB MP3 files and their lossless FLAC
files is VERY evident.
This is quite contrary to my my previous experiences, when I converted a
96/24 Flac file down to 44.1/16 FLAC, 320 kB MP3 and 128 kB
Mnyb wrote:
Maybe similar with spotify premium , but not soo evident ,just a slight
diff ( unconfirmed ) , but they use ogg not mp3.
But I think they are cheaping out of CPU cycles and use less expensive
options in these lossy formats , using the best psychoacoustic models
use much more
Archimago wrote:
Interesting comment about the MP3 decoding on the SB units. I assume the
ARM-based Touch/Radio should have better decoding algorithm than the
earlier SB3/Boom/Transporter IP3k-based devices?
Indeed. Not all MP3 encoders were created equal so one can't say modern
LAME is
13 matches
Mail list logo
