![]() ![]() With ADPCM only starting to do better against 128kbps or lower MP3s, in my tests today using the IMA ADPCM encoder with FFMPEG. I would have to agree with 2Bdecided on this. Of course, I no longer have a need for ADPCM. ![]() My PCM sources are CDs and older/non-mainstream at that - i.e., not mastered so hot as to be worthless IMHO. Personally (and, hence, subjectively), I could not distinguish ADPCM vs PCM for the same material whereas I can here the difference between mp3 and PCM. The problem with such a hard claim is that mp3 relies on psychoacoustics and no one model of the human auditory perceptual system can possibly represent every listener of mp3 encoded material. No, ADPCM is demonstrably dramatically worse than highbitrate mp3. If you encode mp3 at the maximum bitrate they, IMHO, you might as well use ADPCM. I'd probably only believe someone if they actually had to go to a location and have a 3rd party administer a 320kbit MP3 vs lossless test. Sadly this makes me suspicious of any claims of being able to tell a difference between lossless and high bitrate MP3. Making it easy to pick out which was which during testing with Audacity. The MP3 version had a low pass filter applied to it, cutting off frequencies above ~20khz while the lossless source went all the way up to ~21.5khz. Which is what I did when I took this test using the audio samples provided in that thread (). It's still easy to use an outside spectrum analyzer like Audacity to look at the spectrum of the audio playing during your test. While I'm going to guess it's pretty difficult to tamper with the ABX logs and have it pass the signaturecheck website. ![]() There is just no way of knowing if they were being honest.īut lets say the same tests happened today with the newer version of ABX testing in foobar2000, with encrypted hashes. Making it super simply to just edit the text to fit your liking, and no one would know. It's also too bad that this is an old thread dating back before the ABX plugin was updated with encrypted log hashes and hashes for the files being tested included in the log. But they seemed to have fixed it half way down the first page. But you just said you can't hear the difference between 192kbit lameMP3 and lossless.Īnyway with the forum thread you posted, I'm not entirely sure what you are pointing out but the OP in that thread posted an errored MP3 originally (lame decoder issue apparently) making it easy to spot the difference between the two files. And I wouldn't say the difference between lossless and even 320kbps CBR LAME MP3 is that difficult to hear - Head-fi Blind Test - FLAC vs 320 MP3.Īnd I wouldn't say the difference between lossless and even 320kbps CBR LAME MP3 is that difficult to hear - Head-fi Blind Test - FLAC vs 320 MP3. But if he has the CD, why not buy a large hard drive and make the initial rip into Apple Lossless for archival? (I only say Apple Lossless because it sounds like he is working with iTunes). I am one of those people who does not hear the difference between 192kbps LAME MP3 and lossless. You can do ABX tests with a ABX plugin for foobar2000, to do your own easy comparisons between different audio encodings. So considering that AAC Nero and AAC Apple codecs are better than lameMP3 at low bitrates, I think it's fair to say that either one of these AAC codecs should be far and away transparent to you foobar2000 supports encoding with both Nero and Apple codecs with Apple considered to be slightly better in low bitrate tests. I am not one of those special individuals, if they even exist. ![]() It takes a special individual with quality audio equipment and exceptional ears to be able to reliably discern between 192kbit lameMP3 and a FLAC, in an ABX test. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |