Originally Posted by Hi-Fi Low-Life
Implicit in this statement is their opinion that MP3 is NOT sonically equivalent to the original.
And that implicit in THAT statement is the assertion that they can actually hear a difference, as assertion that they have failed to support or even address.
Under that premise, listening test would be a foregone conclusion and pointless.
No. This is precisely my point. It is NOT a foregone conclusion. It is factual assertion that is verifiable, but which they failed to verify.
Regardless of the fact that the article did not contain a listening test, it explored the differences between various codecs, various bit-rates and CD and quite clearly illustrates what these codecs do to the music that is so important to us.
But it did not explore whether "what these codecs do to the music" is audible.
Originally Posted by Logistics
:/ I'm not sure why you feel it conflicts. If the minimum allowed bitrate is 320, which is also strictly enforced by -F, and the -V is used, the MP3 essentially becomes 320 CBR. That is pointless; but conflicting?
Yes, conflicting. And pointless, too, I'll agree with you there
If you want a 320kbps CBR file, just use the -b 320 switch. There is no need for the -V preset.
Well, with your statement, you called into question my ability to truly hear differences. How am I supposed to receive that? o_0 It sounded as if you would like to prove that it's all in my mind. Why would you want to do that?
It has been my experience that very many people here at Head-Fi make the claim that they can differentiate between a high-bitrate MP3 and the original, but very few have actually been able to demonstrate that their claim is true. For example, HiFire started a "Public ABX Test" thread a while back in which he set up a blind ABX test of several clips encoded at -V2. Not a single person successfully demonstrated that they could tell the -V2 encoded MP3s from the original. Similarly, there was a poll a while back asking "Can you hear a difference between -V 0 and the original?" Out of approximately 100 respondents, only about 25% claimed that they could hear a difference, and out of that 25, only 2 actually substantiated their claim with ABX results as the rules of the poll required. Hydrogen Audio listening tests have show that new versions of LAME reach transparency somewhere around -V5.
I used to think that I could hear differences between 160kbps files and the original. However, when I did volume-matched blind testing, the differences that I thought I heard disappeared.
Contrary to your post, there is no way that I could prove that you cannot hear a difference, and I would never attempt to do so in any event. It is entirely possible--though unlikely--that you in fact in the very small minority of people who can distinguish a 320kbps MP3 from the original. However, given the fact that so many make that claim yet so few can actually do it, I will remain skeptical of your claim unless and until you support it with ABX test results.