Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › STOP TELLING PEOPLE YOU CAN'T TELL 192AAC VS LOSSLESS ILL PROVE IT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STOP TELLING PEOPLE YOU CAN'T TELL 192AAC VS LOSSLESS ILL PROVE IT - Page 7

post #91 of 463
OK, here we go:

Clip 1a
Clip 1b

If you are willing to do the test in Foobar, just download these two clips into a playlist, select them both, right click, and select Utils --> ABX Two Tracks.

If you want to do the test on your iPod, it's going to be a bit trickier, and you will need to use the ipod ABX program, which you can download here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...e=post&id=1946

I'll look into specifically how that project works and post more detailed instructions. In the meantime, here is the Hydrogen Audio thread with the program's instructions:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...2&#entry232182

Remember the parameters of the test:
  • Do 16 trials
  • If you're using Foobar's ABX program, check the "Hide results" box so that you can't see the results of each trial as you go along.
post #92 of 463
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
OK, here we go:

Clip 1
Clip 2

If you are willing to do the test in Foobar, just download these two clips into a playlist, select them both, right click, and select Utils --> ABX Two Tracks.

If you want to do the test on your iPod, it's going to be a bit trickier, and you will need to use the ipod ABX program, which you can download here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...e=post&id=1946

I'll look into specifically how that project works and post more detailed instructions.

Remember the parameters of the test:
  • Do 16 trials
  • If you're using Foobar's ABX program, check the "Hide results" box so that you can't see the results of each trial as you go along.
Just one file?
post #93 of 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
lossless sounds different from high bitrate encoding, but not better. using big lossless files for your music collection is a waste of hard drive space. mp3 sounds better, anyway.
THAT is truly the silliest thing I have read on this forum in a LONG time.
post #94 of 463
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylab View Post
THAT is truly the silliest thing I have read on this forum in a LONG time.
See what we are dealing with here!!!! I give up on the education part of Head-FI!
post #95 of 463
Hey Todd, I guarantee you a well recorded song at 128 will sound better than a poorly recorded song at lossless. I don't see why you're so worried about compression quality when the recording quality makes much more of a difference.
post #96 of 463
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrvile View Post
Hey Todd, I guarantee you a well recorded song at 128 will sound better than a poorly recorded song at lossless. I don't see why you're so worried about compression quality when the recording quality makes much more of a difference.
I agree with you and mentioned that already in the thread. If I do the test all songs have to be well recorded or its pointless.

To determine which worst recorded songs sounds the best is just pointless and a waste of time. WHat I wanted to prove was that well recorded music sounds noticably better than 192AAC encoded music of the same caliber recording.
post #97 of 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
lossless sounds different from high bitrate encoding, but not better. using big lossless files for your music collection is a waste of hard drive space. mp3 sounds better, anyway.
While I'm definitely in the lossless camp I agree with you. Lossless does sound different from high bit rate (lossy) encoding and which is better will depend on the ears of the individual. That's partly why just differentiating between the two is the important aspect of a test, stating which is better would be subjective. A lossless encoder will often put it's own signature on the track, older versions of LAME being perfect examples of this. Personally I prefer the sound to be as close to that of the original CD so lossless is a given. I don't see it as a waste of hard drive space though, space is dirt cheap these days.
post #98 of 463
Noob here - is there a faq that explains the acronyms, techniques, and cost/benefits, used in describing compression schemes (VBR, etc, file size differences, etc)? If so, please direct me.

MANY thanks!
post #99 of 463
hehe very true, i agree! although i use wma lossless because i have a zvm someone please encode a rockbox for it hehe
post #100 of 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandrake View Post
Noob here - is there a faq that explains the acronyms, techniques, and cost/benefits, used in describing compression schemes (VBR, etc, file size differences, etc)? If so, please direct me.

MANY thanks!
i have read one on this forum before, just try using the search function
post #101 of 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by trose49 View Post
I agree with you and mentioned that already in the thread. If I do the test all songs have to be well recorded or its pointless.

To determine which worst recorded songs sounds the best is just pointless and a waste of time. WHat I wanted to prove was that well recorded music sounds noticably better than 192AAC encoded music of the same caliber recording.
Yeah so um...if you keep complaining about compression and then go to your ipod or computer and listen to your all-powerful lossless tracks of some poorly recorded stuff, your argument is moot anyway...of course the UE10Pro are resolving and can pick out subtle differences between compression formats, but it also does a great job of revealing poorly recorded music. And most of today's music, barring classical and jazz, is pretty poorly recorded
post #102 of 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by trose49 View Post
After much abuse on the lossless schmossless thread. I put some John Mayer Continuum back on my IPOD in 192AAC.

Let me tell you. You dont need and a/b, abx, qzk, wkk, xyz test to tell that lossless blows the 192aac stuff away!!! NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!

I will Accept any challange of the same 10 songs in both formats with my UE-10's and if I dont get em all right I will eat my UE-10's. (gotta be something in it for me of course)

People Really! Defending compressed files especially to the noobies Shame on you! I dont care if its portable or not!

Now 320AAC I have not compared and thats a different story for now.

But the lesson of the day is dont encode to 192AAC if you use a high quality amp/LDO and good cans or IEMS.

You are missing what makes this "hobby" special!

WHeeeewwww I feel better. OK BRING IT ON! Im READY! LOL!
All of the threads you post have a look at me vibe.. Always contains large lettering, & words in bold??
post #103 of 463
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool bubba ice View Post
All of the threads you post have a look at me vibe.. Always contains large lettering, & words in bold??
Well Then LOOK AT ME!!!!
post #104 of 463
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trose49 View Post
Just one file?
any reason it is 10 secs played over and over cant get to the meat of the song! That song has a lite intro and builds
post #105 of 463
I agree with you 100% trose!

get some rest!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › STOP TELLING PEOPLE YOU CAN'T TELL 192AAC VS LOSSLESS ILL PROVE IT