Originally Posted by Sir Nobax
Ok.... thats probably your most foolish comment you made in this threat, it was an comparison between an uncompressed pure sound and a mp3 rip of it. I hope your ears are better then your eyes.
The ad hominem
attack does nothing to advance your argument. Plus, you have completely missed my point. "Better" can have many different meanings and you haven't defined how you are using it.
If it is your position that the graphs show that one codec will sound "better" than another, I disagree. "Better," in that context is wholly subjective. While it is certainly possible to observe and evaluate subjective opinions on how codecs sound (see the Hydrogen Audio listening tests for an example of how this can be accomplished in a rigorous scientific manner), you must
first established that the listener can hear a difference before you can draw any valid results, and the only way to do that is through a listening test.
If it is your position that the graphs show that one codec is "better" because it retains more of the data that is contained in the original, then I don't dispute your conclusion, but the conclusion bears no relationship to how the codec will sound for a variety of reasons that have already been discussed at length in this thread, including the fact that (1) it is the goal of lossy encoders to discard data while retaining subjective quality, and (2) lossy encoders are designed to work with music, not with pure tones.
|Or you know a mp3 codec wich sounds better (SQ) then the pure, clean, perfect, uncompressed file, if so please share it.
Again, this is not the point. I do
know of mp3 codecs that render files that are indistinguishable to the original for a large majority of the population. Your graphs do not identify which codecs are effective in creating lossy files that are indistinguishable from the original, and which are not. You need to do a listening test to determine that.
Originally Posted by Gurra1980
Ok, so we schouldn't talk about what sounds best, because we know that some people actually preferes lossy to lossless. But we can se what codec is most like the lossless file, as hydrocity says "How you people say a graph is not accurate when you clearly see some of the rolloff?" I think this is true.
The issue is not
whether you can see
the roll-off. Clearly, the roll-off is visible. The issue is whether you can hear
the roll-off. The only way to make that determination is to conduct a listening test.