A visual comparison of mp3 320k, 192k, and FLAC
Nov 12, 2008 at 10:51 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 24

johnation33

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Posts
198
Likes
10
So just to give a visual comparison of the different lossy formats and lossless (FLAC):


FLAC:
ImageShack - Hosting :: flacvv2.png

320k MP3 (LAME CODEC):
ImageShack - Hosting :: 320lamelg3.png

192k MP3 (LAME CODEC):
ImageShack - Hosting :: 192lamejs9.png

128k MP3 (aka crappy):
ImageShack - Hosting :: 128lamewl3.png

Note how audio information is lost as you move along... not only is their clipping at higher frequencies (with 320k mp3 clipping frequency to 20khz and 128k clipping almost 4000hz of frequency down to 16000hz) but the "bars" become thinner as more and more gaps are created.
 
Nov 12, 2008 at 11:43 PM Post #2 of 24

chinesekiwi

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Posts
3,797
Likes
28
Why don't we just hotlink the pics eh?

FLAC:

flacvv2.png


320 kbps mp3 (LAME):

320lamelg3.png


192 kbps MP3 (LAME):

192lamejs9.png


128 kbps mp3 (LAME):

128lamewl3.png


Anyway, can you give us a VBR (e.g. vbr -v0 LAME) comparision also as that would be interesting as well
smily_headphones1.gif

EDIT: Why isn't the FLAC one to scale?
 
Nov 13, 2008 at 8:06 AM Post #4 of 24

b0dhi

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Posts
2,070
Likes
21
Those bars losing time-domain detail are interesting. Would be good to have matched graphs tho.
 
Nov 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM Post #5 of 24

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,761
Likes
76
Yeah, its quite obvious that audio data get lost during lossy encoding.
Hence I stick with lossless!
biggrin.gif
 
Nov 13, 2008 at 3:59 PM Post #6 of 24

nick_charles

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
3,180
Likes
334
Quote:

Originally Posted by johnation33 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Note how audio information is lost as you move along... not only is their clipping at higher frequencies (with 320k mp3 clipping frequency to 20khz and 128k clipping almost 4000hz of frequency down to 16000hz) but the "bars" become thinner as more and more gaps are created.


It is not really clipping, what you are seeing is the effect of the lowpass filter, this filter is at different levels for different MP3 settings , but you can actually override it to some extent. The gaps is a result of the psychoacoustic phenomenon of masking which is used in the codec algorithms to decide which frequencies will be least missed, if you have two very close frequencies and one is a few db higher than the other then the other will be (almost) inaudible (masked).

The impact of low pass filters is interesting, late 1970s research[1] suggests that the insertion of low pass filters at 20K, 18K and even 16K is quite difficult to detect reliably, even when using music with high levels of 20K + frequencies and transducers capable of reproducing it. Only when you set the low pass to 14K does it become easy to detect it.


1. Sampling-Frequency Considerations in Digital Audio
TERUO MURAOKA, YOSHlHlKO YAMADA, AND MASAMI YAMAZAKI
 
Nov 14, 2008 at 5:24 AM Post #8 of 24

b0dhi

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Posts
2,070
Likes
21
Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The gaps is a result of the psychoacoustic phenomenon of masking which is used in the codec algorithms to decide which frequencies will be least missed, if you have two very close frequencies and one is a few db higher than the other then the other will be (almost) inaudible (masked).


The gaps are along the x-axis, and hence are time-domain, not frequency domain as you suggest.
 
Nov 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM Post #9 of 24

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,761
Likes
76
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alleyman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Now post sound samples of BMP, PNG and JPEG image files at different compression levels. It basically amounts to the same thing.


Yeah, sound samples would be nice.
There are no question that there are data loss during lossy compression. If its audible is a different matter
 
Nov 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM Post #11 of 24

frank99

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Posts
135
Likes
16
Thanks for the information here, will stick to lossless just for safe.
 
Nov 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM Post #12 of 24

nick_charles

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
3,180
Likes
334
Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The gaps are along the x-axis, and hence are time-domain, not frequency domain as you suggest.


Doh !, you are of course completely right, I am being silly.

here is masking

AudioMaskingThreshold.png
 
Nov 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM Post #13 of 24

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,761
Likes
76
Quote:

Originally Posted by frank99 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Thanks for the information here, will stick to lossless just for safe.


Great choice!
bigsmile_face.gif
 
Nov 19, 2008 at 7:15 AM Post #15 of 24

|Fred

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Posts
57
Likes
10
where people can't hear the difference, those graph become useful to show them there is one.

ihmo those graph are pretty meaning less, considering that in blind test you wont head difference in band restitution, what are most likely to pick up on the other hand are the "distortion artefact" in low bit rate compression.
When freq band restitution is audible in mp3 compression it's the result of poor encoding method and excessive use of low and high pass filter.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top