[bigshot]

The most temperamental thing I've tried to encode is the Rhino Sammy Davis Jr box. There was a slight gurgle to the strings even at 192/AAC. For 99% of the recordings I encode 192/AAC is plenty though. (For MP3s, I generally use 256.)

If I were you, I'd encode one notch above the line where you can't hear the difference any more. Sometimes subtle artifacting becomes more apparent (and more annoying) on repeated hearings. If you give yourself a little buffer, you'll never have to go back and reencode anything.

See ya
Steve

 

[rauer]

Lewdog, I'm in the same boat as you but even lack the music background. A while ago there was a largish ABX test of different lossy codecs at 128kbps at Hydrogenaudio. I tried it briefly and am embarrassed to admit not only was I unable to tell any lossy codecs apart but even hear the difference from the original wav.

On the other hand, there seem to be certain lossy codec artefacts like pre-echo etc. that give them away. If you (we/I) haven't trained to notice them, you may well not do it.

There are so many technical aspects to music listening in addition to the lossy codecs. Heck this whole forum's about technology. That's one hobby. I actively try (and sometimes fail) to keep my hobby's emphasis in the content, the music.

IMHO, only upgrade (hardware, codec, whatever) when something really bothers you in the audio experience, not just for the sake of upgrading. Of course that and the search for the perfect sound seems to be the hobby for many others. That's naturally fine for them, but not me.

 

[bigshot]

I've found this page to be very interesting...

Artifact Training Page
http://ff123.net/training/training.html

See ya
Steve

 

[ogewo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim D Electronic music is easy to encode and has no point of reference... Encode some very aggressive/fast violin playing, you will have a very strong point of reference obviously...

I second this. Due to your experience you may pick up some subtle things in a violin piece and miss things in an electronic one.

 

[rauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewdog I guess the real test will be doing this same thing with some different artists/types of music. Any suggestions for pieces that would show the difference well?

I don't think you should invent the wheel again. Take a look at Hydrogenaudio's forum. They use semi-official samples like "castanets", "fat boy" etc. that should really bring out the differences in codecs.

 

[rauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I've found this page to be very interesting... Artifact Training Page http://ff123.net/training/training.html

Thanks for the URL! It was very interesting and revealing. Though I have to say I was wondering if I really want to learn more about this or not, because ignorance is bliss.

Any other similar sites with samples?

 

[breadnbutter]

Even if you can't tell the difference between 128 mp3 and the original you can still appreciate a decent headphone setup. I think the deficits of headphones and music encoding are quite different. So even a 128 mp3 can in some respects sound much better with good headphones. On the other hand the deficits of the encoding may become painfully clear.
So if you appreciate the first point but have no problem with the second you are fine. I recently got a HD 650 / Corda HA-2 and listened to some older 128 mp3's. Some sounded better with the new cans, others were awfull and some just changed. Anyway, I am now reripping them...

 

[D555]

A hobby is for everyone and evey budget.

If you're having fun -- that's what matters.

Paul

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim D Finally the folks at hydrogen audio are just about anti-audiophile as you can get and their consensus is alt-preset-standard as being at the point of transparency.

The folks at Hydrogen audio are not anti-audiophile, they are just anti-BS, and insist that claims be backed up with objective data. This does seem to scare the Hell out of a lot of audiophiles, but that is their problem.

Alt-preset-standard is considered to be at or near the point of transparency vs. a CD because in blind tests that's just simply the case for the vast majority of the population, including trained listeners, whether anyone chooses to believe it or not. Of course, none of that applies here because most everyone on this forum seems to be in that other one or two percent that can tell the difference...

BTW, the article being mentioned in this thread can be read at: http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html

 

[elrod-tom]

The important thing, of course, is that you enjoy your music. I listen to music in environments (at work, in my car) where the audio is nowhere near the level of my home rig. In these environments, I can enjoy listening to compressed files without making much (if any) sacrifice in quality. If I do so in my home rig, it makes a huge difference. In the end, I'm listening to music in all cases, and that's OK.

And yes, I can tell the difference between mp3's on my home rig...as I mentioned in a similar thread earlier today. That doesn't make mp3's bad. In fact, I can carry the equivalent of 300 CD's worth of music with me to work, all ripped at 320K, and enjoy it a great deal. I'll enjoy it less at home on better equipment, however...that's just the way it is.

 

[Tim D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic The folks at Hydrogen audio are not anti-audiophile, they are just anti-BS, and insist that claims be backed up with objective data. This does seem to scare the Hell out of a lot of audiophiles, but that is their problem. Alt-preset-standard is considered to be at or near the point of transparency vs. a CD because in blind tests that's just simply the case for the vast majority of the population, including trained listeners, whether anyone chooses to believe it or not. Of course, none of that applies here because most everyone on this forum seems to be in that other one or two percent that can tell the difference... BTW, the article being mentioned in this thread can be read at: http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html

Thats what I meant...I just didn't want to type that much. A well encoded LAME aps would probably be at the point of popping a blood vessel in my forehead level of comparison. However I can still tell 160 CBR's and particularly non-js CBR's below 192 even. But I have grown up with Mp3's and I'm quite familiar with the sound of their shortcomings. I snagged the fraunhofer encoder back in the BBS dial-up modem days and I forgot what OS I was using back then.

To be fair a LAME vbs js 128 kb mp3 or AAC is head and shoulders over the original standard fare 128 kb Fraunhofer encoded mp3's of yesteryears.

 

[eric.w]

I have felt the same way you have..
for example, there are cd's that are easier to listen to on a cheap cd player, than on my modded 3950 + gilmore dynamic + hd600 setup.. and I think... what was the point of all that??

I have that postal service CD, and while I like the music a lot, I don't think it's a particularly good recording, and I don't think you will hear MP3 artifacts when you compress it. Mp3 artifacts will be very obvious on the right music.. try a really well-recorded classical piece, or jazz where you can hear every little detail of the paino and every time the cymbols are brushed.. Kinda like how JPEG or MPEG works well on natural photos, but can't compress cartoons as well without ugly artifacts.

 

[kfh227]

In the past, I've encoded a track at 192 kbps in MP3 format.

I can not recall the artists/song but ...
It dropped sound sound out blatently for an unknown reason. It was only a few notes, but it's not exactly quiet, barely audible parts. it was something like several drum beats in a row.

Point is, even if you can't tell, scenereios will come up where compression is obviously flawed. The scenerio above first occured at 128 kbps. I was shocked that it compressed to such a severe degree. I was even more shocked when 192 also failed. Didn't bother trying 256 kbps. What's the point of 256 kbps

 

[kfh227]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric.w I have felt the same way you have.. for example, there are cd's that are easier to listen to on a cheap cd player, than on my modded 3950 + gilmore dynamic + hd600 setup.. and I think... what was the point of all that?? I have that postal service CD, and while I like the music a lot, I don't think it's a particularly good recording, and I don't think you will hear MP3 artifacts when you compress it. Mp3 artifacts will be very obvious on the right music.. try a really well-recorded classical piece, or jazz where you can hear every little detail of the paino and every time the cymbols are brushed.. Kinda like how JPEG or MPEG works well on natural photos, but can't compress cartoons as well without ugly artifacts.

Dianna Krall's "All For You" might work. if you have it. You can hear her hitting the foot pedles on the piano on some occasions. It's very subtle but noticable on decent gear. It's the exact kind of thing that MP3 compression tries to filter out.

MP3 compression works by reducing hte amount of needed data. It basically tries to find innaudible portions of the music that you can't hear anyways. It then removes those portions. That's how it reduces the amount of data needed to reporduce the sound.