[Chef Medeski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsansite /img/forum/go_quote.gif It may be intimidating but you said that you wanted to be as objective as possible, your post contained only subjective impressions. There is a forum dedicated entirely to music compression methods which has many objective and subjective threads of this nature. Its called Hydrogenaudio.

You see I took a venture over to Hyrdrogenaudio the other day. That place is a mess. They talk... and I'm just like

. Like What. Plus they only test like 128kbps or below. For people who go into so much detail about differences you would think they would like more quality. But anyways.... it was nearly impossible to get any information by reading their stuff. I'm trying out Ogg Vorbis right now though. Since it works in iTunes, I can try it out easy. The problem is with implementing it within my iPod. Yet, I dont have one right now... so no worries. YET!

 

[Febs]

A number of the tests shown here are above 128kbps: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....istening_Tests

But in any event, one thing that you need to recognize is that in order to conduct an objective listening test, you need to first establish that the people who are participating in your test can actually hear a difference between two competing codecs. Very few people can hear a difference between songs encoded at higher than 128kbps using good modern encoders under proper double-blind conditions. There is no sense in conducting a listening test designed to rank the quality of encoders at 256kbps, for example, if no-one in the study can tell the difference between the resulting files.

 

[Chef Medeski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif A number of the tests shown here are above 128kbps: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....istening_Tests But in any event, one thing that you need to recognize is that in order to conduct an objective listening test, you need to first establish that the people who are participating in your test can actually hear a difference between two competing codecs. Very few people can hear a difference between songs encoded at higher than 128kbps using good modern encoders under proper double-blind conditions. There is no sense in conducting a listening test designed to rank the quality of encoders at 256kbps, for example, if no-one in the study can tell the difference between the resulting files.

There is a point if you want to determine size of file etc.

 

[Chef Medeski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif encoders at 256kbps, for example, if no-one in the study can tell the difference between the resulting files.

You are telling me no one can percieve a difference between the different encodings of 256?

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Medeski /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is a point if you want to determine size of file etc.

Huh? I've read this about a dozen times now, and for the life of me, I can't make out what you are trying to say.

Look, let's say you do a double-blind test, and you are unable to distinguish a 256kbps Ogg Vorbis file from a 256kbps MP3. There is no point in doing a listening test to determine whether you prefer the sound of Ogg Vorbis to MP3 under those circumstances, because they are indistinguishable to you. Stated conversely, in order to do a meaningful comparison between two codecs, you must first establish that there is actually a difference between those codecs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Medeski /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are telling me no one can percieve a difference between the different encodings of 256?

No. I did not say that. In the part of my message that you removed from your quote, I said that, "very few people can hear a difference between songs encoded at higher than 128kbps using good modern encoders under proper double-blind conditions."

 

[vorlonix]

Is everyone forgetting he-aac (aacplus)?
i know nothing supports it, but i've done a-b tests with it vs mp3, and it very simply destroys everything else at low bit rate.
And at 64kbit, i can not hear any difference at all vs a 192kbit lame cbr mp3

 

[Nomada]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vorlonix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is everyone forgetting he-aac (aacplus)? i know nothing supports it, but i've done a-b tests with it vs mp3, and it very simply destroys everything else at low bit rate. And at 64kbit, i can not hear any difference at all vs a 192kbit lame cbr mp3

Yep. Quite an amazing codec eh?? These are the reasons why I wish companies like Apple could let us know their future intentions. I really hope there is a firmware update in the near future to support he-aac on ipods. It really is an amazing development in the AAC codec.

 

[tjohnusa]

I use itunes and rip everything(now)into 320kbps at vbr mp3 files. I think they sound fine for the nano, and the reason I keep them as mp3 is so I can burn mp3 cd's for the auto. I have stock radios with no aux. input and am not going to spend $60+ on a fm modulator when I can fit a boatload of mp3's on a cd. I have also used EAC and lame with very good results...but I find itunes easier to use. But as always...if it sounds good to you , go for it.

 

[pds6]

vorlonix says:
Quote:

[A]t 64kbit, i can not hear any difference at all vs a 192kbit lame cbr mp3

That seems to be a rather low bit rate.

I find a low bit rated rip may sound good for some music, but across a broad spectrum of music it may not be the best sounding.