FLAC?
Mar 24, 2007 at 8:54 PM Post #31 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In my experience Apple Lossless provide better compression rate than the default FLAC setting (-5).


I never have understood why anyone would use any compression level other than -8. And now with FLAC v. 1.1.4, compression is even better than it has historically been. With only 25% free space on my music HDD, after ripping a few more new CDs I will be mass-converting my existing FLAC files (v. 1.1.2) to v. 1.1.4.
 
Mar 24, 2007 at 10:37 PM Post #32 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cid /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No, really. Dude, foobars ABX test isn't something you can guess and it's not something placebo could cause either. I posted in another thread about my ABX test with 320kb/s MP3 and lossless. Of course I passed and it was a 0.0% chance that I guessed. You really think placebo could cause that?
blink.gif


Just maybe it's you who should cut down on the drugs. Or.. maybe you're upset that you can't tell the difference?
wink.gif



Could be coincidence that you got it right. How many times did you run the test? It's good that I can't hear the difference as I don't have to waste HDD space on lossless files.
 
Mar 24, 2007 at 10:43 PM Post #33 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatticus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Could be coincidence that you got it right. How many times did you run the test? It's good that I can't hear the difference as I don't have to waste HDD space on lossless files.


I've posted my results a few times here(I'm honestly too lazy to go digging, but you can search if you like)I've did the test countless times, but that's still not the reason why I use FLAC. I use it for peace of mind, really. It's good to know you have an exact copy or as exact as it can be, anyway. I don't think FLAC takes up that much space. I've managed to get about 400 albums on my 160GB harddrive.
 
Mar 24, 2007 at 11:37 PM Post #34 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I see you're using Foobar. Have you tried ABXing the two files to see if you can tell the difference?


no need to. I can hear a difference.

I trust my ears. Because that what it comes down to. If I couldn't tell a difference between my K701's HD600's or KSC75's I'd sell my headphones today.
 
Mar 25, 2007 at 12:34 AM Post #35 of 53
We are talking the difference between mp3 and lossless and not headphones. Let's not get into an apples and oranges thing. The fact is that the difference in sound to our ears (don't care about measurable difference) is minuscule to even someone with golden ears and anyone who claims they can hear a massive difference is FOS.
 
Mar 25, 2007 at 3:03 AM Post #40 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by skeeder /img/forum/go_quote.gif
no need to. I can hear a difference.

I trust my ears.


There are a number of things that could account for what you hear, including a volume difference between the files. An ABX test will eliminate those so that you can be certain that what you are hearing is attributable to an audible difference between the files rather than something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekinwang /img/forum/go_quote.gif
everyone should check out this thread =)

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=227727


Oh, please, not that again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatticus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Could be coincidence that you got it right. How many times did you run the test?


If I remember correctly, Cid did 16 trials, which means that the p value for his test was 1/(2^16) or .000015. In other words, assuming that I am remembering correctly the number of trials he did, the odds that he was guessing were 1 in 65,536.

Edit: actually, he had 14 correct results out of 15 trials. The odds of getting 15 out of 15 purely by chance are 1 in 32,768. The odds of getting 14 out of 15 right purely by chance are more than that, but still substantially less than 1%. Now that is just one test with one set of files. It's always possible that there was some particular artifact or problem with those files and that he can't hear a difference generally between -V0 and lossless, but I don't think that we could reasonably conclude that the results of the one test whose results he posted were due to coincidence.
 
Mar 25, 2007 at 5:39 AM Post #41 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cid /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Just maybe it's you who should cut down on the drugs. Or.. maybe you're upset that you can't tell the difference?
wink.gif



Exactly! Its been proven by ABX testing that there are audible differences between 320kbps MP3 and lossless.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaska /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In my experience Apple Lossless provide better compression rate than the default FLAC setting (-5).


I never have understood why anyone would use any compression level other than -8.


Me neither!
But in this case I replied to 'Aman', who talked about FLAC's default compression setting (which is -5).
wink.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatticus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
...and anyone who claims they can hear a massive difference is FOS.


What? As already said, the audible difference have been proven by ABX testing!
very_evil_smiley.gif
 
Mar 25, 2007 at 4:16 PM Post #43 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What? As already said, the audible difference have been proven by ABX testing!
very_evil_smiley.gif



I said "massive" difference and not no difference. Either way, it's not worth fretting over and I will stick to >192kb/s mp3.
 
Mar 25, 2007 at 5:29 PM Post #44 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatticus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I said "massive" difference and not no difference. Either way, it's not worth fretting over and I will stick to >192kb/s mp3.


Ok, then we agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top