IEM's and Portables - Lossless is NOT overkill!

[The D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade No offense, but there is now way you can tell that with the KSC 75s. I suspect that you are not doing blind tests.

I did it with the ABX thing in Foobar2000, by the 97% of the time thing I meant that I got it wrong once and that foobar said the possibility that I was guessing was 3%.
Sorry if I confused anyone.

 

[halcyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raisin Artifacts are not the problem with lossy conversions, losses are. The first thing you lose in downconverting, is the original "air" of the recording.

Sorry to nitpick: anything that is lost or introduced by encoding into the original recording, is considered an artifact.

 

[raisin]

I was using the archeological interpetation, artifact-something left behind, should'nt there be another term for something deleted?

 

[raisin]

Yea, I struggled a bit with that Nit!
I was using the archeological interpetation, artifact-something left behind, should'nt there be another term for something deleted?

 

[carsncars]

It is something left behind-- it's a sign that it was there. Like finding a plant that a dinosaur had taken a bit out of, or a foot-print of a wooly mammoth. Both are artifacts-- something left behind, something that tells you they've been there.

 

[CookieFactory]

Best counter for artifacts are Disenchant or Shatter. But of course you'd need to be playing White or Red.

 

[wolfen68]

The differences I've noticed between wav and Lame APS isn't usually in the overall quality (in a portable use sense), but occasionally I'll find a lossy track where one certain thing is "rendered" differently than the original. A bass line in the background during one portion of the song, or the sound of a cymbol. These are things I really need to concentrate on to hear and typically only audibly exist during brief portions of the song. Since I don't usually listen with that level of intense concentration, I have chosen not to worry about these *very* minor differences.

However, I have found the occasional track where the overall sound is wrong. There is less "air" and depth to the lossy version. This does bother me, but these types of tracks seem rare.

From much earlier in the thread...but I would also disagree that IEM's should be automatically billed as the "most resolving". I've found they are sensitive, and my UE5c's reveal some details, but my Grados reveal other details in different ways.

The only example I can think of is an issue I was having in which I could swear my encoder was introducing a near imperceptible crackle on the right channel. In this case, the crackle artifact was virtually non-existent on the IEM's, but very identifiable on a pair of Grado 225's. From this experience, I have learned to judge tracks with more than one headphone to make sure my bases are covered.

 

[rextrade]

You all have inspired me to do tests again between 320 kbps and lossless (haven't tried it in like 2 years). I'm still skeptical, but I'll try.

 

[Chef Medeski]

I'll do it with you. I got a pair of HF-1s and Ety ER-4S, that should be enough to tell a difference, right?

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Medeski I'll do it with you. I got a pair of HF-1s and Ety ER-4S, that should be enough to tell a difference, right?

Should be--I'm using going through the sik line out on the ipod through an xp7 with ety 4s. I'll test it later this week.

 

[halcyon]

Use this software:

Binary, version 1.1 beta
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

It's the most relevant in statistical analysis for balancing type I and type II error probabilities.

Also, it makes it harder to cheat yourself (although by no means is it imprenetable).

 

[audiomagnate]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon Use this software: Binary, version 1.1 beta http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html It's the most relevant in statistical analysis for balancing type I and type II error probabilities. Also, it makes it harder to cheat yourself (although by no means is it imprenetable).

OK, I'll bite. I've had lots of fun on the ABX website. Do I need a computer science degree to go there? On the ABX site, you know when you're cheating, so what's the pont?

 

[halcyon]

abc/hr 1.1 isn't the easiest program to use, but not particularly difficult either.

You have to set up a text file that points to the sound files you want to compare (instructions and example in the download package).

Then load the text file and start listening, grading and abx'ing.

I don't think it requires a computer science degree

As for cheating, almost every test can be fooled somehow. But if you are testing for yourself, what's the point

 

[wanderman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The D I did it with the ABX thing in Foobar2000, by the 97% of the time thing I meant that I got it wrong once and that foobar said the possibility that I was guessing was 3%. Sorry if I confused anyone.

Did you use replay gain, because it is quite easy to tell when the volumes of the songs are different

If you are going to do an abx test make sure your using the latest version of your encoders, and people that post there results should also post lossy encoder. The recomended ripping standard is no longer the 3.92 Alt preset standard it is 3.97b2 v2. There are tons of mp3 encoders and the ability to tell resolve music are all different.

My friends and I are going to attempt an abx meet after finals. We got our favorite albums and our iems ready lol.

 

[sgrossklass]

*sigh* Looks like I have mostly intact, but not extremely discriminating hearing. Using LAME 3.97b1/b2 with -V 6 --vbr-new with or without --athaa-sensitivity 1 I can only hear slight differences to the original (OK, only FM radio recordings to begin with, but the trusty Grundig is pretty darn good sounding), which was quite a surprise given I had not expected this kind of quality from MP3s with average bit rates of 128..135 kb/s, having 128 kb/s CBR MP3s from the olden days in mind (ringing anyone?). Things seem a touch less crisp and there's some "air" lacking here and there, and cymbals might be a touch sharper than in the (FLAC'd) original, but apart from that... Even the bass seems hardly reduced if at all, an issue I'd had with MP3s even at noticeably higher rates in the past. Thumbs up for LAME 3.97, I'd say - now my new MP3 player can come (flash with probably 512 megs only due to budget constraints, seems to be here already and waiting to be given away; I wonder which of the 2 or 3 models in the final selection it'll be). Now I only wonder why OGG support was so important for me when choosing among models...