[shinew]

This is not another Lossless vs MP3 debate.
Because of the flexibility of MP3, I'm debating whether to listen to my library at home or portable use with Lossless formats or MP3 Lame v0(or -insane). I'll always keep the lossless version as backup regardless the format I choose to listen.

I've done few abx tests myself with FLAC & Lame MP3 encoded with v0 in Foobar2000 ABX tests just on classical piano music. The result is inconclusive(read: can't tell the difference

). However, I know that there is certain music more prone to mp3 compression than others.

So I'm asking people here who can tell the difference to help me out.
Please kindly reply and share the particular song/piece which is the easiest for you to distinguish them apart, including its album/track/timing(min:sec) info. I'll buy, download, or borrow the track and do an abx tests on those track myself.

Many thanks for your help!

 

[bigshot]

Oddly enough the most difficult tracks I've found to encode is some Decca era Sammy Davis Jr songs. The massed string textures seem designed to create artifacting. At 256 and above the problem seems to go away. Here is the CD I use to check for artifacts... Decca Years - Sammy Davis, Jr. Music - Yahoo! Shopping

See ya
Steve

 

[b0dhi]

The Conan the Barbarian soundtrack. No, really.

 

[Aaron5604]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinew /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is not another Lossless vs MP3 debate. Because of the flexibility of MP3, I'm debating whether to listen to my library at home or portable use with Lossless formats or MP3 Lame v0(or -insane). I'll always keep the lossless version as backup regardless the format I choose to listen. I've done few abx tests myself with FLAC & Lame MP3 encoded with v0 in Foobar2000 ABX tests just on classical piano music. The result is inconclusive(read: can't tell the difference ). However, I know that there is certain music more prone to mp3 compression than others. So I'm asking people here who can tell the difference to help me out. Please kindly reply and share the particular song/piece which is the easiest for you to distinguish them apart, including its album/track/timing(min:sec) info. I'll buy, download, or borrow the track and do an abx tests on those track myself. Many thanks for your help!

The biggest thing I've noticed between 320 and 1411.2 (PCM) is the quality of sound per frequency as the volume increases. Through winamp, I can't tell any difference, but again the EQ through it doesn't spike the sound nearly as loud as say, WMP for example when scaling the frequency up and down. Use WMP as your player and sample any two songs of your choice by playing w/ the 8-12-16khz frequencies. It should be quite obvious between the two. You'll hear the 320 radically cut out back and forth, where as the 1411 will remain steady in playback w/ zero problems.

If you've ever been into car audio, you would know the difference between an 8v pre-out HU when compared too, say a 4v one. The sound w/ the 8 stays crisp and fluent at much higher volumes, where as the 4 begins to distort. It appears that bit rate shares many of the same patterns here in terms of quality.

I haven't played w/ 192-256 much, though when you start to go under 128 (96 or so) the sound becomes really dull/flat, as if you're listening to the radio or some casette tape. The lack of higher frequencies start to become very audible on even a balanced EQ setting.

Plus, keep in mind that I'm not using any special equipment. $30-40 headphones (for example) can be used for all of these tests here.