1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Lossless vs mp3 ABX results. (Among other ABX's)

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by deadlylover, Sep 30, 2011.
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5
7 8
Next
 
Last
  1. kiteki

    Lol I didn't realise A and B were constant until trial 51!
     
    If I realied that earlier this would have been easier, I erred at trial 13 and 14, two or three in the late 20's, and then decided to concentrate and made it up to 60, erring only at trial 49.
     
    This is the track I used: http://www.lindberg.no/hires/test/7041888513520_01_13_192kHz.flac
     
    I exported a copy to 44.1kHz FLAC in Audacity, I'm using version 1.3.13-beta.
     
    I replaygained both tracks in foobar, the difference was half a decibel or so.
     
    I used Beyerdynamic Tesla T5p headphones the entire test, I haven't tried anything else yet, except Sony EX600's on the piano piece and SoX resampling on the fly, in which I couldn't hear any difference at all.
     
    Here's a picture summary and final result after 60 trials.
     
    192kHzversus44.1kHzSACDversusCDscarletbookversusredbookkitekiversuswikipedia..jpg
     
     
    You're weclome. =)
     
     
     
  2. kiteki
     
    Well, now that I may have set that wikipedia entry on fire, and every post on head-fi that have annoyingly linked me to it, it's time to go back to listening to harsh electronic music and rhythmic noise, I wonder how I have any UHF sensitivity left at all... just kidding :p
     
     
     
  3. kn19h7
    finally its weekend so that I can have little time to do some stupid things ==
    this was torturing....
     
    foo_abx 1.3.4 report
    foobar2000 v1.1.8
    2011/10/07 19:30:26

    File A: E:\Music\Lossless\CODE GEASS Lelouch of the Rebellion O.S.T\CODE GEASS Lelouch of the Rebellion O.S.T..tta.cue
    File B: C:\Users\Kn19h7\Desktop\Stories.mp3

    19:30:26 : Test started.
    19:32:34 : 01/01  50.0%
    19:32:46 : 02/02  25.0%
    19:34:15 : 02/03  50.0%
    19:34:27 : 02/04  68.8%
    19:34:38 : 03/05  50.0%
    19:34:54 : 04/06  34.4%
    19:35:06 : 05/07  22.7%
    19:35:17 : 06/08  14.5%
    19:36:01 : 07/09  9.0%
    19:36:16 : 07/10  17.2%
    19:36:32 : 08/11  11.3%
    19:36:55 : 09/12  7.3%
    19:37:40 : 10/13  4.6%
    19:38:05 : 11/14  2.9%
    19:39:11 : 12/15  1.8%
    19:39:57 : 13/16  1.1%
    19:41:48 : 13/17  2.5%
    19:43:06 : 13/18  4.8%
    19:43:46 : 13/19  8.4%
    19:44:03 : 14/20  5.8%
    19:44:18 : 15/21  3.9%
    19:44:52 : 16/22  2.6%
    19:45:08 : 16/23  4.7%
    19:45:36 : 16/24  7.6%
    19:46:43 : 17/25  5.4%
    19:46:51 : 18/26  3.8%
    19:47:09 : 19/27  2.6%
    19:48:17 : 20/28  1.8%
    19:48:59 : 21/29  1.2%
    19:50:23 : 22/30  0.8%
    19:51:22 : 23/31  0.5%
    19:53:01 : 24/32  0.4%
    19:56:03 : 25/33  0.2%
    20:01:08 : 25/34  0.5%
    20:01:55 : 26/35  0.3%
    20:04:06 : 27/36  0.2%
    20:08:42 : 27/37  0.4%
    20:09:23 : 28/38  0.3%
    20:11:18 : 29/39  0.2%
    20:12:23 : 30/40  0.1%
    20:12:28 : Test finished.

     ----------
    Total: 30/40 (0.1%)
     
    was using lame3.98.4 320k
     
  4. kiteki
     
    How do I make a timestamp report like that?
     
    I just did the test again with Sony earphones this time...
     
     
    EDIT: OK I got it... I used my Sony E888's this time, and this test has become easier than ever! :wink:
     
     
    foo_abx 1.3.4 report
    foobar2000 v1.1.1
    2011/10/07 23:26:09
    File A: C:\_Musik\192kHz\7041888513520_01_13_192kHz.flac
    File B: C:\_Musik\192kHz\7041888513520_01_13_192kHz_down_to_44.1kHz.flac
    23:26:09 : Test started.
    23:27:07 : 01/01  50.0%
    23:27:20 : 02/02  25.0%
    23:27:43 : 03/03  12.5%
    23:28:02 : 04/04  6.3%
    23:28:10 : 05/05  3.1%
    23:28:19 : 06/06  1.6%
    23:28:37 : 07/07  0.8%
    23:28:56 : 08/08  0.4%
    23:29:05 : 09/09  0.2%
    23:29:16 : 10/10  0.1%
    23:29:39 : 11/11  0.0%
    23:29:58 : 12/12  0.0%
    23:30:13 : 13/13  0.0%
    23:30:30 : 14/14  0.0%
    23:31:37 : 15/15  0.0%
    23:38:34 : Test finished.
     ----------
    Total: 15/15 (0.0%)
     
     
     
     
     
  5. deadlylover
    Aahah don't forget to replaygain both tracks and tick the 'use replaygain' on the ABX popup setup thing.
     
    I'm going to build some kind of ABX amp testy box comparator thing, so I can ABX stat amps and such. I think I'll still need a friend to do the switching and what not, but at least it won't be a pain in the down under to do the switches.
     
    @ kn19h7
     
    Aahah 40something minutes!, nice job and thanks for taking the time to do the test. I've checked a few other threads here, barely any ABX results to be found.
     
  6. kiteki
     
    Quote:
     
    Yes, here's the latest test:
     
     
    Replaygain:
     
    192kHzversus44.1kHz-VivaldiRV679-SonyE804replaygainevidence.jpg
     
    Test Result:
     
    192kHzversus44.1kHz-VivaldiRV679-SonyE804.jpg
     
    Text file:
     
    foo_abx 1.3.4 report
    foobar2000 v1.1.1
    2011/10/08 00:00:01
    File A: C:\_Musik\192kHz\7041888513520_01_13_192kHz.flac
    File B: C:\_Musik\192kHz\7041888513520_01_13_192kHz_down_to_44.1kHz.flac
    00:00:01 : Test started.
    00:00:28 : 01/01  50.0%
    00:00:40 : 02/02  25.0%
    00:01:13 : 03/03  12.5%
    00:01:31 : 04/04  6.3%
    00:01:42 : 05/05  3.1%
    00:01:54 : 06/06  1.6%
    00:02:36 : 07/07  0.8%
    00:02:51 : 08/08  0.4%
    00:03:02 : 09/09  0.2%
    00:03:10 : 10/10  0.1%
    00:03:20 : 11/11  0.0%
    00:03:32 : 12/12  0.0%
    00:03:53 : 13/13  0.0%
    00:04:07 : 14/14  0.0%
    00:04:17 : 15/15  0.0%
    00:04:24 : 16/16  0.0%
    00:04:32 : 17/17  0.0%
    00:04:39 : 18/18  0.0%
    00:04:46 : 19/19  0.0%
    00:04:53 : 20/20  0.0%
    00:05:00 : 21/21  0.0%
    00:05:08 : 22/22  0.0%
    00:05:16 : 23/23  0.0%
    00:05:26 : 24/24  0.0%
    00:05:35 : 25/25  0.0%
    00:05:53 : 26/26  0.0%
    00:06:11 : 27/27  0.0%
    00:06:18 : 28/28  0.0%
    00:06:30 : 29/29  0.0%
    00:06:38 : 29/30  0.0%
    00:06:50 : 30/31  0.0%
    00:07:15 : 31/32  0.0%
    00:07:22 : 32/33  0.0%
    00:07:30 : 33/34  0.0%
    00:07:47 : 34/35  0.0%
    00:08:04 : 35/36  0.0%
    00:08:12 : 36/37  0.0%
    00:08:20 : 37/38  0.0%
    00:08:27 : 38/39  0.0%
    00:08:39 : 39/40  0.0%
    00:08:46 : 40/41  0.0%
    00:08:53 : 41/42  0.0%
    00:09:10 : 42/43  0.0%
    00:09:18 : 43/44  0.0%
    00:09:39 : 44/45  0.0%
    00:09:47 : 45/46  0.0%
    00:09:54 : 46/47  0.0%
    00:10:04 : 47/48  0.0%
    00:10:16 : 48/49  0.0%
    00:10:25 : 49/50  0.0%
    00:10:32 : 50/51  0.0%
    00:10:39 : 51/52  0.0%
    00:10:45 : 52/53  0.0%
    00:10:53 : 53/54  0.0%
    00:10:59 : 54/55  0.0%
    00:11:06 : 55/56  0.0%
    00:11:18 : 56/57  0.0%
    00:11:25 : 57/58  0.0%
    00:11:37 : 58/59  0.0%
    00:11:44 : 58/60  0.0%
    00:12:01 : 59/61  0.0%
    00:12:13 : 60/62  0.0%
    00:12:20 : 61/63  0.0%
    00:12:27 : 62/64  0.0%
    00:12:36 : 63/65  0.0%
    00:12:43 : 64/66  0.0%
    00:12:49 : 65/67  0.0%
    00:12:55 : 66/68  0.0%
    00:13:01 : 67/69  0.0%
    00:13:08 : 68/70  0.0%
    00:13:14 : 69/71  0.0%
    00:13:20 : 70/72  0.0%
    00:13:27 : 71/73  0.0%
    00:13:43 : 72/74  0.0%
    00:13:50 : 73/75  0.0%
    00:13:56 : 74/76  0.0%
    00:14:03 : 75/77  0.0%
    00:14:10 : 76/78  0.0%
    00:14:17 : 77/79  0.0%
    00:14:23 : 78/80  0.0%
    00:14:30 : 79/81  0.0%
    00:14:37 : 80/82  0.0%
    00:14:43 : 81/83  0.0%
    00:14:59 : 82/84  0.0%
    00:15:05 : 83/85  0.0%
    00:15:12 : 84/86  0.0%
    00:15:18 : 85/87  0.0%
    00:15:36 : 86/88  0.0%
    00:15:43 : 87/89  0.0%
    00:16:01 : 88/90  0.0%
    00:16:08 : 89/91  0.0%
    00:16:15 : 90/92  0.0%
    00:16:24 : 91/93  0.0%
    00:16:31 : 92/94  0.0%
    00:16:45 : 93/95  0.0%
    00:16:53 : 94/96  0.0%
    00:16:59 : 95/97  0.0%
    00:17:16 : 96/98  0.0%
    00:17:22 : 97/99  0.0%
    00:17:29 : 98/100  0.0%
    00:17:49 : 98/101  0.0%
    00:17:58 : 98/102  0.0%
    00:18:16 : 99/103  0.0%
    00:18:23 : 100/104  0.0%
    00:18:30 : 101/105  0.0%
    00:19:59 : Test finished.
     ----------
    Total: 101/105 (0.0%)
     
     
  7. kiteki
     
    Why did I start that test 1 second after midnight?
     
    Maybe I am a replicant afterall.
     
     
  8. deadlylover
    I have no idea if that's right or not, do the tracks appear the same volume in the ABX test?
     
    Replaygain might be dodgy and having the tracks at a different volume, which would invalidate the ABX.
     
    My mp3's had the track gain within 0.01db, so I'm not sure what's going on there with the huge variation, especially since the track peak is so similar.
     
    Someone with more brains will have to chime in. [​IMG]
     
  9. kn19h7
    ^^^ the sample rate test result is amazing orz
     
    Didn't enable replaygain during the test, and just now I scan the files which showed that the tracks (both lossless and 320k) are having a replaygain value of -8.81 ==
     
    Btw I used to listening with certain crossfeed dsp and replaygain set to "prevent clipping" (most files in my tracklist don't have the tag anyway..), with dsp disabled during abx test, I wasn't listening to my "familiar" sound @@
     
  10. kiteki
     
    omg... the test is harder WITHOUT the replygain applied, that sucks...
     
     
    Edit: at above user... -8.81dB... can you hear that volume difference? Or is that difference normalized by the replaygain? Why is there even such a huge differece? and in my case... why should the be any difference at all? It's not like I'm comparing a studio master version with a redbook version produced differently, I'm comparing a studio master version with it's 44.1kHz downsampled counterpart... grrrrr...
     
     
     
  11. deadlylover
    Quote:

    Yep something dodgy happening there =P
     
    replaygain is supposed to normalise the volume between two tracks, but I'm guessing it's calculating it with some extra noise in one of the files and leads to a different track gain.
     
    I don't think resampling will change the waveform much in terms of amplitude, so best to leave replaygain off for you perhaps?
     
    So what you were doing before was just picking out the higher volume track =P.
     
  12. kn19h7


    Quote:

     
    Your 192k file and 41.1k file are having different replaygain value?
     
    As of what I know, replaygain is to normalize the perceived volume so I think its quite normal if both have the same pre-track gain value (eg. my case..)
     
     
    btw I haven't try to listen them at -8.81db ><
     
  13. kiteki
    WHY is applying replaygain MAKING THE TRACKS DIFFERENT VOLUME. ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿????????
     
     
    That's the opposite of what it's supposed ¡¡¡op oʇ
     
     
    but perhaps that explains why I could get 101/105 results with a cheap Sony earbud then........... :/
     
     
    but seriously that does not sound like the only difference, and if there is any difference in volume it's a phantom difference, replaygain has to be screwing with the dynamic range of both files or something, I just don't understand anymore AHRHRHRH
     
  14. kiteki
     
    Quote:

    oh, so BOTH your tracks have -8.81dB replaygain value, is that right?
     
     
    My tracks come up with -0.50dB (192kHz) and +0.98dB (44.1kHz).
     
    The point is, that's replaygains assessment, and by using replaygain, it shold be normaling both of those to the same value, right? Otherwise, what's the point in using replaygain at all? WHY is the volume more equal WITHOUT replaygain? This is just screwing with my head... and my volume... in very small phantom increments.
     

     
     
     
  15. kn19h7
    ^^^ yup both my tracks are having the same value.. so if I enable replaygain I'm supposed to listen to both at a same lower volume from what I know..
     
    ...-0.50 and +0.98 not a very big difference imo?? not sure though
     
     
    What resampler are you using? As from my past experience, software resampler like sox did sound noticeably different (specifically, worse) when I tried using it to upsampling on the fly hmm maybe I should try again sometime ==
     
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5
7 8
Next
 
Last

Share This Page