[tstarn06]

Nothing new, but always interesting to read about the digitial music rip debate. And, lots of charts and graphs (eyes begin to glaze over)! Just need to read the beginning and the end, really.

Stereophile: MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD

 

[FooTemps]

interesting read though the article is fairly easy to get lost in trying to tie the numbers to the charts since they didn't label the charts they referred to as fig1, fig2, etc.

 

[brainsalad]

Thanks for the post.

 

[tstarn06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FooTemps /img/forum/go_quote.gif interesting read though the article is fairly easy to get lost in trying to tie the numbers to the charts since they didn't label the charts they referred to as fig1, fig2, etc.

Agree, dumb to include all those graphs and not number them.

 

[brainsalad]

They are numbered. First line under the graph

 

[tstarn06]

Right you are. Bad graphics. They maybe should have bolded the captions, to set them apart. But thanks.

 

[shigzeo]

i just remember a headfier having made up graphs that proved exactly the opposite last year and becaue it proved a different point, it was thrown out and in the end people said you cannot apply graphical representations to audio fidelity.

i will not leave my opinions of this hear but to say that merely there are no standards by which we judge musicality nor sound quality. in the end, it comes down to the proof being subject to our sujectivity when testing audio files or quality. there is no truth and may never be.

 

[omega52]

I used to read Stereophile. I got tired of statements like this one found in the article mentioned above,
"It is true that there are better-performing MP3 codecs than the basic Fraunhöfer—many audiophiles recommend the LAME encoder".
Well why didn't they use LAME in their test. I don't pretend that MP3's sound as good as CDs, but their use of an admittedly inferior codec for the test is evidence that the crew at Stereophile don't have a clue. I base this statement on a long list of ridiculous claims by their staff. One classic is the one about the Radio Shack portable CD player being a reference quality source. I would like to see some unbiased comparisons of the MP3 codec performance.

 

[doomlordis]

What a pointless article , we all know that lossy codecs drop data!
He seems to think 'transparent' means that graphs will be identicle, it just means that it cant be abxd from the original.
Did he even listen to any of these files....what a dick.

 

[tstarn06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omega52 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I used to read Stereophile. I got tired of statements like this one found in the article mentioned above, "It is true that there are better-performing MP3 codecs than the basic Fraunhöfer—many audiophiles recommend the LAME encoder". Well why didn't they use LAME in their test. I don't pretend that MP3's sound as good as CDs, but their use of an admittedly inferior codec for the test is evidence that the crew at Stereophile don't have a clue. I base this statement on a long list of ridiculous claims by their staff. One classic is the one about the Radio Shack portable CD player being a reference quality source. I would like to see some unbiased comparisons of the MP3 codec performance.

That's for sure. To some extent, I posted it more to show how these people are so wrapped up in their audio-snobbery that they can't see the forest for the trees. Philistine that I am, I'm pretty happy with 192k for both WMA and MP3 rips, with my most important tracks at 256/320 VBR. Good enough for my lousy ears,

 

[Orcin]

It is an interesting article, but totally flawed. Unless the author is willing to perform a double-blind listening test and produce stats, we refuse to accept him for anything other than a troll.

Sincerely,
Hydrogenaudio

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is an interesting article, but totally flawed. Unless the author is willing to perform a double-blind listening test and produce stats, we refuse to accept him for anything other than a troll.

Even though I'm sure that was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment there's actually a lot of truth to it. Stereophile is making the usual error of comparing lossless to compressed by looking at spectrum analysis charts and pointing out that the compressed file is not a perfect duplicate of the source. News flash... it's not supposed to be. The goal is is sound the same to the human ear, not be the same. And blind listening tests are the only way to know if that was achieved.

Secondly, Sterophile is full of reviews extolling the enormous audible improvements available from any number of interconnect cables... 'nuff said...

 

[UseName]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even though I'm sure that was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment there's actually a lot of truth to it. Stereophile is making the usual error of comparing lossless to compressed by looking at spectrum analysis charts and pointing out that the compressed file is not a perfect duplicate of the source. News flash... it's not supposed to be. The goal is is sound the same to the human ear, not be the same. And blind listening tests are the only way to know if that was achieved. Secondly, Sterophile is full of reviews extolling the enormous audible improvements available from any number of interconnect cables... 'nuff said...

I think this is the important thing to consider. If you personally, don't hear a difference, why stress about it? Audiophiles seem to really like to make people feel inferior if they don't hear something... I know I have been guilty of it.

Alternatively, if you have the space, and want peace of mind, by all means, go lossless.

 

[brainsalad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is an interesting article, but totally flawed. Unless the author is willing to perform a double-blind listening test and produce stats, we refuse to accept him for anything other than a troll. Sincerely, Hydrogenaudio

DBT

Heresy!! Not here. You will be BANNED.

I enjoy reading about equipment, it's a hobby of mine. I enjoy reading about how people have found nirvana in this setup or that setup. I get really mad when I read the crap about amplifier burn in, cables, and other absurdities. I am just about ready to flush headfi and then I find a pocket of headfiers, like the ones who have responded to this thread, and my hope in sanity is renewed.

Thanks you guys for having a common sense approach to this hobby. Thanks for wanting to do audible comparisons in a true scientific method. If more of these idiots around here would sit down and do the unmentionable testing, they would get a serious slap in the face on the reality of how ridiculous they sound.

So many times I feel like the little boy in the Emporer's New Clothes and think, "am I the only one that is seeing what is going on here". Maybe I will start a web site that supports the unmentionable testing and welcomes those who take a realistic approach to this hobby.

 

[wanderman]

that article was dumb. I would love to see listening tests accompany the wave form.