[badmonkey]

NewSc2 that site doesn't seem to be working.... is the link correct or is there another you can give? Would like to take a look

 

[Stephonovich]

Very odd that r3mix is down. I've gone there several times. However, if you don't know, LAME's --r3mix setting is now outdated. --alt-preset standard has replaced it. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org is a site somewhat like r3mix, except it covers pretty much all codecs, lossy and lossless

(-:Stephonovich

 

[NewSc2]

I'm pretty sure the link is correct, i'll edit if it isn't.

I don't use r3mix anyways, I always use 256kbps CBR using Lame.

 

[MTRH]

Quote:

Originally posted by stereth --alt-preset standard is damn near transparent to my ears. It has trouble on mid drum and bass drum transients, as well as some heavy guitar distortion (Red Hot Chili Peppers kind of distortion). I voted 320 cbr. --r3mix seems to have a few more artifacts on the above points than --aps. My system: Winamp 2.81+MAD -> Sonica -> Sony V6

Don't forget to replaygain the mp3s, lots of the times they are scaled way to high after encoding.
You would only benefit by doing this as there is no harm to your files.

edit: typo

 

[MTRH]

Quote:

Originally posted by tanfenton MPC using MusePack 1.15a with the mppenc --braindead --ms 0 --nmt 32 --tmn 64 command line is as good as I've heard lossy compression sound. NGF

You could change that magic line of yours to "mppenc.exe --insane" and hear no difference at all.

 

[tanfenton]

Forgive me for speaking out of [turn], O developer.

NGF

 

[MTRH]

no hostility intendend, at all.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by NewSc2 grinch, that type of testing has been done before. check out r3mix.net's guide to quality of mp3's www.r3mix.net (click on "Quality" tab) Edit: they performed tests using $10k+ equipment (Sennheiser Orpheus and a B&W Nautilus 803 with Marantz amp) and audiophiles could not tell the difference between 256kbps mp3 and CDs edit: r3mix.net seems to be down - mirror here: http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/

i've known about this test for years. that's one of the main problems, it happened years ago. the latest presets for lame weren't used and the tests were done by "engineers" who can't ever hear **** as far as most of my cds are concerned. i've also heard the orpheus's onboard dac sucks. i'm not sure if they used double-blind testing or not, but i'm still not sure if that is the right way of going about it, no matter how "scientific" it seems to be.

i'm not really too interested in this subject, as i've been reading about it for over three years now and i really don't care anymore. mp3s sound great, but they'll never be a part of my reference system.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

I don't use r3mix anyways, I always use 256kbps CBR using Lame.

Not to be rude, but why the heck do you use CBR? In every test I've ever seen (and heard myself), --alt-preset standard whoops any CBR. Granted, a 320 CBR is going to sound good, but the file size, if nothing else. By using VBR, you let very advanced algorithms (ever seen the full string of --alt-preset standard?) decide what bitrate to use, saving space, and, (so they claim) better quality.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[Solude]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch perhaps if somebody can make mp3s of various quality and then decompress them back to wave and burn all waves to cd (including the original) and then listen to them on a high-end cd player, that would be interesting. anything under that kind of testing just doesn't sit well with me.

This was actually done on this forum a few months back. Only ONE person came even close to hearing the difference. Many people though they had but when the truth was shown we had a lot of so called golden ears way off.

I used to use WMA 355 VBR but since I can use lossless, I do. Hurting for space though. Who would have though a few douzen CDs could eat up 50GB so fast

Differences? Very little, with lossless having slightly better defined stage and dynamics. Very little that cannot be noticed unless you take notes and draw it on paper.

 

[Audio-Me]

Saying mp3 is transparent is like trying to claim that mud is clear. MP3 is cool, but it sucks compared to MPC. tanfenton know's what's up. =)

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audio&Me Saying mp3 is transparent is like trying to claim that mud is clear. MP3 is cool, but it sucks compared to MPC. tanfenton know's what's up. =)

All depends on the comparisions. With the above, MPC would at least be dirty water. Neither is truly transparent. Of course this poll is about general perceived transparency (under the influenced of equipment/hardware, software, ears, etc.).

 

[NewSc2]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audio&Me Saying mp3 is transparent is like trying to claim that mud is clear. MP3 is cool, but it sucks compared to MPC. tanfenton know's what's up. =)

I had my foray into MPC, and for the life of my system, headphones, and everything else I could get my hands on, could not tell the difference unless I was really really paying attention to it between MPC and MP3.

320 CBR and wav, however, came ever so slightly a bit easier.