[doomlordis]

Ok , so in the past i have blind tested CD vs 256kbps lame mp3 on my hi-fi setup at home , i was able to pick the CD 80-85% of the time, it had a larger soundstage and slightly more detail in treble.

Today i downloaded the abchr java abx test program and thought i would do a test, i had a 256kbps mp3 of crytograms by deerhunter , i converted it to wav. Then i converted the mp3 to LP2 Atrac3 using Sonicstage 4.3 , deleted the MP3 from library and reimported the LP2 track (so Sonicstage wouldnt just convert the MP3 to Wav again), i then converted the LP2 to wav.
So i have 2 wavs , one MP3 256 and one LP2 atrac.

I ran a abx test 30 times and scored 20/30 correct.

The test was done in silence.

Jeez i thought it would be easy to abx LP2 but my ears were not up to the job!

Transcoding from medium/high mp3 to LP2 doesnt seem to have much of a negative impact (on this track at least).

 

[doomlordis]

Update

Have spent day testing various codecs, i can abx 128 mp3 to 256, 128 atrac3+ to 256 but on this sample i couldnt abx 132 LP2 against the 256 mp3.

I could however abx 132 LP2 eleanor rigby against the 320 kbps MP3.

 

[phkd]

ive never heard of this software, i'll have to give it a shot some time. what's atrac3 lp2?

 

[supermoo]

If I understand correctly:

You have 1 original mp3 file which you then used to do the following:

mp3 -> wav

then

mp3 -> lp2 -> wav

So now you have two wavs, both of which came from the same mp3 and with one being further degraded by transcoding to lp2 and you can't hear a big difference between them? It's no wonder since they would probably sound similar (with the second one sounding a bit worse).

If you want to abx more accurately, try:

CD -> mp3 -> wav

then

CD -> lp2 -> wav

 

[lamewing]

I lived with LP2 for years and must say that it always sounded good to me when compared to an equal mp3. Strange that the new ATRAC formats all give me a headache. No clue why.

 

[E Street Shuffle]

Consider it a blessing, I recently did a hearing test for work and the results came back, my hearing just scrapes into the very bottom of the "normal" threshold, so essentially I can skip the diminishing returns of expensive headphone upgrades and settle with, say, an SR60 instead of a SR325i

 

[Jaw007]

I was in field artillery for years in the Army.
I believe it had some ill effects on my ears a little.

 

[recephasan]

You most likely have used a non-revealing source/amp/headphone combination. It makes all the difference

 

[Sparky191]

Most but not all of the time I always though LP2 sounded terrible. Some music encodes better than others though. I found HiSP to be as good as I could hear with my gear.

 

[umgoblue2008]

I have a question. I thought once you converted an uncompressed/lossless file to a compressed format (mp3) that you lose information forever. So what is the point of converting mp3 back to wav?

 

[mikeymike66]

My ears suck - neat trick - YouTube videos to prove?!

Seriously, interesting test results. I note that your test is done in silence. However, as most of my listening is on public transport (noisy London Underground) I am now wondering how much of a difference encoding on higher bitrate makes in such environments. Might try some unscientifc/real world tests myself. mmm I get the sinking feeling that my ears are probably not as good as I think they are.

 

[lamewing]

I wish I had the luxury of using a train system. I fell in love with the Tokyo and Kyoto trains. Returning to the States was a letdown as I drive about 18K miles a year to school...grrr.

 

[Sparky191]

Quote:

Originally Posted by umgoblue2008 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a question. I thought once you converted an uncompressed/lossless file to a compressed format (mp3) that you lose information forever. So what is the point of converting mp3 back to wav?

Perhaps it so both files are played back though the same, decoder etc. The only difference between both wavs should be what was lost.

 

[umgoblue2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparky191 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps it so both files are played back though the same, decoder etc. The only difference between both wavs should be what was lost.

It makes sense. my point is that if the mp3->wav file would sound exactly like the mp3 file (since its missing information) then why make the mp3-> wav conversion in the first place. Why not just compare the CD-rip wav file and the lossy mp3? Do you gain anything by mp3->wav?

Or can you not do test that compares wav to mp3 file? I have not done sound testing, so i don't know all the details.

 

[Sparky191]

I could be wrong but, I don't think hes trying to compare WAV vs MP3. But MP3 to LP2 (ATRAC)