IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Can not tell difference between these samples, flac vs high compression ogg
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Apr 11 2011, 18:00
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 3534
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Notat @ Apr 8 2011, 10:38) *
It is technically more difficult to do an ABX with an analog reference but it can ans has been done.


We did our first ABX test in 1977 but digital media was not widely available until 1983, so for 5-6 years all ABXing was done entirely in the analog domain.

QUOTE
The results indicate that some digital equipment is not up to par and a lot of analog equipment introduces distortion but Nyquist and Shannon were right - digital representations have quantization and bandwidth limitations but are otherwise true to the original.


On balance coming up with digital gear that *is* up to par is pretty easy these days.

Just about every commercial recording made in the last 20 years spent at least part of its life in the digital domain. There is no doubt that circumventing this caused potentially audible sound quality loss.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
InternazionalIV
post Apr 12 2011, 15:07
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7-February 11
Member No.: 87998



QUOTE (Alex B @ Apr 7 2011, 23:05) *
Your -q 10 Vorbis sample is fine. I decoded it with foobar and created a time aligned reference sample from my lossless "Dream Theater - In the Presence of Enemies Part 2" rip. I couldn't hear a difference in a quick ABX test. In my opinion the sample is not very demanding. I guess -q 4 or even a lower setting would be fine for this part of the song.

Probably your player is causing the problem.


Alex, thank you very much for both listening and giving the links, indeed updating the firmware did the trick.
Curiosity: why was it your guess that -q 4 should be sufficient? That is, what do you base your choosing of compression on?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
YaHooMtDew
post May 11 2011, 04:10
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 11-May 11
Member No.: 90522



Saratoga is a jerk. I think this is (or was, back when everyone was more on the original topic tongue.gif) an interesting OP and the info you guys have given out has taught me a lot. I'm not an audiophile (as we speak I'm ripping CD's to 320 VBR AAC in favor of FLAC), but I find the subject fascinating nonetheless.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tpijag
post May 11 2011, 04:20
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 2337
Joined: 19-May 08
Member No.: 53637



You joined just to post that? Looking forward to when you actually contribute something.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post May 11 2011, 08:45
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



Anyway, thanks for bumping this. I didn't notice the OP's question that was directed to me earlier.

QUOTE (InternazionalIV @ Apr 12 2011, 17:07) *
Alex, thank you very much for both listening and giving the links, indeed updating the firmware did the trick.
Curiosity: why was it your guess that -q 4 should be sufficient? That is, what do you base your choosing of compression on?

My guess regarding -q 4 is based on my general experience of Vorbis (especially aoTuV which tends to be better than the reference version at low bitrates). Except for some rare problem samples, -q 4 is often transparent or at least not annoying in a critical ABX test. Even when the encoded material is not exactly transparent -q 4 rarely produces ugly artifacts that would be instantly noticeable without direct comparison to the lossless source file. Already in Sebastian Mares' first public listening test from the year 2005, the then current aoTuV version at -q 4.25 got an average score of 4.73 and didn't fall below 4.5 with any of the tested samples (on the scale from 1 to 5, in which 5 is imperceptible and 4 perceptible but not annoying). In my experience, even a lower q setting is usually fine for casual listening. I wouldn't hesitate encoding at -q 3 for a portable if the storage capacity is limited.

EDIT

I don't mean that an even lower -q setting like -q 2 or -q 1 could not be sufficient as well, but probably I would hesitate a bit and do some listening tests before encoding lots of files.

This post has been edited by Alex B: May 11 2011, 09:21


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th April 2014 - 03:48