graph shows 320 kbps LAME 'never achieves transparency'? Options

[db1989]

BTW, perceptually indistinguishable to whom, under what circumstances, always, sometimes?

To quote your previous post:

"transparent" means that in a particular (series of) test(s), particular listener(s) were unable to tell the difference between specific lossily-coded sample(s) and their original(s).

That or in the general sense: a given setting producing lossy encodes indistinguishable from their sources for most material, as hopefully represented in a subset; when listened to by most individuals, as hopefully represented by the cross-section of users participating in the sum total of listening tests previously performed on that setting.

I mean, you specifically qualified both of these, so are we just nit-picking for its own sake now? All this really shows is that both listening and language are subjective. So? I would say that Hydrogenaudio and all other similarly evidence-based initiatives are doing a pretty good job despite these inherent and ineradicable limitations, if you want to call them that.

[greynol]

Nitpicking indeed!

I'm being asked to qualify something in a post with information I provided only two posts prior? It's also being suggested that I'm having difficulty with reading comprehension? Now that would be pretty rich.



This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 1 2011, 00:07

[Notat]

A practical definition of a codec's transparency could mean that there was no listener so far who was able to successfully ABX a sample. Sure the quality of this kind of transparency depends heavily on the number of listeners (and their ABXing abilities) trying hard to find non-transparent (in the personal sense above) samples.

You'd probably also want to put some constraints on the test material. I believe it is easy to contrive an artificial "killer sample" that would crowbar an encoder.

[Canar]

This graph really, really needs to go! A graph with an axis labeled "quality" with nothing more than a single developer's whimsical numerical evaluations of quality as data, along with the sizes of one album for file size? This is Hydrogenaudio. We should really hold ourselves to a higher standard. I know it's informal, but I've just had a big argument with someone over on another forum regarding this bloody graph. With all due respect to Gabriel's numbers, I still think we need to pull it. I'm gonna go ahead and do just that. If anyone feels the need to revert it, please do so, but I'd like to hear reasons why you think it should stay. The graph is at odds with everything that I value in this community.

Edit: Also, I'm moving this to Wiki Discussion.

This post has been edited by Canar: Sep 17 2011, 04:08

[bennetng]

My perceived quality is that v0 is equal to b320.
For some (maybe less than 1%) audio files I can ABX v0 vs lossless or b320 vs lossless, but I can never ABX v0 vs b320.
I would like to listen to some killer samples showing that b320 is better than v0.

[Guest_smpltn_*]

Do you mind removing that graph from the site? People are still able to link and cite the graph as fact elsewhere, and I'm really sick of seeing it.

[greynol]

The graph was already taken down. Are you suggesting that someone removes it from the discussion that was linked? If so, this is not going to happen.