Support NeoGAF

[Hitokage]

First thing first....

Acoustic perception is not objective.

Everybody's hearing is slightly different and may respond to different perception models better than others. What a lossy compression codec tries to do is find a model that will best fit the majority of listeners, but there WILL be those who cannot agree with the rest regarding the quality of a specific encoding.

Short answer, yes, to most ears 320CBR LAME MP3 = CD. It's not true digitally, so unless you have something against lossless codecs, look into one of the ones i recommended, like FLAC. When you decode FLAC files, they return to the original WAVs. Best of all, a FLAC file (encoded at level 8 encoding) will be half the size of a 320CBR MP3, with marginally better quality.

You're confusing FLAC with somthing else in that last sentence. No FLAC file is going to have an average 160kbps bitrate.

 

[Chairman85]

First thing first....

Acoustic perception is not objective.

Everybody's hearing is slightly different and may respond to different perception models better than others. What a lossy compression codec tries to do is find a model that will best fit the majority of listeners, but there WILL be those who cannot agree with the rest regarding the quality of a specific encoding.

If they can not prove that they hear a difference using a Double Blind test, then their word is not valid.

Also, Lossy Encoding should not be about sounding best, but about sounding closest to the original source.

 

[Hitokage]

If they can not prove that they hear a difference using a Double Blind test, then their word is not valid.

Also, Lossy Encoding should not be about sounding best, but about sounding closest to the original source.

Even if they did ABX their experience many times over, that STILL only applies to their own hearing. Also, not once in my post did I say anything about something "sounding best".

What matters in judging the overall quality of a codec is not individual evaluations, but representative samples of the listening audience, and how large the gap is between those most responsive to its acoustic model and those least responsive.

 

[isamu]

_________

 

[FightyF]

Anyone here use monitors?

I'm thinking of getting some...and it's related to this thread because it's probably the best way to test the different codecs.

 

[isamu]

Hi.

I have a question.....

While using Exact Audio Copy to rip CDs and encode my mp3s, I set the compression 320kbps CBR. With this setting, does it matter what command line I have typed into the command line box? At 320 CBR, will it matter if I have it at alt.preset.insane or alt.preset.extreme? Is there a big difference between alt.preset.extreme and alt.preset.insane?

 

[fart]

if you're using EAC with LAME you need to use the command line switch to get the preset. i always go with insane but i have no idea if anyone can tell the difference between insane and extreme. if depends on how much space you want to use. iirc the standard 320kbps CBR isn't exactly the same as preset insane

audio and the ear is a very very complex thing. you can't "prove" anything without a ton of research and rigorous experimentation. go with what works for you and that's about that.

monitors tend to sound like crap. the popular ones are popular because they sound distinctively so.

 

[isamu]

if you're using EAC with LAME you need to use the command line switch to get the preset. i always go with insane but i have no idea if anyone can tell the difference between insane and extreme. if depends on how much space you want to use. iirc the standard 320kbps CBR isn't exactly the same as preset insane

audio and the ear is a very very complex thing. you can't "prove" anything without a ton of research and rigorous experimentation. go with what works for you and that's about that.

monitors tend to sound like crap. the popular ones are popular because they sound distinctively so.

Thanks fart