| Author
|
320 vs. wav
|
x-rayz
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
576
Posted : Mar 31, 2009 08:43
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 01:56, ~d2~ wrote:
Therefore it is possible for some to hear differences when others can not.
|
|
This is pretty interesting.
I can hear big difference in 128 kbps mp3 especially in high frequencies, they distort heavily if the track is loud.. So its necessary to lower the volume prior to converting to avoid inter-sample peaks.
But in 320 kbps its hard to notice a difference..
  http://www.facebook.com/xrayzproductions
http://www.myspace.com/xrayzproductions |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Mar 31, 2009 11:45
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 01:56, ~d2~ wrote:
One flaw with mp3 encoding is that it is designed on a model of the human hearing system which is based on averages. Therefore it is possible for some to hear differences when others can not. This I have found is often overlooked.
|
|
That is very true. I read one test where the person with the greatest success of telling mp3 from wav had damaged hearing. If you don't hear some frequencies well the psycho-acoustic model breaks down, and for example parts of the signal which should have been masked with normal hearing are then audible.
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 07:59, Upavas wrote:
Quote:
|
The only tests challenging that conclusion are of the variety "I played an mp3 and a wav for a friend once and he heard the difference", i.e. neither the method used nor the variables involved documented at all.
|
|
That is unfair Spindrift! I had a room full of audio teachers (mixlab) who could all hear the difference, as could I. And I did tell you about it...
|
|
You never properly described method used nor variables involved.
How did you perform playback and switching?
What encoder and settings?
How many listens did you do and what was the result? 100% accuracy from all participants?
If you know you can tell the difference, just get WinABX and post a log of you spotting a 320kbps consistently.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Kitnam
Mantik
Started Topics :
110
Posts :
1151
Posted : Apr 1, 2009 10:01
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 01:41, Colin OOOD wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-30 23:36, Kitnam wrote:
and i realy dont trust A/B testing, the differences people say they can listen seem sometimes esoteric to me.
|
|
That's probably because of the difficulty we all have in describing the quite subtle differences between two sounds in words. If they can reliably identify which is the WAV and which is the MP3, it doesn't really matter how they describe what they hear.
|
|
they do not need to describe the difference, i mean whats happening when they just say "x sounds better than y".
do you remember the vinyl vs cd discussion?
its often about how it looks like from outside and not about whats realy within, this is how humans work. |
|
|
|
~d2~
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
751
Posted : Apr 1, 2009 12:50
|
Whats that got to do with an ABX test or a double blind test?
 |
|
|
|
x-rayz
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
576
Posted : Apr 1, 2009 13:23
|
|
Psynthex
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
41
Posts :
677
Posted : Apr 1, 2009 20:45
|
|
dj_Asura
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
20
Posted : Apr 1, 2009 20:52
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 08:43, x-rayz wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 01:56, ~d2~ wrote:
Therefore it is possible for some to hear differences when others can not.
|
|
This is pretty interesting.
I can hear big difference in 128 kbps mp3 especially in high frequencies, they distort heavily if the track is loud.. So its necessary to lower the volume prior to converting to avoid inter-sample peaks.
But in 320 kbps its hard to notice a difference..
|
|
Yep.. at 128 it's terrible. You can hear a lot of difference in hi freq. But at 320 you just have a lower punch in low freq
dj Asura (Fungi rec. / Full Moon Culture / Vision Tek rec. / Buddah Mantra / RuviProd)
Myspace
http://www.myspace.com/djasura
Alliance Myspace (chill out project)
http://www.myspace.com/staralliancecrew |
|
|
|
Dennis the menace
Moderator
Started Topics :
128
Posts :
2899
Posted : Apr 1, 2009 21:43
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Apr 2, 2009 00:40
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 11:45, Spindrift wrote:
You never properly described method used nor variables involved.
How did you perform playback and switching?
What encoder and settings?
How many listens did you do and what was the result? 100% accuracy from all participants?
|
|
Method was: 16bit 44.100 hz wav vs 320kbps lame encoded mp3.
I a/b'ed by having both files on different tracks in the same session and switching between solo tracks. It was a 5.1 cinematic setting.
Dunno the mid high speakers but the sub was definitely an 18 inch JBL, you know, the phat one (double)
Out of 7 teachers , me and 3 Students everyone heard the difference accurately, pointing out here that I did tell you this previously and you chose to ignore it and even accused me of lying!
Now your answer will undoubtedly be that lame encoding sucks and there are much better encoding possibilities out there, but I would like to stress here that lame encoding is the most common encoding used. And you're right, it is not the best one, but it is common.
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
~d2~
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
751
Posted : Apr 2, 2009 02:09
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-01 21:43, Dennis the menace wrote:
|
|
I wondered where you had got to Dennis. You been behaving yourself? |
|
|
|
RK9
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
21
Posts :
210
Posted : Apr 2, 2009 05:27
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-02 00:40, Upavas wrote:
Method was: 16bit 44.100 hz wav vs 320kbps lame encoded mp3.
I a/b'ed by having both files on different tracks in the same session and switching between solo tracks. It was a 5.1 cinematic setting.
Dunno the mid high speakers but the sub was definitely an 18 inch JBL, you know, the phat one (double)
Out of 7 teachers , me and 3 Students everyone heard the difference accurately, pointing out here that I did tell you this previously and you chose to ignore it and even accused me of lying!
Now your answer will undoubtedly be that lame encoding sucks and there are much better encoding possibilities out there, but I would like to stress here that lame encoding is the most common encoding used. And you're right, it is not the best one, but it is common.
|
|
Did you tell people which was the MP3 and which was the WAV as you were playing them?
Also, MP3 does lower the volume slightly iirc and studies show that in comparison of two sound samples, people will always say that the louder one sounds better  so try tweaking the gains around a little bit. |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Apr 2, 2009 13:21
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-02 00:40, Upavas wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 11:45, Spindrift wrote:
You never properly described method used nor variables involved.
How did you perform playback and switching?
What encoder and settings?
How many listens did you do and what was the result? 100% accuracy from all participants?
|
|
Method was: 16bit 44.100 hz wav vs 320kbps lame encoded mp3.
I a/b'ed by having both files on different tracks in the same session and switching between solo tracks. It was a 5.1 cinematic setting.
Dunno the mid high speakers but the sub was definitely an 18 inch JBL, you know, the phat one (double)
Out of 7 teachers , me and 3 Students everyone heard the difference accurately, pointing out here that I did tell you this previously and you chose to ignore it and even accused me of lying!
Now your answer will undoubtedly be that lame encoding sucks and there are much better encoding possibilities out there, but I would like to stress here that lame encoding is the most common encoding used. And you're right, it is not the best one, but it is common.
|
|
Oh no, this discussion is brought back from the dead. 
The thread I can find where you mention your blind tests you say the following:
Quote:
|
And about 100 friends can tell me the same, accurately! MP3's for some reason are never louder, always less loud and overall thinner in sound quality. |
|
Quote:
|
Spindrift, I made plenty blind tests on plenty of parties, together with many friends, and we always agree... even the dj agrees after... and yes, the higher the bitrate the less bad the mp3, yawn...old news brother, I can still tell you the difference.
|
|
Quote:
|
I can tell you the difference on a PA even when the bitrate is 320, and so can many other people. |
|
If you got 100% accuracy from all participants in the test you now describe there is no doubt in my mind that your methodology was flawed.
Can you have used strange settings on the encoder?
What kind of material was it?
Are you sure the signal was not processed in any way before playback?
What software did you use for playback?
Since you seem to make blind tests often I would really recommend WinABX. It makes testing easier and you get a log documenting a lot of variables in the test.
So spend a few minutes doing some testing and post your log with 100% success rate on 320kbps.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Apr 3, 2009 04:39
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-02 13:21, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-02 00:40, Upavas wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-03-31 11:45, Spindrift wrote:
You never properly described method used nor variables involved.
How did you perform playback and switching?
What encoder and settings?
How many listens did you do and what was the result? 100% accuracy from all participants?
|
|
Method was: 16bit 44.100 hz wav vs 320kbps lame encoded mp3.
I a/b'ed by having both files on different tracks in the same session and switching between solo tracks. It was a 5.1 cinematic setting.
Dunno the mid high speakers but the sub was definitely an 18 inch JBL, you know, the phat one (double)
Out of 7 teachers , me and 3 Students everyone heard the difference accurately, pointing out here that I did tell you this previously and you chose to ignore it and even accused me of lying!
Now your answer will undoubtedly be that lame encoding sucks and there are much better encoding possibilities out there, but I would like to stress here that lame encoding is the most common encoding used. And you're right, it is not the best one, but it is common.
|
|
Oh no, this discussion is brought back from the dead.
The thread I can find where you mention your blind tests you say the following:
Quote:
|
And about 100 friends can tell me the same, accurately! MP3's for some reason are never louder, always less loud and overall thinner in sound quality. |
|
Quote:
|
Spindrift, I made plenty blind tests on plenty of parties, together with many friends, and we always agree... even the dj agrees after... and yes, the higher the bitrate the less bad the mp3, yawn...old news brother, I can still tell you the difference.
|
|
Quote:
|
I can tell you the difference on a PA even when the bitrate is 320, and so can many other people. |
|
If you got 100% accuracy from all participants in the test you now describe there is no doubt in my mind that your methodology was flawed.
Can you have used strange settings on the encoder?
What kind of material was it?
Are you sure the signal was not processed in any way before playback?
What software did you use for playback?
Since you seem to make blind tests often I would really recommend WinABX. It makes testing easier and you get a log documenting a lot of variables in the test.
So spend a few minutes doing some testing and post your log with 100% success rate on 320kbps.
|
|
1st, the test was not flawed and no one knew which file was which, except me.
The test I was referring to in another post on the same thread, was done on Pro Tools 7.3 HD with a c/24 in a professional mix lab.
The settings used to encode the mp3 version were not in any way strange nor was the mp3 processed in any way, the material used was a pop song.
The Speakers were properly weighted. And yes, even though the test was done without flaw all could notice the difference.
Keep doubting my friend, I have proof for myself, and that is enough for me! 
I should note here that I have done this on another instance more recently at a professional mixing facility and again, everyone(4 people) could notice the difference.
At last once more we agree to disagree.
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
~d2~
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
751
Posted : Apr 3, 2009 05:14
|
|
So basically it wasn't a double blind test. |
|
|
|
Cardinals Cartel
Black Machine
Started Topics :
191
Posts :
3097
Posted : Apr 10, 2009 16:35
|
There is no question , No debate .
320kbps can be nice for an ipod at the morning jogging in the
park , On the beach maybe , At the daily walking with the dog
but pls lets be serious and stay realistic .
My opinion playing Mp3 in a party sound realy unprofessional .
I like listening my music 24 or 32 bit .
|
|
|
|
|
