[LAU] How bad is mp3/ogg

[Hartmut Noack]

Am 11.10.2011 23:07, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Atte André Jensen wrote:
>
>> My question is: is this really a fair way to judge the artifacts
>> introduced by encoding?

No, it is only fair to ask your ears for a judgement.

1.) MP3 and OGG are both *different* compared to the original. So both 
are not "HiFi" in the sense of the word.

2.) every publisher of music has to make the decision if the sounds 
he/she wants to share with the world are adeaquately represented by MP3 
or OGG or not.

To give an quite extreme example: I made a mix of an 50+ track project 
in Ardour. It did sound OK but for my personal taste it should have been 
a bit more brilliant/transparent. It was just too fat in a sense... So I 
transcoded it to OGG and released it on the net to get some ideas of 
other musicians out there how to make that stuff sound a bit thinner 
whithout breaking its neck:


http://lapoc.de/demos/lapoc-sos-ashita-141008.ogg

Test-listening to the OGG-file I discovered, that the process of 
encoding had made all the difference, I was longing for. So I 
recoded(sic!) the OGG-file back to WAV to put it on CD.

There is no such thing as "good sound" there are  right or wrong sound only.

>
> No, it's completely invalid.
>
> The correct way would be a double blind A/B/X test between the
> original and the encoded versions.

Amen to that.

>
> Ciao,
>