[LAU] How bad is mp3/ogg

[david]

Hartmut Noack wrote:
> 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.

My ears are shot (age and rock'n'roll), and my equipment isn't pro 
level, but I notice a difference between 32-bit WAV recordings and 
resulting MP3s (LAME's variable bit rate, quality 2). Mostly more high 
frequencies in the WAV vs the MP3s. But this isn't double-blind testing.

How about MP4 - any difference between MP3 and MP4 when it comes to sound?

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community