12 Oct
2011
12 Oct
'11
6:03 p.m.
Hartmut Noack wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 23:07, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
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(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
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.