12 Oct
2011
12 Oct
'11
2:40 p.m.
On 11/10/2011 23:35, S. Massy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:07:33PM +0000, Fons
Adriaensen wrote:
But tests should be blind, as Fons suggested.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Atte
Andr? Jensen wrote:
With suitable hardware. What I mean is, I think
a great way of
demonstrating the difference between lossy compression and uncompressed
audio is to do an A/B test through a consumer device and then do it in the
studio. The difference can be striking. My question is: is this really a fair way to
judge the artifacts
introduced by encoding?
No, it's completely invalid.
The correct way would be a double blind A/B/X test between the
original and the encoded versions. I like to think I have decent ears, and I can only
very rarely tell the
difference once over 192kbps. Though I've also found that bitrate isn't
always everything (i.e some audio seems to respond better to a given
compression algorithm than other). I wonder what other people's
experience has been in that respect.
It has always struck me how well you can tell compressed files by
listening to applause (especially the kind of applause you get at a talk
or classical music concert).
My personal experience is that classical and electroacoustic music are
much more susceptible to compression artefacts than 'mainstream' music.
Lorenzo.
Cheers,
S.M.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user