1 Oct
2014
1 Oct
'14
10:54 a.m.
Dear community,
While not directly a linux related question,
I am wondering about ultimately using linux
tools for the possible solution, so:
I get the feeling at times, when getting music
from torrents and such, that not all files
claiming to be flac are actually lossless.
It seems that sometimes folks will take an
mp3, reencode it in flac and distribute the
result.
Now the question is whether it is possible to analyze an
audio file encoded in a lossless format and
determine if it existed as a lossy file in a
previous life?
Any insight is appreciated.
Thanks.
1 Oct
1 Oct
11:12 a.m.
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 10:54 +0200, Egor Sanin wrote:
I get the feeling at times, when getting music
from torrents and such, that not all files
claiming to be flac are actually lossless.
It seems that sometimes folks will take an
mp3, reencode it in flac and distribute the
result.
How do you get the impression? You are aware that a lot of music is
remastered and that remastered usually doesn't mean that the sound
quality is improved, but that the dynamic range is killed. But indeed,
when I asked a friend to burn me a CD I lost, he didn't burn original
wav files, he used lowest quality mp3s (not even "high quality" mp3s)
and converted them to wav.
11:21 a.m.
On 10/1/14, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 10:54 +0200, Egor Sanin wrote:
I get this impression by an unreliable method called intuition, and I
am wondering if there exists a reliable method that I can use to
confirm or refute this intuition.
I get the feeling at times, when getting music
from torrents and such, that not all files
claiming to be flac are actually lossless.
How do you get the impression? 
11:31 a.m.
On 1. Oktober 2014 11:21:02 MESZ, Egor Sanin <egor.sanin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/14, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)rocketmail.com> wrote:
To reproduce your Intuition, you can only use your intuition...
Im not sure... do you want to find out if the material souds good, vor do you want to
detect Codecs?
For the first, use intuition, for the second i am not aware of tools dedicated to that
usecase.
-- Markus
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 10:54 +0200, Egor Sanin
wrote:
I get this impression by an unreliable method called intuition, and I
am wondering if there exists a reliable method that I can use to
confirm or refute this intuition.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user I get the feeling at times, when getting music
from torrents and such, that not all files
claiming to be flac are actually lossless.
How do you get the impression?
11:35 a.m.
On 10/1/14, Markus Seeber <markus.seeber(a)spectralbird.de> wrote:
To reproduce your Intuition, you can only use your
intuition...
I don't want to reproduce anything, I ...
want to detect Codecs?
Bingo. Those are the right words.
Is there a method and open source tools available to detect the
presence of artefacts introduced by lossy encoding in audio files
encoded in a lossless format?
8:58 p.m.
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 11:35, Egor Sanin wrote:
Is there a method and open source tools available to
detect the
presence of artefacts introduced by lossy encoding in audio files
encoded in a lossless format?
There is
http://en.true-audio.com/Tau_Analyzer_-_Aucdtect_Algorithm_Details, some
Windows source
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tta/files/tta/tau-analyzer/, and a
(binary only afaik) Linux command line tool aucdtect.
10:54 p.m.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 20:58:44 +0200
chr.ohm(a)gmx.net wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 at 11:35, Egor Sanin
wrote:
That is the Windows tool I was remembering.
Is there a method and open source tools available
to detect the
presence of artefacts introduced by lossy encoding in audio files
encoded in a lossless format?
There is
http://en.true-audio.com/Tau_Analyzer_-_Aucdtect_Algorithm_Details,
some Windows source
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tta/files/tta/tau-analyzer/, and a
(binary only afaik) Linux command line tool aucdtect. 
11:36 a.m.
Am 01.10.2014 11:31, schrieb Markus Seeber:
On 1. Oktober 2014 11:21:02 MESZ, Egor Sanin
<egor.sanin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/1/14, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 10:54 +0200, Egor Sanin wrote:
I get the feeling at times, when getting music from
torrents and such, that not all files claiming to be flac
are actually lossless.
How do you get the impression?
I get this impression by an unreliable method called intuition, and I
am wondering if there exists a reliable method that I can use to
confirm or refute this intuition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
To reproduce your Intuition, you can only use your intuition...
Im not sure... do you want to find out if the material souds good, vor
do you want to detect Codecs?
For the first, use intuition, for the second i am not aware of tools
dedicated to that usecase.
-- Markus
Maybe Spek could be of some help here:
http://spek.cc/
and here is a guide to use it for your purpose
http://www.techsupportalert.com/How-to-find-out-the-actual-quality-of-an-au…
regards
hermann
11:45 a.m.
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 11:21 +0200, Egor Sanin wrote:
On 10/1/14, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)rocketmail.com> wrote:
I heard all kinds of sold reissued recordings. Seemingly I didn't heard
a loudness war remaster, but seemingly I heard CDs produced with vinyl
record equalization. "Intuition" that something goes wrong, is something
I can understand, but what does cause the common bad sound quality is
quasi impossible to say, we just can imagine. Most common seem to be
recordings were the loudness mix gets completely out of control, if this
happens the industry tries to calm down customers with lies about
accidents when doing the digital recordings. In the LAU and/or LAD
mailing list archives are some examples. IIRC The Red Hot Chilly Peppers
sold a broken recording and I once had the Rock for Light and the I
against I from the Bad Brains, seemingly the CD was produced from a
vinyl equalization master or something similar. The German Wiki about
loudness war mentions the remastered versions of Something from The
Beatles. Audio quality is out of style, for good reasons I _can't_ work
as audio/video engineer anymore, the evolution that happened within the
last decades is emotional unbearable.
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 10:54 +0200, Egor Sanin
wrote:
I get this impression by an unreliable method called intuition, and I
am wondering if there exists a reliable method that I can use to
confirm or refute this intuition. I get the feeling at times, when getting music
from torrents and such, that not all files
claiming to be flac are actually lossless.
How do you get the impression?
11:59 a.m.
On 10/1/14, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)rocketmail.com> wrote:
"Intuition" that something goes wrong, is
something
I can understand, but what does cause the common bad sound quality is
quasi impossible to say, we just can imagine.
Please see post above. I'm not talking about "common bad sound
quality". I'm talking about a very specific situation:
Low quality mp3 is re-encoded into flac. I download the flac with no
knowledge about the source file. Is it possible to analyse the flac
using a tool and tools available as open source software, and
determine with a high level of confidence that the flac is a
rerencoding of an mp3 file?
The software spek was mentioned, wich is a spectral analysis and
visualization software. I will try it by recreating the situtation I
just described using my own recordings. I will report results.
Unless this has already been done by someone, in which case I'm
curious to know what was discovered.
11:56 a.m.
[Egor Sanin]
Now the question is whether it is possible to analyze
an
audio file encoded in a lossless format and
determine if it existed as a lossy file in a
previous life?
The lowpass/antialiasing filters used for most audio productions
usually operate very close to the Nyquist limit. Those employed in
lossy audio data compression often (but not always) are set to a lower
cutoff frequency. On a spectrogram, their effect is visible as a
total absence of energy above, say, 20kHz or lower.
Cheers, Tim
noon
On 10/1/14, Tim Goetze <tim(a)quitte.de> wrote:
The lowpass/antialiasing filters used for most audio
productions
usually operate very close to the Nyquist limit. Those employed in
lossy audio data compression often (but not always) are set to a lower
cutoff frequency. On a spectrogram, their effect is visible as a
total absence of energy above, say, 20kHz or lower.
Thanks, Tim, I'll do some investigation.
1:27 p.m.
On Wednesday 01 October 2014 04:54:33 Egor Sanin did opine
And Gene did reply:
Dear community,
While not directly a linux related question,
I am wondering about ultimately using linux
tools for the possible solution, so:
I get the feeling at times, when getting music
from torrents and such, that not all files
claiming to be flac are actually lossless.
It seems that sometimes folks will take an
mp3, reencode it in flac and distribute the
result.
Now the question is whether it is possible to analyze an
audio file encoded in a lossless format and
determine if it existed as a lossy file in a
previous life?
Any insight is appreciated.
Thanks.
Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some do not.
I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has ever been
in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it, and want to
"change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3 at some
point.
These are the same 80 yo ears that need hearing aids at times, but they
can listen to an .ogg made at Q7 on a 24/7 basis without the mp3 fatigue.
They have also been my final judger of audio quality for a living as I
have over 50 years in broadcast engineering in some capacity that paid me
well when I was working for my daily bread. When the station owners see
the ratings book go up 2 points because they sound better, getting a raise
was not a problem, in fact I didn't have to ask most of the time.
As a side comment regarding technical quality of the mixes presented here,
and most certainly not intended to denigrate the musical efforts I see &
hear here on these lists, quite a bit of which shows talent and creativity
sorely needed, its clear that many of your monitoring setups are deficient
in bass response as the resultant mix is way too heavy on the bass. Good
bass can be seen on the vu meter as only 2 or 4 db above the "melody
line", but one piece that was recently posted must have had 30 db of boost
applied below 150hz. I think it would have been great music, had it not
been mixed with that much bass boost.
I'll get me coat.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
US V Castleman, SCOTUS, Mar 2014 is grounds for Impeaching SCOTUS
3:14 p.m.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com> wrote:
Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some do not.
I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has ever been
in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it, and want to
"change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3 at some
point.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a reasonable
bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data. This isn't up
for debate.
Reasonable bit-rate means 256kbps; by the time you reach 320kbps even
expert listeners have a very very hard time differentiating the mp3 from
the PCM in an ABX test.
By all means talk about low bit rate encodings and how they are no good,
but please folks - double blind testing doesn't lie, and the double blind
tests are close to unambiguous at this point.
4:18 p.m.
On 1. Oktober 2014 15:14:22 MESZ, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett
<gheskett(a)wdtv.com> wrote:
Exactly.
Also, mp3 did change in quality over the years, but if you have old low Bitrate mp3,
well... thats your fault. Same goes for using old/crappy implemented encoders/decoders.
-- Markus
Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some do
not.
I am amazed at the number of people who cannot
tell if mp3 has ever
been
in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get
tired of it, and
want to
"change the station" in just a minute
or so, its been an mp3 at some
point.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
reasonable
bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data. This isn't
up
for debate.
Reasonable bit-rate means 256kbps; by the time you reach 320kbps even
expert listeners have a very very hard time differentiating the mp3
from
the PCM in an ABX test.
By all means talk about low bit rate encodings and how they are no
good,
but please folks - double blind testing doesn't lie, and the double
blind
tests are close to unambiguous at this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5 Oct
5 Oct
12:41 p.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
wrote:
Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
do not.
I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
ever been
in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
and want to
"change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3
at some
point.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
This isn't up for debate.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
idiotic.
Please post links about MP3 double-blind test done with human beings who
still remember how a real strawberry or banana yogurt does taste, who
know how a real Camembert made from raw milk does taste.
What group of people was unable to distinguish between a good recording
and a MP3?
2:47 p.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
just doesn't cut it.
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
wrote:
Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
do not.
I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
ever been
in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
and want to
"change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3
at some
point.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
This isn't up for debate.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
idiotic.
Please post links about MP3 double-blind test done with human beings who
still remember how a real strawberry or banana yogurt does taste, who
know how a real Camembert made from raw milk does taste.
What group of people was unable to distinguish between a good recording
and a MP3?
5:39 p.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Chris Bannister <cbannister(a)slingshot.co.nz>
wrote:
Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
just doesn't cut it.
have you ever actually done a double bind test of 256kbps or 320kbps mp3 vs
PCM data?
i challenge you to take one. almost nobody that has ever taken such a test
can tell the difference (which actually means that when predicting which is
which, they do not get the answer right more than 50% of the time,
indicating that they actually have no basis for the supposed claim of being
able to discriminate).
the hydrogen audio forums are a good place to read up on such tests, as is
a google search, though most of the really solid double blind test papers
are behind paywalls.
7:18 p.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On 10/05/2014 11:39 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Chris Bannister
<cbannister(a)slingshot.co.nz <mailto:cbannister@slingshot.co.nz>> wrote:
Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
just doesn't cut it.
have you ever actually done a double bind test of 256kbps or 320kbps
mp3 vs PCM data?
i challenge you to take one. almost nobody that has ever taken such a
test can tell the difference (which actually means that when
predicting which is which, they do not get the answer right more than
50% of the time, indicating that they actually have no basis for the
supposed claim of being able to discriminate).
the hydrogen audio forums are a good place to read up on such tests,
as is a google search, though most of the really solid double blind
test papers are behind paywalls.
Yes. And this extends to 16/44.1 vs. 24/96 and 24/192.
The rest is just religion.
6 Oct
6 Oct
7:11 a.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On 06/10/14 at 01:47am, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
ie spot on your cognitive dissonance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
)
BTW, what if you all claiming this ridicoulus thing about being able to
distinguish beetween 256-320kbps (mp3) or 500kbps (ogg) meet each other at next
LAU and have a public test? I would really enjoy this double blind test with no
"degenerated idiots" around.
--
« Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus »
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis
wrote:
Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
just doesn't cut it.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
wrote:
Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
do not.
I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
ever been
in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
and want to
"change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3
at some
point.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
This isn't up for debate.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
idiotic.
Please post links about MP3 double-blind test done with human beings who
still remember how a real strawberry or banana yogurt does taste, who
know how a real Camembert made from raw milk does taste.
What group of people was unable to distinguish between a good recording
and a MP3?
14 Oct
14 Oct
4:58 p.m.
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 07:11 +0200, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
On 06/10/14 at 01:47am, Chris Bannister wrote:
You completely missed the point, I hope you will be able to understand
the neon light example. You need to make real life tests and care about
the sensitivities. What happens if you listen 16 hours with just a few
short rests to an analog tape and what happens if you do this listening
to MP3?
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Ralf
Mardorf wrote:
ie spot on your cognitive dissonance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
)
BTW, what if you all claiming this ridicoulus thing about being able to
distinguish beetween 256-320kbps (mp3) or 500kbps (ogg) meet each other at next
LAU and have a public test? I would really enjoy this double blind test with no
"degenerated idiots" around. On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis
wrote:
Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
just doesn't cut it.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
wrote:
Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
do not.
I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
ever been
in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
and want to
"change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3
at some
point.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
This isn't up for debate.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
idiotic.
Please post links about MP3 double-blind test done with human beings who
still remember how a real strawberry or banana yogurt does taste, who
know how a real Camembert made from raw milk does taste.
What group of people was unable to distinguish between a good recording
and a MP3?
9:01 p.m.
On 14/10/14 at 04:57pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 07:11 +0200, Raffaele Morelli
wrote:
congnitive dissonance: ie you CANNOT tell the difference so you CLAIM it's
a biased test because of "listening fatigue"... but it takes less than 10
minutes
for a 30 trial run unless you want to demonstrate Bernoulli's theorem without
n-> ∞
--
« Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus »
On 06/10/14 at 01:47am, Chris Bannister wrote:
You completely missed the point, I hope you will be able to understand
the neon light example. You need to make real life tests and care about
the sensitivities. What happens if you listen 16 hours with just a few
short rests to an analog tape and what happens if you do this listening
to MP3? On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Ralf
Mardorf wrote:
ie spot on your cognitive dissonance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
)
BTW, what if you all claiming this ridicoulus thing about being able to
distinguish beetween 256-320kbps (mp3) or 500kbps (ogg) meet each other at next
LAU and have a public test? I would really enjoy this double blind test with no
"degenerated idiots" around. On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
> wrote:
>
> Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
> do not.
> I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
> ever been
> in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
> and want to
> "change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3
> at some
> point.
>
>
> For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
>
>
> It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
> majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
> reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
> This isn't up for debate.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
idiotic.
Please post links about MP3 double-blind test done with human beings who
still remember how a real strawberry or banana yogurt does taste, who
know how a real Camembert made from raw milk does taste.
What group of people was unable to distinguish between a good recording
and a MP3?
Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
just doesn't cut it.
9:38 p.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 21:01 +0200, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
On 14/10/14 at 04:57pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I never heard a good MP3, at best they sound like a CD, always well
audible less good than a DAT master of a good analog production, but I
never cared about the used software or kbps, when I got MP3s. But it
doesn't matter, there are two fronts. If people want to listen to MP3,
if they want to listen to loudness remasters, if they want to eat
artificial flavours, want to draw paintings under light with missing
colours, colour spikes or flickering light, people should do. It's just
scary that sometimes fruits and vegetables nowadays didn't grow in
earth, are creepy breedings that indeed sometimes taste less good, than
artificial flavours. I'm not against modern life, a lot of things became
better, but a lot of things became less good. Btw. even if MP3s should
be as good as the original analog or lossless DAT master, for what
should it be good to convert to MP3? For livestreams, television ok, but
there's no need for anything else. Oops, ok for those who consume music
wherever they are and who need 1000 of recordings where ever they are.
Btw. when the CD was introduced and people claimed that it is not
possible to gouge holes into a CD without causing loss or making it
completely unable to play the CD, there were also claims similar to the
one you're making ;). For me this thread is finished.
Regards,
Ralf
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 07:11 +0200, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
congnitive dissonance: ie you CANNOT tell the difference so you CLAIM it's
a biased test because of "listening fatigue"... but it takes less than 10
minutes
for a 30 trial run unless you want to demonstrate Bernoulli's theorem without
n-> ∞ On 06/10/14 at 01:47am, Chris Bannister wrote:
You completely missed the point, I hope you will be able to understand
the neon light example. You need to make real life tests and care about
the sensitivities. What happens if you listen 16 hours with just a few
short rests to an analog tape and what happens if you do this listening
to MP3? On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Ralf
Mardorf wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
> > do not.
> > I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
> > ever been
> > in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
> > and want to
> > "change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3
> > at some
> > point.
> >
> >
> > For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
> >
> >
> > It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
> > majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
> > reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
> > This isn't up for debate.
>
> For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
>
> Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
> with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
> I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
> heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
> tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
> the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
> you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
> idiotic.
>
> Please post links about MP3 double-blind test done with human beings who
> still remember how a real strawberry or banana yogurt does taste, who
> know how a real Camembert made from raw milk does taste.
>
> What group of people was unable to distinguish between a good recording
> and a MP3?
Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
just doesn't cut it.
ie spot on your cognitive dissonance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
)
BTW, what if you all claiming this ridicoulus thing about being able to
distinguish beetween 256-320kbps (mp3) or 500kbps (ogg) meet each other at next
LAU and have a public test? I would really enjoy this double blind test with no
"degenerated idiots" around. 
10:55 p.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On 10/14/2014 09:38 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
For me this thread is finished.
Good news :)
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT
http://stackingdwarves.net
15 Oct
15 Oct
6:38 a.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On 14/10/14 at 09:38pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 21:01 +0200, Raffaele Morelli
wrote:
bla bla bla, but point is: you CANNOT distinguish lossy with higher bitrates
from lossless formats.
You always end up such threads in a bunch of bullshits which doesn't ever make
the whole sense of the subject.
Meet us in LAC and do this ABX test in a session and prove youself or you'd better of
go playing with vegetables and light bulbs.
--
« Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus »
On 14/10/14 at 04:57pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I never heard a good MP3, at best they sound like a CD, always well
audible less good than a DAT master of a good analog production, but I
never cared about the used software or kbps, when I got MP3s. But it
doesn't matter, there are two fronts. If people want to listen to MP3,
if they want to listen to loudness remasters, if they want to eat
artificial flavours, want to draw paintings under light with missing
colours, colour spikes or flickering light, people should do. It's just
scary that sometimes fruits and vegetables nowadays didn't grow in
earth, are creepy breedings that indeed sometimes taste less good, than
artificial flavours. I'm not against modern life, a lot of things became
better, but a lot of things became less good. Btw. even if MP3s should
be as good as the original analog or lossless DAT master, for what
should it be good to convert to MP3? For livestreams, television ok, but
there's no need for anything else. Oops, ok for those who consume music
wherever they are and who need 1000 of recordings where ever they are.
Btw. when the CD was introduced and people claimed that it is not
possible to gouge holes into a CD without causing loss or making it
completely unable to play the CD, there were also claims similar to the
one you're making ;). For me this thread is finished.
Regards,
Ralf On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 07:11 +0200, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
congnitive dissonance: ie you CANNOT tell the difference so you CLAIM it's
a biased test because of "listening fatigue"... but it takes less than 10
minutes
for a 30 trial run unless you want to demonstrate Bernoulli's theorem without
n-> ∞ On 06/10/14 at 01:47am, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
> > > do not.
> > > I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
> > > ever been
> > > in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
> > > and want to
> > > "change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an
mp3
> > > at some
> > > point.
> > >
> > >
> > > For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
> > >
> > >
> > > It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
> > > majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
> > > reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
> > > This isn't up for debate.
> >
> > For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
> >
> > Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
> > with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
> > I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
> > heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
> > tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
> > the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
> > you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
> > idiotic.
> >
> > Please post links about MP3 double-blind test done with human beings who
> > still remember how a real strawberry or banana yogurt does taste, who
> > know how a real Camembert made from raw milk does taste.
> >
> > What group of people was unable to distinguish between a good recording
> > and a MP3?
>
> Spot on Ralf! You've said it way better than I ever could.
> Once you've actually *heard* good sound, an MP3 coming from a computer
> just doesn't cut it.
>
ie spot on your cognitive dissonance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
)
BTW, what if you all claiming this ridicoulus thing about being able to
distinguish beetween 256-320kbps (mp3) or 500kbps (ogg) meet each other at next
LAU and have a public test? I would really enjoy this double blind test with no
"degenerated idiots" around.
You completely missed the point, I hope you will be able to understand
the neon light example. You need to make real life tests and care about
the sensitivities. What happens if you listen 16 hours with just a few
short rests to an analog tape and what happens if you do this listening
to MP3?
5 Oct
5 Oct
2:52 p.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
> wrote:
>
> Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
> do not.
> I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
> ever been
> in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
> and want to
> "change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3
> at some
> point.
>
>
> For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It's not nonsense! Haven't you ever heard of listening Fatigue?
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
14 Oct
14 Oct
4:41 p.m.
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 01:52 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
+1
In an unnatural "neutral room for tests" a lot of people would be unable
to distinguish between neon light and a light bulb when doing double
blind tests. If you monitor school classes taught by neon light or light
from light bulbs, the difference looks like the kids in the neon light
class room suffer from taking cocaine, compared with the much laid-back
kids from the light bulb rooms.
The double blind test is good to check efficiency of medicine, but
useless for quality tests, such as flavour, aesthetic enjoyment and
enduring impact on the quality of life, concentration and health.
On Wed,
2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>
> For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It's not nonsense! Haven't you ever heard of listening Fatigue? 
6 Oct
6 Oct
1:57 p.m.
New subject: [Bulk] Re: Lossy audio to lossless format
Quoting Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)rocketmail.com>om>:
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
For crying out loud folks, stop arguing and test it yourselves!
Take a song or a snippet of a song, use the latest lame version and
compress it into different files using -V5 to -V1, load it up into
foobar ABX or squishyball or any other ABX program and see if you can
actually tell the compressed and uncompressed audio apart.
For the snippet I used I could tell the difference up to around
160kbps, after that it became pure guesswork.
I would be very suprised if the majority on this list could tell the
difference above 200kbps.
- Peder
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett(a)wdtv.com>
wrote:
Your ears are probably the best tool. Some hear well, and some
do not.
I am amazed at the number of people who cannot tell if mp3 has
ever been
in the mix. To me its obvious, when your ears get tired of it,
and want to
"change the station" in just a minute or so, its been an mp3
at some
point.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!
It is established without any shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming
majority of the population CANNOT tell the difference between a
reasonable bit-rate encoding in mp3 format and the original PCM data.
This isn't up for debate.
For crying out loud, stop this nonsense Paul!
Just because several people can't distinguish cheese made of raw milk
with cheese made from heated milk, doesn't mean that the tests are ok.
I'm unable to stand heated milk, I'm unable to stand cheese made from
heated mild and I'm unable to stand MP3. Yes, there are double-blind
tests that confirm that people guess the real taste of a strawberry is
the artificial taste and that the natural taste is artificial. IOW if
you make double-blind tests with degenerated idiots, the results will be
idiotic.
1 Oct
1 Oct
6:59 p.m.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:54:33 +0200
Egor Sanin <egor.sanin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear community,
While not directly a linux related question,
I am wondering about ultimately using linux
tools for the possible solution, so:
I get the feeling at times, when getting music
from torrents and such, that not all files
claiming to be flac are actually lossless.
It seems that sometimes folks will take an
mp3, reencode it in flac and distribute the
result.
Now the question is whether it is possible to analyze an
audio file encoded in a lossless format and
determine if it existed as a lossy file in a
previous life?
Any insight is appreciated.
Thanks.
Hi Egor,
once upon a time I read a lot about audio codecs on
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/. Note that this is a codec focused
forum, not a free software focused one, but people like the lame and
ogg developers do (or used to) read and write at those forums AFAIK. I
also remember that there was some windows tool for the purpose you
describe but I can't recall the name. Anyway, AFAIR it used the
techniques already described, spectral analysis to detect lowpass
filtering.
There are some artifacts of the mp3 codec that allow for rather
reliable detection, pre-echos come to mind. You are likely able to
train yourself to listen for these artifacts, but you may not be able
to un-train yourself ;)
Regards,
Philipp
7:09 p.m.
On 10/1/14, Philipp Überbacher <murks(a)tuxfamily.org> wrote:
Hi Egor,
Hi Philipp and all the folks that have provided input on the subject.
It is all very informative.
once upon a time I read a lot about audio codecs on
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/. Note that this is a codec focused
forum, not a free software focused one, but people like the lame and
ogg developers do (or used to) read and write at those forums AFAIK. I
also remember that there was some windows tool for the purpose you
describe but I can't recall the name. Anyway, AFAIR it used the
techniques already described, spectral analysis to detect lowpass
filtering.
Great, it will be a good exercise for me, and I will try out this method.
There are some artifacts of the mp3 codec that allow
for rather
reliable detection, pre-echos come to mind. You are likely able to
train yourself to listen for these artifacts, but you may not be able
to un-train yourself ;)
Haha, ok, this is usefull, too!
You guys are great!
3694
days inactive
3708
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
29 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
chr.ohm＠gmx.net -
Chris Bannister -
Egor Sanin -
Gene Heskett -
hermann meyer -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
Markus Seeber -
Paul Davis -
Peder Hedlund -
Philipp Überbacher -
Raffaele Morelli -
Ralf Mardorf -
Ricardus Vincente -
Tim Goetze