Hi and welcome.I'm seeing quite a few statements about sound quality but no effort to communicate how you went about determining them.http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295The rules of this forum require this.http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974
Its hard for me to determine since I think my ears have a placebo effect.
Quote from: ThomasG3rd on 26 April, 2013, 04:50:41 PMIts hard for me to determine since I think my ears have a placebo effect.The first link I provided tells you how to avoid this very real and negatively influential phenomenon. Please read it.In the second link please read about rule #8, in the first post as well as in the later post that describes the rule in more detail.At this point I think you can safely discard any of the conclusions you've presented about different compression settings and how they affect sound quality.
I don't know about battery life... depends on the device, I'm sure.As for lossy encoder settings for best quality, it's a common question, and one that doesn't have a general answer that's going to be right for everybody. You have to generate the answer yourself, by testing. If you conduct proper ABX tests, you'll probably find that your suspicions about the placebo effect are quite correct, and that generally you don't need even half the bitrate or specific format you think you do, at least for getting "best quality". Oh, and you have to define "quality". What is that, for you?The idea behind lossy is that the audio data can be simplified in space-saving ways that will quantitatively change the output, but that won't affect our perception at all, or that will affect it as minimally and least-unpleasantly as possible. The point at which a given piece of lossy-encoded audio, played through your equipment and heard by your ears, is indistinguishable from the original is the point of "transparency". Any knob-twiddling you do to "increase the quality" beyond that point is not really increasing the quality at all, because it's already at maximum for you. And as you might expect, where it is for you is not where it is for everyone else, and can be affected by the choice of audio to encode, your hearing loss, background noise, encoder, settings, etc.Determining the point of transparency requires conducting a series of tests where you compare the original to two different clips: one is an exact copy of the original, the other is your lossy test version. These must all be volume-matched. In the test, you're forced to say which is which, even if you can't tell the difference. Do this enough times, and you'll have a meaningful score... 50% wrong answers (same as flipping a coin) means you couldn't tell the difference, less than 5% wrong means we won't argue with you anymore. foobar2000 is really good for ABX testing if you're doing it on your PC, and I believe there are ABX apps for smartphones, but it's going to be difficult to do a proper test with, say, an iPod Mini.
ThomasG3rd:- Your original posting contained a few subjective opinions of the type that this codec of that bitrate was better than (“outshine” is quite a strong word) some competition. As long as those statements refers to sound quality (rather than e.g. to battery life), then they are per the terms of service not welcome on this forum unless backed by evidence (see the TOS) or infeasible to test (like “I had to rebuild my house after the fire, but at least I got rid of that annoying boom at 67 Hz” would be a statement way beyond your ability to back up by a listening test). Of course moderators will likely not knock you for stating “I tried to save space by going mono, but that sounded too annoying”.- If you did transcode (i.e. re-encoding a lossy to a lossy), then it is known that there is a generation loss which can make artifacts audible at bitrates which would be transparent if you did encode from a lossless source. If you are looking for advice on what to do about your lossy files, the general answer is “keep them”.- If you are looking for general advice on settings to choose to minimize the filesize for given level of annoying artifacts, then I'd say the broad consensus is that VBR should be your first shot. Not equally universally agreed upon, but still likely to be best advice: if you worry that e.g. LAME V0 isn't good enough, then just stay lossless.- If you have a lossless archive, but need space-saving settings for portable use, then why not start low? If it sounds annoying, just overwrite.
2.~245 with advance settings of lowest bit rate of 256 and highest of 320.
I have bit resoviour turned off.
This setting is good as I get a higher avreage bitrate, usually 295-305.
Pretty Close to the 320 mark I am sure that its just the same.
Big question about this is that if a song hits a passage of lets say 160, does the encoder still go that low since I set lowest to 256.?
I am so sorry with all my rambling about quality and I never stated my meaning. Quality meaning staying as close to the original musical source (CD or WAVE File) as possible even if it is lossy.
I personally belong to the paranoid group, and you sound very much like you do too.My advice: use lame3100i, a functional extension. lame3100i has a minimum audio data bitrate feature for instance, something that you obviously want to use but can't get with standard Lame which just allows for defining the mnimum frame bitrate.
foobar2000 is really good for ABX testing if you're doing it on your PC, and I believe there are ABX apps for smartphones, but it's going to be difficult to do a proper test with, say, an iPod Mini.
Quote from: mjb2006 on 26 April, 2013, 05:30:11 PMfoobar2000 is really good for ABX testing if you're doing it on your PC, and I believe there are ABX apps for smartphones, but it's going to be difficult to do a proper test with, say, an iPod Mini.Not that difficult: have someone else create a playlist with a fixed (unknown to you) sequence of A and B, load it on the player and write down your guesses while listening.
Quote from: halb27 on 26 April, 2013, 06:04:34 PMI personally belong to the paranoid group, and you sound very much like you do too.My advice: use lame3100i, a functional extension. lame3100i has a minimum audio data bitrate feature for instance, something that you obviously want to use but can't get with standard Lame which just allows for defining the mnimum frame bitrate.Whilst it’s good that you provide this edited version and everything, I advise against recommending that new users adopt your personal methods simply because they remind you of yourself. Some rudimentary testing might do away with the OP’s concerns about bitrate, if not your own, so by recommending your edited version in lieu of such testing, you might be obscuring the truth of the OP actually experiences different bitrates perceptually. In other words, minimal mean bitrates may not be necessary, and I personally doubt they are for the reasons that I implied above about LAME usually being a sufficiently good judge of what an input stream demands.
[...] but when this variant perfectly matches the OP's intention why shouldn't I point to it?
I would welcome if you could respect other people's attitude towards things like this, no matter whether they are new or old members.
The overall "average" of opinion (and yes opinion to me is fine, since that is what I wanted from everyone.) is that ~245 bit resouviour turned on, no minium settings on bit rate.
.... where you came up with this as an average.