Skip to main content

Topic: MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV (Read 51553 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.2.8
2013/09/16 19:01:08

File A: C:\Users\KiarkAudio\Documents\Ravel_Test_File_2.wav
File B: C:\Users\KiarkAudio\Documents\Ravel_Test_File_1.mp3

19:01:08 : Test started.
19:01:27 : 01/01  50.0%
19:01:34 : 02/02  25.0%
19:01:42 : 03/03  12.5%
19:02:15 : 04/04  6.3%
19:02:49 : 05/05  3.1%
19:03:01 : 06/06  1.6%
19:03:52 : 07/07  0.8%
19:04:06 : 08/08  0.4%
19:04:28 : 09/09  0.2%
19:04:38 : 10/10  0.1%
19:04:51 : 11/11  0.0%
19:05:28 : 12/12  0.0%
19:05:44 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)
This test is from an excerpt of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe (full version, not the Suite). This was a planned set of 12 rounds.
The .wav file above was ripped directly from the music CD using SoundForge 10. SoundForge 10 exported the file to MP3 at 320 kbs setting.

Soundforge statistics produced the following:
 Redbook Left RMS: -26.087
Redbook Right RMS: -26.385

 MP3 Left RMS: -26.135
MP3 Right RMS: -26.441

While the two files are thus not identically matched for level, the Left channel difference is 0.048db, Right difference is 0.056 db. While these are not
perfectly matched, I don't claim to hear that small a difference, and particularly not when averaged across the file. Minimum and Maximum samples were all slightly over or under -6db, I assume the recording was mastered to -6db. Thus, not near clipping level.

The test above was done listening to the opening portion of the clip.

Here's a <30-second clip of the lossless source:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ost&id=7640
Here is the thread containing it:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=102681

Playback chain is:
   Lenovo PC desktop, files saved to hard drive
   RME Babyface audio interface
   Schiit Asgard 2 headphone amplifier
   Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro headphones

I'm posting this because I've read in other forums (not here; just joined) that MP3 at 256 kbs and 320 kbs are "transparent", indistinguishable from Redbook audio. I chose 320 as the highest quality available in MP3 - the difference is audible to me. They are certainly very close - listening in my car driving down the road I wouldn't hear the difference.

I have lots of professional musical experience, but my 50+ year-old ears apparently do not hear above 18 kHz. I know the basic principles of psychoacoustic masking used in MP3 lossy compression, but not well enough to know whether or not Ravel in live orchestra is more suited or less suited to accurate MP3 encoding. Alternative sample files for testing welcome. 
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 07:30:44 PM by greynol

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #1
Not all mp3 encoders are created equally?

Have you tried Lame 3.98.4, 3.99.5 or 3.100l?

This last one uses VBR which could likely do just as well as 320 CBR (which is true for VBR with the other two versions).

Also, don't worry about matching level unless the codec scales as a precaution to prevent clipping on decode to integer.  That you get different values is perfectly normal with lossy encoding.
  • Last Edit: 16 September, 2013, 10:09:15 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #2
Depends.  ABXIng some codecs at 320kbps isn't very hard.  Is the one you used any good?

  • Makaki
  • [*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #3
Just in case your program did something funky:

Could you convert the "wav file" to 320 kbps (-b 320) using the lame command line. I suggest to use the most default setting possible.

While you are it try VBR 0 (-V 0 ).

MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #4
Not all mp3 encoders are created equally?

Have you tried Lame 3.98.4, 3.99.5 or 3.100l?

This last one uses VBR which could likely do just as well as 320 CBR (which is true for VBR with the other two versions).

Also, don't worry about matching level unless the codec scales as a precaution to prevent clipping on decode to integer.  That you get different values is perfectly normal with lossy encoding.

Not yet. I have SoundForge, so I used it. Just downloaded 3.99.5 from RareWares, I'll have to figure out the command line. Thanks for the tip.

MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #5
Just downloaded 3.99.5 from RareWares, I'll have to figure out the command line. Thanks for the tip.


Try with, xrecode it's easy, no need to "type" command lines. The software download lame encoder for you, it's  almost automated. Xrecode have a nag screen, but is fully functional if you use the "demo".

  • testyou
  • [*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #6
Xrecode have a nag screen, but is fully functional if you use the "demo".

Instead you could use foobar2000 or LameDropXPd.

The test above was done listening to the opening portion of the clip.

I'm interested in evaluating the killer sample you've found when you can upload another version.

MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #7
(Insert long-winded justification of the statement that either the OP has golden ears or  there's something wrong here)
Not saying that the OP did anything wrong, just that this sort of result shouldn't happen very often to people who don't have golden ears, and when it does it can be considered a bug.

MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #8
Just in case your program did something funky:

Could you convert the "wav file" to 320 kbps (-b 320) using the lame command line. I suggest to use the most default setting possible.

While you are it try VBR 0 (-V 0 ).

Okay, here we are.

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.2.8
2013/09/16 22:15:57

File A: C:\Users\KiarkAudio\Documents\Ravel_Test_File_2.wav
File B: C:\Users\KiarkAudio\Documents\Ravel_Test_File_3.mp3

22:15:57 : Test started.
22:16:13 : 01/01  50.0%
22:16:22 : 02/02  25.0%
22:16:30 : 03/03  12.5%
22:16:40 : 04/04  6.3%
22:16:49 : 05/05  3.1%
22:17:08 : 06/06  1.6%
22:17:24 : 07/07  0.8%
22:18:15 : 08/08  0.4%
22:20:03 : 09/09  0.2%
22:21:17 : 10/10  0.1%
22:21:50 : 11/11  0.0%
22:22:28 : 11/12  0.3%
22:22:48 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/12 (0.3%)

Test File 3 was made with LAME 3.99.5 vc6.

Command line switches were -b 320 -h

A planned set of 12 rounds again.

I'd like to get around the "killer sample" limitation. That's the reason for using this clip: wide variety of orchestral textures, good dynamic range while not pushing the clipping limits. I hope to replicate from different portions of the clip. This was listening *only* to the opening few bars.
  • Last Edit: 16 September, 2013, 11:48:59 PM by UltimateMusicSnob

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #9
^^ Unless that music is in the public domain you're going to get yourself in trouble posting links like that.  Anyway, without the original lossless file, its hard to gauge anything about that mp3.  You need both to compare.

Edit:  You may want to look at TOS#9 now:  http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....974#entry149482
  • Last Edit: 16 September, 2013, 11:52:14 PM by saratoga

MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #10
Sorry about the length mistake, moderators, it won't happen again!

Proper versions well under 30 seconds:

Original lossless version, WAV ripped from Redbook CD:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ost&id=7640 (same as the link in the discussion's first post)
Recommended MP3 via LAME 3.99.5, at -b 320 -h settings:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ost&id=7641
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 07:33:36 PM by greynol

  • testyou
  • [*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #11
I can't hear any difference between the two.  I quit after 25 minutes, clicking a guess so as to obtain a log.
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.2.9
2013/09/16 21:20:02

File A: C:\Users\Admin\Desktop\Ravel_Test_File_2_short.wav
File B: C:\Users\Admin\Desktop\Ravel_Test_File_3_short.mp3

21:20:02 : Test started.
21:45:08 : 00/01  100.0%
21:45:13 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 0/1 (100.0%)
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 01:11:08 AM by testyou

  • Makaki
  • [*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #12
I don't have the ears (or the equipment?) to ABX that high
Can you also try the VBR 0 (eg: -V 0), just a curiosity.

EDIT:
I'm under the impression that the internals are different enough to merit different results.
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 01:17:39 AM by Makaki

MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #13
I don't have the ears (or the equipment?) to ABX that high
Can you also try the VBR 0 (eg: -V 0), just a curiosity.

EDIT:
I'm under the impression that the internals are different enough to merit different results.

Help me keep up with the terminology here 

What are the internals? Are you referring to the different processing employed by the -V 0 switch, compared to the -b 320 setting for the posted MP3?

Thanks for the help! Will definitely try out the -V 0 switch tomorrow.

Also, I don't want to depend on this one clip--if someone has already prepared clips of this specific contrast (44.1/16 versus high-quality MP3), I would like to try them out.
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 01:24:57 AM by UltimateMusicSnob

  • TomasPin
  • [*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #14
Maybe we got ourselves a new Killer Sample? It's certainly possible...

Anyway, I tried ABXing. I failed, unsurprisingly...
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/

  • gib
  • [*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #15
Recommended MP3 via LAME, at -b 320 -h

Is -h actually recommended?  For some reason my brain is telling me it's not, but I'll admit to not being totally up on all the LAME switches.
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 01:24:20 PM by greynol

  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #16

MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #17
Recommended MP3 via LAME, at -b 320 -h

Is -h actually recommended?  For some reason my brain is telling me it's not, but I'll admit to not being totally up on all the LAME switches.

The RareWares bundle includes a "Basic command line switch reference" HTML file, reproduced here:

http://ecmc.rochester.edu/ecmc/docs/lame3.98a2/basic.html#h

...which recommends -h for slower encoding but higher quality. I'm interested in distinguishing at the highest possible quality levels, so I used it.
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 01:24:44 PM by greynol

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #18
I believe there are documented cases where -h resulted in a poorer quality encode

Anyway, the 30-second lossless clip is adequate; people can encode it themselves.

You're free to upload to our forum rather than use a shitty third-party ad-laden host.

Equipment may or may not make a difference, depending on the artifact. More-expensive does not universally mean more revealing.  Grossly uneven frequency response might be able to break masking, while excessive distortion or noise can aid masking.

Lastly, MP3 has limitations which hinder its ability to deliver transparent results for those who are trained to listen for them or who are particularly sensitive to them.
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 02:11:39 AM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • testyou
  • [*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #19

http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lam...l/detailed.html
Quote
Aliases and removed settings
-h   Alias of -q 2.
[...]
-q n Algorithm quality selection
For CBR, ABR and --vbr-old modes, the following table applies
-q 0   Use slowest & best possible version of all algorithms.
-q 3   Default value. Good speed, good quality
[...]
For the default VBR mode since LAME 3.98, the following table applies
-q 0 to -q 4   Use the best algorithm.
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 02:19:08 AM by testyou

  • halb27
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #20
@UltimateMusicSnob:
If you like to try lame3100l mentioned by greynol I suggest to use the setting --bCVBR 316. It uses a very high quality VBR method internally (which needs an audio data bitrate like CBR 320).
lame3995o -Q1

  • gib
  • [*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #21
I believe there are documented cases where -h resulted in a poorer quality encode

This must be what I'm remembering; the rare cases that have come up where it was worse.  It's not necessarily a bad or frowned upon switch, then.
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 03:39:29 AM by gib

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #22
...
File A: C:\Users\KiarkAudio\Documents\Ravel_Test_File_2.wav
File B: C:\Users\KiarkAudio\Documents\Ravel_Test_File_3.mp3
...
I'd like to get around the "killer sample" limitation...

Why is it  your mp3 has a different name as the wav?
Since you are new in here i have some doubts about your intention and motivation, sorry.
You may have only abx'd some hamster fart against the zar bomb.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

  • Makaki
  • [*][*]
MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #23
One reason could be that windows does hide file extension by default, and if you have the same media icon for all media files, that makes it even worse.

So you would have a:
Ravel_Test_File_1 with a Music Note Icon, and
Ravel_Test_File_1 with a Music Note Icon

But one is actually a WAV and the other an MP3, or something else, etc.

Not everybody changes the windows default and turns extensions back on.
  • Last Edit: 17 September, 2013, 08:36:48 AM by Makaki

MP3 320 kbs vs Redbook ripped to WAV
Reply #24
...
File A: C:\Users\KiarkAudio\Documents\Ravel_Test_File_2.wav
File B: C:\Users\KiarkAudio\Documents\Ravel_Test_File_3.mp3
...
I'd like to get around the "killer sample" limitation...

Why is it  your mp3 has a different name as the wav?
Since you are new in here i have some doubts about your intention and motivation, sorry.
You may have only abx'd some hamster fart against the zar bomb.

When I do these sorts of tests, I usually end up with multiple files whose only difference is the precise encoding employed. In this case one lossless source file, used for multiple lossy versions in different encodings.
So I number them sequentially as they are produced, so that they line up properly when I sort on the 'Name' column in Windows Explorer.
If I don't distinguish them by number, then successive varieties of MP3 will over-write each other.
The hamster business, well, that could be true of anyone putting up foobar2000 logs. For that matter, I could have just edited the file in Notepad to say whatever I like. Short of doing the tests in a face-to-face environment, I don't see a way around that one.
Finally, "intention and motivation" are immaterial to objective testing. Folks in Gearslutz said that Hydrogen Audio was highly knowledgeable about objective testing for audio, so that's my interest.