Quote from: greynol on 23 September, 2013, 09:48:23 AMWe already had this conversation and the peak value was revealed.My ability to forget things exceeds my ability to read things Quote from: UltimateMusicSnob on 23 September, 2013, 11:18:13 AMIt's conceivable that classical labels could choose to normalize to -1.0db instead of -6.0, but I would bet if that range were to become standard...There is no standard. Most CDs, popular and classical, are peak normalised to nearly 0dB FS. Normalising to -6dB for a wide range classical CD is a strange choice, though some people worry about distortion in lesser equipment when getting near full scale with "pure" classical music...http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/iPlayerRulesOK/Page2.htmlCheers,David.
We already had this conversation and the peak value was revealed.
It's conceivable that classical labels could choose to normalize to -1.0db instead of -6.0, but I would bet if that range were to become standard...
This topic has been on my mind lately and I have a few questions. But first I would like to welcome UMS to the community and high five him because his "50 plus" ears are better than my 35 year old ears, and also for tolerating far more doubt and scrutiny than I would have by repeatedly replicating his test results. I'm going to loosely quote him and greynol "trained to listen with excrutiating detail" "not enough to put myself through another abx session" and "probably not be able to abx in a car".What I was wondering was if either of you feel you could abx short 5 or 10 second bursts.Not asking for more tests, just an opinion.If not, considering the entire purpose of lossy compression is portability with the best sq possible considering you are ripping out 4/5 of the audio signal, hasn't the encoder done its job? That being small files for portable or less than optimal conditions? I guess what I am saying is that offshoots or fiddling with settings are pointless because lossy is lossy and under intense scrutiny isn't the same but in less than optimal does its job just fine.
It's ironic how mp3 is capable of exceeding the dynamic range of CDDA.
I expect the relentless march of Moore's Law (and similar "laws" of computing) to gradually remove the need for lossy multimedia compression. I know some people carry around thousands of songs, but I never have, and even that number will be possible in lossless formats relatively soon, probably on fingernail-size devices.
I originally jumped in because I had seen several blanket statements (made on other forums), that no one could distinguish 256 kbs MP3 or higher from Redbook. That kind of claim gets my attention, so my research question goes to the point of whether it's possible at all (ummm, yes), which is distinct from how useful that finding really is (not much, in the majority of cases).
The MP3 was designed originally as an accompanying codec of audio stream for MPEG-1 video; as you imply, audiophile was never its intent. It has done just fine on its intended platforms, which I would identify as iPod and associated non-Apple variants: mobile devices with lower-quality earphones used in high-ambient-noise environments.
lower-quality earphones used in high-ambient-noise environments.
I expect the relentless march of Moore's Law (and similar "laws" of computing) to gradually remove the need for lossy multimedia compression.
Quote from: greynol on 23 September, 2013, 11:30:21 AMIt's ironic how mp3 is capable of exceeding the dynamic range of CDDA.I wonder if anyone has ever found a very dynamic 24 bit classical (or other) piece where the MP3 version made from 24 bit source is transparent, but dithering down to 16 bit is not.
Arnold got it right: this sample is pathological.
Is there any indication that MP3 transparency is reduced with low level music (assuming normal playback level) ?
(assuming normal playback level)
Quote from: UltimateMusicSnob on 28 September, 2013, 09:01:46 PMThe MP3 was designed originally as an accompanying codec of audio stream for MPEG-1 video; as you imply, audiophile was never its intent. It has done just fine on its intended platforms, which I would identify as iPod and associated non-Apple variants: mobile devices with lower-quality earphones used in high-ambient-noise environments.Intended platforms? Maybe now, but not originally, which I am sure you know but which the proximity of your statement about its origins risks implying to readers with less knowledge of the history. PMPs were a dream on the horizon for most people when MP3 first emerged, so they could not cause its existence. Separate from whatever the Committee originally intended, MP3 originally got used predominantly on home PCs as an easier way to store song-length volumes of audio on the relatively small disks available then and/or to transfer them over the poor internet connections of that age. It precipitated the popularity of portable players (of which the iPod was definitely not the first, to which all others are merely “associated”), not the other way around.
Quote from: UltimateMusicSnob on 28 September, 2013, 09:01:46 PMlower-quality earphones used in high-ambient-noise environments.That's a bit over the top.Really? That's how I see people using their music. Maybe they are also sitting down in front of a stereo to listen to a great new album release, but that's not what they describe to me. And the earphones they use are the ones that came with the device. This isn't supposed to be a universal claim, of course. It describes the preponderance of uses that I see and which my students describe to me. And it's far less about MP3 than it is about mobile technology per se. This is just how I see people using music at present.My turn: let's use a magnifying glass to look at the sun.Before we get on our high horses, I'm sure any of us can find samples that you can't ABX.These are what I'm interested in. If anyone has suggestions, I would like to try them. Just name the piece, and I'll get copies of the tracks and LAME them myself.Arnold got it right: this sample is pathological.I'm sorry, but this generalization about MP3 is no less silly than the statements this discussion was set out to disprove.
Quote from: Kees de Visser on 30 September, 2013, 08:28:05 AM(assuming normal playback level)This practical stipulation is the card that will likely make the entire house topple."house topple"? Not sure what the "house" is here, but I'm happy to try out any particular protocol that is offered. Is anyone aware of any low-level passages being used as killer samples, or aware of them being offered as evidence indicating a deficiency in the format in the last decade (until now)?If no then why?
Quote from: UltimateMusicSnob on 28 September, 2013, 09:01:46 PMI expect the relentless march of Moore's Law (and similar "laws" of computing) to gradually remove the need for lossy multimedia compression.This phrase periodically appears in internet already for years. The tech moves to lighter,thinner devices, hence additional restrictons for storage capacity. Yes, but eventually they run up against form factor restrictions instead of storage ones. Do you want an MP3 player smaller than your fingernail? We will be able to make one, but the market will not need one. And then there's the problem of driving headphones, which also does not scale down as easily. The batteries are not shrinking at a rate commensurate with Moore's Law.We have connections of a tons of Mbits and still use jpeg for image compression. The amount of content and image/video resolution grow fast. "Gradually remove the need for lossy multimedia compression"? Not even close.
This is a quoting style I have not seen before.The house here is the ability to ABX these files. Under non-standard conditions (such as severely boosted volume), a lot more is ABX-able, which may lead people to believe things that don't hold at all in practical situations.