"I don't need to read anything and I am not wrong."

I've read the links, and I've read similar before.

The problem is that listening tests are subjective and the result varies on the pair of ears listening. A true scientific test (a waveform comparison), balanced with scientific information about frequency response in the ear is the only common sense way to test.

Quote

"I don't need to read anything and I am not wrong."

you see what i mean, he? 

Nice reply to the thread on the other board, JohnV.

ff123

So good in fact that I'm going to task myself with memorizing (and learning) the entire text of it.

JohnV: Thanks for the post. I have read a lot on the topic before and do understand a lot of the background to this.

I still think that a waveform comparison, albeit skewed for frequency response and obviously taken over time, is a much more accurate test.

Of course MP3 is a lossy format. The critical thing is how much redundant data can you remove, but still create a waveform that is as similar as possible to the original (with frequency skew). Listening tests are interesting, but suffer from all sorts of issues statistically speaking.

JohnV: Thanks for the post. I have read a lot on the topic before and do understand a lot of the background to this.

I still think that a waveform comparison, albeit skewed for frequency response and obviously taken over time, is a much more accurate test.

Of course MP3 is a lossy format. The critical thing is how much redundant data can you remove, but still create a waveform that is as similar as possible to the original (with frequency skew). Listening tests are interesting, but suffer from all sorts of issues statistically speaking.

Besides, nice avatar, indybrett. Did you make i yourself?

PS - of course, we all know that we're wasting our time over there - it's a creative message board after all!

Yeah, but next time we can copy-paste that text we wrote for the next "genius".. 

If I remember well, your thesis is on mp3-tech.org (but in pdf)

Will someone please tell these people to use LAME v3.92 and test the following two command-lines against the original .wav, and then tell them to eat their words -

I hope posting that link on there doesn't bring those types of people here onto Hydrogen Audio. I think WE all know what sort of trouble that brought last time.

Why don't you do it yourself ? Anyway, I don't think it would convince him, because JohnV already talked about spectral views, and he answered that waveform comparison was better than spectrum comparison. We should find a sample that sounds better when the amount of noise resulting from the substraction of the original from the copy is bigger (substraction = differences between the waveforms).
I'm not interested in doing this, because if he wasn't convinced by JohnV's explanation, he won't be with another example, and will answer that it's just an isolate case chosen on purpose, and that for normal music, the less difference there is, the better the quality. And actually this may be true quite often.