Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Problem Sample with Lame (Read 18292 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #50 –
Quote
This frequency gap isn't necessary a problem


     
you are wrong guruboolez; this frequency gap IS THE PROBLEM.

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #51 –
Could you read carefully please? A frequency hole doesn't necessary lead to an audible artifact. If you disagree, I suggest you to discuss this point to moderators (keyword=TOS#8).
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #52 –
Quote
Could you read carefully please? A frequency hole doesn't necessary lead to an audible artifact. If you disagree, I suggest you to discuss this point to moderators (keyword=TOS#8).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=269308"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I know and read very carefully the rules; as too TOS#8, I don't understand your position, because I don't violated any rule, as too TOS#8. I only expressed my opinion based in my good ears.. and I know a lot this thread, and I made my ABX tests here (in this thread), and based in this is my opinion. I am sure with this.

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #53 –
Two things.

1/ There's an obvious artifact (audible) and there's also a strange phenomenon appearing (visible) with frequency visualisation.  But it doesn't mean that both things are linked (it's likely, but not necessary).

2/ It's very easy to find similar gaps with many samples. It's something common with lossy encoders. But it doesn't mean that such gaps are problematic.


In other word, frequency graphs are only an illustration, not a proof of the audibility of any problem (except some obvious case).
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #54 –
Quote
Two things.

1/ There's an obvious artifact (audible) and there's also a strange phenomenon appearing (visible) with frequency visualisation.  But it doesn't mean that both things are linked (it's likely, but not necessary).

2/ It's very easy to find similar gaps with many samples. It's something common with lossy encoders. But it doesn't mean that such gaps are problematic.


In other word, frequency graphs are only an illustration, not a proof of the audibility of any problem (except some obvious case).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=269312"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I know this.. It's is masking. I know this phenomenom; but this case is one particular and different... I am sure with my ears and testing and observations are not wrong..

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #55 –
I think we should probably wait for Gabriel to analyze this before we conclude that the gap in the frequency spectrum is the cause of the artifact. He probably knows more about how the signal processing of MP3 works than all of us put together.

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #56 –
I'm also sure about it
If you know what masking is, then there are no problems. Visible gaps are not necessary audible artifacts. It's what I meant from the beginning.
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #57 –
Quote
I'm also sure about it
If you know what masking is, then there are no problems. Visible gaps are not necessary audible artifacts. It's what I meant from the beginning.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=269317"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ok, perfect...
I don't have any intention for a problem here....
I only disagree with you about this: "This frequency gap isn't necessary a problem", I am sure that this is a particular and very "obvious case"; for me very easy for my ears...
And I am sure that this gap frequency is real and audible problem here and this is very guilty of produced this obvious and awful artifact..
But... if this evidence is not important for you then that's your problem..

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #58 –
I tested with 3.90.3, and can hear no difference between WAV & MP3. Turned my Koss Porta Pros up until my ears hurt, and I couldn't hear any "terrible artifact". You must all have amazing ears.

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #59 –
Quote
Quote
I'm also sure about it
If you know what masking is, then there are no problems. Visible gaps are not necessary audible artifacts. It's what I meant from the beginning.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=269317"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ok, perfect...
I don't have any intention for a problem here....
I only disagree with you about this: "This frequency gap isn't necessary a problem", I am sure that this is a particular and very "obvious case"; for me very easy for my ears...
And I am sure that this gap frequency is real and audible problem here and this is very guilty of produced this obvious and awful artifact..
But... if this evidence is not important for you then that's your problem..
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=269318"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Please stop nitpicking. Guru said from the beginning, quote:
Quote
This frequency gap isn't necessary a problem (though it's apparently the case for this sample). Many lossy encoders aren't encoding intermediate frequency region for specific samples (probably for masking reason), and sound is nevertheless transparent.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=268970"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are trying hard to be a smartass, but you don't come over as smart, only as an ass.

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #60 –
Quote
You are trying hard to be a smartass, but you don't come over as smart, only as an ass.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=269339"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


For me, you are a very unpolite person..

I never offends to you, but; you offends to me...

Your commentary is very silly and anti-scientist..

I doubt very seriously that you have confirmed this evidence that is very clear and precise... Of course, if you don't have sufficient good ears doubt that you can to hear anything  .

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #61 –
Quote
Yes, it's true. I could confirm this in my Cool Edit Pro, with frequency analysis window enabled. I listened very carefully with my headphones, and could hear as the ugly artifact appeared just in the moment that the cutoff (9khz to 11khz) appeared in the analysis window. This artifact disappeared of my ears just in aprox. 2.2 to 2.3 seconds, in the exact moment in that the cutoff (in the analysis window) disappeared too.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=269301"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Many thanks Totuma  , for to confirm this OBVIOUS situation...

Excuse me this late reply... English for me is a very difficult language; and in this moment have a lot of work in my electronics laboratory    , as consequence of to build audio amplifiers that my clients need for their musical instruments... (a lot of work in this precise moment  ) Please wait me my conclusion of all this...
 

Problem Sample with Lame

Reply #62 –
I don't really ever post at HA, but I thought I'd chime in to add corroborating evidence.

I was easily able to ABX (8/8) the problem sample using 3.96.1 --preset standard.  This was the first time I have tried to ABX something too.