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: End of the MP3? Quality still good, but far from great (Read 23747 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

End of the MP3? Quality still good, but far from great

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Spikey on
Interesting, my only hope is that this original discussion can branch out into a new 'codec war' style comparison (without the blood of course!).

It's been way too long since we've had a good lossy encoder comparison, I'd love a 180 (or similar) MPC/AAC/Vorbis/MP3/perhaps lossyFLAC comparison.

- Spike


You won't motivate much people, many whom have trouble with 130 k. Lossy flac and co. cannot really compete at those bitrates too.

End of the MP3? Quality still good, but far from great

Reply #26 –
Quote from: PurpleHayz on
Given these findings, it's clear that I'll have to re-rip/encode my collection using some higher bitrate codec, perhaps even lossless.


Thanks for your effort ... your test indicates that you seem to have some above-average hearing.

IMO, Lossless ist the way to go for you ... as you have noticed, mass storage space is really affordable these days (even if you save your entire collection on 2 different types of media like I do with HDD and DVDR).
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

End of the MP3? Quality still good, but far from great

Reply #27 –
Quote
You won't motivate much people, many whom have trouble with 130 k. Lossy flac and co. cannot really compete at those bitrates too.

Hey, 128/130, whatever. As long as it's a VBR comparison and a proper comparison of how popular codecs are functioning at comparable bitrates, that's the main thing.

I don't use 128 (or 180), which is why I said 'whatever' in the original post I made. But either way, it seems a lot of people make claims of how acceptable 128 kbps is (and how pointless high bitrates are), yet I see little ABX'ing of said claims.

Although to be fair, my 'feeling' is that 128 and above are pretty hard to distinguish from each other without proper listening (that is to say, if you were doing anything but concentrating 100% on the track you probably wouldn't notice). But that's a feeling, not fact

I would do one today, but I'm sick and my sinuses are clogged- not an ideal time to ABX test fiddly things like codecs.

- Spike

End of the MP3? Quality still good, but far from great

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Spikey on
I don't use 128 (or 180), which is why I said 'whatever' in the original post I made. But either way, it seems a lot of people make claims of how acceptable 128 kbps is (and how pointless high bitrates are), yet I see little ABX'ing of said claims.
Well, it's certainly easier to test for the opposite.

I've been able to ABX enough samples at -V5 to know I don't want to use it.  With the hardware I currently own or ever plan on owning, ~128 mp3 will never interest me; no matter how distracting my listening environment.
 

End of the MP3? Quality still good, but far from great

Reply #29 –
Switching A, B, Y, X too fast may confuse your brain - you might even guess right up to 6 chances, but then you definitely start losing that sensitivity. Take time and hear the samples with a few 10 seconds before switching to the next. I guess that is why most people can never ABX properly.