You talk about LAME. Let's look at that: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LameHere is a graph from that page:It shows that it *never* achieves transparency regardless of data rate.
So, what is the definition of 'quality' being used in the context of that graph? Numerical identity with source? Likelihood of being ABX-able from source?
IMO, this graph is not evidence that 320 'never achieves transparency'.
As such, quality can't be 100% with any setting.
If you want to add there the transparency point, it would be somewhere around 8...
Also, nowhere in the graph talks about transparency. It talks about quality.
Quote from: [JAZ] on 26 August, 2011, 02:30:56 PMAlso, nowhere in the graph talks about transparency. It talks about quality.More specifically, it says "perceived listening quality". As such it is not unreasonable to assume from the graph that mp3 never reaches transparency.
Where does this graph come from??
Arbitrarily, I'd give the following quality levels:--abr 56: 3--abr 90: 5-V5: 7-V4: 8-V3:8.5-V2: 8.7-V0: 9.1-b 320: 9.2
And why the HA wiki for LAME is using a cryptic graph about an old version of the codec, to inform the public. (Don't worry, I know the answer -- ITS A WIKI, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, FIX IT)
and what 'XLS' is
Quoteand what 'XLS' isMS Excel spreadsheet
The graph only has one meaning. That increasing bit rate never achieves transparency.
QuoteThe graph only has one meaning. That increasing bit rate never achieves transparency.
Is the objection limited solely to a somewhat misleading graph and a blatant misinterpretation thereof, or is amirm railing against MP3 using a line of reasoning that has not been subjected to a double-blind test? Confidence of pronouncement often varies inversely with willingness to proffer evidence, something that should be abundant and close to hand if the claimant is correct. Ironic!
IMHO. He thinks you guys are beating me up here, so what do I know? ;>
The graph probably wants to show that Lossy != Lossless.
I think by full 'Quality' on the graph they mean that it will never be bit exact quality from the source file.
it says "perceived listening quality"