Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.
Visual differences in perceptually encoded audio are [...] not to be spuriously correlated with supposed differences in quality.
Perhaps I am being reflexively cautious, and I’m not accusing anyone of anything, but I’d like to preclude any unrealistic assumptions being taken from graphs. Short of demonstrating that the sound has indeed changed and that lossy encoding alters the balance of different frequency ranges, what substantive use do they have?You’ll also excuse me if I want to drive this point home in case Antigen has ‘heard’ somewhere on the internet that visual representations are a valid method of evaluation. I mean no offence there, but a sizable history of too readily taking claims on faith seems to make it important to emphasise that this isn’t the case.
I want to know only because LAME change the dynamic of the graph
I don't have heard this from anyone.I have simply make this procedure:1) convert a CD into MP3 with XLD (CBR 320)2) convert a CD into FLAC3) convert a CD into AACOpen the first track with AUDACITY and make the graph that I posted.Open the second track with AUDACITY and make the graph that I posted.
The graph talk, not me.
Someone can explain the motivation of the variation in dB?
I don't talk about the quality of the sound!
I have done another test:- a LAME VBR -V0 - a LAME CBR 320Why with -V 0 if I analyze the fruency I see that are present frequency at 21.000 Hz and at 320 CBR there is cutoff at 20.000?Possible that VBR can make a better audio representation?
Note that trying to analyze quality by frequency representation isn't correct.
LAME change the spectral messa