The pictures shown by Dibrom are interesting, but their interpretation is not easy.
I'm not sure that APS shows more HF content than r3mix, because it rather shows a large band and large time of very low HF level, while r3mix shows short burst of high level HF (especially on the them sample).
To know wether R3mix or APS shows more HF content, a global spectrum analysis of the sample should be made, instead of a sonogram.
But I don't think that the RMS level of HF content means anything. Remember that those are nearly unaudible frequencies, therefore only yellow plots should be taken into account. Grey parts are surely completely inaudible. From this point of view, r3mix shows more HF content than APS in the "them" sample, and the other sample show no (audible) HF content at all.
But remember, graphs mean almost nothing. EG the HF part could in fact be some impulse content. In that case, the lack of HF content doesn't "muffle" the sound at all, but creates pre-echo instead.
Originally posted by Dibrom Pio2001,It's a shame you didn't post your response to my graphs on this board here,
Originally posted by Pio2001 To make it short, I don't like to discuss sound quality analyzing graphs, Listening tests are way better in my opinion.
I must say that, exept for test samples, I don't hear the difference between r3mix, APS and the original on music chosen at random among well recorded CDs.
I of course agree that APS is proven superior to r3mix, but I wouldn't draw any conclusion by myself based on graphs only, without having encoded and listened to the samples themselves.
I still remember your old blind test sample with all frequencies encoded up to 22000 Hz
Originally posted by tangent Really? Most of the time what they say is "My setting is better! Use '-v0 -q0 -ms -k --lowpass 22.05'. With this setting the sound is no longer muffled, stereo image is conserved, and it doesn't sound so bad with those artificial sine sweeps I create using CoolEdit/SoundForge"
Originally posted by cd-rw.org Just by showing up again Roel has already done more for the audiophile MP3 community than some of the posters in this thread. He re-initiated the discussion about optimal LAME settings and that's always a good thing.
Originally posted by user 1. maximize this song lossless ! with mp3gain, so that it does not clip.Re-Encode it eg. with alt-extreme2. lower the gain of the source.Reencode it with same preset.Result after reencoding:1. the maximized song will contain mostly joint stereo frames.2. the same song with lossless lower gain/volume will contain less js frames, more stereo frames !Looking with Encspot:Both songs have after reencoding nearly same bitrate, nearly same bitrate distribution.Of course only nearly, but nearly exact the same....That would be well....But: the distribution of js and ms is very different.My interpretation:In alt preset extreme (i tested) there has been achieved that all songs result into a comparable average bitrate aorund 256 kbit, independent from gain.But this was achieved by a compromise in stereo/joint stereo frames.