Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
- Test-Set 48 tracks (Classic+ModernTalking+PhilCollins)
- AMD PhenomII X4 960T BlackEdition, 3.0 GHz, 6 threads (anno 2011), Win7 64bit, RamDisk
Enc with -p4mOsna-rocket launched
2.3.0 Enc 131.72s / 98.09x (52.56%)
2.3.1 Enc 74.01s / 174.39x (52.56%)
2.3.0 Dec 35.11s / 368.02x
2.3.1 Dec 29.96s / 431.28x
but that stuff aside... if you can't tell by ABX test between standard lossless 16/44.1 and your "HD" track, then there is really no difference. it's more of a difference because you think it's better more than there actually being a difference, unless of course you can ABX it. because I would not even attempt to claim I can hear a difference between standard 16/44.1 and "HD" audio. because even with decent bit rate lossy audio most people will struggle to hear a difference. or another way I could put it... when the expert listening testers around here struggle to hear a difference between standard 16/44.1 and 192kbps (or so) lossy audio files, it's all that more unlikely one could hear a difference between lossless 16/44.1 and "HD" audio since the difference there would be even smaller, especially given human hearing limits (even if we assume someone with ears as good as humans can get). so even if there was by some very small chance someone could ABX standard lossless 16/44.1 vs "HD" audio, the difference would have to be very small since, at least from my observations, I think people who do listening tests around here with decent bit rate lossy files and can notice very subtle differences are pretty close to splitting hairs already (no offense to any of them as there contributions are appreciated by those around here I am sure). so when just sitting back and enjoying ones music, which even those types who do those tests around here admit, they would never(or at least rarely) notice the difference that they very slightly can when doing ABX testing (and ABX testing requires quite a bit of focus it appears after a certain bit rate for many to where it's unlikely they would notice it when just listening to random songs straight up to enjoy them), which makes it even less likely your going to notice any different between 16/44.1 and "HD" audio, especially when just sitting back and enjoying the music.
with that said... you can still see random posts online here and there over the years who buy into that kind of thinking that lossy audio is crap, or at least some who might claim 128kbps is crap(but these types might be still stuck in the old days when MP3 was say 128kbps CBR and not more like the modern standards it's had for quite sometime now and AAC/Opus etc fairs even better than MP3 which I assume you probably already know that), and that lossless is much better. but if they actually do a blind listening test, it's almost guaranteed they won't do as well as they think they will (i.e. the differences between lossless and your typical decent bit rate lossy file are much less than they think they are).
p.s. another possible factor... most of the equipment (i.e. headphones/speakers etc) the common-ish person is likely to use (of which I would consider myself among the common person here) is probably not going to cost more than $200-300 tops in my estimations (I would imagine even if I am wrong here it surely can't be much beyond that price point). so even assuming there are cases where $500-1000+ sound equipment is better, I am more of the mindset that after a certain price point, the gains are no where near enough to justify spending hundreds of dollars more etc. or... even for those who don't mind dropping say $1k on sound equipment, even for these types there has to be a cut off point to where after a certain point it's largely wasted $, especially if your not some professional who does it for a living and needs every little advantage they can get. one last thing, to speak for myself... I got what's probably in the ball park of 'average' headphones (Sony MDR-NC7) which are nothing special and I won't be surprised if there are headphones noticeably better than what I have, but, without having really tested any fancy headphones, my hunch is there won't be a significant enough of a difference to justify spending say $100-300 as, off the top of my head, I would imagine a fair amount of people around here have headphones in the $150-300 range(?) and while it would be nice to hear those myself just to see if I can notice a clear improvement or not over what I currently use, I am definitely not going to drop $150-300 to find out and I have my doubts about there being enough of a difference on those to justify the premium price. hell, even my computer speakers (i.e. Klipsch Pro-Media), which are above average, can still be bought for $140 or so online right now and for that price range, I can't imagine finding something noticeably better to the point I would want to spend a lot more $ to get it as those speakers have a good all around sound to them and, while not what I would call cheap, they are still within a reasonable price for the common-ish person so that they might consider getting something like those unlike if you start spending say $300+ it's starting to become a decent investment, pretty much.
Ahhh... You must be a veteran!A release ahead of schedule
Dudes, it was an April 1st reference (in 2006).
I deliberately chose something high-bitrate:That's definitely interesting. Most of my test files are CD-Audio and i haven't really checked the processing speed of hires audio lately. I will catch up.
In addition to putting a hi-rez I am using a fanless computer with a fairly slow CPU, that explains the speeds.The new assembly optimizations are using unaligned SSE2 read instructions which is faster on relatively new cpu architectures (Skylake and later) but often considerably slower (than the old code) on older cpus. This penalty will eat up a lot of the other speed optimazions and the advantage of the new version will be quite small.
Oh, and the 88.2/24 Anal Trump actually compressed worse with 2.3.1.Strange! How big is the difference? I would have checked it myself but i seem to be too dumb to downlad it for free...
Available for free here: https://analtrump.bandcamp.com/album/that-makes-me-smart
--------------------I can do badder!
Sorry for bad English...
I was using them [cassette] and walkman until year 2000 or so.
I used those portable cassette players (that run on two AA's) a bit to. I am not exactly sure what year I stopped using them but I want to say mid-to-late 1990's as far as portable cassette players go. although I know a vehicle I had back around those days used cassette tapes so I used those into the early 2000's on some level, but only because of occasional vehicle use, but general portable use etc would have been pretty much CD's.
I would guesstimate I was using portable cassette player from about 1992-1993 (it could not have been earlier than 1992-1993 because 'Dr. Dre - The Chronic (1992)' was when I first got into music, which would have pretty much put me about 13 years old at that time) til mid-to-late 1990's as I was using portable CD players before the year 2000. although the first good portable CD player I got (with good battery life/anti-skip protection) was likely in the year 2000, given it's (Sony D-EJ611) got a Dec 1999 mfg date on it, which I still have, as it's still a decent option for portable music (given it gets good battery life and one can use NiMh battery(Eneloops etc) in it nowadays which basically means you will easily get for years of use out of a single pair of NiMh AA's) even though it's most obvious flaw is it's not as convenient like a portable/MP3 player since you have to change out CD's due to it being limited to 80min audio MAX per CD where as a MP3 player can pretty much fit ones entire collection in it (currently using AGPTEK-U3(8GB) with 16GB MicroSD card as of March 2021). so I don't really use it much anymore even though I have a little here and there over the last handful of years or so (although putting that aside it's been collecting dust since I think 2008 when I got a Sansa e250. so prior to that e250 unit, that Sony player (the mfg date of 1999 one) probably got about 8 years of use out of it). it would have been even better had it been able to read CD-RW discs so one would cut back on waste. because as is, I got to burn CD-R's, so I tend to stick to MP3 players.
but anyways, the first portable CD players I used (which are the only two I recall having before the good one I mentioned above), which would have been probably 1993-1994 or so, are battery hogs/no skip protection as I remember one of those two (which was the newer of the two) did not even have the usual center hub where you click the CD into place and came with sort of a tray it sit on when say in a vehicle to help prevent skipping etc but I don't think I really ever used that much from memory as I just held the CD player in hand being careful to keep it as steady as I could and it worked well enough as that one, while I don't recall the exact battery life of that, it was on the weaker but still usable side unlike the first one we had which seemed to be pretty much useless running from two AA's from what I recall. so from those days to a maybe 5 years or so later, the battery life etc improved dramatically on those portable players along with the added bonus of anti-skip technology which worked quite well to where I can't even recall that Sony one with the mfg date of 1999 ever skipping even when having it in a little holster type thing near my waste walking around quickly back in the day.
but if I recall correctly I was still using portable cassette players back around that mid-1990's range because I want to say they ended up being overall better back then due to crap battery life on portable CD players, at least the two I used did back around those days to where the CD players were not outright superior like they were by near the very end of the 1990's or so as by then, say early 2000's or so, I would say cassettes were pretty much dead as I remember one could get blank cassette tapes for a while but eventually local stores stopped carrying them but I don't know about what year that was from memory but my best guess off the top of my head was probably sometime in the early-to-mid 2000's.
ill stop babbling now, but it's a nice trip down memory lane talking about this stuff a bit
Your points regarding 16bit/44kHz are understood, but to my hearing I don’t believe the sampling rate (2x human hearing) is good enough to accurately sample more than 3 instruments that have a tendency to modulate each other.Choosing between the sampling theorem or a belief system i'd prefer the theorem.
It means that all modulations below at least 20kHz are perfectly captured at a 44.1kHz samplerate even from 21 instruments and more.
You may even add unnecessary Intermodulation with playing back inaudible captured HF content at higher sample rates.
Next stop: TOS 8
aking a 320 kbps MP3 and converting it to 256 KBPS AAC would not result in quality loss because the AAC conversion wouldn’t redundantly remove high and low frequencies again and the algorithm wouldn’t need to compress more than it already has. That sounds very wrong to me.It's quite as simple as throwing-away frequencies you (hopefully) can't hear.
With MP3 "damage" accumulates with every generation of re-compression, and MP3 is actually one of the worst formats for this! AAC is pretty-much immune from accumulated damage.
But, I don't know if transcoding from MP3 to AAC is better than compressing MP3 twice... I don't know if you get the best of both or the worst of both.
Nine different codecs 100-pass recompression test
See below last failure.txt. I've had to trim the module list.Doesn't seem good. How comfortable are you with attaching to the debugger in Visual Studio?
I include a .pdb file in the repo so that you can actually get line numbers for some of these crashes. It either needs to be placed in the same folder as foobar.exe or in the same folder with the foo_musicbrainz.dll. I honestly can't remember which at the moment.
Barring your ability to do that, I'm not sure how to track this down if I can't replicate it. I'll let you know, but unfortunately my schedule is pretty busy at the moment and it may be a couple weeks before I can spend significant time on this.
I tend to be of the mindset like Markuza97's signature says, "Everything above 16/44 is scam." ...Then I hope we can agree to disagree. I tend to describe the difference between listening to a well engineered 24bit track with studio headphones via DAC/AMP as listening to the actual instrument versus listening to a well engineered recording of the instrument. The differences are difficult to pick out and describe, but the feeling of being there versus in my living room is real to me.
Your points regarding 16bit/44kHz are understood, but to my hearing I don’t believe the sampling rate (2x human hearing) is good enough to accurately sample more than 3 instruments that have a tendency to modulate each other.