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: HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison) (Read 68104 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #50 –
Quote
The better the equipment the better you CAN AND MUST HEAR all the nonsense MP3 produces... The music is dull, it loses its "power", space, air... No MP3 can achieve the music without artifacts and all the crap around... and LAME is here no exception... but OGG, MPC and AAC are closer to the point, which may lead (maybe) to good results.

Riiiiiiiiight. 

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #51 –
Well, of course the audio equipments are a factor here, but even bigger factor (way much bigger) is the listener him/herself. Last time I saw, a "true audiophile" from head-fi.org couldn't ABX even mpc standard..

Of course, if they take the test non-blind, they hear all the difference in the world.. 
Juha Laaksonheimo

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #52 –
Quote
And let me guess, budgie. You have done extensive DBT testing also, right?  :rolleyes:
And how weird, you forgot to mention which bitrates&settings you were testing...  :rolleyes:
Ah, but you also forgot to provide any information which MPC,AAC and Vorbis versions you tested.  :rolleyes:
You also forgot to tell what music did you test and how did you do the testing.  :rolleyes:
And if you by accident did any ABX testing, you forgot to provide any ABX results..  :rolleyes:

Yes, lets all move to FhG based on this..  :rolleyes:


Dear JohnV, no need to make a fool of me  What's interesting me is the reason, why people waste so much of their time trying to make something, what's not useful or not worth to be heard? (Well, some time was wasted by me, too  ) I am a musician and I love music and I really enjoy listening to it, but not listening to a crap as MP3  What is the need for MP3 and who really needs it? People, who regularly buy the music? Or maybe people, who LOVE the music? Why should I hear such a crap?! I personally own a lot of CDs; when I want some music, I just go and buy it... when time passes by and I get to know I like the music not so much anymore, then it's no problem to sell it in second hand and buy a new one... Maybe the MP3 is the portable solution, but then space is an issue and you really don't need all these switches and presets as can be found in LAME 

I do not blame anyone, so do not blame me just because you may think you are SOMEONE and I am NO ONE... Or does it mean just because of the extent of the internet I didn't know anything about HA till end of October 2002, I did not exist or what? You are not just THE ONE WHO KNOWS, dear JohnV... I may be a little bit older than you, and I bet I am and that's the point I feel offended just because I haven't put everything exactly as you may wish...

But back to business... I say, that when you have the opportunity and appropriate equipment, YOU MUST HEAR the difference between original audiophile CD and MP3 crap of any kind... Sure there's a lot of examples, when you don't... It is mainly the today so called pop music... But if you have a really great sounding CD, then MP3 is no way and competition...

HOWGH 

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #53 –
Budgie: again, calling MP3 (all kinds? all encoders? all settings?) "CRAP" without backing it up, will bring you nowhere around here.

If you check (hint: "Search" link up there on the right) you will find more proof of the opposite you are claiming.

As I said, do blind tests. The "placebo" effect is real, and it's definitely affecting you. Greatly.


(... I foresee flames...  )

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #54 –
Quote
What's interesting me is the reason, why people waste so much of their time trying to make something, what's not useful or not worth to be heard? (Well, some time was wasted by me, too sad.gif ) I am a musician and I love music and I really enjoy listening to it, but not listening to a crap as MP3

Oh my God..  what's that ?
You're a musician and you don't like technology, right ? You like natural stuff ? 
Well, me too !  So I can understand that...  but WAIT !  You like cd's !    So you have nothing against digital, right ?

However, since all you care about is listening pleasure, you don't like lossy coding -- because it's lossy of course...  it sounds logical, I understand that !
In fact that was the only sound argument in your post.

Well, since you don't like codecs, what do you think about audiophile equipment that follow (regarding the codec technology) the same path as MP3, such as a good Minidisc deck ? Does it sound like crap for this matter ?

For your information, a properly-encoded MP3 had better time resolution than Minidisc.
Oh, I forgot.. I shouldn't compare crap with crap.. Yeah right.

Need more examples ? What do you think about DVD's ?  SACD ? DTS soundtracks ?  progressive-scan HDTV ?  All crap of course..

Well, I don't think so...
... and that's for the following reasons:

(0) If you DO NOT compress, then for the same amount of space you get CRAPPY quality where you could get BRILLIANT quality using proper compression. For example, I dare you find a concrete example where DTS (lossy subband coding) is worse than Audio CD. Remember, it's 6-speaker, 24-bit sound in a smaller space than stereo CD !!  Oh, of course, it sounds 'thin' !  I forgot 

(1) You seem to have never compared (read: objectively) a decoded, burned mp3 file against the original cd.

(2) In fact, I bet you can hear the difference between a production and a burned cd, even if they're identical. I mean it's so obvious, even if bitwise identical ! Try it,  you'll believe me.    In fact, the Audiomaster technology is just for you ! After all, it bloats the original audio size by a few percent (60.x vs 74 mins).. I bet the copy will be better than the original 

(3) In case you think every lossy codec is crap, you should also dislike op amps, tube amps, Vinyl equipment, high-end loudspeakers, mastering engineer's headphones and the like, since each of these device (alone) will produce much more audible distorsion or harmonic loss than your average MP3 encoder, on pretty much any material !  By the way, you're lucky I'm not talking about Vinyl  B)

(4) Do you listen to your music in an anechoic room, with controlled moisture and human body dynamic air turbulence compensation ? Including harmonic substep Planck-domain resampling ?  I mean, otherwise you probably wouldn't tolerate those reverb effects in the room you're in, could you ?

(5) Haven't you had the crazy thought, just once, that maybe, some people who care about audio quality, just like you - but technically competent that is - did design or tweak codecs with quality in mind ? Codecs that don't make compromises on quality, and don't mutilate the sound ? I'm talking about reaching transparency for the vast majority of people, even trained ones. I think, what you just said is an insult to the men who just made it possible ! I'm talking about people like Dibrom, Takehiro, JohnV, Garf, Ivan, Frank, Andree and the like.  If you want codec names I can mention LAME, the AAC encoders, Musepack.. and I could mention Vorbis too (even if it's not totally tuned yet).  I just can't believe you can spit on people like this, by just putting everything in the same bucket !

(6) What is the weakest link in your audio chain, when listening to your CD ? Have you heard the difference between a $100 and a $5000 cd player ? It's digital, deterministically-behaving, scientifically engineered stuff, right ?  So, where are your blind test results ?

Next time you want to criticize the work of other people, well, at least try to do it respectfully - which means, by doing your homework first.

Quote
I personally own a lot of CDs; when I want some music, I just go and buy it

Same as just about every person here on HA...  By the way, WHY do you feel the need to bring piracy issues into question ? I don't see that as a valid argument against the mp3 format !  In fact this has nothing to do with audio coding ! I thought your goal was a discussion about listening pleasure and audio codec artifacts ?

Man, I can't believe it..

Quote
if you have a really great sounding CD, then MP3 is no way and competition

Plain utter garbage.
One example:  Take a DVD-AUDIO, encode it to a 320kbps MP3 without truncation to 16-bit nor ATH, then decode it to 24-bit. What do you have ?  Worse transient reproduction (= slightly warmer sound) but better dynamics than CD. Is it crap ? No, it's just different - depends on what you need. And it takes 1/4 the space as CD.

By the way..  You want to judge a lossy codec using your top-notch equipment ?  So, why not taking a top-notch codec to start with ?  And higher than streaming bitrates ? I mean, crappy stuff you can always find ! :x  It's no big achievement from your part really.

Quote
YOU MUST HEAR the difference between original audiophile CD and MP3 crap of any kind... Sure there's a lot of examples, when you don't... It is mainly the today so called pop music

It's called pop-level cd mastering. Like Frank Klemm says, in 2020 cd's (except for classical music maybe) will sound like historic recordings.

Sorry about ending this post already.. I got no napalm anymore.

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #55 –
Quote
But back to business... I say, that when you have the opportunity and appropriate equipment, YOU MUST HEAR the difference between original audiophile CD and MP3 crap of any kind...

Heh, I can't say that I really disagree, because most MP3s you can find and encode are crap, unless you know what to do and how to get the best results. You don't need anything special equipments to that though. Although many people can't hear anything wrong with even very high cost equipments.

Basically what I'm saying is, that equipment doesn't really matter as much as you think. It matters, but if you think everybody can or "must" instantly hear that every mp3 is crap with very expensive audio equipments, you are simply wrong. Are you for example familiar with the c't magazin blind listening test in february 2000? 300 alleged audiophiles were involved, finalists tested 17 1-min clips from different artists (classic and pop); they couldn't distinguish 256kbps mp3 from the originals. I don't personally agree with the results, that 256kbps FhG is CD-quality, but these alleged audiophiles couldn't hear statistically significant difference in a recording studio using:

  • B&W Nautilus 803, Marantz CD14 with amp PM14 (Straightwire Pro cabling and extra's) [DM30000- so bit more than $15000]

  • Sennheiser Orpheus Electrostatic Reference-headphones with tweaked accompanying amp (digital and analog out) [>$10000]

    I take it from your response that you haven't done any DBT.. Thus even you yourself really don't know how good you are in distinguishing lossy audio at its best... all you have are these claims, which may be true or not, but nobody knows, probably not even you yourself if you haven't done any DBT.
Juha Laaksonheimo

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #56 –
Quote
Oh my God..  what's that ?

(...)

Sorry about ending this post already.. I got no napalm anymore.

Please NumLock, turn down the sarcasm a bit. We are not an "elite", I find your post a bit contemptuous... wether one's idea are right or wrong, it can be discussed without making fun of people. Otherwise, I'll never dare pointing my friends audiophile to this board

Quote
The better the equipment the better you CAN AND MUST HEAR all the nonsense MP3 produces...


That's not wrong, but the truth is rather "same or better". Let me give you an example. It's very difficult to sort out two notes separated by 1/50th of a tone only, but playing them on hi end audiophile equipment doesn't help at all, it's still exactly as difficult.
Mp3 doesn't alter the frequencies this way, it rather adds noise. Good listening conditions are enough to hear noise. A -60 db noise will maybe be easier to hear on expensive gear, but not necessarily. It is still -60 db.

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #57 –
Quote
Please NumLock, turn down the sarcasm a bit. We are not an "elite", I find your post a bit contemptuous... wether one's idea are right or wrong, it can be discussed without making fun of people. Otherwise, I'll never dare pointing my friends audiophile to this board

You're right Pio2001, I've been heavily sarcastic..  maybe a bit too much.  My apologies to budgie for that, and for anyone else who might have been offended. 

Anyway, even though I've switched to mpc last month I've always found mp3 to sound good - maybe just a bit colored, and slightly softer, compared to the originals.. probably slight differences in phase and transient response. But good sound, people. Pleasant to listen to.

Mp3 is patented, has its design flaws (nonoptimal bitrates/sfb21/stereo handling/complex transform) and is quite a bit outdated that's right.. but IT IS NOT - by any means - CRAP.  At least not as a file format (when properly encoded).

I'm really interested in seeing the results of the test !  Maybe LAME-originating track(s) will be picked out of the bunch, maybe not.  But I'd be really surprised if it is rated 'bad' sounding.

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #58 –
Quote
I personally own a lot of CDs; when I want some music, I just go and buy it... when time passes by and I get to know I like the music not so much anymore, then it's no problem to sell it in second hand and buy a new one...

So you're trying to say here that doing back-ups is pointless? I have some albums/CDs in my collection that are pretty old (about 10 years). I still listen to them a lot. I would hate the day that they got destroyed without me having any backup of them, and on top of that, not finding them available in any record store...

EDIT: A bit off-topic, but what's the life-expectancy on a CD? 10 years, should I worry?

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #59 –
Well, well, well... the water is boiling a bit and this hasn't been my goal. Not for a second, really... All I want has been to know, what is the purpose of making something what sounds good sound worse?  That's what I've been talking all the time... sure, if you need compress music to some portable device or an average car equipment, it's okay (and then maybe 64 kbps mp3 PRO may sound for most people great), but as an archive format MP3 IS AND STAYS CRAP FOREVER      And as for ageing of CD and its lifetime... nobody has proven yet, it won't stay at least 50 years or so (partly because it is not so many years since CD has come into being) it still may be rescued by "archiving" it as MP3?! It's no problem by today's prices of CD-R to burn them again and again... using appropriate techniques, equipment and software you get always the same result, because of cons of digital technology 

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #60 –
Sorry for sending 3x my answer, but two times I got refused and then it was posted three times...

Here it is: Fatal error: Call to undefined function: postbox_perms() in /home/hydrogen/public_html/forums/sources/Topics.php on line 1380

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #61 –
Quote
I would hate the day that they got destroyed without me having any backup of them, and on top of that, not finding them available in any record store...

Yeah ! By the way, there should definitely be a service in place, where you could exchange any scratched cd's against newly pressed ones - for the price of the media. Having to buy the whole thing a second time, which implies paying the royalties twice, is UNACCEPTABLE !

For instance, since I didn't have backups 10 years ago, I just had to download two Pink Floyd cd's I own. The cd's are completely unreadable (1..2 readable tracks per disc, at most). Well, this kind of service is supposed to be offered by the music industry, gentlemen. That's their job !  Since these people don't give a damn about their customers, I have to use an efficient, user-friendly, non-capitalism oriented service instead (the internet).

They say we don't just buy cd's, we license music. So why wouldn't they replace a destroyed cd after we bought the music ?!?  This is just plain nonsense !

Quote
A bit off-topic, but what's the life-expectancy on a CD? 10 years, should I worry?

With careful use (reasonable scratches), I'd say about 10-15 years before you start encountering unrecoverable errors.
If the plastic doesn't oxyde on the inner side (could happen in the early ages), and you don't use the CD every week, and it's stored properly I think they could last 30 years pretty easily.

In case of scratches you can restore the surface to a certain extent, but the sanity of the labeled side is really critical.

Quote
sure, if you need compress music to some portable device or an average car equipment, it's okay (and then maybe 64 kbps mp3 PRO may sound for most people great)

The problem with such things as 64kbps "mp3 pro", is that there's no defined quality goal. It just basically tried to sound "good enough" at an insufficient, forced, constant bitrate.

Quote
as an archive format MP3 IS AND STAYS CRAP FOREVER

Budgie... how strange you now started talking about archiving with MP3 !  In this thread we were all (you included) talking about casual mp3 listening ...

I never said mp3 was adequate for archiving !! I said it was adequate for listening, and claimed that it didn't prevent people from enjoying the music !
Also I made a comparison with other lossy formats, that are in use on high-end equipment today.
You didn't agree with that claim (that is, mp3 good enough for regular listening) - but what sound arguments have you provided against it ?  None.

You state that 64kbps mp3pro is decent, but --alt-preset standard mp3 sounds like crap ?  At least try to get your thoughts together !

Quote
It's no problem by today's prices of CD-R to burn them again and again... using appropriate techniques, equipment and software you get always the same result, because of cons of digital technology

Yes, that's called archiving and has nothing to do with lossy audio codecs.

Different tools, different purposes. Is it really THAT difficult for you to understand ?

<off-topic>
By the way, Red book Audio CD is an unreliable standard for archiving.

Since you're talking about 1:1 CD copies (which has little to do with the thread subject btw), may I suggest either:
(1)  lossless compression layer,  with 30-40% redundancy appened using PAR files
(2)  Musepack and the like.

For example I backed up a friend's music collection losslessly on a single DVD-R, with 30% redundancy. Now that's what I call archiving.
You can recover everything, even after killing ~ 5 songs per CD on the backup media.
</off-topic>

Edit: Answered to budgie too.

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #62 –
Budgie: Bottom line is you are saying MP3 is crap without any kind of arguments.

I believe (and this is only a supposition) that many of the knowledgeable people reading this are feeling a bit pissed off, a bit sorry for your lack of knowledge, and a bit tired of saying this over and over again to newbies:

- Don't trust your ears when you know what you are listening to: do proper blind testing to find out how much you ACTUALLY hear. It's easy to see that if you believe MP3 is crap, and everytime you listen to it you know you are listening to MP3, you will always be more biased / prejudiced towards "hearing" crappy sound.

- If you need to use your high quality equipment to get the feeling it's proper testing, at least get a friend to play some tracks coming from PROPERLY ENCODED AND DECODED MP3 files, and some coming straight from CD, without telling you which is which.

- By PROPERLY ENCODED AND DECODED I mean: Use LAME --alt-preset standard or higher to encode, Use EAC properly configured in Secure mode to rip to avoid pops or clicks that might give away the identity of the sound for different reasons than quality of the MP3 encoder, Use MADPlay or a similarly reliable decoder (this is usually not so important, as the widely available decoders are generally considered to be "good"). Then burn the ripped WAV and the MP3-encoded-and-then-decoded WAV to a CD, making sure the RMS level of both is around the same. And then get that friend to play the different tracks in your favorite hi-fi setup for you, without letting you know which is which.

I would gladly bet that if you honestly try this, with the proper settings, you would not be able to honestly say "MP3 is CRAP" anymore. Because you would have honestly tested the best MP3 has to offer (currently, because there is some room for improvement still, not much, but there is).

Now the question is: Do you have the guts to put yourself through this test?

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #63 –
Kblood, this is nicely put !

to SLOQshtr:  well, if your first bet succeeds and you like living dangerously, I guess we might have a second opponent for you ! 

hint: it's not Kblood nor me 

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #64 –
Kblood, Dec4, 2:20 AM:

Maybe I am a newbie in MP3 and lossy compression field, but this doesn't mean in any way I AM DEAF  I work with music in studio as a professional since 1981  I AM NO NEWBIE, BELIEVE ME... Do you really want to tell me, that a song/composition encoded into MP3 and then decoded again to WAV HAS THE SAME QUALITY as original CD? Why do you blame yourself with such a pitiful arguments? Do you believe, that a sound professional enginneer can't distinguish in studio the difference? You don't know what you're talkin' about, that's the problem... I have guts, more than most people here in this auditorium have, just because of the fact I lived in a regime which wasn't as generous as it might have looked for occassional visitors from abroad... I had a lot of problems with communist regime and its servants... but that's definitely not the point of discussion. But back to your "lame" MP3... There can be differencies heard on burned audio CDs compared to original depending on the software, hardware and techniques being used... so how do you want me make believe something about MP3? But for my own feeling of playing fair I will make a serious tests as possible during the weekend and I will sacrifice all my free time just for this purposes.
Btw, what is the upper limit of your hearing, Kblood, in kHz? I still can recognize and distinguish signals around 18 500 Hz...

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #65 –
Quote
hint: it's not Kblood nor me  :ph34r:


...and definitely not me, too  When for nothing else just due to the country where above mentioned man lives 

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #66 –
Quote
Do you believe, that a sound professional enginneer can't distinguish in studio the difference?

I once knew a guy called Beatles, since then I've learned to put quite a lot of faith in the "I am a professional sound recording engineer" argument.  Hrmm.. and then there was another guy who had some sort of eardrum ripping supAr tweeters or something, maybe if I had some of those it'd help

Hrmm.. sorry, that was bad

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #67 –
Of course, Kblood will answer too, but still I just wanted to point out a few things (in response to budgie here).

Nobody here pretend you're deaf. Even having good hearing and solid experience in the audio field, doesn't make you a trained listener for lossy codecs. Not at all.

Also, when talking about quality, we agree that a decoded mp3 is not suitable for further digital processing. It is suitable for listening *only* and to a certain extent, is perceptually transparent (the goal is for its perceptual quality to be perfect - or undistinguishable from cd if you prefer). For mp3, this goal is usually achieved for most listeners, and for most music samples, at a reasonable bitrate. We all know that mp3 - due to its design - is not efficient for highly electronic music. But again, at 320kbps it usually does a great job - regardless of what you might hear from people.

When using a bad mp3 encoder or an insufficient bitrate, you can hear artifacts. Those will usually be present - to a certain extent - no matter what your equipment is. Just more difficult to hear sometimes.

Quote
There can be differencies heard on burned audio CDs compared to original depending on the software, hardware and techniques being used

Please be more precise. Here, unless said otherwise, we're talking about "EAC" + "LAME 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard" + any mp3-compliant decoder + no fancy signal processing + a pair of good headphones. That's it.

Quote
I still can recognize and distinguish signals around 18 500 Hz...

So (if I'm not mistaken) you'd just be fine with --alt-preset standard.  If you need more, you'll get 19.5 kHz with --alt-preset extreme (or by simply moving the lowpass to 19.5)

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #68 –
I feel I must apologize for the last sentence in my previous post, as it's clear it was misunderstood:

I meant that it takes guts to put yourself through a test aimed at showing you that your beliefs might not be true. It is certainly human and common to see people refusing to do something like that.

It was never meant as a personal attack to the extent you have taken it. I don't know your background, and I certainly didn't mean to imply anything beyond your opinions about lossy compression technologies. Much less about Communist regimes or any other matters.

Now, let's get back to the on-topic stuff, please.

I never implied you are deaf. The test I described above was meant to remove from the equation the (to my eyes) very visible psychological effect I perceive from your statements. If I thought you were deaf, not even blind tests would apply.

(But then again, if you were deaf, you would have always believed MP3 to be good to start with, and this discussion wouldn't take place)

I also don't mean that the sound encoded in MP3 is of the EXACT SAME QUALITY. What I mean is that if you stick to the highest possible quality in MP3, the quality loss should be impossible to hear for 99.7% of the population (number made up).

So if you do that test and detect the difference, great for you. And then I would suggest you get involved in quality testing for the codec developers in this forum, because you could be of great help. (maybe not LAME, but maybe others...)

Regarding your statement about differences heard in burned Audio CDs compared to the original... If you are able to show them with proper blind tests RELIABLY, I would bet all my money that you did NOT follow a good procedure to create those burned Audio CDs. And it's very easy to create bad sounding Audio CD backups. I believe only discussing the best possible technique is worth it.

Also, the way you state it leads me to believe that you are a very clear case of "Placebo effect", but that's just a personal feeling. Nothing more, nothing less.

The test I described should not take as long as you imply, either.

About the upper limit of my hearing, I think it's not related to this issue, but anyway... it is officially around 19 Khz last time I checked. But then, the usual tests for hearing are not done with music, are they? Do you really believe you hear a 18500 hz tone when there is also content in the lower end of the spectrum? I doubt it (about myself). And that is a very important aspect about lossy encoders. So the maximum frequency you can detect BY ITSELF is not as relevant as you think (or seem to think).

And if you don't want to do the test, don't do it. I will not gain anything from you doing it or not. It should only bring advantages to you, as you will know better how good MP3 really is / can be. And it will be worth nothing if you don't make sure you don't cheat. Your beliefs affect your hearing a lot. (for everybody)

Let us know the results. And also let us know the details of how you did it, of course.

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #69 –
Considering how lots of CDs are mastered nowadays, I'd say many sound engineers are actually pretty deaf.  Otherwise that kind of mastering would never get out...
Juha Laaksonheimo

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #70 –
Quote
Quote
Do you believe, that a sound professional enginneer can't distinguish in studio the difference?

I once knew a guy called Beatles, since then I've learned to put quite a lot of faith in the "I am a professional sound recording engineer" argument.  Hrmm.. and then there was another guy who had some sort of eardrum ripping supAr tweeters or something, maybe if I had some of those it'd help

Hrmm.. sorry, that was bad

Ah, yeah, Beatles... I was remembering him too... What happened to him?

/me rushes off to the Search function...

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #71 –
Quote

This one goes to NumLock:

Quote
I still can recognize and distinguish signals around 18 500 Hz...

So (if I'm not mistaken) you'd just be fine with --alt-preset standard.  If you need more, you'll get 19.5 kHz with --alt-preset extreme (or by simply moving the lowpass to 19.5)


Oh God, so you want to tell me you know more than 1 man who definitely can hear up to 20 kHz? Do you know something about the matter?!  Why I have more and more stronger feeling I've turned out to be in a very weird place? Everybody round me is a well trained genius with GOLDEN EARS and me, poor dumb, deaf man, who just happened to live through the past 20 years as a musician and sound engineer?     

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #72 –
To Kblood, Dec 4, 3:14 AM:
The answer is okay, I appreciate it. Just for the sake of knowing the truth about MP3 and other lossy formats I will make the tests as thorough as it would get. To be really objective, what settings are here in HA considered for being quality enough and what to get as close as it gets to CD? I mean it...

To JohnV, Dec 4, 3:16 AM:
You're right. Nowadays it's mostly CRAP that's being made... it goes especially for the pop music and especially for cactus and similar productions. But jazz and classic likes are very good, sometimes great 

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #73 –
Budgie:

If you say you can hear up to 18500hz, then suggesting using a setting that will make sure that signals that high remain in the mp3 file sounds quite reasonable.

I don't understand your reaction to that.

The settings for quality were mentioned by NumLOCK in that message too: Lame 3.90.2 --alt-preset standard or higher.

There is a Sticky thread in the mp3 forum that will answer better those questions too.

HELP! Please URGENT (mp3 vs cd-audio comparison)

Reply #74 –
I think he meant that nearly nobody can hear 20 kHz. I also think it is quite probable that in our poll with the sweep.wav and the soundcards, 90% of people hearing 20 kHz were in fact hearing aliasing. That's why I suggested that the sweep should be burned on CD and listened in a CD Player.