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: ABX test mp3, nero (Read 4751 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ABX test mp3, nero

I did this ABX test after i read many of the post in this forums. Just to satisfy my curiosity, i do my own test.
I'm using my sony ex-85 earphone
My acer laptop travelmate 381Tci (7 years old laptop)
I did this at 1AM
This test is way harder than i thought, i can't go over more than 5 test on each session, so here it goes.
BTW, I'm not doing this to give you any impression on MP3 vs Nero AAC.
MP3 Lame 3.98.2
Nero AAC 1.3.3.0
Foobar 0.9.5.5
Listens to: Andrea Bocelli, Vivere

TEST #1 wav vs mp3 CBR 320kbps
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.5.5
2009/04/08 19:50:19

File A: C:\04 mp3 320.mp3
File B: C:\04 wav.wav

19:50:19 : Test started.
19:54:33 : 00/01  100.0%
20:00:30 : 01/02  75.0%
20:03:29 : 02/03  50.0%
20:07:25 : 03/04  31.3%
20:08:39 : 04/05  18.8%
20:10:32 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 4/5 (18.8%)

TEST #2 nero aac q 1.0 vs mp3 CBR 320kbps
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.5.5
2009/04/08 23:57:07

File A: C:\04 mp3 320.mp3
File B: C:\04 nero q 1.m4a

23:57:07 : Test started.
23:58:45 : 01/01  50.0%
23:59:51 : 02/02  25.0%
00:02:20 : 02/03  50.0%
00:04:50 : 03/04  31.3%
00:07:03 : 03/05  50.0%
00:07:36 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 3/5 (50.0%)

There you go. I couldn't exactly understand it's meaning, does it mean at q 1.0 nero has the same quality with lame cbr 320?
You decide.

Me? My personal preference is always FLAC  , but since i don't have mp3 player that big enough (mine is only a LG phone KT610 with 8GB SDHC  ), so i have to satisfy my ear with q 1.0 nero aac.

ABX test mp3, nero

Reply #2 –
I would like to warn you that what you are testing is probably not what you're obtaining.

I take special concern about your last sentence about quality.  If you do that with a flac file, you could get a result pretty similar to the one you've got with Nero. You cannot conclude it has the same quality. You can only affirm that you couldn't tell the difference in an double blind test.

So, your result is simply: lossy codecs can sound indistinguisable from the original. Yet, like evereux said, 5 trials is too few. 8 is usually the minimum which is representative.

At last, a test will only provide evidence of a difference, not a non-existence, so a single failure of an ABX isn't representative either. (Multiple failures, with multiple listeners can give a hint, but never guarantee that there isn't a difference)

ABX test mp3, nero

Reply #3 –
Quote from: [JAZ] on

I would like to warn you that what you are testing is probably not what you're obtaining.

I take special concern about your last sentence about quality.  If you do that with a flac file, you could get a result pretty similar to the one you've got with Nero. You cannot conclude it has the same quality. You can only affirm that you couldn't tell the difference in an double blind test.

So, your result is simply: lossy codecs can sound indistinguisable from the original. Yet, like evereux said, 5 trials is too few. 8 is usually the minimum which is representative.

At last, a test will only provide evidence of a difference, not a non-existence, so a single failure of an ABX isn't representative either. (Multiple failures, with multiple listeners can give a hint, but never guarantee that there isn't a difference)


ok thanks for your input.
btw, i'm doing this with the wav file, not from flac.
8 trials, i'll remember that.
to tell you the truth, i have a very hard time to do this test. maybe next time, when i have a little more  time

ABX test mp3, nero

Reply #4 –
wow, 16 times...
I give up.
This is out of my league.
I leave the ABX test to you pros.
Thanks for the info
You guys have been helpful

ABX test mp3, nero

Reply #5 –
I think q 1.0 is abit overkill IMO.

Here is a few ABX examples:

Nero AAC vs LAME Mp3

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.4
2009/04/10 16:33:29

File A: C:\Temp\PTP - Show Me Your Spine b320.mp3
File B: C:\Temp\Show Me Your Spine Nero AAC q 1.0.mp4

16:33:29 : Test started.
16:33:37 : 01/01  50.0%
16:33:40 : 02/02  25.0%
16:33:43 : 03/03  12.5%
16:33:47 : 04/04  6.3%
16:33:50 : 05/05  3.1%
16:33:55 : 06/06  1.6%
16:34:00 : 07/07  0.8%
16:34:04 : 08/08  0.4%
16:34:07 : 09/09  0.2%
16:34:12 : 10/10  0.1%
16:34:16 : 11/11  0.0%
16:34:19 : 12/12  0.0%
16:34:23 : 13/13  0.0%
16:34:27 : 14/14  0.0%
16:34:31 : 15/15  0.0%
16:34:35 : 16/16  0.0%
16:34:37 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 16/16 (0.0%)

The 320 kbps CBR Mp3 sounds just plain awful, major precho artifacts.

Nero AAC q 1.0 vs FLAC

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.4
2009/04/10 16:35:18

File A: C:\Rips\Music\Ministry - Side Trax\13. Show Me Your Spine (PTP).flac
File B: C:\Temp\Show Me Your Spine Nero AAC q 1.0.mp4

16:35:18 : Test started.
16:35:31 : 01/01  50.0%
16:35:34 : 02/02  25.0%
16:35:38 : 03/03  12.5%
16:35:46 : 03/04  31.3%
16:35:52 : 04/05  18.8%
16:36:01 : 05/06  10.9%
16:36:08 : 06/07  6.3%
16:36:12 : 07/08  3.5%
16:36:22 : 08/09  2.0%
16:36:27 : 09/10  1.1%
16:36:35 : 10/11  0.6%
16:36:38 : 10/12  1.9%
16:36:47 : 11/13  1.1%
16:36:56 : 12/14  0.6%
16:37:06 : 12/15  1.8%
16:37:12 : 13/16  1.1%
16:37:25 : 14/17  0.6%
16:37:31 : 15/18  0.4%
16:37:42 : 16/19  0.2%
16:37:49 : 17/20  0.1%
16:38:01 : 18/21  0.1%
16:38:16 : 18/22  0.2%
16:38:22 : 19/23  0.1%
16:38:27 : 20/24  0.1%
16:38:33 : 20/25  0.2%
16:38:35 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 20/25 (0.2%)

Echos on the start. I still think that q 1.0 is overkill though.
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"