Skip to main content
Recent Posts
1
General Audio / Re: Fake 24-bit FLAC?
Last post by BrilliantBob -
how about FLAC then? :)) Some writing about FLAC as it is raw PCM format with guaranteed quality (means FLAC = Lossless --> so file there is perfect).

According to FLAC's developers, FLAC is the fastest losless compressor for WAV, like 7z for any other files. With flac.exe you can compress/decompress any WAV file. Finally, the raw data that matter for audio players remain "untouched", only metadata may differ at some point, but this doesn't matter. The woodoo science people think FLAC is an audio encoder because many players decompress-and-run FLAC's formats on-the-fly.
4
MP3 / Re: best mp3 encoder with something better than a command line interface?
Last post by forestasia -
Lowering the psychoacoustic masking patterns (with the dev settings unlocked) give more room for creativity, testing and discovering new sounds masked before. More vivid, crystal, noiseless and selective sounds.
But if you listen A and B entirely, more times, you will unable to guess the right answer.

I am trying to understand what you are saying here. You say your new settings produce a "more vivid sound" in one sentence, but then later you say that you cannot tell any difference with the original?

When you say that being able to change the psychoacoustic settings allows "discovering new sounds masked before". What do you mean by "before"? Do you mean in the original WAV? Or the mp3 with default Lame settings? Do you think it is the purpose of an mp3 encoder to do some kind of EQ filtering on the original to make the music more vivid or to remove noise?

If you want to check yourself, I can send you in private the "unleashed lame" with settings, the .wav and the .mp3. The .wav is ripped from an original CD. You know, the copyright policy of TOS.

But you are encoding at 320kbps CBR. Using default LAME settings at 320kbps, you will not be able to tell the difference between the original wav and the mp3. At this maximum bitrate, you can probably change quite a lot of the LAME psychoacoustic settings and the output will still be transparent. That may very well also be the case when using your settings, but I think it can only make things worse. It can't improve on transparency.

If you would like to PM me your files and script, I will be happy to have a listen and try to ABX.
6
MP3 / Re: best mp3 encoder with something better than a command line interface?
Last post by saratoga -

Lowering the psychoacoustic masking patterns (with the dev settings unlocked) give more room for creativity, testing and discovering new sounds masked before.

I don't think any of that is accurate.

I encode music for myself not for you. You are free to use the default settings, is your problem.

If you didn't read the ToS when you signed up, now might be a good time. You are required to support claims you make about quality with objective means. The idea is to allow the community to evaluate ideas objectively.

Personally, I don't like this new generally idiocratic trend to simplify everything to only two buttons, start and stop, and nothing else.

In this case though it was a good idea. With access to those settings you changed a lot of things you did not understand while looking at tools you did not know how to interpret. A best you wasted a lot of time, and more likely than not also made bad files.

The settings are always there since the code is open source, but by forcing people to look at the code it hopefully suggests to people that these are complicated tools that require careful understanding.

By the way, the ABX test was a joke, I found a glitch, a 1/8 second desync between samples at a certain point.

Not sure that's a joke. It sounds like you inadvertently found out that something is wrong with your encoder changes, even if at the time you didn't understand that.
7
General Audio / Re: Fake 24-bit FLAC?
Last post by Wombat -
Thanks Bob. So many idiots here so your words gave some pleasure...
Does container compress it's content or not -- that's probably not the most important (WAV not of course so, when I wrote about WAV "lossless compression" -- I wasn;t precise to the 100%. Should wrote "packing without losses". The key idea is that WAV is not raw music file format (MSoft of course). If WAV is NOT that what many people think it is, how about FLAC then? :)) Some writing about FLAC as it is raw PCM format with guaranteed quality (means FLAC = Lossless --> so file there is perfect).
Huh? None does is imagine RAWPCM²=FLAC
8
MP3 / Re: best mp3 encoder with something better than a command line interface?
Last post by BrilliantBob -
What do you mean by "sounds better"? Are you saying the MP3 sounds better than the WAV?

Lowering the psychoacoustic masking patterns (with the dev settings unlocked) give more room for creativity, testing and discovering new sounds masked before. More vivid, crystal, noiseless and selective sounds. I encode music for myself not for you. You are free to use the default settings, is your problem. Why Lame v3.98 had the psy settings unlocked by default?

Personally, I don't like this new generally idiocratic trend to simplify everything to only two buttons, start and stop, and nothing else. If this is the future, the brave new world, then humans will end in cages guarded by robots. Idiocracy.

By the way, the ABX test was a joke, I found a glitch, a 1/8 second desync between samples at a certain point. But if you listen A and B entirely, more times, you will unable to guess the right answer. If you want to check yourself, I can send you in private the "unleashed lame" with settings, the .wav and the .mp3. The .wav is ripped from an original CD. You know, the copyright policy of TOS.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018