The point of this exercise is absolutely not piracy; I have no interest in keeping both digital and physical copies of the media I paid for the privilege of owning[/]temporarily licensing.
I'll donate all the ripped CDs to some charity or library
and if I can't pull that off, I'll just destroy them outright. Stupid atoms!
Running T-Test and Analysis of Variance (it's in the spreadsheet) on the non-insane results, I can confirm that the 128kbps CBR sample is lower quality with an extremely high degree of statistical confidence. Beyond that, as you'd expect, nobody can hear the difference between a 320kbps CBR audio file and the CD. And the 192kbps VBR results have a barely statistically significant difference versus the raw CD audio at the 95% confidence level. I'm talking absolutely wafer thin here.
Beyond that, as you'd expect, nobody can hear the difference between a 320kbps CBR audio file and the CD.
Lately I've been trying to rid my life of as many physical artifacts as possible.
Ripping to uncompressed audio is a non-starter. I don't care how much of an ultra audio quality nerd you are, spending 7× or 5× the bandwidth and storage for completely inaudible "quality" improvements is a dagger directly in the heart of this efficiency-loving nerd, at least.
Current Lame CBR 128 seems to be suboptimal as was found in 3.98's time (-V5 -b128 -B128 being better than CBR 128 on the sample examined then). Lame 3.99 development did not improve upon CBR behavior AFAIK.
All encoding modes use the PSY model from new VBR code, addresses Bugtracker item [ 3187397 ] Strange compression behavior
P.S. It's interesting that some of the comments suggest this track is a bad choice for a codec test because it's old. While it's hardly a "codec killer" for the current lame mp3 implementation, the stereo effects, tape noise, soft transients, and synths are all things that mp3 encoders have choked on in the past. Plus the dynamic range of parts of this track make a welcome change from modern pop which is trashed by dynamic range compression whether you use lossy compression or not. The fact that some of the effects on the raw track sound a bit like codec artefacts doesn't help in a non-referenced comparison like this, but for typical codec testing that's often the kind of thing that makes the codec misbehave. So, historically at least, this is a pretty good mp3 test track.
When people insist that only an orchestral or symphonic work will do as a 'real' test of a codec, I can't help recalling that some famous 'codec killers' consisted of solo harpsichord , castanets, or entirely synthetic club music.
only using killer samples to evaluate a codec's general quality is inappropriate
+1 with a bullet!
Behold The Great MP3 Bitrate Experiment!As proposed on our very own Audio and Video Production Stack Exchange, we're going to do a blind test of the same 2 minute excerpt of a particular rock audio track at a few different bitrates, ranging from 128kbps CBR MP3 all the way up to raw uncompressed CD audio. Each sample was encoded (if necessary), then exported to WAV so they all have the same file size. Can you tell the difference between any of these audio samples using just your ears?1. Listen to each two minute audio sample[links]2. Rate each sample for encoding qualityOnce you've given each audio sample a listen – with only your ears please, not analysis software – fill out this brief form and rate each audio sample from 1 to 5 on encoding quality, where one represents worst and five represents flawless.
Quote from: krabapple on 28 June, 2012, 03:21:07 PMWhen people insist that only an orchestral or symphonic work will do as a 'real' test of a codec, I can't help recalling that some famous 'codec killers' consisted of solo harpsichord , castanets, or entirely synthetic club music.Well yes, only testing with one specific type of music like orchestral/symphonic is bogus unless the goal is to test the codec's quality in regard to that type of music alone, rather than its quality in general. But likewise, only using killer samples to evaluate a codec's general quality is inappropriate, and only relevant to the extent that 1. someone is sensitive to pre-echo (or whatever) and 2. their collection has moments of solo castanets/harpsichord/etc.
Would you mind posting this over there?
The ignorance and snobbery in the comments there really begs for a response. When people insist that only an orchestral or symphonic work will do as a 'real' test of a codec, I can't help recalling that some famous 'codec killers' consisted of solo harpsichord , castanets, or entirely synthetic club music.
http://lifehacker.com/5920793/the-great-mp...rate-experimenthttp://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/t...experiment.htmlI guess lifehacker has a larger audience than hydrogenaudio... could be interesting