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 68091 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #25 –
i'll explain my point much faster in my own language here:

zadnjic ko sem delal tak preizkuz z enim 'audiofilom' in njegovo strahovito drago opremo, sem spekel en sam cd z istim komadom (se strinjam - vec komadov bo bolj zanimivo) z razlicnimi nastavitvami mp3 enkoderja, uporabil sem lame 3.90.2 ( http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=15&t=478 ) z nastavitvami:

--alt-preset 128 (povprecni bitrate bo 128 kbit/s)
--alt-preset standard
--alt-preset extreme
--r3mix (za hec)

clovek ni uspel lociti komadov med seboj, seveda pa moras med njih nakjucno pomesati tudi original. mislim da bos stavo dobil brez problemov - se posebej je zanimiv --alt-preset 128 kjer ga bo mozno zares zatolci, ce ne bo slisal razlike
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

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

Reply #26 –
mithrandir:

Quote
He claims he can hear the difference between MP3 and CD and he's absolutely right.


Perhaps difference between MP3s (properly encoded) and CD can be heard, but if he claims what you said, it doesn't make him absolutely right. This is what the test should tell. Perhaps I AM on the wrong side of bet, which isn't such a big deal after all. I came to this forum because I heard it is a good one to ask for some help.

Quote
I think the original poster has dug himself in a hole because his bet is so generic and vague. Somebody claimed he can tell the difference between MP3 and CD. Generally? Specifically? The other bettor is going to provide some CDs as source material. We don't know what these will be.


I understand your point here. I have been making mp3 for some time, most of it with EAC and lame. I was regular visitor to r3mix.net, which in my opinion was a really good site. If I have dug myself in a hole we have yet to see, as I said before if I loose the bet it's no big deal. I just want to give it my (our?) best. As for the guy who will listen to CD: Age approx. 30+, thinks of himself as a "audiophile", yet his equipment doesn't stand to his claims IMO.

I don't have that CD yet I should get it in a few days.

Quote
We definitely know that MP3 - like all lossy formats - audibly differ from the original source material.


I wasn't aware of that fact.  Maybe some of you can tell the difference, yet we have to wait to get the results of the test. If there will be enough interested people here I will post the results whatever they may be.

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

Reply #27 –
smok3:

As this is an english forum, I think I should translate for all to understand:

This was smok3 post:

Last time I did a test like this with some "audiophile" and his terrible expensive equipment, I burned one single CD with the same song (I agree - more songs the more interesting test it should be) with different parameters of encoder. I usaed lame 3.90.3 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act...t=ST&f=15&t=478 ) with the following parametrs:

--alt-preset 128 (povprecni bitrate bo 128 kbit/s)
--alt-preset standard
--alt-preset extreme
--r3-mix (za hec)

He didn't manage to distinguish songs between themselves, of course you have to mix the original between randomly.  Especially interesting is --alt-preset 128, where you can really "nail" him if he doesn't hear the difference.

End of translation

I hope smok3 will agree with the translation, if otherwise please correct me.

Qshtr

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

Reply #28 –
no need for translation, since ppl here knows whats up, the post was written in a hurry especialy for you. (but of course this is the 1st and last time i did that, it will not happen again...) , also from my number of posts you could see that i know this is an english forum.

missing part of translation:
--alt-preset 128 (average bitrate should be 128 kbit/s)
--r3mix (another joke)

other than that i agree with translation, lmao.
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

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

Reply #29 –
Hi!

I'm using the Lame with the next parameters:

-ms -k -q0 -b320 --noath

Can I make higher quality MP3's with other params?

Please help me!

(I'm playing the files with my Panasonic SL-MP30, which has
limit the playback rate @320kbps)

Thank you!

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

Reply #30 –
Quote
Quote
We definitely know that MP3 - like all lossy formats - audibly differ from the original source material.

I wasn't aware of that fact.  Maybe some of you can tell the difference, yet we have to wait to get the results of the test. If there will be enough interested people here I will post the results whatever they may be.

huh? I'am pretty sure that most of the ppl will not hear any difference even if a pretty 'lame' lame setting are used (especialy audio experts seems to have problems), but this is only gathered from my own (limited) tests with few songs and different lame settings, what iam saying is that this bet is easy to win. (cant wait to see the results of this test)
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

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

Reply #31 –
Kttech try this commandline
lame.exe --alt-preset insane file.wav file.mp3

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

Reply #32 –
Quote
Hi!

I'm using the Lame with the next parameters:

-ms -k -q0 -b320 --noath

Can I make higher quality MP3's with other params?

Please help me!

(I'm playing the files with my Panasonic SL-MP30, which has
limit the playback rate @320kbps)

Thank you!

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=15&t=203

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

Reply #33 –
Quote
Quote
he couldn't even distinguish blade@128 from the original

this is really sad...

yes very. Even me ... a n00b can tell

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

Reply #34 –
Quote
Quote
he couldn't even distinguish blade@128 from the original

this is really sad...

Agreed... I can hear Blade@160kbps artifacts (*serious* artifacts that detract from the music) on my AVC Soul portable using the cheapie headphones that came with the unit...  :x

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

Reply #35 –
SLOQshtr, please report about the bet.
(Kdo je koga zatrl?)
~funkaholics anonymous~

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

Reply #36 –
Your chance is you use OGG at its best or MPC... OGG in version 1.0 with q-9 or maybe q-10 (thats 512 kbps) should be  (maybe) enough to prove against "golden ears" but nor OGG neither MPC is mp3 :-) With mp3 you will almost definitely lose your bet if your opponent has just a better than average equipment. OGG is maybe your chance; well, it may be not quite honest... but is it honest to take part in stake like this? MP3 has no chance to stand a test compared with quality equipment, because it is a lossy compression and some things masked by psychoacoustic threshold masking would be obvious, if you listen carefully to a "killer samples" well prepared just for the moment :-)

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

Reply #37 –
Quote
I would surely like to show him he's wrong.

Also make sure he doesn't get a chance to cheat! He could sneakily rip the tracks to his computer and compare them to the original (bit-by-bit, spectrographs, etc...). It's his ears that should be put to the test, not his computer (or other hardware).

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

Reply #38 –
Quote
Your chance is you use OGG at its best or MPC... OGG in version 1.0 with q-9 or maybe q-10 (thats 512 kbps) should be  (maybe) enough to prove against "golden ears" but nor OGG neither MPC is mp3 :-)


There's really not much point in using bitrates that high.  Even if this guy won the bet that way, what would be the point really?  Who actually encodes their albums with a lossy format with bitrates that high?

Quote
With mp3 you will almost definitely lose your bet if your opponent has just a better than average equipment.


I don't agree with this.  There are many people with very expensive equipment who cannot even discern a 128kbps mp3 from a low quality encoder from the original.  Equipment has very little to do with hearing artifacts in lossy compression.

Quote
OGG is maybe your chance;


I don't agree with this either  If you're going for high bitrates, MPC will outperform Ogg Vorbis at this level by quite a margin.  I'd go so far as to say that MPC at probably --xtreme (maybe even --standard?) would probably outperform Vorbis even at -q10 (in regards to stability in degree of transparency and low rate of audible artifacting).  Simply going for a high bitrate alone isn't going to guarantee you quality.

Quote
well, it may be not quite honest... but is it honest to take part in stake like this? MP3 has no chance to stand a test compared with quality equipment, because it is a lossy compression and some things masked by psychoacoustic threshold masking would be obvious, if you listen carefully to a "killer samples" well prepared just for the moment :-)


Sure it's honest.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just because this person may actually be able to hear a difference doesn't make this whole endeavor somehow dishonest.  Also I don't really understand what you mean by the last part.  All of these coders are lossy and based on psychoacoustic principles, including the exploitation of masking effects.  MP3 is not an exception in this regard.

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

Reply #39 –
Totally agree - don't let him rip the tracks!

Also, if the music starts near the start of the file, be careful about the delay added by mp3 encoding - if he starts switching between tracks very quickly, he might notice it (unlikely, given typical CD players innaccuracy in start position, but you never know!).


Don't worry about this "audiophile" material. Unless he really knows about mp3, the kind of material that "audiophiles" think will cause problems for a psychoacoustic codec is quite easy to encode. He'll never think to use castanets! ;-) (I hope, otherwise you may loose the bet!).

Cheers,
David.

P.S. also watch for: very high frequency test tones, or tracks that are very very nearly clipping.

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

Reply #40 –
Quote
There's really not much point in using bitrates that high.  Even if this guy won the bet that way, what would be the point really?  Who actually encodes their albums with a lossy format with bitrates that high?


Well, it does make a sense... the guy wants to win his bet; nobody said a word about encoding for any other useful purposes - except the winning ones :-)

Quote
I don't agree with this.  There are many people with very expensive equipment who cannot even discern a 128kbps mp3 from a low quality encoder from the original.  Equipment has very little to do with hearing artifacts in lossy compression.


Excuse me, but I really do not know, what are you trying to tell me? Sure there's a bunch of stupid snobs who buy expensive equipment just for fun or some other stupid reasons; but do not try to tell me that equipment has very little to do with hearing artifacts in lossy compression... where you want to hear the difference? Sure is equipment a very substantial if not decisive stage of whole process. By what means you can then judge the audio material?!

Quote
I don't agree with this either   If you're going for high bitrates, MPC will outperform Ogg Vorbis at this level by quite a margin.  I'd go so far as to say that MPC at probably --xtreme (maybe even --standard?) would probably outperform Vorbis even at -q10 (in regards to stability in degree of transparency and low rate of audible artifacting).  Simply going for a high bitrate alone isn't going to guarantee you quality.


Well... I trust my ears and after the years I've spent in studio I wouldn't be so sure... it's more in your psychic or say "psychoacoustic" what you assume to be better... I definitely like OGG more than anything else jsut because of the way it handles the music. But MPC is fine also and it is just a matter of decision... There's no objective tool 'cos you cannot rely on spectrograms, sonograms or spectral analysis as much as you would wish sometimes...

Quote
Sure it's honest.  Why wouldn't it be?  Just because this person may actually be able to hear a difference doesn't make this whole endeavor somehow dishonest.  Also I don't really understand what you mean by the last part.  All of these coders are lossy and based on psychoacoustic principles, including the exploitation of masking effects.  MP3 is not an exception in this regard.


I just meant that someone who knows what's all about can prepare very carefully some very hard to encode samples (castanets among the others...) from different audio(phile) CDs or maybe DVD Audio :-)

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

Reply #41 –
post your results man, its quite interesting

Average peepz i know think 96kbps mp3 is cd quality, ROFL

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

Reply #42 –
I haven't got that CD yet.  I read all your posts, most of them are really interesting. I wish to thank everybody for help.

I don't consider myself as a very knowledgeable  in this things, but I did make some tests myself.

Someone mention about cheating (testing the tracks with computer). I did that with CoolEdit pro and I did see some differences at frequency analysis as one would expect. But I don't know if that is audiable. I sure don't hear it.

I will post more as soon as possible.

Qshtr

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

Reply #43 –
Quote
Quote
I don't agree with this.  There are many people with very expensive equipment who cannot even discern a 128kbps mp3 from a low quality encoder from the original.  Equipment has very little to do with hearing artifacts in lossy compression.

Excuse me, but I really do not know, what are you trying to tell me? Sure there's a bunch of stupid snobs who buy expensive equipment just for fun or some other stupid reasons; but do not try to tell me that equipment has very little to do with hearing artifacts in lossy compression... where you want to hear the difference? Sure is equipment a very substantial if not decisive stage of whole process. By what means you can then judge the audio material?!

Although it sounds unlikely, I also find Dibrom's argument to be true in practice.

By far, the #1 biggest influence on a person's ability to detect artifacts is their experience in analytically listening for artifacts. That's why many people get better at hearing artifacts over time, if they are trying to hear them.

I can do most of my compresed audio listening tests on $10 headphones plugged into a noisy, $0.05 headphone output jack. This is because a lot of MP3 artifacts don't affect the sound the way that un-mp3-aware audiophiles expect it to. The compression is most apparent when it smears sharp attacks, or adds glitches, or adds a "rough" sound, or messes up high frequencies (the more prolific testers on this board could go into greater detail than I can). Audiophiles testing speakers and amps and players, on the other hand (from what I've gathered) listen for things like a depth of soundstage, or an airy quality, or well-supported and controlled bass.

So buying expensive equipment can really improve the music by making the instruments and voices more lifelike, but it doesn't have much of an effect on many of the flaws induced by lossy compression.

Quote
Quote
I don't agree with this either   If you're going for high bitrates, MPC will outperform Ogg Vorbis at this level by quite a margin.  I'd go so far as to say that MPC at probably --xtreme (maybe even --standard?) would probably outperform Vorbis even at -q10 (in regards to stability in degree of transparency and low rate of audible artifacting).  Simply going for a high bitrate alone isn't going to guarantee you quality.

Well... I trust my ears and after the years I've spent in studio I wouldn't be so sure... it's more in your psychic or say "psychoacoustic" what you assume to be better... I definitely like OGG more than anything else jsut because of the way it handles the music. But MPC is fine also and it is just a matter of decision... There's no objective tool 'cos you cannot rely on spectrograms, sonograms or spectral analysis as much as you would wish sometimes...

If you compare the sheer number of man-hours spent on listening tests and code tweaking, MPC has been tuned for high quality much more extensively than Ogg has. I haven't kept tabs on Ogg and MPC test clips, but perhaps there are still more Ogg -q10 killers than MPC killers.

But you are absolutely right about trusting your ears, and not relying on spectral analysis! If you've done the listening, you're in a better position to say which sounds better to you than anyone else is.

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

Reply #44 –
yeah, I think you'll win the bet pretty easily. Simply because your friend doesn't know what to "look for" when comparing the files. A person with a "trained ear" is very perceptive to the subtle artifacts present in a good mp3 file. (you can be half deaf to hear the difference between a Xing 128 cbr and a CD though). So even if you have good hearing like this guy BaDdUdEx (or whatever his name is) who supposedly could hear a mosquito fart during a Slayer concert, you don't necessarily spot the artifacts.
//From the barren lands of the Northsmen

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

Reply #45 –
Quote
post your results man, its quite interesting

Average peepz i know think 96kbps mp3 is cd quality, ROFL

hehe my friends cantt ell the diff  between 160 & cd.

me personally is about 192k ... maybe a lil bit higher depends upon source

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

Reply #46 –
Quote
I definitely like OGG more than anything else jsut because of the way it handles the music.

this looks pretty much like 'its open source so it sounds good' or 'with an ugly name like ogg it better sounds good', you did any blind listening tests against mpc? (all iam trying to say placebo is a strong thingy and it will hit where it is least expected).

Quote
But I don't know if that is audiable. I sure don't hear it.

thats the general idea
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

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

Reply #47 –
Quote
By far, the #1 biggest influence on a person's ability to detect artifacts is their experience in analytically listening for artifacts. That's why many people get better at hearing artifacts over time, if they are trying to hear them.

I can do most of my compresed audio listening tests on $10 headphones plugged into a noisy, $0.05 headphone output jack. This is because a lot of MP3 artifacts don't affect the sound the way that un-mp3-aware audiophiles expect it to. The compression is most apparent when it smears sharp attacks, or adds glitches, or adds a "rough" sound, or messes up high frequencies (the more prolific testers on this board could go into greater detail than I can). Audiophiles testing speakers and amps and players, on the other hand (from what I've gathered) listen for things like a depth of soundstage, or an airy quality, or well-supported and controlled bass.

So buying expensive equipment can really improve the music by making the instruments and voices more lifelike, but it doesn't have much of an effect on many of the flaws induced by lossy compression.


Well, it's maybe in my wrong English as I am not born English speaking, but I still must wonder upon what I can read in this auditorium... MP3 is lossy compression and THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING... 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. Of all my exhausting test I've had the best impressions from Fraunhofer codec (v2.0 build 380) in Sound Forge 6.0... but OGG, MPC and AAC are closer to the point, which may lead (maybe) to good results. I for myself don't use still any compression; partially because up to these days there's no really GOOD AND RELIABLE ENCODER AVAILABLE. So I think it's still definitely better to make as perfect copies as Feurio allows  than trying to archive something worth in something as worthless as MP3 in fact today still is...

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

Reply #48 –
And let me guess, budgie. You have done extensive DBT testing also, right? 
And how weird, you forgot to mention which bitrates&settings you were testing... 
Ah, but you also forgot to provide any information which MPC,AAC and Vorbis versions you tested. 
You also forgot to tell what music did you test and how did you do the testing. 
And if you by accident did any ABX testing, you forgot to provide any ABX results.. 

Yes, lets all move to FhG based on this.. 
Juha Laaksonheimo

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

Reply #49 –
Just wanted to point out the nifty detail that Budgie here is recommending Feurio as the best ripper... 

(I'm not saying it's bad, but hey... EAC anyone?    )

@Budgie: As I see, you still have only 6 posts... And as you can also see, you are being told otherwise by people that have been around here for a looooooong  time (not me). I would advice you to listen carefully and with an open mind. If you follow the guidelines here and avoid making those kinds of "stone-carved" statements without putting yourself through proper tests, you are heading straight for flames... and with reason.

Don't trust your ears, because your brain is using them. Get your brain out of the equation: do double-blind-tests (DBT) and be amazed.