I actually have this one and as far as I understand fuffi has it, too. What I meant is I cannot find the fb2k-component file, of the 2011 version.
Ok, maybe try this one ~https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-52fIoCowfjcXB4cTVtVmxYZjA
Higher is better.
Ffmpeg can use either libopus or it's experimental native decoder. You want to use libopus.
Last post by Arnold B. Krueger -
Thank you, that's very helpful.
And forgive me for being obtuse, but are higher numbers better here? And does the standalone OpusEnc encoder produce different results than the one in the latest ffmpeg?
I have loaded the scad component and have it working with the High_rez files I have downloaded.
I have several SCAD only recordings and I would like to copy them to my HD and then to play them on Foobar.
How do I do this?
Recycle Bin / [TOS #2] Re: How many plays before a record shows enough deterioration to be noticeable?Last post by Arnold B. Krueger -
Sorry Arny, are you saying that I'm able to ignore tics and pops because I have some kind of hearing disorder?When I listen to the two samples, I hear a "freshness" and clarity in the laser sample compared to the needle one. For example, the cymbals have more sparkle. I am realistic enough to acknowledge that this could simply be down to different frequency responses.I think an important and relevant personal facility for ignoring tics and pops is being afflicted by one or more common hearing disorders affecting the ability to hear high frequencies. I know for sure that some older friends who are "rediscovering vinyl" fit this profile.
Since you decided to make a general comment personal by owning it, well that's interesting!
I have no idea, and I wouldn't expect you to admit it in public were it true.
You might not even be aware of it.
I am frankly staggered that any time anyone ever disagrees with you, your response is to let rip with both barrels.
You have no clue what both barrels look like.
And in this case I wasn't even disagreeing with you!
Really? Looked like the first round of personal comments didn't get the effect you seem to desire, so you came back with more.
What's also interesting is that you choose to target one small part of what I posted - even though my very next sentence points out that it isn't the main thrust of what I was getting at.
Really? It was only one of the several points I brought up.
. Do you want to debate the core hypothesis I put forward, or do you just want to pick a fight?
Please do tell what the core hypothesis was without being personal and attacking.
Ever hear of TOS8?
I'm not sure what that would prove. If you don't remove the tics and pops then the difference in that area is a slam dunk tell. Remember, I did ABX them. FWIW it was positive. I just didn't post a log.
I also made a specific claim that my hearing is damaged by age and chemotherapy to the extent that any failure of mine to reliably detect a difference is meaningless by the standard of anything like normal hearing.
If you remove the tics and pops, it is easy enough to do that in such a way to generate enough artifacts to obtain another round of slam-dunk differences.
But you had already stated they are obviously different, so I assumed that wasn't necessary.
The trick is to remove the tics and pops without creating any tells.
It is easy to show how your answer is dismissive and non-responsive, not to mention in violation of forum rules.
Fair amount. In other words what you described is a Straw Man argument, and if I had a nickel for every Straw Man argument that I've been pelted with, I'd run right out and buy a brand new ELP just for grins... ;-)
And yet that's exactly what you're doing now.
What is it that you believe I think I'm right about?
Maybe, that you can pummel me with personal attacks until I let you get away with the obvious TOS8 infraction. BTW you onus on you is not to show that there is an audible difference but that it is due to a certain audible difference other than the obvious one.
Actually, the fault you described was not stated in a unique scientific way, and therefore it is probably not falsifiable. Since you did it twice in a row, it must be intentional. What is your point - that you can turn HA into another typical audiophile site with meaningless claims about audibility?
There's a better way to at least attempt to collect reliable and relevant evidence related to this question. Make the tics go away without affecting the remaining properties of the recording. I think that is is doable. But there's no reason to do so because of the anti-science posturing.As it happens, audio restoration of vinyl LPs is one of my hobbies, and as you say, removing the tics is eminently doable.
I know that very well, and so all the trips and stumbles surprised me. I expected better.
Merely making the tics go away is too easy, for reasons given. For a valid test it has to be done without introducing audible changes that are not audible to the point of masking any other audible difference, and also not cause differences in audible artifacts from the noise reduction steps itself.
Saying that an actual test is Mission Impossible is acceptable, but saying that and claiming that an audible difference surely exists seems to violate TOS8. If you can't prove it with a good DBT don't say it, seems to be the gist of TOS8. Sometimes Science demands a bit of personal discipline.
So let me make sure I understand. Do you think that if the tics and pops weren't there, then an ABX comparison wouldn't find any differences?
I think that isn't a good statement of the problem. First, you (or someone who can do it) need to clean up your description of your claimed fault(s) a way that is like good science.
Then you(or someone who can do it) have to remove the tics without creating any artifacts that would be tells.
Because if that's what you're saying, and if you're prepared to take the test, I will de-tic these samples so you can ABX them for yourself.
I think the first thing I would do is ABX one of the de-ticked files with a de-ticked version of the file with the fewer tics, tics removed by a means that meets my standard for not adding artifacts. If that is successful, then I'd compare the two files you de-ticked.
On the other hand, you've already stated that the tics and pops are not the only audible difference - just the most obvious.
Thank you! But you misquoted me.
I'll admit to saying that the tics and pops might not be the only audible difference
So presumably you will expect the de-tic'd samples to still sound different.
That is an hypothesis that I was alluding to. I don't know whether it can be supported well enough or not, but there seems to be something that might be gained by giving it the old Science Try.
In which case, what exactly are you attacking me for?
Two infractions of TOS 8
Failure to do the right thing on your own, with out all of this needless drama.
I mean, your posts on this topic are probably good enough for AVS, one of the Stereophile forums, Computer Audiophile or some place like that...
I've been pulling my hair out recently about this issue and maybe it isn't an issue at all. So my setup right now is I have mkv bluray rips with DTS-HD MA audio tracks (in the MKV a_dts codec) on a portable HDD, plugged into a bluray player (Samsung BD-HM57C/ZA, which supports DTS-HD MA audio), which is plugged into a Denon AVRS930H receiver, which is then plugged into my TV. The bluray player is set to bitstream to send unprocessed audio to the receiver. When I play one of these files though, I'm not able to select DTS-HD MA audio on the receiver, it defaults to DTS + Neural X as the highest quality form of audio I can select. Now my question is, is it selecting this because of something to do with the a_dts codec the MKV file is using? And in using this audio profile on the receiver am I not getting the full, lossless audio or is it just a display issue because of the codec and the audio is how it's supposed to be?
I have some music on CD's in .cda format. I'm trying to figure out if they were originally mp3's or wav's and what quality they were.
As was pointed out, there is no reliable way to detect past passes through lossy compression by means of easy and reliable technical analysis. However, there is a good probability that the music was lossy-compressed if there are obvious signs of low-pass brick-wall filtering at some frequency well below 22 KHz.
Last post by DVDdoug -
It's very unlikely that a commercial CD was made from an MP3. If it's a homemade/burned CD, who knows.
I'd recommend ripping to whatever format you usually use. If you normally use FLAC, a few more FLAC files aren't going to eat-up much more disk space.
The damage from multiple generations of MP3 compression does accumulate... So, if it was originally a 128 or 160kbps, made into a WAV or CD, and then re-encoded to 160kbps, or even 320kbps, there is additional theoretical damage.
You may or may-not hear a difference. Of course in this case, you can only compare the two MP3s (or an MP3 and a WAV made from an MP3) if you don't have access to the uncompressed original.
Last post by bennetng -
I have some music on CD's in .cda format.I suppose you are talking about CDDA shown in Windows Explorer.
CDDA only supports 16/44 PCM, you can't put mp3 data in CDDA without transcoding them to 16/44 PCM. When you rip a CDDA with mp3 sources, you can only rip the transcoded 16/44 PCM data, not the mp3 data.
Regardless of the source format, the only way to retain data integrity of CDDA is rip to lossless formats like ape, flac, wavpack and so on. Ripping to mp3 is a lossy transcoding process.
Short answer: forget about how to identify mp3 sources and bitrates, always rip to flac if what you need is data integrity instead of transparency.