To start with, I'm not an expert in sound. I found some way to "zoom" an audio file to help detection of artifacts.
What I used:
- Foobar (latest stable release from web)
- 5.1 headphone configuration (http://www.head-fi.org/t/447089/5-1-headphone-experience-foobar-configuration-for-all-stereo-music-files) [not my work]
+ Dolby Headphone Wrapper [Foobar component] (http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_dsp_dolbyhp) + DOLBYHPH.DLL
+ Channel Mixer [Foobar component] (http://skipyrich.com/wiki/Foobar2000:Channel_Mixer) (Kind of optional)
- Foobar ABX component (http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx)
For lesser work, download the latest foobar config by RPGWizard directly from http://www.head-fi.org/t/447089/5-1-headph...reo-music-files (http://www.head-fi.org/t/447089/5-1-headphone-experience-foobar-configuration-for-all-stereo-music-files)
I'll summarize the 5.1 config just in case.
1) Install the .dll to foobar (copy them to "components" folder)
2) Order the DSP as follows:
...and of course, you are absolutely certain that this conversion doesn't add-up artifacts on it's own...? ABX test results, please?
I prefer to listen to stereo music with stereo speakers and headphones, the way they are meant to be listened, thank you, I don't really feel there is the need to boost encoding artifacts, or add up some more processing to the signal.
* I tried QuickTime's AAC encoder too but sounded ugly compared to Nero's.
How many samples have you tried?
I would suggest approx. 15 samples or more.
And some results for QuickTime vs Nero comparison:
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-96-a/index.htm (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/index.htm)
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-a/results.html (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/results.html)
d.hatena.ne.jp/kamedo2/20111029
P.S. Replaygain should be also available as encoders can change the volume noticebly.
I found some way to "zoom" an audio file to help detection of artifacts.
Why? What are you trying to accomplish?
We already know that lossy compression is lossy... Normally, the idea is to get the best sound quality under normal listening conditions. You might find that format 'A' appears to be worse than format 'B' in your special zoomed/altered test, but in fact 'A' may be better, or equal, in normal listening.
If you normally listen with all of this special processing, then yes, it might be helpful to find a format with fewer artifacts when using that processing.
We already know that lossy compression is lossy... Nornally, the idea is to get the best sound quality under normal listening conditions. You might find that format 'A' appears to be worse than format 'B' in your zoomed/altered test, but in fact 'A' may be better, or equal, in normal listening tests.
Rear channels receive the "worst" part of the audio and artifacts can be detected easily. I believe you WILL note the difference between 128kbps and bigger files.
I don't know if you'll get the same results, but an easy way to extract the "rear channels" is to use a
Vocal Removal effect, which subtracts left from right. Almost all audio editors have this effect (including Audacity), or you can get the same effect by inverting one channel and mixing.
I have to agree with DVDdoug. If you want to do lots of processing you should do the lossy compression after processing. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.
Btw, it's well known that transcoding or put more generally, heavy processing, of lossy files will result in audible artifacts..