Skip to main content
Recent Posts
Opus / Re: Can you ABX this song?
Last post by Deathcrow -
Is that something that would be acceptable for a studio recording?

Oh you sweet summer child... lol. Yeah, that's pretty normal for any modern metal mastering. And I say this as a pretty big metal fan myself - I have just resigned myself that it will usually (there are some rare exceptions) be crap in terms of loudness, but don't get me started on a rant.

The only thing "odd" I noticed about the flac is that it is 48khz, which means that it may have been upsampled.
Opus / Re: Can you ABX this song?
Last post by anita22 -
Thanks for your detailed answer. I agree with you on all the points. I also didn't pass the flac through Audacity (doing it just didn't come to my mind), but looking at it, I wonder where does the FLAC come from. Is that something that would be acceptable for a studio recording? It seems to me the file has been manipulated, may it be?
CUETools / Re: Cannot verify one track album rip without cue file
Last post by Sohl -
Did you look at the preset in the upper-left corner? Did you ask it to skip recently verified, or verify only if found?
I made sure I had it on the preset that I altered the settings with. Skip recently verified was unchecked and had it always verify regardless if found or not.
Now if it is already AR verified, you do not need to run it through CUETools - but if it needs repair, then you want CUETools to find it.
The problem was not that Crimson couldn't verify with AR since with the CUE file it does fine, but CUETools not starting the scan for both AR and CTDB cause it thinks it's a full album image. The answer I think I seek is the CDTOC tag which you mentioned earlier or an embedded cue in the FLAC file.
CUETools is disc-based, and its tag of choice is ACCURATERIPID
I actually use this tag all the time when I get an album that has a HTOA. It let's me verify with AR anytime in the future without having to keep HTOA.
Blah blah blah unstructured ... ask if I was too unclear about something that you actually care about.
You were pretty clear. I understood everything you explained.
Opus / Re: Can you ABX this song?
Last post by Deathcrow -
First off: There's a significant misconception in that threat, which is that the codec with less differences to the original is the one with the better quality. If a lossy codec throws away more - to the human ear - inaudible stuff in order to preserve audible segments at higher bitrate it is the better lossy codec, not worse. Arguing from such a position basically ignores the entirety of psychoacoustics.

I've tried my hand at ABXing the tracks from that thread. For a second I imagined to be able to hear a difference, but ABX trials quickly proved me wrong. IMHO if there's an audible difference it's so minute that the smallest lack in concentration makes it go away. But admittedly I'm not super good at ABXing. It's also possible that the guy from the reddit thread has some kind of hearing anomaly that allows him to pick up things that we'd miss, because the psychoaccustics are not tuned for his weird ear.

This kind of "spot the difference" game isn't that interesting to me anyway, particularly when it all comes down to listening to the same 2 seconds of a track 50 or more times until you can make out a tiny difference. At that point it's already way, way, beyond what I'd want out of a lossless codec in terms of quality and I'm more than satisified. I'm not going to care about that when I'm just listening to the music. The problem with that particular track for example is not the lossy encoding, but the loudness and low dynamic range of 5 (according to DR meter), which I can do nothing about... codec barely matters here if everything is already so garbled. I'd have a hard time distinguishing all that clipping (see screenshots) from encoding artifacts.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018