On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 05:35:09PM -0400, S. Massy wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:07:33PM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Atte Andr? Jensen wrote: > > > > > My question is: is this really a fair way to judge the artifacts > > > introduced by encoding? > > > > No, it's completely invalid. > > > > The correct way would be a double blind A/B/X test between the > > original and the encoded versions. > With suitable hardware. What I mean is, I think a great way of > demonstrating the difference between lossy compression and uncompressed > audio is to do an A/B test through a consumer device and then do it in the > studio. The difference can be striking. > > I like to think I have decent ears, and I can only very rarely tell the > difference once over 192kbps. Though I've also found that bitrate isn't > always everything (i.e some audio seems to respond better to a given > compression algorithm than other). I wonder what other people's > experience has been in that respect. Responding to myself here. Out of curiosity, I just did some AB'ing (hadn't in a very long time) and you can hear a difference even above 192 kbps. A lot of it seems to have to do with emphasised frequencies. I think Jostein had a very good point about these formats potentially actually being pleasing to people because they make things sound "bigger/punchier". Very interesting... Cheers, S.M. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
