Excerpts from S. Massy's message of 2011-10-12 00:23:42 +0200: > 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. Was this a double-blind test? Otherwise you don't really need to test at all. The idea of a double-blind test is that you can't fool yourself. With a simple A/B test you might not want to fool yourself but still do it. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
