Thanks for posting this. I cannot tell the difference with ABX - even for the 108 version - so I guess either my ears are shot (quite likely) or my ears are not able to hear such subtleties (also quire likely).. In any case, it is amazing how good the mp3 quality is. I think the only way to hear the deficits in this would be to really listen to the quality (qualities?) of the recording rather than the music - a bit like concentrating on the hiss on cassette tape, or the clicks/surface noise on vinyl.. If the music is good enough, I cease to worry about such things.
To my mind, a slight loss of quality (invisible to my ears) is a small price to pay in exchange for the much smaller file size...
JamesTo my mind, a slight loss of quality (invisible to my ears) is a small price to pay in exchange for the much smaller file size...
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Peder Hedlund <peder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In view of the recent debate regarding the alledged "crappiness" of MP3 I thought it would be fun to see if the LAU society can tell lame (v3.99.4) MP3s from the original.
Everyone is invited to download the testfiles from http://www.musikhuset.org/~peder/AxelF.zip , see if you can ABX them and post the result.
There's one original WAV file and then 3 MP3s of various bitrates, which have all been converted back to WAV.
The 165 MP3 was created using "-V4", the 124 "-V6" and the 108 "-V8 --resample 44.1" (since it wanted to make a 24 kHz file otherwise).
- Peder
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
