 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
32.97.110.142
I saw this on digg and thought ya'll might have fun with it.
Follow Ups:
Both files sounded compressed pretty bad. They were also extremely close.The vocalist on the track uses pitch correction. There isn't much there in microdynamics. It's kind of a letdown compared to what I normally play on the PC. I've also heard bigger differences between the various rippers I was evaluating.
I guessed wrong, by the way. Although I do think the "wrong" track sounds a smidgen better. But I'm certain I'd fail an ABX with this one.
The song I guessed "wrong" on was Crossfade- "Starless".I then guessed "correct" on the song "Miss Misery" by Elliot Smith. On this one, the "poorer" track had an extreme-high-frequency "tone" accompanying the music. Almost sounded like a "teen tone" that was discussed a while back. So I picked the track that didn't have this artifact. (Or wasn't as noticeable.)
The next one is Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #7. Now this one to me sounded noticeably different. Solo piano. No amplification or synthesis from the music. Slam dunk. (I listened for HF artifacts, there weren't any.) The guess turned out to be "correct".
After that came "Young Pilgrims" by the indie band "The Shins". Acoustic guitar with pitch-corrected vocal. The guitar enabled me to guess "correct" on this one.
When I tried another comparison, there were no more tests.
The first comparison I guessed wrong, and the others seemed to have a more-obvious difference. Although I think had there been no "HF artifact" in the compressed track of Elliot Smith's "Miss Misery", it may have been difficult as well. But none of the test tracks approached what I would call "CD quality", which was what I initially expected the "originals" to sound like.
Note that the test results only show a "positive correlation" with the Liszt, which was the only test done with purely acoustic music.
This was done on a Toshiba Satellite M35X-S114 laptop PC, Winamp 5.33 player, and Sennheiser PX-100 headphones.
Got it in correct 13 sec. Up to 12 sec. I thought I thing B. 2 sec. of the vocal track. I was 1000 %. Sure.
come again?
That didn’t come out right!!!
I got it in 14 Sec. The first 11 sec. into the cut I thought that B was the original. At 2 sec. into the vocal I new I was Right
Kinda easy, but I'm using pretty good studio monitors from my home studio for sound from my computer.Jon
.
shameless plug for my website: www.jdlkaudiomusic.com
I recently bought (and returned) and Escient MX-111. The Escient is a music server with a 160 gigabyte hard drive and allows you to record cds to the hard drive at lossless compression (FLAC) and various MP3 at 320, 192, 160 or 128. First, I tried the lossless format - it sounded ok, but not great - a significant and audible decline in quality relative to a cheap Toshiba DVD player. Not surprisingly, the MP3 compression formats sounded progressively worse as the compression increased. This wasn't difficult to hear (on a Theta-Classe-Proac system at least). If only I could afford Kaleidescape...
...............
I think the biggest reason people "fail" CD-vs-MP3 listening tests is that the conduit for running such tests often does not maintain the signal integrity, which mostly impacts the sound of uncompressed signals. Another problem is that a lot of purportedly "uncompressed" data that is not on original media has been compromised.The only way to run a test like this properly is to do an ABX/DBT with the uncompromised uncompressed signal vs. the encoded/decoded compressed signal, burned onto CD-R, on a playback system that does not compromise the integrity of the Redbook signal. (About 90 percent of CD playback systems *do* compromise the Redbook signal, IMHO.)
I plan on doing this with non-compressed vs. FLAC or Monkeys Audio. Burning an "ABX CD". Using dBPoweramp as the ripper, utilizing different encoding/decoding within the ripper. (The non-compressed tracks will be done with no compression in data transfer.) I think the sound is degraded not only with classic MP3 compression, but so-called "lossless" compression as well. And I think it can be proven with a DBT, under tightly-controlled conditions.
Once I finish testing, I will make this "ABX CD" available to fellow inmates, simply to allow independent verification of the data. The information given should result in verification via comparison utilities like EAC.
z
There are more and more products out there where "lossless" compression is part of the package, where a lot of people presume comparable or improved performance. While at the same time, another group of people claiming that we cannot distinguish the difference between Redbook and MP3, with nobody realizing that the "Redbook" may in actuality be degraded ("lossless"), and a lot of false belief that maybe MP3 is all we need. So what we end up getting is even more compromise. Not just in poorer sounding products, but lower quality recordings.There is so much confusion over what's a good or degraded signal, we end up buying what's purportedly "new technology" that is in reality new compromises in performance.
...that you cannot distinguish between a lossless version and the original. I have done quite a bit of listening to FLACs vs. WAVs and I am completely unable to distinguish a difference. This allows me to store almost twice as much music on my server and makes me quite happy. Of course, YMMV...-RW-
I think the difference is audible to where it would pass a DBT. I plan on doing this the weekend following this weekend.I burned a CD using ripped with EAC using FLAC 1.1.4, because it was supposedly an optimized setting according to some of the pro sites. (I optimized all the settings, including the offset for the Plextor 708 drive.) I wanted a travel recording of a CD I had. I briefly played it on the main system, and wondered what went wrong. I then burned another CD ripped with EAC using the ancient Microsoft PCM conversion. I could not believe how much better the second disc sounded. Same ripping software. Same burn software. Same hardware. Identical media. Same settings, except for the encoding (FLAC vs. direct PCM) from the ripped CD. (I later tried dBPowerAmp, and prefer it over EAC. I can choose PCM or FLAC with that ripping software as well.)
I figured it shouldn't be too difficult to burn a CD with the tracks side by side. So it's even the same disc. The only thing I'd have to do is maybe shorten the tracks to make such comparison practical. It shouldn't be too difficult to do. Just the right tools need to be utilized.
...and boy were we surprised!clark
That when you listen to a FLAC file natively, you are listening to the re-construction of the WAV file on-the-fly. Therefore, you are at the mercy of the software being used to play back the FLAC file. The real benefit of FLAC is to allow for the storage of more files on the hard disk. If you want to listen to the WAV file in all its original glory, you'd need to convert the FLAC to WAV.Clark, are you and your friends willing to submit your FLAC hearing acumen to a DBT?
I didn't think so....
-RW-
"Clark, are you and your friends willing to submit your FLAC hearing acumen to a DBT?"I only speak for myself, but if you read the thread, this is *exactly* what I plan on doing. (I guess "ABX" is a subset of "DBT", but the intention is the same.)
I think there is an audible difference. The test will be in the form of an "ABX" test on CD, where I listen to the uncompressed and "compressed/restored" tracks as "A" and "B", and will have to determine which version "X" is. On an 80-minute CD-R, I should be able to get 25 or more trials burned onto one disc. (I might do two CD-Rs.) I will log whether "A" or "B" is "X", and then compare what I hear with what "X" actually was for those trials after listening is finished.
The tracks will span classical, jazz, rock, and other genres. But no pitch-corrected vocals (that eliminates a *lot* of artists), no tracks devoid of acoustic instruments, no phase-inverted tracks (I might flip the polarity if need be), no "mixed polarity" tracks, and no tracks whose original resolution is lower than CD-quality. For the sake of playback compatibility, no HDCD or pre-emphasized tracks will be used. The intention is to use the best fidelity possible, where any compromise in resolution could also compromise the listening experience.
This will be done on a PC with 2.8 GHz Pentium 4, Windows XP Service Pack 2, FLAC 1.1.4 compression algorithm, MS PCM for the non-compressed conversion, dBpowerAmp for the ripping software, Plextor 708 CD/DVD RW drive with the latest firmware, Prassi ONES burn software, and Mitsui Gold Audio (1x-12x) CD-Rs. Burn speed will be at 4x. Some of the software or media might change when the test is actually conducted.
I expect to conduct the test within a couple months. Several copies of the "ABX" CDs will be available free of charge to the those quickest to respond. I might request others to conduct the test. (I will not post results of anybody's individual findings without their permission.) My results, good, bad, or ugly, will be posted here.
x
nt
I notice it with Apple Lossless, FLAC, Monkeys Audio, LAME, and Ogg Vorbis. (I will also try WavPac.) The flavors are different, but all lose that absolute resolution that is so difficult to attain to begin with.If I was forced to choose a lossless algorithm, I think FLAC does the least damage. Monkeys is almost comparable. At least I don't hear some wacky artifacts like I do with Apple Lossless or LAME.
I can go back and look at my notes, if you'd like.clark
most peeps think "stereo" means plucking one speaker here, another one over there by the coffe table.....
...I see you live in Long Beach - I lived in Belmont Shores in the 1970s and still miss it.
...................
(nt)
Yeah, most of my friends, who really don't care about this stuff, could tell the difference though so it scares me that there are that many more folks out ther who can't.That said, I'm just glad I got all 4 samples right so I can maintain my audiophile cred......
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]