![]() |
Listening Comparison 4
OK, I've given in to unrelenting popular demand and posted yet another Listening Comparison. **** simple this one, in each of the following 3 sets, which tracks sound the better - the 01s or 02s? (All files under 5 Mb) http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t1-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t1-track02.mp4 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t2-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t2-track02.mp4 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t3-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t3-track02.mp4 |
Listening Comparison 4
Not much in it.
Without an ABX (which I know you wouldn't care about anyway) difficult to tell the difference. Treble clearer on the 2s(?) Btw, not seen an mp4 in a while! IIRC, isn't it a propietry format named to dupe people into thinking it's the successor of mp3 (instead of mpro3)? Maybe I've got my wires crossed. With all this ripping maybe try this link http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/downloads.php - dead easy little ripper that supports the newer formats and IME gets data from scratched CDs after EAC threw them out. On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:32:56 -0000, Keith G wrote: OK, I've given in to unrelenting popular demand and posted yet another Listening Comparison. **** simple this one, in each of the following 3 sets, which tracks sound the better - the 01s or 02s? (All files under 5 Mb) http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t1-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t1-track02.mp4 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t2-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t2-track02.mp4 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t3-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t3-track02.mp4 -- Jim H jh @333 .org |
Listening Comparison 4
Not much in it.
Without an ABX (which I know you wouldn't care about anyway) difficult to tell the difference. Treble clearer on the 2s(?) Btw, not seen an mp4 in a while! IIRC, isn't it a propietry format named to dupe people into thinking it's the successor of mp3 (instead of mpro3)? Maybe I've got my wires crossed. With all this ripping maybe try this link http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/downloads.php - dead easy little ripper that supports the newer formats and IME gets data from scratched CDs after EAC threw them out. On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:32:56 -0000, Keith G wrote: OK, I've given in to unrelenting popular demand and posted yet another Listening Comparison. **** simple this one, in each of the following 3 sets, which tracks sound the better - the 01s or 02s? (All files under 5 Mb) http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t1-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t1-track02.mp4 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t2-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t2-track02.mp4 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t3-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t3-track02.mp4 -- Jim H jh @333 .org |
Listening Comparison 4
"Jim H" wrote in message
Not much in it. Without an ABX (which I know you wouldn't care about anyway) difficult to tell the difference. Treble clearer on the 2s(?) I obtained a MP3 plug-in for Winamp and used it to perform the conversion of both Mp3 and Mp4 files to .wav files. I then checked them out for time and level matching in Adobe Audition, and found them to be good. I then spent several hours PCABXing, and frustrated myself with a lot of "random guessing" type scores, even though at times I felt I was reliably hearing a difference. Since the MP4 (AAC) format has received a lot of favorable press, and some of this music seems like the kind of stuff that makes some MP3 encoders do bad things, I think the time was well-spent. I conclude that MP4 does not have a day-and-night advantage over MP3. Thanks Keith, for the stimulus to actually do the comparison. |
Listening Comparison 4
"Jim H" wrote in message
Not much in it. Without an ABX (which I know you wouldn't care about anyway) difficult to tell the difference. Treble clearer on the 2s(?) I obtained a MP3 plug-in for Winamp and used it to perform the conversion of both Mp3 and Mp4 files to .wav files. I then checked them out for time and level matching in Adobe Audition, and found them to be good. I then spent several hours PCABXing, and frustrated myself with a lot of "random guessing" type scores, even though at times I felt I was reliably hearing a difference. Since the MP4 (AAC) format has received a lot of favorable press, and some of this music seems like the kind of stuff that makes some MP3 encoders do bad things, I think the time was well-spent. I conclude that MP4 does not have a day-and-night advantage over MP3. Thanks Keith, for the stimulus to actually do the comparison. |
Listening Comparison 4
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jim H" wrote in message Not much in it. Without an ABX (which I know you wouldn't care about anyway) difficult to tell the difference. Treble clearer on the 2s(?) I obtained a MP3 plug-in for Winamp and used it to perform the conversion of both Mp3 and Mp4 files to .wav files. I then checked them out for time and level matching in Adobe Audition, and found them to be good. I then spent several hours PCABXing, and frustrated myself with a lot of "random guessing" type scores, even though at times I felt I was reliably hearing a difference. Since the MP4 (AAC) format has received a lot of favorable press, and some of this music seems like the kind of stuff that makes some MP3 encoders do bad things, I think the time was well-spent. I conclude that MP4 does not have a day-and-night advantage over MP3. Thanks Keith, for the stimulus to actually do the comparison. OK, difficult to ignore a constructive, helpful and useful response. My own initial feeling (in what was ostensibly a 128 Kbps CBR/MP3 vs. 110 -150 Kbps VBR/MP4 comparison) is that the MP4s sounded a little 'fresher' (more open in the treble?), but I haven't yet had the opportunity to do this blind (using my own Electro-Acoustic Replay Scrutinizer), where the tracks will be selected for me in random pairs...... Anyhoo, it don't end here! This file comparison was done at the approx. 5 Mb/track mark, but as it has been recently pointed out storage is becoming cheaper, I want to ramp this up a notch to filesizes of about 7 Mb/track which will allow me to try MP4s with a 160 - 250 Kbps VBR and also to bring WMA files into the equation on an equal filesize basis, so if you feel inclined suggest a more suitable type of music (artist, band or genre) and I'll try to get as close as I can from the somewhat limited choice of, er, 'non-analogue original' music that is available to me..... |
Listening Comparison 4
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jim H" wrote in message Not much in it. Without an ABX (which I know you wouldn't care about anyway) difficult to tell the difference. Treble clearer on the 2s(?) I obtained a MP3 plug-in for Winamp and used it to perform the conversion of both Mp3 and Mp4 files to .wav files. I then checked them out for time and level matching in Adobe Audition, and found them to be good. I then spent several hours PCABXing, and frustrated myself with a lot of "random guessing" type scores, even though at times I felt I was reliably hearing a difference. Since the MP4 (AAC) format has received a lot of favorable press, and some of this music seems like the kind of stuff that makes some MP3 encoders do bad things, I think the time was well-spent. I conclude that MP4 does not have a day-and-night advantage over MP3. Thanks Keith, for the stimulus to actually do the comparison. OK, difficult to ignore a constructive, helpful and useful response. My own initial feeling (in what was ostensibly a 128 Kbps CBR/MP3 vs. 110 -150 Kbps VBR/MP4 comparison) is that the MP4s sounded a little 'fresher' (more open in the treble?), but I haven't yet had the opportunity to do this blind (using my own Electro-Acoustic Replay Scrutinizer), where the tracks will be selected for me in random pairs...... Anyhoo, it don't end here! This file comparison was done at the approx. 5 Mb/track mark, but as it has been recently pointed out storage is becoming cheaper, I want to ramp this up a notch to filesizes of about 7 Mb/track which will allow me to try MP4s with a 160 - 250 Kbps VBR and also to bring WMA files into the equation on an equal filesize basis, so if you feel inclined suggest a more suitable type of music (artist, band or genre) and I'll try to get as close as I can from the somewhat limited choice of, er, 'non-analogue original' music that is available to me..... |
Listening Comparison 4
"Keith G" wrote in message ...
My own initial feeling (in what was ostensibly a 128 Kbps CBR/MP3 vs. 110 -150 Kbps VBR/MP4 comparison) is that the MP4s sounded a little 'fresher' (more open in the treble?), but I haven't yet had the opportunity to do this blind (using my own Electro-Acoustic Replay Scrutinizer), where the tracks will be selected for me in random pairs...... At 128 Kbps and below, formats such as Ogg Vorbis and AAC are clearly better than MP3, specially using a good AAC implementation such as Apple iTunes one. At 128 Kbps and over, there's another very good performing contender called Musepack or MPC. At high bitrates, MP3 is not that bad, specially if compared to Ogg Vorbis, but at around 160 Kbps, Ogg Vorbis and even more AAC, tend to still be better, and MPC is probably the best with difference. At bitrates of 200 Kbps MPC is the winner without doubt, achieving perceptual transparency with virtually all kind of sounds, and of the formats left, probably only AAC is still beter than MP3. |
Listening Comparison 4
"Keith G" wrote in message ...
My own initial feeling (in what was ostensibly a 128 Kbps CBR/MP3 vs. 110 -150 Kbps VBR/MP4 comparison) is that the MP4s sounded a little 'fresher' (more open in the treble?), but I haven't yet had the opportunity to do this blind (using my own Electro-Acoustic Replay Scrutinizer), where the tracks will be selected for me in random pairs...... At 128 Kbps and below, formats such as Ogg Vorbis and AAC are clearly better than MP3, specially using a good AAC implementation such as Apple iTunes one. At 128 Kbps and over, there's another very good performing contender called Musepack or MPC. At high bitrates, MP3 is not that bad, specially if compared to Ogg Vorbis, but at around 160 Kbps, Ogg Vorbis and even more AAC, tend to still be better, and MPC is probably the best with difference. At bitrates of 200 Kbps MPC is the winner without doubt, achieving perceptual transparency with virtually all kind of sounds, and of the formats left, probably only AAC is still beter than MP3. |
Listening Comparison 4
"KikeG" wrote in message om... "Keith G" wrote in message ... My own initial feeling (in what was ostensibly a 128 Kbps CBR/MP3 vs. 110 -150 Kbps VBR/MP4 comparison) is that the MP4s sounded a little 'fresher' (more open in the treble?), but I haven't yet had the opportunity to do this blind (using my own Electro-Acoustic Replay Scrutinizer), where the tracks will be selected for me in random pairs...... At 128 Kbps and below, formats such as Ogg Vorbis and AAC are clearly better than MP3, specially using a good AAC implementation such as Apple iTunes one. At 128 Kbps and over, there's another very good performing contender called Musepack or MPC. At high bitrates, MP3 is not that bad, specially if compared to Ogg Vorbis, but at around 160 Kbps, Ogg Vorbis and even more AAC, tend to still be better, and MPC is probably the best with difference. At bitrates of 200 Kbps MPC is the winner without doubt, achieving perceptual transparency with virtually all kind of sounds, and of the formats left, probably only AAC is still beter than MP3. Interesting. I've discounted MP4 for the moment on the grounds that it's a bit of a red herring. I've also come to a bit of a conclusion on the MP3/WMA front and have posted a couple more tracks to compare, if anyone is interested. (Ain't like we're busy in here, or anything.....) http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t1-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t1-track02.wma and http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t2-track01.mp3 http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...t2-track02.wma I've picked music to contrast with the earlier samples and would recommend anyone to download them and burn an audio CDR so they can be flicked about on an ordinary CDP. If anyone has got a 'sudden death' preference, I would be interested to hear it...... |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk