title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About            Codec Central
 
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 86 of 86

Thread: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

  1. #76
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,290

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Ok, if we're going back to Speech and Debate in high school....

    Even with the power of screenshots, HOW exactly do I prove that one codec is better over another? Survey at school?

  2. #77
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    Tomb, why don't you do a test yourself?
    I have - I have taken part in the testing carried out by the Audio Community. Test results here. Do you honestly think that I would raise these issues without carrying out tests myself?

    My last tests compared 128 k/bits and preset medium k/bits mp3 against preset standard mp3. I will see if I still have the log files.

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    I already provided my proof, in the form of graphs.
    As stated graphs do not prove Audio Quality. Spoon highlights this earlier in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by alrakis
    we both need a bed sheet...


    Lets give it up mate.

  3. #78

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    The proof has already been provided. I provided graphs. Neil and myself both say that Lame sounds bad compared to other codecs like Blade and fhg. What other proof is needed(both technical and sound tests were made)? Tomb just won't accept that Blade is better than Lame at high bitrates.

    Graphs are good proof. The idea behind lossy encoding is to get the sound as close to the original as possible. My graphs prove that Blade gets closer to the original. Lame adds artifacts that may sound good to some people, but it alters the song by doing this and therefore is not keeping the sound as close to the original as possible.

  4. #79
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    Tomb just won't accept that Blade is better than Lame at high bitrates.
    Show and provide me with the samples that you used, the bitrates used and the results i.e. the number of tracks where you picked A (blade) was better than B (Lame). Show me the number of samples where the probability was that you were guessing. Show me the different genres you used (Rock/Classical/Indie/Pop etc). Show me the problem samples, freely avaialble on the web, that you used.

    I say that you cannot provide proof hence my original statements stand.

    I will tell you what how about we run our own tests? I've not run tests for multiple users before but there is always a first.

  5. #80

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    23

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    Graphs are good proof.
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    The idea behind lossy encoding is to get the sound as close to the original as possible.
    Sound, not signal.
    Last edited by alrakis; 04-17-2005 at 02:56 PM. Reason: misunderstood

  6. #81
    dBpoweramp Guru LtData's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,332

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomb
    Why is this thread out of control Lt Data? Can't anyone have a mature debate these days?
    Yes, you are allowed to debate. However, the debating is starting to get a little personal. And your starting to talk in circles.

    And graphs may be evidence of what the sound spectrum looks like, but again, how it sounds is all opinion and is different for everyone. Again, it all depends on opinions. If you think X encoder sounds better than Y encoder, then use X encoder and say why you use it: YOU think it sounds better than Y encoder. Not that X is better at encoding than Y. Not that the graphs for X look prettier than Y's. Not that X is easier to pronounce than Y. The reason you picked X is how YOU think it sounds. This is why we have more than one mp3 encoder. Everyone differs on their prefered sound.

  7. #82
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by LtData
    Yes, you are allowed to debate. However, the debating is starting to get a little personal. And your starting to talk in circles.

    And graphs may be evidence of what the sound spectrum looks like, but again, how it sounds is all opinion and is different for everyone. Again, it all depends on opinions. If you think X encoder sounds better than Y encoder, then use X encoder and say why you use it: YOU think it sounds better than Y encoder. Not that X is better at encoding than Y. Not that the graphs for X look prettier than Y's. Not that X is easier to pronounce than Y. The reason you picked X is how YOU think it sounds. This is why we have more than one mp3 encoder. Everyone differs on their prefered sound.
    That's it - their own personal sound. As I have said more than once. I HAVE no problem with that. But when Neil and Link500X make their statements that one codec is better than another in more than one thread, without proof but based on their own personal preferences, then I take exception. Is that too hard to understand?

    As for circles it's because it's like hitting my head against a wall. My simple point about proof/facts and abx'ing is not being understood. maybe your comment about graphs may solve this.

    As for being personal I have just re-read this thread and no one has made a single personal comment against another. If you want to point out where that occurs then fine and we can address it.

    If trying to get my point across is offensive then I apologise. I have helped out on this and other forums (including currently moderating forums for another CD Ripper) for many a year. Maybe it's time to stand out of the way of facts and let speculation rule in it's place.
    Last edited by Tomb; 04-17-2005 at 03:34 PM.

  8. #83
    dBpoweramp Guru ChristinaS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    4,097

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Gentlemen! Time out!

    There are enough codecs and settings out there to please everybody :D

    Sharp hearing, dull hearing, wax buildup, something for everybody.

    For those who prefer to look at graphs, you got those too. Those who hug the subwoofer, be my guests.

    Personally I prefer to hear sound rather than watch it or feel it, but that's just me :D

    This is like the diffrence between Coke and Pepsi. I really prefer Sprite :p

  9. #84
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,290

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    And I like Mountain Dew. Sue me! I made an opinion

  10. #85
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by neilthecellist
    And I like Mountain Dew. Sue me! I made an opinion
    Opinions are different from factual evidence - that's been the point of this thread. That's my last comment on the matter. Full stop.

  11. #86
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    38,591

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    I am closing this thread because it is going nowhere (6 pages).

    Personal opinions are fine, but if you have made a statement of quality (such as Ogg Vorbis @ 128Kbps is better than WMA @ 128Kbps) you need to point to blind ABX test result (where people, or a person) have listened and rated the audio quality (that they have listened to). Saying that 'I think WMA @ 128 Kbps is better than Ogg Vorbis @ 128 Kbps' is ok as it is a statement of personal preference, but 'WMA @ 128 Kbps is better than Ogg Vorbis @ 128 Kbps' need backing up (if people ask for it to be quantified).

    Audio graphs are a no-no (yes they can show a cut off) but it is like describing (by words) the quality of a picture, just wrong a picture should be looked at, audio listened to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •