title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About            Codec Central
 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 86

Thread: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by neilthecellist
    I don't understand this. ALL lossy codecs, with the exception of Blade and FhG at low bitrates, hurt my ears. I hear this noisy sizzle in the background, (is this called an artifact?) and after listening to the lossy file, my ears ring and I have a migraine. And I've done blind testing with my brother. He generates a bunch of random bitrate files in different formats and asks me if it's lossy or lossless...I can tell.....
    Yes, the static is an artifact. It is to be expected at low bitrates. Blade's artifact is a bit different than the other mp3 codecs; at anything below 192kbps it will produce a massive reverb effect as well as make the drums sound bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by alrakis
    Again, I not would say that mp3 "quality is terrible compared to other codecs".
    Any lossy codec could be transparent, simply mpc and ogg usually are transparent to most people at lower bitrates, usually 170-190 kbps (VBR) while mp3 is usually transparent at 200-220kbps (VBR).
    OGG is good at low bitrates; MPC is not, it is great at high bitrates. Also, how transparant the artifacts are is affected by the quality of the speakers/headphones. If your speakers only go as low as 40hz, then you won't hear the static as much, but you also won't hear the low notes of the song.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    23

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Sure.
    If in the original you hear bass notes and in the coded not, then codec is not transparent for you.
    Public tests are usually made with quite high-end equipment, and very well trained ear testers.
    For my little tests i use mostly headphones, cause I have very good hi-fi headpones and middle-quality pc speakers. Then i burn CDs and listen to them in my mid-fi stereo system (something like 2000$ to give an idea).
    For me and my equipment a lame "--preset standard" coded mp3 (~200kbps VBR) is almost always transparent, except in some very rare cases that become transparent if I use a "--preset extreme" setting (~240kbps VBR). mpc and ogg for me (and I'm not the only one) are transparent at lower bitrates.
    But for others it may be different I know...

    ogg is considered better at low bitrates (~128kbps or less) because its artifacts are often less annoying although it's surely a not transparency bitrate range.
    very last third-party optimized versions of vorbis codec, especially aoTuV, can rival with mpc (surely the reference) at higher bitrates and reach transparency at same level.
    And vorbis is in continuous development... I look forward with trust
    Last edited by alrakis; 04-16-2005 at 11:48 AM.

  3. #33
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Christ! I suggest you all head to Hydrogen Audio and tell them how great Blade is................

    Link500X - you make a lot of comments about quality without backing your statements up with test results or samples. Talking about using Blade and your comments about mp3 in general are misleading. Where is your evidence that Blade is better at high bitrates than lame. No tests have ever been carried out on this to my knowledge (if they have please post the links) and in every mp3 encoder test, on all types of music, Blade has always finished last. here is one example.

    Pretty pictures, as per your links, do not indicate quality. This has been proven many a time. This is also the work of one individual and not the audio community. See above link for more on why graphs do not prove Audio Quality.

    if you have stated that these settings/codecs etc are best for you then fair enough as we are all different and as are our audio setups. But generalising as you have done is misleading and could have an adverse effect on those browsing this forum.

    Neil - you continually mention quality again without any evidence to back this up. Again you need to ABX. How do you know your audio set up is not the cause of your migraines?

    Apologies if this is getting "Hydorgen Audiolike" but if you make such comments then you need to be able to back them up with test results etc.

  4. #34
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    It is hard to tell the difference at high bitrates. But as I said before, Blade skips less than Lame in my cd player. Plus you can still use Blade for free in dbpowerAMP; after 30 days you must pay for Lame compression.
    So its the fault of the encoder rather than the hardware's actual decoder?

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    here is a test that I did myself: http://gwave.beplaced.com/

  6. #36
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    here is a test that I did myself: http://gwave.beplaced.com/
    Very nice but graphs do not prove audio quality for the simple reason that it cannot prove you can hear differences or provide any statistics (results of what you claim). What does that image prove to someone who has no idea what it means if they saw it?

    See here for why ABX testing is the way to go.

    Carry out some tests but make sure you have some decent headphones!

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomb
    Very nice but graphs do not prove audio quality for the simple reason that it cannot prove you can hear differences or provide any statistics (results of what you claim). What does that image prove to someone who has no idea what it means if they saw it?

    See here for why ABX testing is the way to go.

    Carry out some tests but make sure you have some decent headphones!
    I will do these tests when I get a good pair of headphones. For now all I can do is compare it myself on my subwoofer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomb
    Blade has always finished last. here is one example.
    Of course Blade finished last in those tests. They are all 128kbps. Why didn't they do any high bitrate tests?

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    23

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Listening tests at more than 192kbps are pretty unuseful because most codecs cannot be ABXed at such bitrates.
    Can you?

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by alrakis
    Listening tests at more than 192kbps are pretty unuseful because most codecs cannot be ABXed at such bitrates.
    Can you?
    I can hear the difference on my subwoofer, when it is turned up loud. Lame still adds static at any bitrate. Blade is almost perfect at 256kbps.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    23

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    If I would apply a custom DSP to a 500kbps ogg vorbis I'll probably can ABX it, I don't know... but it isn't the point.
    I don't normally listen to music applying a DSP, and so many others I think.
    If you normally turn up so loud your subwoofer listening to music then blade could be the best choice for you and to "listen to music with a subwoofer turned up loud". So thanks to have specified that. Now we have learned something...
    Last edited by alrakis; 04-16-2005 at 04:23 PM. Reason: English mistakes... sorry ;-)

  11. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by alrakis
    If I would apply a custom DSP to a 500kbps ogg vorbis I'll probably can ABX it, I don't know... but it isn't the point.
    I don't normally listen to music applying a DSP, and so many others I think.
    If you normally turn up so loud your subwoofer listening to music then blade could be the best choice for you and for "listening music with a subwoofer turned up loud". So thanks to have specified that. Now we have learned something...
    If by DSP you mean an equalizer, then I don't use one either. It makes the music sound worse, and the media player that I use doesn't have an equalizer.

    What's wrong with listening to loud music(godsmack, iron maiden, metallica, bad religion, etc.) over a subwoofer?

  12. #42
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    Of course Blade finished last in those tests. They are all 128kbps. Why didn't they do any high bitrate tests?
    Because they are almost impossible to carry out because differences at the higher bitrates are harder to distinguish than at the lower bitrates.

    Unless you have 50 (or more like 100) people prepared to abx you will not get meaningful results!

    Quote Originally Posted by Link500X
    I can hear the difference on my subwoofer, when it is turned up loud. Lame still adds static at any bitrate. Blade is almost perfect at 256kbps.
    Can you do this on another setup? It's just to prove a point that one set up may well give different results to another. Headphones are still a better bet for this though.

    My point in this debate is if what your saying about your choice of codec is good for you and your set-up then that's great. But please don't use that as evidence to say generally blade is better than lame at such and such a bitrate or that mp3 is a codec not worth considering as you have done in your earlier posts.
    Last edited by Tomb; 04-16-2005 at 03:12 PM. Reason: I cannot spell!

  13. #43

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomb
    Can you do this on another setup? It's just to prove a point that one set up may well give different results to another. Headphones are still a better bet for this though.

    My point in this debate is if what your saying about your choice of codec is good for you and your set-up then that's great. But please don't use that as evidence to say generally blade is better than lame at such and such a bitrate or that mp3 is a codec not worth considering as you have done in your earlier posts.
    I will test it on more equiptment within the next month. I don't have any money to buy a good pair of headphones.
    I also used a technical comparison as shown at http://gwave.beplaced.com/ . A listening test was mentioned, that is why i said that Blade sounds the best to me on my subwoofer. The headphones that I do have aren't very good, so a listening test on them would be worthless. I did not say that a mp3 codec is not worth considering, I said that other codecs(OGG and MPC) are better.

  14. #44
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,290

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    "Stop fighting please! Can't we just have a group hug??!!" -VCPR from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

    I have really really really really really really REALLY expensive speakers that my dad bought for his own personal pleasure. Some really nice PSB Platinum speakers, paired with an L70 DVD-Receiver. Upstairs, we have some Vandersteen Tower Speakers paired along with a PS Audio pre-amplifier and a B&K Amplifier. Pretty audiophile/hydrogen audio standard-ish if you ask me...

    ANd yes, I can tell you, I think i've decided. FhG would be my pick, I now despise LAME. There's SOOO much static in the background.

    Actually, to be honest, I hate all lossy codecs. I only use these Lossy codecs because my hard drive is so tiny. (30 GB, UT2004 and Halo take up lots of space)

    Can anyone tell me why some people are able to tell , say, for example, that LAME sucks and others can't hear the artifacts? I've come to notice that Asians at my school seem to be able to hear these static noises, whereas the caucasians and Mexicans can't .....hear them. I'm not trying to sound racist or anything, but I think there may be some different hearing abilities among each ethnicity.

  15. #45
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    146

    Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

    Whose fighting Neil? it's an open and lively debate! Myself and Alrakis are just questioning genral comments made by Link500X and yourself. It's that's fighting I'm the new pope.

    I have given up on explaining why you shouldn't make claims regarding quality etc without evidence as you have done so again in your post. It's pointless.

    By the way have you done an ABX test on your Asian friends compared to Caucasians regarding your last comment?

    That one was a joke by the way............

Posting Permissions

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