They are using the recommended version of lame (3.90.3 i think).. NOT the
latest one which isn't the best for qualitys sake..
lame --alt-preset standard is indeed VERY VERY high quality sounding.. its
supposedly near transparent.. I personally use the same version of lame
and --alt-preset extreme for my CD rips for my Creative player... its a bit
higher bitrate but to be honest the difference is probably placebo..
Which brings me to the original criticism of mp3s below.. if you do surely
hear problems with mp3s of this type.. dont even go there with itunes high
quality as they use fhg and really there is better to be had at higher
bitrates with lame.. but basically you need to conduct a proper listening
test.. one that is double blind.. your mind will persuade you that its
different if you have any idea of what it is... blinded its only down to the
audio and its at this point that most people fail.. www.hydrogenaudio.org is
the standard bearing site for all things to do with audio encoding.. go and
read up on there and try out some software to ABX.. (actually foobar will do
this automatically for you by just sellecting two tracks in a playlist and
right clicking ABX tracks) ... as soon as you can pick between an APS and CD
with 99% certainty as returned by the software on your guesses then you must
i) check to see if the song you are listening to is a known difficult song..
if it isn't report it to the codec developers so they can improve the codec
to cope better, or even fix the problem
ii) get actively involved in testing various codecs as its clear you have
very good ears
As for peoples hopes for other formats.. aside from a placebo inspired jump
to alt-preset extreme or insane there really isn't any higher place to go..
with lossy formats you can't transcode to other formats gracefully (in that
respect it really is like a tape recording) and mp3s will play on EVERY
player around.. not true of any other format... but even OGG and AAC just
simply aren't tested as much as lame and as such you aren't getting the same
guarantees that its not going to fall over on some tracks..
Its really great that they are using such high quality encodes... if they
went for FLAC that would be even better but would require a 10x increase on
bandwidth infrastructure...
That you pay for the one off download is harsh but its hard to see them not
getting swamped by repeated downloads.. i think a compromise where you have
to fill in a form to get an unlock code for an album/track you have lost..
these can then be controlled to only allow you to get the same song every
few months... special allowances could be made after direct contact with the
customer describing their "crash"... this would stop people trading accounts
and spreading files even more..
Great to see.. for now personally i'll keep buying CDs aside from perhaps
the ultra rare EPs that are vinyl only before now.. thats kind of need and
deserves FLAC as there is no other high quality choice..
Cheers Warp
Jim
quoted 37 lines -----Original Message-----> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan R. Lucas [mailto:arlucas@telerama.com]
> Sent: 14 January 2004 16:21
> To: idm@hyperreal.org
> Subject: Re: [idm] Bleep - mp3s
>
>
> Well don't forget that your iPod isn't exactly providing the best sound
> quality. SNR is only 90db. Screw Apple. Get a Creative player. The SNR is
> 98db. Oh yeah, and they cost half as much.
>
> Try both the mp3 and the CD on the same PC with the same headphones, then
> you'll at least know that you're hearing both through the same
> hardware. I'm
> not saying that there won't still be a difference. I'm just
> saying that your
> current method of comparison is flawed.
>
> Later,
> Alan
>
> Quoting chthonic streams <chthonic@chthonicstreams.com>:
>
> > sorry. this is IMO. i've heard songs on an ipod, encoded that high,
> > with the same headphones as on my discman, and there is a difference.
> > even the best mp3's are lacking a fullness, they sound canned. to
> > me, mp3's are the digital equivalent of cassettes. i don't consider
> > them a final stage worth paying money for.
> >
> >
> > d.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org