6 ms·
That's not true. MP3 simply never gets transparent and you can notice with 5 dollar in-ears. And people in general notice. This leads to absurdities such as bit
by 1ris 11y ago
That's not true. MP3 simply never gets transparent and you can notice with 5 dollar in-ears. And people in general notice. This leads to absurdities such as bitrates of 320 kbps, even thou these do not sound significantly better than 128 kbps and are still not transparent.
On the other hand 128 kbps AAC is transparent for almost any input. AAC is supported abou everywhere where mp3 is. The quality alone should be convincing. The smaller size make the usage of mp3 IMHO insane.
OTOH "the scene" still does MPEG-2 releases I think.
- hussong 11y agoYou are making some bold statements about the general transparency of different audio formats that contradict pretty much everything I've read about this topic so far. Hence, I'd like to learn more, do you have any links that you would recommend?
- 1ris 11y agoWell, try it yourself :). Make sure to make it blind-test with the help of somebody else. Ideally such things would be subject to scientific studies. But these are kind of expensive and nobody cares for mp3 anyway. I'm not aware of any recent. Hydrogenaudio listening tests [1] are studies by volunteers, but they focus on non-transparent compression. Anyway, it also illustrate aswell how bad mp3 is. [1] http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Listening_Tests http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Hydrogenaudio_Lis...
- e12e 11y agoYou realize that that test doesn't test anywhere near 320kbps mp3, right?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- 1ris 11y agoYes, that's what the last two sentences are about.
- danieltillett 11y agoThis page says at 128 Kbps all the encoders were the same (a 5 way tie). Their wiki says at 192 Kbps MP3 is transparent [1]. 1. http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Transparency http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Transparency
- danieltillett 11y agoI have listened to a lot of MP3 at different bit rates and with modern encoders and variable bit rates I can't tell the difference between anything above 160 Kbps - most of the time it is hard to tell the difference between 128kbp and anything higher. Really at 320kps you are entering the realm of fantasy if you think you can hear any difference.
- 4ad 11y agoThis is not true. It is trivial for almost anyone to distinguish 320kbps mp3 from uncompressed audio, with built-in DACs and $5 headphones, with as little as 5 minutes of training.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago[citation needed]
- danieltillett 11y agoHow can it not be true as I am describing my experience. Are you really telling me that I actually can tell when I say I can't?
- Freaky 11y agoYou're also describing everyone else's experience: > Really at 320kps you are entering the realm of fantasy if you think you can hear any difference. It depends on the encoder, the track, your equipment, and how good you are at picking out artifacts. Some people do surprisingly well in double-blind tests, though I doubt anyone can do it all the time on every sample.
- danieltillett 11y agoThere is no scientific evidence that anyone can do it at all above 192 kbps.
- 11y ago