4 ms·

having done a decent number of mp3/vorbis listening tests, the curve of diminishing returns in audio quality is very steep...as well as the price of the equipme

having done a decent number of mp3/vorbis listening tests, the curve of diminishing returns in audio quality is very steep...as well as the price of the equipment and hearing ability needed to detect it. 85% of users will be unable to discern a well-encoded 192kbps VBR from 320kbps CBR from the original (no matter how high the quality). a lot of difference which CAN be noticed results from bad encoders and the generic settings used - not strictly related to compression but to other aspects of the psychoacoustic model. classical music encodes better with one set of params, heavy metal with another. there were times when 160kbps has been transparent for me from the original using hi-fi, DACs and headphones. on recording, 24 bit makes a difference vs 16 bit, on output not so much in today's nil-dynamic range records. telling the difference often requires constantly comparing to the original master where certain aspects sound just slightly different (not necessarily worse), and do not justify a 3x increase in compressed size to get perfect. the biggest disappointment with a lot of lossy music is bad encoders, encoder settings, poorly (re)mastered originals and non-existent dynamic range at the source rather than a limited quality distribution format.

cmicali 15y ago
This. Sample rate, bit depth, and even compression bitrate/settings matter little these days. Between the ultra-loud limiting/compression, poor quality source material and samples, and cheap playback equipment 95% of the target audience will never know the difference between high and low quality delivery formats.
untangle 15y ago
Well put. I also find that the nature of the musical content matters as well. For me, the most easily detected artifacts occur in complex material (e.g., symphonic or multi-tracked rock), especially when a lot of upper-bass and lower-midrange energy is present. Even so, the defects are slight. As a disclaimer, I listen with extremely high-end gear and have access to high-resolution source material. It's possible that these effects are undetectable with normal kit.
panacea 15y ago
Do you have any links to 'mp3/vorbis listening tests', or were you rolling your own from your local media? The reason I ask is because I bought the WAV version of the most recent Radiohead album and tried to blindly discern a difference between them and the MP3s and failed. I've been to plenty of loud concerts, so probably have degraded hearing, but I'd love to try some more tests.
- leeoniya 15y ago
  unfortunately it's been quite some time. most of the tests done were to compare different encoders and settings for different types of music. some i did encode myself from CDs. search around online, it might take a bit of digging, but there's some stuff around still. here's a quicky: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/ http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-1... i was surprised that more than 50% got this one wrong. i got it correct even on my single shitty LCD-attached speaker at work at safe-for-work volume levels. the difference between 128 and 320 can be discerned pretty much 97% of the time in all but the quietest, gentlest of music. 128 sounds flat, like you're listening through a wall, but unless you have the higher quality version for reference, even this can be hard to tell. kind of like "perfect pitch" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch
  - panacea 15y ago
    Thanks! I guessed wrong for your link.

cmicali 15y ago

This. Sample rate, bit depth, and even compression bitrate/settings matter little these days. Between the ultra-loud limiting/compression, poor quality source material and samples, and cheap playback equipment 95% of the target audience will never know the difference between high and low quality delivery formats.

untangle 15y ago

Well put. I also find that the nature of the musical content matters as well. For me, the most easily detected artifacts occur in complex material (e.g., symphonic or multi-tracked rock), especially when a lot of upper-bass and lower-midrange energy is present. Even so, the defects are slight. As a disclaimer, I listen with extremely high-end gear and have access to high-resolution source material. It's possible that these effects are undetectable with normal kit.

panacea 15y ago

Do you have any links to 'mp3/vorbis listening tests', or were you rolling your own from your local media? The reason I ask is because I bought the WAV version of the most recent Radiohead album and tried to blindly discern a difference between them and the MP3s and failed. I've been to plenty of loud concerts, so probably have degraded hearing, but I'd love to try some more tests.

leeoniya 15y ago
unfortunately it's been quite some time. most of the tests done were to compare different encoders and settings for different types of music. some i did encode myself from CDs. search around online, it might take a bit of digging, but there's some stuff around still. here's a quicky: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/ http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-1... i was surprised that more than 50% got this one wrong. i got it correct even on my single shitty LCD-attached speaker at work at safe-for-work volume levels. the difference between 128 and 320 can be discerned pretty much 97% of the time in all but the quietest, gentlest of music. 128 sounds flat, like you're listening through a wall, but unless you have the higher quality version for reference, even this can be hard to tell. kind of like "perfect pitch" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch
- panacea 15y ago
  Thanks! I guessed wrong for your link.