3 ms·
What about when the output of the lossy codec is passed through another lossy codec, e.g. MP3 through AAC over Bluetooth? I would expect better results (from th
by ptx 3y ago
What about when the output of the lossy codec is passed through another lossy codec, e.g. MP3 through AAC over Bluetooth? I would expect better results (from the second codec) when starting from a pristine lossless source.
- dTal 3y agoOr just poor listening conditions. Everyone always talks about needing super high end setups to hear the difference, but it's actually the low end setups with wonky frequency responses that totally mess up the assumptions behind psychoacoustic masking.
- criddell 3y agoThat would be an interesting experiment. Take a hi-res file and encode it with encoder A then B then A then B then ... How many encodings does it take before a trained listener using good equipment in an ideal setting can tell?
- CharlesW 3y ago> What about when the output of the lossy codec is passed through another lossy codec, e.g. MP3 through AAC over Bluetooth? I would expect better results (from the second codec) when starting from a pristine lossless source. It's true that, technically, you'll get better results from the second codec when starting from the uncompressed source. Generally, it's always better to avoid unnecessary generation loss. That doesn't necessarily mean that you'll hear a difference since that depends on the cumulative output quality.
- rplst8 3y agoThis is a great example of why I prefer lossless source material. I can tell an MP3 from a CD nearly every time (on recordings of good original quality) once it's sent through Bluetooth.