3 ms·
Even 128kit from a modern encoder is harder to pick out than it was 25 years ago. Most of the self-appointed experts proclaiming how woefully inadequate MP3 is
by kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Even 128kit from a modern encoder is harder to pick out than it was 25 years ago. Most of the self-appointed experts proclaiming how woefully inadequate MP3 is are basing their assessment on outdated experience from the distant past.
- soulofmischief 3y agoYou can literally point to artifacts in a spectrogram which exist within the range of human hearing with many lossy codecs. It doesn't even have to be subjective.
- pja 3y agoSure - these codecs lose information. The clue is in the name! The question is can you hear those differences, to which the answer is basically no, for a modern codec at high enough bitrate. "enough" is 128kbit or more in blind listening tests.
- soulofmischief 3y agoThe answer is not "basically no", and the qualifier of the initial argument was specifically 320kbps mp3. No one here is arguing that modern, high-bitrate codecs aren't much better at producing imperceptible artifacts. But 128kbps is absolutely not enough in blind listening tests, 128kpbs typically produces a ton of perceptible artifacts. You're just making that up.
- pja 3y agoYes, I should have caveated that: 128kbit mp3 from a decent encoder is transparent to average listeners. To a “trained” ear that is listening out for the differences? Sure, those are perceptible. But those aren’t normal people.