3 ms·
I was listening to some of the LAME quality test samples[0] and I found that the hi-hat pre-echo test sounds worse at 160kbps than at 128kbps (LAME 3.100, -q 0)
by mrob 3y ago
I was listening to some of the LAME quality test samples[0] and I found that the hi-hat pre-echo test sounds worse at 160kbps than at 128kbps (LAME 3.100, -q 0). I thought it might be because of the different low-pass filter frequency, but even with manually specified matching lowpass (16805Hz) for the 160kbps version the pre-echo sounds worse.
The 128kbps version doesn't sound much like the original, but it's still a pleasant sound with hardly any pre-echo. The 160kbps version, even with the extra lowpass, has obvious and annoying pre-echo on the first hit.
[0] https://lame.sourceforge.io/quality.php https://lame.sourceforge.io/quality.php
- kderbe 3y agoI can confirm this. I tested with 3.100.1 and the following encodes of hihat.wav: -q0 -b128 (b128) -q0 -b160 (b160) --preset cbr 128 (pc128) --preset cbr 160 (pc160) --preset 128 (pa128) --preset 160 (pa160) Using the Foobar2000 ABX comparator I was able to 5/5 ABX: wav vs. b128 wav vs. b160 b128 vs. b160 (this one was 7/8 ABX) wav vs. pa128 wav vs. pa160 b128 vs. pa128 (more difficult) pa128 vs. pa160 (more difficult) I did not successfully ABX b160 vs. pc160. I didn't do ABC/HR so I can't say for sure what my ranking would be, but my guess is: wav >> b128 > (b160 or pa160) > pa128