3 ms·

I did an investigation into MP3 vs AAC. My tests were at 320kbps. https://andrewrondeau.com/blog/archive/2016-07 https://andrewrondeau.com/blog/archive/2016-07

I did an investigation into MP3 vs AAC. My tests were at 320kbps. https://andrewrondeau.com/blog/archive/2016-07 https://andrewrondeau.com/blog/archive/2016-07 Basically, MP3 is crap at 320kbps, and AAC is somewhat better. The problem is that both formats roll off high frequencies. It's fine if you're listening in a car, through cheap speakers, on a noisy plane, aren't sensitive to higher frequencies, ect, ect. But, if you're in a quiet room with good speakers / headphones, and you have good ears, the high frequency roll off is noticeable.

mrob 3y ago
This appears to be visual comparisons of graphs of various automated measurements. Lossy codecs are designed to exploit weaknesses of human hearing, so the only way to test if they're working as intended is with listening tests. This is most conveniently done with ABX testing software. If that high frequency roll off is really noticeable you should be able to produce a statistically significant result. Here's an online ABX test of 320kbps MP3 using a modern encoder: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html Very few people are capable of hearing the difference, and even then only in difficult-to-encode samples. I don't think it's reasonable to call something of this quality "crap".
- gwbas1c 3y ago
  > Very few people are capable of hearing the difference, ... I don't think it's reasonable to call something of this quality "crap". But some people can tell the difference. Therefore, the roll off is crap. Granted, if you only give yourself ~3.5 bits / sample, MP3 is quite impressive for what it does.
  - mrob 3y ago
    The audible difference is mostly pre-echo and warbling noises, not low-pass filtering.
pizza234 3y ago
"Investigations" without blind tests are useless. Try a blind test (the website of the sibling post is very interesting) and you'll be surprised at the bitrate at which you'll fail to notice differences.
mycall 3y ago
Did you consider re-testing 16bit vs 24bit?

mrob 3y ago

This appears to be visual comparisons of graphs of various automated measurements. Lossy codecs are designed to exploit weaknesses of human hearing, so the only way to test if they're working as intended is with listening tests. This is most conveniently done with ABX testing software. If that high frequency roll off is really noticeable you should be able to produce a statistically significant result. Here's an online ABX test of 320kbps MP3 using a modern encoder: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/lame.320.html Very few people are capable of hearing the difference, and even then only in difficult-to-encode samples. I don't think it's reasonable to call something of this quality "crap".

gwbas1c 3y ago
> Very few people are capable of hearing the difference, ... I don't think it's reasonable to call something of this quality "crap". But some people can tell the difference. Therefore, the roll off is crap. Granted, if you only give yourself ~3.5 bits / sample, MP3 is quite impressive for what it does.
- mrob 3y ago
  The audible difference is mostly pre-echo and warbling noises, not low-pass filtering.

pizza234 3y ago

"Investigations" without blind tests are useless. Try a blind test (the website of the sibling post is very interesting) and you'll be surprised at the bitrate at which you'll fail to notice differences.

mycall 3y ago

Did you consider re-testing 16bit vs 24bit?