3 ms·
So if I'm getting this correctly, a computer test (not a person) has to look at two clips of audio and tell which is the source and which is encoded? I'm surpr
by makmanalp 14y ago
So if I'm getting this correctly, a computer test (not a person) has to look at two clips of audio and tell which is the source and which is encoded?
I'm surprised that 192k is actually indistinguishable. I thought some humans could tell the difference there.
- pgeorgi 14y agoUsually it's double blinded ABX testing: A computer program gives you: Encoding A, encoding B, unknown encoding A or B. You have to choose if X is A, or X is B. One of the encodings will be "uncompressed" when testing if the format in question is perceptually lossless. Repeat that a couple hundred times with many different listeners using standardized samples and programs (doom9, an audiophile forum, does such runs every now and then), and you get a rather good idea on what's going on. As for the 192kbps: It also depends on the algorithms used. bladeenc or 8Hz-mp3 back then created 320kbps files where you can easily hear the difference. Current lame builds at 192kbps? not so much.
- cageface 14y agoNo a computer can trivially tell the difference. But most people can't distinguish a properly encoded mp3 from the original at 192kbits and often much lower than that.
- polshaw 14y agoWorth noting it is 'v2', which is a specific setting with a specific encoder (lame) that creates a variable bitrate file which averages around 192kbps. That is very different to just setting itunes to 192 and expecting 'perceptually lossless'.