Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd May 2008 13:02 UTC
Multimedia, AV Many of us grew up with the idea of the component audio system. A receiver (or a separate preamplifier and amplifier), tuner (radio), record player, tape deck, and later on a CD player. If you were into more fancy stuff, you had a DAT or MiniDisc deck as well. While some of us cling on to this mindset like there's no tomorrow, the real world seems to favour a different method of consuming music. According to Erica Ogg (what's in a name), the component audio system is on its way out - thanks to the iPod and the commoditisation of music.
Thread beginning with comment 315534
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by virek
by Machster on Sat 24th May 2008 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by virek"
Machster
Member since:
2007-05-15

Stuff and nonsense. A straight 256kbit stream is virtually indistinguishable from the original source. Countless double blind tests have shown that in practice that no-one could hear the difference. At 160, the differences are small. Here is a good article on the subject:

http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/pm/index.html


This is hardly a good reference. It is the opinion of one man from a site that dedicated to the development of MP3. So it can be completely discounted due to its lack of objectivity. For a better comparison see here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1560793,00.asp

If you yourself can't tell the difference, then you lack the discerning ear necessary to be included in the group described here (or should it be h-e-a-r?) as audiophile.

The executive summary is this: a 128kbit stream goes to 16kHz, before abruptly rolling off to zero. It also suffers from what the author says is a pruning of low intensity content (think the harpsichord in the sample used). At 160kbits there is a falling off at 16kHz, but it is gradual. Low intensity content is restored. At 256kbit, the frequency response matched the original. The original went to just beyond 20kHz.

A couple of things to remember:

1) There is little, or no real content beyond 15kHz on an LP.


More proof that your playback system is faulty. LPs can have frequency information far beyond 20khz, which is the limit of CD's. This is the major reason LPs are vastly superior in sound quality to CDs let alone lossy copies.

2) When using the presets on Lame, you are getting significantly better results per nominal bit rate. As I said elsewhere, when needed, Lame's --preset-standard (nominally 180-190) will use 256kbits, or even 320 to capture certain passages. For LPs, a final encoding of -preset-standard is plenty; in fact, it's overkill.


Double stuff and double nonsense. If you are unable to hear the differences yourself, read objective surveys which have all concluded that MP3 is the least capable audio codec to use for serious music reproduction while AAC @ 256kbits is OK, but no more than OK. Personally, I like Musepack as well. But for anything serious I use Apple Lossless or Flac.

Edited 2008-05-24 21:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by virek
by smashIt on Sat 24th May 2008 22:09 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by virek"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

More proof that your playback system is faulty. LPs can have frequency information far beyond 20khz, which is the limit of CD's.


you are aware that 20kHz result in a 18µm wavelength on the outer edge of a 12" 45rpm vinyl?
additionaly these 18µm are read with a needle of aproximately the same diameter.
please tell me where these "far beyound 20khz" come from

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by virek
by Peter Besenbruch on Sat 24th May 2008 22:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by virek"
Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/pm/index.html [/q]

This is hardly a good reference. It is the opinion of one man from a site that dedicated to the development of MP3. So it can be completely discounted due to its lack of objectivity. For a better comparison see here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1560793,00.asp


The reference I gave was a good reference, in that it gave a very good illustration of MP3 encoding and frequency response. That is what I was discussing. The reference you gave does not address this, neither does it define what variable bit rate was used. Second, no-one is arguing that 64kbit streams should be used for music of any quality on any codec. I stand by my assertion that a 128kbit stream is good for an iPod with the original headphones. Spend just a little money on replacement headphones, and 128kbit streams aren't.

I also appreciate that the presets in Lame were arrived at via double blind listening tests.

If you yourself can't tell the difference, then you lack the discerning ear necessary to be included in the group described here (or should it be h-e-a-r?) as audiophile.


This is classic audiophile doublespeak. When confronted with facts, they respond that the person's equipment isn't good enough, or they have a tin ear.

More proof that your playback system is faulty. LPs can have frequency information far beyond 20khz, which is the limit of CD's. This is the major reason LPs are vastly superior in sound quality to CDs let alone lossy copies.


The assertion of amazing frequency response on LPs is one that has been made repeatedly, and never backed up. I do not deny that phono cartridges can resolve high frequencies, but what I am saying is that such frequencies are not part of the original audio source. They are distortion and groove noise.

Double stuff and double nonsense. If you are unable to hear the differences yourself, read [i]objective surveys which have all concluded that MP3 is the least capable audio codec to use for serious music reproduction while AAC @ 256kbits is OK, but no more than OK. Personally, I like Musepack as well. But for anything serious I use Apple Lossless or Flac.[/i]

Such assertions ignore repeated studies that show MP3's shortcomings at low bit rates vanish at higher rates. If you want to use a lossy codec for music, you should probably use OGG. Again, however, at high bit rates the differences go away (and Lame has gotten a lot better over the years). I like Flac because of its good compression, and that along with OGG, it's an open standard.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by virek
by Machster on Sat 24th May 2008 23:37 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by virek"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

The reference I gave was a good reference, in that it gave a very good illustration of MP3 encoding and frequency response. That is what I was discussing. The reference you gave does not address this, neither does it define what variable bit rate was used. Second, no-one is arguing that 64kbit streams should be used for music of any quality on any codec. I stand by my assertion that a 128kbit stream is good for an iPod with the original headphones. Spend just a little money on replacement headphones, and 128kbit streams aren't.

I also appreciate that the presets in Lame were arrived at via double blind listening tests.


In the index, under methodology, you would find that the rates used were 64 and 128khz, one of the most common used today. There are other surveys available, just google.

Please keep in mind the entire purpose of the article: the discussion of the "true audiophile". Such a person would not be listening to an iPod with the original earbuds in the first place.

If you yourself can't tell the difference, then you lack the discerning ear necessary to be included in the group described here (or should it be h-e-a-r?) as audiophile.


This is classic audiophile doublespeak. When confronted with facts, they respond that the person's equipment isn't good enough, or they have a tin ear.


Doublespeak? Not really. One can develop or attune oneself to the senses so that they are much more sensitive or aware than other people. This is neither good or bad (except, perhaps, bad for the wallet).

More proof that your playback system is faulty. LPs can have frequency information far beyond 20khz, which is the limit of CD's. This is the major reason LPs are vastly superior in sound quality to CDs let alone lossy copies.


The assertion of amazing frequency response on LPs is one that has been made repeatedly, and never backed up. I do not deny that phono cartridges can resolve high frequencies, but what I am saying is that such frequencies are not part of the original audio source. They are distortion and groove noise.


People who have claimed to look at the grooves using a spectrum analyzer, say that the rolloff could end at 30-35khz. I am not in a position to prove or disprove the frequency limits. I am a former (well, not quite) audiophile not an engineer.

Double stuff and double nonsense. If you are unable to hear the differences yourself, read [i]objective surveys which have all concluded that MP3 is the least capable audio codec to use for serious music reproduction while AAC @ 256kbits is OK, but no more than OK. Personally, I like Musepack as well. But for anything serious I use Apple Lossless or Flac.[/i]

Such assertions ignore repeated studies that show MP3's shortcomings at low bit rates vanish at higher rates. If you want to use a lossy codec for music, you should probably use OGG. Again, however, at high bit rates the differences go away (and Lame has gotten a lot better over the years). I like Flac because of its good compression, and that along with OGG, it's an open standard.


We agree then about Flac, but I gave up OGG and started using AAC and Apple Lossless. I like AAC better than OGG and it is more convenient with the iTunes and Apple setup. To each his/her own, I say. Enjoy your MP3's, virek. Remember, there is no right or wrong here, no black and white, just opinions.

Reply Parent Score: 1