Re: [LAU] How bad is mp3/ogg

From: Hartmut Noack <zettberlin@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Wed Oct 12 2011 - 18:09:19 EEST

Am 11.10.2011 23:07, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Atte André Jensen wrote:
>
>> My question is: is this really a fair way to judge the artifacts
>> introduced by encoding?

No, it is only fair to ask your ears for a judgement.

1.) MP3 and OGG are both *different* compared to the original. So both
are not "HiFi" in the sense of the word.

2.) every publisher of music has to make the decision if the sounds
he/she wants to share with the world are adeaquately represented by MP3
or OGG or not.

To give an quite extreme example: I made a mix of an 50+ track project
in Ardour. It did sound OK but for my personal taste it should have been
a bit more brilliant/transparent. It was just too fat in a sense... So I
transcoded it to OGG and released it on the net to get some ideas of
other musicians out there how to make that stuff sound a bit thinner
whithout breaking its neck:

http://lapoc.de/demos/lapoc-sos-ashita-141008.ogg

Test-listening to the OGG-file I discovered, that the process of
encoding had made all the difference, I was longing for. So I
recoded(sic!) the OGG-file back to WAV to put it on CD.

There is no such thing as "good sound" there are right or wrong sound only.

>
> No, it's completely invalid.
>
> The correct way would be a double blind A/B/X test between the
> original and the encoded versions.

Amen to that.

>
> Ciao,
>

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Wed Oct 12 20:15:02 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 12 2011 - 20:15:03 EEST