android
Go Back   abi>>forums > Software & Media > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 05-09-2012, 10:56 AM
mutescream mutescream is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkGood View Post
no way to gain quality back even if you transcode your 128kbps MP3 into flac. You can call them anything you want but it doesn't make it better, fact is that it possibly is worse and a huge waste of time. This is why I would only rip my own flac VS downloading. Who know what butchery someone else did to the files or how they encoded them ... http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....le=Transcoding
Please reread the hypothetical test I proposed.

This is about having a source (original recording) that does not exceed the capabilities of a 128Kbps MP3 file. Then using that source, and making both a FLAC and an Mp3 from that source, and ABX testing them at identical playback levels that do not create any revealing characteristics such as audible levels of distortion.

This is not a test to demonstrate the results of transcoding, rather it is a test designed to place FLAC and Mp3 on equal footing and comparing the two.

Subsequent to that, I ask just how far I can go in making claims based on the results of said test, with the highly probable outcome of no one will be able to tell the difference between the 128Kbps MP3 file and the FLAC (highly probable, given the testing criteria).

Should the test I outlined play out the way I suspect that it would, could I legitimately claim "FLAC files sounding better than 128Kbps Mp3's Debunked"?
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #62  
Old 05-09-2012, 12:58 PM
WalkGood's Avatar
WalkGood WalkGood is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 12,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mutescream View Post
Please reread the hypothetical test ...

... rather it is a test designed to place FLAC and Mp3 on equal footing and comparing the two. ...
My bad, I miss read it. But now looking again it sounds like a half ass way to get back to the amp comparison debate you had going. Good luck with that as I refuse to participate in that BS. Although one observation to your comparison; tis like comparing apples to breadfruit mon ... just remember play fair if someone else bites
__________________
WalkGood,
Ramón

abi >> | Forum Rules | Glossary | Why Rockbox | FLAC or MP3? | irc
Reply With Quote

  #63  
Old 05-09-2012, 01:10 PM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,196
Default

What you should do is stop trying to rephrase the question to get the answer you want. That train has left the station and isn't coming back regardless of how clever you believe you are in trying to say it another way.

I'd take a look at TDS advice. He's not being rude. He's letting you know as a long time member that your obsession with the title of a post isn't going to change that post or it's contents.

Find something else to obsess about. You'll last longer around here that way.

More information on
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutescream View Post
Also, transcoding from a V0 to a V2 is still going to have issues (since you are going from lossy to lossy). It's not like OGG, where it can just strip things off (and not have signal degradation), or from a lossless source.

If you don't believe me, do spectrals comparing it from a transcode from V0 and from a lossless source.
would seem appropriate. How is it that you believe looking at music in a spectral analysis has any relevance to ABX testing? There's no direct relation to visible and audible quality I have been able to find. Transcoding lossy vorbis files suffers from generational loss. That's true for any lossy to lossy transcode. How is it that you "strip things off" vorbis files to reduce the size without transcoding? Bitrate peeling?
Reply With Quote

  #64  
Old 05-09-2012, 01:12 PM
mutescream mutescream is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkGood View Post
My bad, I miss read it. But now looking again it sounds like a half ass way to get back to the amp comparison debate you had going. Good luck with that as I refuse to participate in that BS. Although one observation to your comparison; tis like comparing apples to breadfruit mon ... just remember play fair if someone else bites
I think perhaps you misunderstand my intention; both with the previous discussion, and this one.

These sorts of studies and tests should be looked at with great care. Both in what they actually test, and in the conclusions drawn from them (and if the tests actually gathered enough information to reach the conclusions professed).

They should be no more immune to scrutiny than the "commonly held wisdom" they challenge.
Reply With Quote

  #65  
Old 05-09-2012, 01:59 PM
mutescream mutescream is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkGood View Post
You couldn’t be further from the truth, I may have miss read your first post but clearly saw where you were going with it and your follow up post has removed all doubt.
To clarify, is this forum opposed to ideas and claims being challenged?
Reply With Quote

  #66  
Old 05-09-2012, 02:23 PM
WalkGood's Avatar
WalkGood WalkGood is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 12,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mutescream View Post
To clarify, is this forum opposed to ideas and claims being challenged?
Not at all you can proceed discussing this topic if you wish but trying a end run to come back to the same conversation and pulling others that may not be interested is not the right way to go about it. Regardless I'm too busy with personal matters this week & next to indulge your yearnings, this is why I'm a little pissed you've wasted my time and probably why I miss read the post.
__________________
WalkGood,
Ramón

abi >> | Forum Rules | Glossary | Why Rockbox | FLAC or MP3? | irc
Reply With Quote

  #67  
Old 05-09-2012, 02:31 PM
mutescream mutescream is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkGood View Post
Not at all you can proceed discussing this topic if you wish but trying a end run to come back to the same conversation and pulling others that may not be interested is not the right way to go about it. Regardless I'm too busy with personal matters this week & next to indulge your yearnings, this is why I'm a little pissed you've wasted my time and probably why I miss read the post.
Fair enough.
Reply With Quote

  #68  
Old 05-10-2012, 07:00 PM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,196
Default Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge Discussion (split from the FLACs And MP3s th

.

Last edited by skip252; 05-10-2012 at 08:04 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #69  
Old 05-12-2012, 12:45 PM
mutescream mutescream is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 56
Default

This conversation doesn't quite make sense, as there are portions of it that are still in the other thread.
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.