RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Audio file quality tests

["Hargus, Diana" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike,

Would it be a feasible test to have a band perform and then compare an
analog recording to various bitrate samples? Just curious, as I like
"live" concerts" and have noticed that the cd's never catch the sound
quality of the show (Moody Blues -Live at red rock is the only example I
can give, sorry).  As to the argument that this bit rate is better than
that bit rate, I can only say 192 is fine for my car, as the road noise
is working against the sound of the mp3 file, and the same goes for any
portable listening device; that said, high bit rates would be a must for
archiving purposes.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL:PROTECTED [mailto:discussion-
> EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:03 PM
> To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
> Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Audio file quality tests
> 
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Joseph Ondrus wrote:
> 
> > I think it really depends on what you are listening to your music on
> 
> I would want to see the test done on the highest quality stereo system
> with the best sound card and computer attached to it.  I'm not talking
> about iPods -- I don't even own one.
> 
> 
> > 128 to 192 is very easy to hear, 192 to 320 to me is sometimes
> difficult
> > to hear but on some music it is very easy to distinguish the
> difference.
> 
> But my point is "how do you know that?"  It is very easy to make
> mistakes
> unless you have some kind of controlled environment and random
ordering
> of
> 128 v. 192, etc.  You should also pick a few different kinds of sound
> files.  Many people don't understand that a low bitrate file can
> capture
> certain kinds of sound very well (e.g., smooth sounds like sine waves
> or
> choirs), but it does worst with random noise (e.g., applause).  Why
> should
> we care what the applause sounds like?  Cymbals are more the kind of
> thing
> that really matters and they will sound noticably better at high
> bitrates,
> so an example using cymbals would be nice to include in the test.
> 
> Let me know if you want to do a true test of your ability to make
these
> kinds of distinctions because I would be happy to help you to design
> the
> experiment.  I'll bet Jon would chime in too.  Both of us have
> considerable expertise in such matters (both have Ph.D.s in
psychology,
> but Jon should be even more able in this particular area).
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> > On Jan 8, 2008 1:53 AM, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Joseph Ondrus wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yeah sounds like our definition of decent is a bit different.  I
> prefer
> >>> FLAC audio and nothing less than xxxx by 720.  I guess thats why I
> have
> >>> 5TB for my media at my place :)
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's what I wonder about:  Can anyone tell the difference between
> MP3
> >> encoded at 320 kbps and the original WAV?  Many people claim to
have
> such
> >> superior ears that they can tell the difference, but they never do
a
> blind
> >> test and a blind test is absolutely essential -- it is just too
easy
> to be
> >> biased in your evaluation.
> >>
> >> Storing audio in FLAC format is very inconvenient because it takes
> up so
> >> much disc space and so much bandwidth to transfer.  It would be
> great to
> >> find out that you can't distinguish the FLAC from something 25% as
> large.
> >> That would be great news -- think of the savings!
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discussion mailing list
> >> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> >> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion