Re: New Thread: Preferred Formats

I did read a few years ago of a double blind taste test of some true
audiophiles by the then leading research and discussion site (before
hydrogenaudio.com) and their finding was that a lame vrb at 256 was the
standard which the subjects were unable to tell foldgers from maxwell house.
I then reripped all my CD's to that specification and have been happy ever
since.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Jay" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [AT] New Thread: Preferred Formats


> Brent:
>
> Nice call on the ABX. There are (in my opinion) not enough people that
> know about this methodology / device; this should get more 'play' in the
> audio community as I tyhink it's a pretty faiur way to assess to 'things'
> (sounds, cables, amplifiers, speakers etc). Your point is well-taken; in
> my line of work we do a lot of listening tests to differentiate the sound
> of products (although when we do so it is almost always in a
> paired-comparison method (sound A vs. Sound B) and all are wav), and when
> we do this it is done blind and random (i.e. using the Bradley-Terry model
> for instance). While I am used to doing this for differntiating product
> sounds (again, all sounds presented as wav with same sample rate and
> precision) I can see expanding this to test various formats (i.e. using
> parent-daughter files) to determine the 'just noticeable difference'
> between sounds and to put some statistical 'meat' behind the analysis.
>
> There is a lot of controversy (better to say animosity) in the mega high
> dollar audiophile community regarding ABX - some people grow very angry /
> threatened when after taking an ABX-based test (to compare esoteric to
> budget cables for example) they find that their score is no better than
> chance. Not to start another war here...but I once suggested this
> methodology in an esoteric cable discussion forum and wow...did the flame
> war ever begin... So...you are right about people hearing (in some cases)
> what they want to hear - whether this is a comparison between file
> formats, cables, etc, but this is why controlled tests are so important.
> Still, in other cases, the differences between sounds are unmistakable - a
> comparison of a native WAV to a heavily compressed MP3 for example, but I
> doubt the difference would be as audible if the original WAV itself was of
> poor quality (i.e. think of a WAV file of a 78 rpm record for example that
> was then heavily compressed to MP3 - I doubt the
> audible differences would be that great).
>
> Again, for me, my guideline has been to keep the WAVs (partly because I
> have paid for the music and have the disk space and thus, don't want to
> compress it unnecessarily) also for the reasons I cited, and the MP3s (at
> 192) as they are 'good enough' for most casual listening (in the car and
> on portable devices for certain). However, I think it is definitely
> reasonable to say that the difference has a lot to do with the type of
> music, its temporal and spectral characteristics and so on, as well as the
> amount of compression chosen.
>
> So...192 seems to be a good garden variety rate that 'works' for me for
> all my 'non-critical' needs. Most of the time I can hear a difference
> between the files at 192 and the wav files (this I have actually verified
> using a 'blind' listening test) but my ability to tell the difference
> grows less as the amount of compression is reduced. This makes sense to me
> because with lower compresison rates more of the original file structure
> is preserved (albeit at the expense of disk space).
>
> Interesting discussion thread...
>
> Brent Aliverti <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the fact that you decided to "do it right and pull WAVs off the
> source CDs" underscores a pre-existing internal belief that the WAVs would
> sound better than the 320K MP3 files. This belief was validated when you
> played back the CD. But it's still not clear whether it was psychological
> or
> real. Only a blind test could tell you that with certainty.
>
> As an aside, has anyone on this list actually done a blind or ABX test to
> support their assertion that .WAV sounds better than (LAME 3.90.3 alt
> preset
> extreme) MP3? Just curious...
>
> Cheers!
> Brent
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Abraham, Howard E."
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [AT] New Thread: Preferred Formats
>
>
>>I was making a mix CD. Normally, I only make mix CDs for the car and
>>converting 320K back to WAV doesn't bother me. This time I was making a
>>mix CD for someone else so I decided to do it right and pull WAVs off the
>>source CDs. After I was done with the disc I listened to it to make sure
>>there weren't any errors. It was then that I realized how good the music
>>sounded compared to the MP3s I was used to hearing. This caught me
>>off-guard. I didn't intend to make a comparison between WAV and 320K at
>>all. I just assumed that 320K was indistinguishable from the source, so I
>>never compared them before. Due to my assumptions, I don't think my brain
>>was trying to convince me of anything.
>>
>> I used DBPowerAmp to rip my songs at 320K, CBR, stereo. I don't know
>> which method that software employs.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Turtle Beach Audiotron User Forum
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brent Aliverti
>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:17 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [AT] New Thread: Preferred Formats
>>
>>> Previously, I ripped everything to 320K MP3. However, after listening
>>> to that for over a year I pulled out the original CD and was amazed at
>>> the difference between the MP3 and the CD. I'm slowly converting to
>>> WAV now and all new music gets ripped to WAV. I still keep the MP3
>>> around for portable players.
>>
>> Hi Howard,
>>
>> When you compared 320K MP3 to WAV and were amazed by the difference, what
>> was your methodology? And which MP3 encoder had you used initially? The
>> reason I ask is, if you were comparing the two, and you knew which was
>> the
>> WAV and which was the MP3, it's entirely possible that your brain was
>> subconsciously influencing your decision more than you realize and more
>> than just what your ears told you. The mind is tricky that way. If you
>> (like most
>> people) are predisposed to think that non-compressed music is always
>> better than compressed music, it's possible your mind tipped the scale
>> that way to validate your mental model. I'm not saying that you didn't
>> hear a real difference, but I would be interested to know if you see the
>> same obvious difference with a true blind test (using ABX software or
>> with
>> a friend queuing up tracks and not telling you which is which until the
>> test is over).
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
>>