Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

As a rule, its possible to hear at last slight differences, especially if
you pick the music to exploit the failings of the coder.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

As a rule, its possible to hear at last slight differences, especially if
you pick the music to exploit the failings of the coder.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

As a rule, its possible to hear at last slight differences, especially if
you pick the music to exploit the failings of the coder.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

As a rule, its possible to hear at last slight differences, especially if
you pick the music to exploit the failings of the coder.

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, what do you teach?

"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Randy Yates wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, what do you teach?

"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Randy Yates wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, what do you teach?

"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Randy Yates wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, what do you teach?

"Svante" wrote in message
om...
Randy Yates wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

"Charles Tomaras" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

This is exactly the sort of unscientific assertion I wanted to circumvent
by my ABX-qualified question.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Charles Tomaras" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

This is exactly the sort of unscientific assertion I wanted to circumvent
by my ABX-qualified question.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Charles Tomaras" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

This is exactly the sort of unscientific assertion I wanted to circumvent
by my ABX-qualified question.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Charles Tomaras" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

This is exactly the sort of unscientific assertion I wanted to circumvent
by my ABX-qualified question.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

As a rule, its possible to hear at last slight differences, especially if
you pick the music to exploit the failings of the coder.

Thanks Arny. I cannot, even with the proported "difficult" jangling
keys passage - I suppose I'm just getting old.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

As a rule, its possible to hear at last slight differences, especially if
you pick the music to exploit the failings of the coder.

Thanks Arny. I cannot, even with the proported "difficult" jangling
keys passage - I suppose I'm just getting old.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

As a rule, its possible to hear at last slight differences, especially if
you pick the music to exploit the failings of the coder.

Thanks Arny. I cannot, even with the proported "difficult" jangling
keys passage - I suppose I'm just getting old.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

As a rule, its possible to hear at last slight differences, especially if
you pick the music to exploit the failings of the coder.

Thanks Arny. I cannot, even with the proported "difficult" jangling
keys passage - I suppose I'm just getting old.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of
the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most
astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really
hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

This is exactly the sort of unscientific assertion I wanted to circumvent
by my ABX-qualified question.

While I can appreciate the accuracy of blind testing, I recently heard
someone post on a newsgroup that you don't need a blind comparison test to
tell the difference between vodka and water. I'm sorry if one cannot hear
the difference between Redbook CD and 128kbps material compressed with the
popular codecs.....I think it's as obvious as the water and vodka analogy.
When you get up to 192kbps and above the differences are much less
pronounced but at 128kpbs it's not even close.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of
the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most
astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really
hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

This is exactly the sort of unscientific assertion I wanted to circumvent
by my ABX-qualified question.

While I can appreciate the accuracy of blind testing, I recently heard
someone post on a newsgroup that you don't need a blind comparison test to
tell the difference between vodka and water. I'm sorry if one cannot hear
the difference between Redbook CD and 128kbps material compressed with the
popular codecs.....I think it's as obvious as the water and vodka analogy.
When you get up to 192kbps and above the differences are much less
pronounced but at 128kpbs it's not even close.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of
the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most
astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really
hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

This is exactly the sort of unscientific assertion I wanted to circumvent
by my ABX-qualified question.

While I can appreciate the accuracy of blind testing, I recently heard
someone post on a newsgroup that you don't need a blind comparison test to
tell the difference between vodka and water. I'm sorry if one cannot hear
the difference between Redbook CD and 128kbps material compressed with the
popular codecs.....I think it's as obvious as the water and vodka analogy.
When you get up to 192kbps and above the differences are much less
pronounced but at 128kpbs it's not even close.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Doesn't take special tests to hear the difference at 128kbps for any of
the
codecs that I have heard. The differences are pretty obvious to most
astute
listeners even on moderately priced equipment. As a jazz fan I really
hear
it on the high end of cymbals with swirly sort of phase issues.

This is exactly the sort of unscientific assertion I wanted to circumvent
by my ABX-qualified question.

While I can appreciate the accuracy of blind testing, I recently heard
someone post on a newsgroup that you don't need a blind comparison test to
tell the difference between vodka and water. I'm sorry if one cannot hear
the difference between Redbook CD and 128kbps material compressed with the
popular codecs.....I think it's as obvious as the water and vodka analogy.
When you get up to 192kbps and above the differences are much less
pronounced but at 128kpbs it's not even close.

Randy Yates wrote in :

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message news:
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.

Even at 320kc the MP3 is audibly different. It cannot help but be
different. It is a lossy compression.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Randy Yates wrote in :

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message news:
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.

Even at 320kc the MP3 is audibly different. It cannot help but be
different. It is a lossy compression.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Randy Yates wrote in :

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message news:
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.

Even at 320kc the MP3 is audibly different. It cannot help but be
different. It is a lossy compression.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Randy Yates wrote in :

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message news:
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.

Even at 320kc the MP3 is audibly different. It cannot help but be
different. It is a lossy compression.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:11:03 -0000, Rich Andrews
wrote:

Randy Yates wrote in :

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message news:
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.

Even at 320kc the MP3 is audibly different. It cannot help but be
different. It is a lossy compression.

That it is lossy compression, and therefore *measurably* diffferent,
does not mean that it's *audibly* different. Only *listening* tests,
under controlled conditions, can determine audibility. General
repoirts seem to indiucate that 128kbs is audible, but 192 may be
adequate for all but the most critical applications.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:11:03 -0000, Rich Andrews
wrote:

Randy Yates wrote in :

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message news:
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.

Even at 320kc the MP3 is audibly different. It cannot help but be
different. It is a lossy compression.

That it is lossy compression, and therefore *measurably* diffferent,
does not mean that it's *audibly* different. Only *listening* tests,
under controlled conditions, can determine audibility. General
repoirts seem to indiucate that 128kbs is audible, but 192 may be
adequate for all but the most critical applications.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:11:03 -0000, Rich Andrews
wrote:

Randy Yates wrote in :

(Svante) writes:

Randy Yates wrote in message news:
...
Arny,

Given a relatively good MP3 encoder, has any of your ABX testing been
able to quantify whether or not people can reliable detect the
difference between a CD recording and 128 kbps MP3?

Pardon me for responding to a question not directed to me, but I think
I have some input to this. I have a group of undergraduate students
every year that perform A/B testing on mp3 compression. Their task is
to find compressors on the web, rip a few CDs of their choice and to
run A/B testing with a software supplied by me. The software
randomises the testing, so they can do it without too big risk of
errors. I am not present during the tests, however. 99% confidence is
required (7 correct responses of 7 tries or equivalent).
Last year the students tested three encoders. According to their
report they tested Lame, bladeenc and mpegenc. They tested 8 CDs. At
128 mbit/s and with the lame encoder they managed to detect 3 of these
8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s
they still got 99% confidence for 1 of 8 with lame, 2 of 8 with
bladeenc, and 5 of 8 for mpegenc.
Now, this is a student report, so I would not take it as 100%
certainly true, but the blinded A/B procedure makes the test
reasonably well controlled.

Svante, by all means, I appreciate your response. This is good
information.

Even at 320kc the MP3 is audibly different. It cannot help but be
different. It is a lossy compression.

That it is lossy compression, and therefore *measurably* diffferent,
does not mean that it's *audibly* different. Only *listening* tests,
under controlled conditions, can determine audibility. General
repoirts seem to indiucate that 128kbs is audible, but 192 may be
adequate for all but the most critical applications.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering