"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally known
to
be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion that
is
inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how to.





I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

r


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

Svante wrote:

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

^

I think you mean k rather than m.

8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s

^

again

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.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Svante wrote:

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

^

I think you mean k rather than m.

8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s

^

again

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.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Svante wrote:

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

^

I think you mean k rather than m.

8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s

^

again

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.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Svante wrote:

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

^

I think you mean k rather than m.

8. Same number for the other two encoders was 7 of 8. At 160 mbit/s

^

again

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.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
news
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.

I think it's more like the difference between Smirnoff versus Absolut.

When you get up to 192kbps and above the differences are much less
pronounced but at 128kpbs it's not even close.

Are you pompous enough to maintain that your subjective impressions are
the reference by which we should all compare? What incredible stupidity.


Randy,

With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here. What
128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system that you can't
hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If you have little
computer speakers it might be tough, but on real monitors or a home stereo
it hits me like pile of bricks.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
news
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.

I think it's more like the difference between Smirnoff versus Absolut.

When you get up to 192kbps and above the differences are much less
pronounced but at 128kpbs it's not even close.

Are you pompous enough to maintain that your subjective impressions are
the reference by which we should all compare? What incredible stupidity.


Randy,

With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here. What
128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system that you can't
hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If you have little
computer speakers it might be tough, but on real monitors or a home stereo
it hits me like pile of bricks.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
news
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.

I think it's more like the difference between Smirnoff versus Absolut.

When you get up to 192kbps and above the differences are much less
pronounced but at 128kpbs it's not even close.

Are you pompous enough to maintain that your subjective impressions are
the reference by which we should all compare? What incredible stupidity.


Randy,

With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here. What
128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system that you can't
hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If you have little
computer speakers it might be tough, but on real monitors or a home stereo
it hits me like pile of bricks.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
news
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.

I think it's more like the difference between Smirnoff versus Absolut.

When you get up to 192kbps and above the differences are much less
pronounced but at 128kpbs it's not even close.

Are you pompous enough to maintain that your subjective impressions are
the reference by which we should all compare? What incredible stupidity.


Randy,

With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here. What
128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system that you can't
hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If you have little
computer speakers it might be tough, but on real monitors or a home stereo
it hits me like pile of bricks.

Rich Andrews wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally known
to
be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion that
is
inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how to.





I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.


No, my experience is that the biggest variable is the choice of program
material. I have 192Kbps mp3's and mp4's that sound very close to the
original, and I have others that can be differentiated quite readily.
Use headphones for the most repeatable results.

Rich Andrews wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally known
to
be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion that
is
inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how to.





I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.


No, my experience is that the biggest variable is the choice of program
material. I have 192Kbps mp3's and mp4's that sound very close to the
original, and I have others that can be differentiated quite readily.
Use headphones for the most repeatable results.

Rich Andrews wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally known
to
be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion that
is
inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how to.





I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.


No, my experience is that the biggest variable is the choice of program
material. I have 192Kbps mp3's and mp4's that sound very close to the
original, and I have others that can be differentiated quite readily.
Use headphones for the most repeatable results.

Rich Andrews wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally known
to
be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion that
is
inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how to.





I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.


No, my experience is that the biggest variable is the choice of program
material. I have 192Kbps mp3's and mp4's that sound very close to the
original, and I have others that can be differentiated quite readily.
Use headphones for the most repeatable results.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
news
Are you pompous enough to maintain that your subjective impressions are
the reference by which we should all compare? What incredible stupidity.

I think we could turn this one around and ask if you are pompous enough to
maintain that your inability to distinguish the obvious means I should
change my reference or not present my views on a newsgroup. If this weren't
open for discussion you should have emailed your original question directly
to Arne and not wasted the rest of the newsgroups energy by posting it on a
public forum.

Some people need glasses and others have 20/20 vision. You wouldn't call a
person with 20/20 vision pompous for saying he/she can read the text on that
next sign on the freeway a quarter of a mile before you. My hearing is
average/normal for a 44 year old man according to the audiologist and I
can't hear the difference between different gauges of speaker wire or gold
and silver connectors. But I can easily hear a distinctive difference
between CD and 128 with the codecs I have tried that are out there today and
I can also hear a distinctive difference between 128 and 196 using the same
codec and encoder which eliminates a few differences from the comparisons.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
news
Are you pompous enough to maintain that your subjective impressions are
the reference by which we should all compare? What incredible stupidity.

I think we could turn this one around and ask if you are pompous enough to
maintain that your inability to distinguish the obvious means I should
change my reference or not present my views on a newsgroup. If this weren't
open for discussion you should have emailed your original question directly
to Arne and not wasted the rest of the newsgroups energy by posting it on a
public forum.

Some people need glasses and others have 20/20 vision. You wouldn't call a
person with 20/20 vision pompous for saying he/she can read the text on that
next sign on the freeway a quarter of a mile before you. My hearing is
average/normal for a 44 year old man according to the audiologist and I
can't hear the difference between different gauges of speaker wire or gold
and silver connectors. But I can easily hear a distinctive difference
between CD and 128 with the codecs I have tried that are out there today and
I can also hear a distinctive difference between 128 and 196 using the same
codec and encoder which eliminates a few differences from the comparisons.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
news
Are you pompous enough to maintain that your subjective impressions are
the reference by which we should all compare? What incredible stupidity.

I think we could turn this one around and ask if you are pompous enough to
maintain that your inability to distinguish the obvious means I should
change my reference or not present my views on a newsgroup. If this weren't
open for discussion you should have emailed your original question directly
to Arne and not wasted the rest of the newsgroups energy by posting it on a
public forum.

Some people need glasses and others have 20/20 vision. You wouldn't call a
person with 20/20 vision pompous for saying he/she can read the text on that
next sign on the freeway a quarter of a mile before you. My hearing is
average/normal for a 44 year old man according to the audiologist and I
can't hear the difference between different gauges of speaker wire or gold
and silver connectors. But I can easily hear a distinctive difference
between CD and 128 with the codecs I have tried that are out there today and
I can also hear a distinctive difference between 128 and 196 using the same
codec and encoder which eliminates a few differences from the comparisons.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
news
Are you pompous enough to maintain that your subjective impressions are
the reference by which we should all compare? What incredible stupidity.

I think we could turn this one around and ask if you are pompous enough to
maintain that your inability to distinguish the obvious means I should
change my reference or not present my views on a newsgroup. If this weren't
open for discussion you should have emailed your original question directly
to Arne and not wasted the rest of the newsgroups energy by posting it on a
public forum.

Some people need glasses and others have 20/20 vision. You wouldn't call a
person with 20/20 vision pompous for saying he/she can read the text on that
next sign on the freeway a quarter of a mile before you. My hearing is
average/normal for a 44 year old man according to the audiologist and I
can't hear the difference between different gauges of speaker wire or gold
and silver connectors. But I can easily hear a distinctive difference
between CD and 128 with the codecs I have tried that are out there today and
I can also hear a distinctive difference between 128 and 196 using the same
codec and encoder which eliminates a few differences from the comparisons.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If
you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test, or
would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If
you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test, or
would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If
you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test, or
would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If
you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test, or
would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally
known to be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the
numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion
that is inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how
to.

I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

I think that the biggest variable is the fact that most people still do
sighted evaluations and in sighted evaluations, *everything* can seem to
sound different.

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally
known to be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the
numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion
that is inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how
to.

I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

I think that the biggest variable is the fact that most people still do
sighted evaluations and in sighted evaluations, *everything* can seem to
sound different.

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally
known to be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the
numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion
that is inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how
to.

I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

I think that the biggest variable is the fact that most people still do
sighted evaluations and in sighted evaluations, *everything* can seem to
sound different.

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally
known to be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the
numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion
that is inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how
to.

I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

I think that the biggest variable is the fact that most people still do
sighted evaluations and in sighted evaluations, *everything* can seem to
sound different.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If
you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test, or
would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer with some
Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me listening in my
van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60 miles per hour. Arne,
can you honestly tell me that the difference between Redbook CD and 128kpbs
"anything" is not obvious enough for you to dispense with blind testing to
draw a conclusion? I can't believe that we are even having this discussion
about something as low fi as 128mbps compressed audio. Please save it for
something meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between hamburger
and steak.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If
you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test, or
would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer with some
Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me listening in my
van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60 miles per hour. Arne,
can you honestly tell me that the difference between Redbook CD and 128kpbs
"anything" is not obvious enough for you to dispense with blind testing to
draw a conclusion? I can't believe that we are even having this discussion
about something as low fi as 128mbps compressed audio. Please save it for
something meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between hamburger
and steak.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If
you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test, or
would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer with some
Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me listening in my
van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60 miles per hour. Arne,
can you honestly tell me that the difference between Redbook CD and 128kpbs
"anything" is not obvious enough for you to dispense with blind testing to
draw a conclusion? I can't believe that we are even having this discussion
about something as low fi as 128mbps compressed audio. Please save it for
something meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between hamburger
and steak.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD? If
you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test, or
would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer with some
Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me listening in my
van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60 miles per hour. Arne,
can you honestly tell me that the difference between Redbook CD and 128kpbs
"anything" is not obvious enough for you to dispense with blind testing to
draw a conclusion? I can't believe that we are even having this discussion
about something as low fi as 128mbps compressed audio. Please save it for
something meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between hamburger
and steak.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD?
If you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
test, or would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer
with some Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me
listening in my van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60
miles per hour. Arne, can you honestly tell me that the difference
between Redbook CD and 128kpbs "anything" is not obvious enough for
you to dispense with blind testing to draw a conclusion?

I'm telling you that if you actually tried a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled
test, which is almost trivial to do by downloading files from
www.pcabx.com, you might not sing a different tune, but you'd probably sing
in a different key.

I can't believe that we are even having this discussion about something
as
low fi as 128mbps compressed audio.

With a good modern codec and *typical* music, it's not all that obvious for
most people.

Please save it for something
meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

Please get a little experience with proper listening tests, given how
blazingly cheap and easy it is to do.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between
hamburger and steak.

In this case they've both been ground before cooking...

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD?
If you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
test, or would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer
with some Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me
listening in my van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60
miles per hour. Arne, can you honestly tell me that the difference
between Redbook CD and 128kpbs "anything" is not obvious enough for
you to dispense with blind testing to draw a conclusion?

I'm telling you that if you actually tried a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled
test, which is almost trivial to do by downloading files from
www.pcabx.com, you might not sing a different tune, but you'd probably sing
in a different key.

I can't believe that we are even having this discussion about something
as
low fi as 128mbps compressed audio.

With a good modern codec and *typical* music, it's not all that obvious for
most people.

Please save it for something
meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

Please get a little experience with proper listening tests, given how
blazingly cheap and easy it is to do.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between
hamburger and steak.

In this case they've both been ground before cooking...

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD?
If you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
test, or would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer
with some Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me
listening in my van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60
miles per hour. Arne, can you honestly tell me that the difference
between Redbook CD and 128kpbs "anything" is not obvious enough for
you to dispense with blind testing to draw a conclusion?

I'm telling you that if you actually tried a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled
test, which is almost trivial to do by downloading files from
www.pcabx.com, you might not sing a different tune, but you'd probably sing
in a different key.

I can't believe that we are even having this discussion about something
as
low fi as 128mbps compressed audio.

With a good modern codec and *typical* music, it's not all that obvious for
most people.

Please save it for something
meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

Please get a little experience with proper listening tests, given how
blazingly cheap and easy it is to do.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between
hamburger and steak.

In this case they've both been ground before cooking...

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD?
If you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
test, or would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer
with some Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me
listening in my van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60
miles per hour. Arne, can you honestly tell me that the difference
between Redbook CD and 128kpbs "anything" is not obvious enough for
you to dispense with blind testing to draw a conclusion?

I'm telling you that if you actually tried a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled
test, which is almost trivial to do by downloading files from
www.pcabx.com, you might not sing a different tune, but you'd probably sing
in a different key.

I can't believe that we are even having this discussion about something
as
low fi as 128mbps compressed audio.

With a good modern codec and *typical* music, it's not all that obvious for
most people.

Please save it for something
meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

Please get a little experience with proper listening tests, given how
blazingly cheap and easy it is to do.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between
hamburger and steak.

In this case they've both been ground before cooking...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:tridnWE1Cvvu96_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally
known to be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the
numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion
that is inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how
to.

I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

I think that the biggest variable is the fact that most people still do
sighted evaluations and in sighted evaluations, *everything* can seem to
sound different.


I see that everyone's experience is different. I have demonstrated the
sonic differences in various MP3 encoding rates at my home. Trying to
demonstrate these differences on lesser reproduction systems was a
failure.

r

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:tridnWE1Cvvu96_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally
known to be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the
numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion
that is inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how
to.

I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

I think that the biggest variable is the fact that most people still do
sighted evaluations and in sighted evaluations, *everything* can seem to
sound different.


I see that everyone's experience is different. I have demonstrated the
sonic differences in various MP3 encoding rates at my home. Trying to
demonstrate these differences on lesser reproduction systems was a
failure.

r

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:tridnWE1Cvvu96_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally
known to be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the
numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion
that is inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how
to.

I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

I think that the biggest variable is the fact that most people still do
sighted evaluations and in sighted evaluations, *everything* can seem to
sound different.


I see that everyone's experience is different. I have demonstrated the
sonic differences in various MP3 encoding rates at my home. Trying to
demonstrate these differences on lesser reproduction systems was a
failure.

r

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:tridnWE1Cvvu96_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:s9ydnS-SwoGXsK_dRVn-
:

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
. 44
Randy Yates wrote in :
information.

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

A form of lossy compression called "14/32 Linear PCM" is generally
known to be unconditionally transparent. Failing that, kick the
numbers up a bit.

The point is that it is humanly possible to lose data in a fashion
that is inaudible. The only questions remaining are how much and how
to.

I think that the two biggest variables in determining audibility of a
compression scheme is the equipment used in playback and the listeners
ability to hear differences.

I think that the biggest variable is the fact that most people still do
sighted evaluations and in sighted evaluations, *everything* can seem to
sound different.


I see that everyone's experience is different. I have demonstrated the
sonic differences in various MP3 encoding rates at my home. Trying to
demonstrate these differences on lesser reproduction systems was a
failure.

r

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD?
If you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
test, or would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer
with some Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me
listening in my van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60
miles per hour. Arne, can you honestly tell me that the difference
between Redbook CD and 128kpbs "anything" is not obvious enough for
you to dispense with blind testing to draw a conclusion?

I'm telling you that if you actually tried a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled
test, which is almost trivial to do by downloading files from
www.pcabx.com, you might not sing a different tune, but you'd probably
sing
in a different key.

I can't believe that we are even having this discussion about something
as
low fi as 128mbps compressed audio.

With a good modern codec and *typical* music, it's not all that obvious
for
most people.

Please save it for something
meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

Please get a little experience with proper listening tests, given how
blazingly cheap and easy it is to do.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between
hamburger and steak.

In this case they've both been ground before cooking...

I'm actually a vegetarian so I suppose that anology was bad, but I don't
need a blind test to hear the swirling phase problems in the cymbals on the
jazz music I enjoy. Nor do I need a blind test to hear the low end go
flabby. At least not when comparing 128kbps material to a Redbook CD. I will
admit at higher bit rates a blind test would be welcome but it's such a cut
and dried difference at 128 I'm surprised that someone of your internet
stature and apparent knowledge would be arguing this point.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD?
If you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
test, or would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer
with some Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me
listening in my van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60
miles per hour. Arne, can you honestly tell me that the difference
between Redbook CD and 128kpbs "anything" is not obvious enough for
you to dispense with blind testing to draw a conclusion?

I'm telling you that if you actually tried a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled
test, which is almost trivial to do by downloading files from
www.pcabx.com, you might not sing a different tune, but you'd probably
sing
in a different key.

I can't believe that we are even having this discussion about something
as
low fi as 128mbps compressed audio.

With a good modern codec and *typical* music, it's not all that obvious
for
most people.

Please save it for something
meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

Please get a little experience with proper listening tests, given how
blazingly cheap and easy it is to do.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between
hamburger and steak.

In this case they've both been ground before cooking...

I'm actually a vegetarian so I suppose that anology was bad, but I don't
need a blind test to hear the swirling phase problems in the cymbals on the
jazz music I enjoy. Nor do I need a blind test to hear the low end go
flabby. At least not when comparing 128kbps material to a Redbook CD. I will
admit at higher bit rates a blind test would be welcome but it's such a cut
and dried difference at 128 I'm surprised that someone of your internet
stature and apparent knowledge would be arguing this point.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


With all due respect we aren't talking about golden ears stuff here.
What 128kbps codec are you listening to and on what sort of system
that you can't hear a difference between the 128 and a redbook CD?
If you have little computer speakers it might be tough, but on real
monitors or a home stereo it hits me like pile of bricks.

Would that be in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
test, or would that be in an ad-hoc sighted evaluation?

No, that would be me clicking between the two files on my computer
with some Hafler trans-ana powered monitors. And it would also be me
listening in my van on my Kenwood Keg driving down Interstate 5 at 60
miles per hour. Arne, can you honestly tell me that the difference
between Redbook CD and 128kpbs "anything" is not obvious enough for
you to dispense with blind testing to draw a conclusion?

I'm telling you that if you actually tried a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled
test, which is almost trivial to do by downloading files from
www.pcabx.com, you might not sing a different tune, but you'd probably
sing
in a different key.

I can't believe that we are even having this discussion about something
as
low fi as 128mbps compressed audio.

With a good modern codec and *typical* music, it's not all that obvious
for
most people.

Please save it for something
meaningful to audio science like comparing two different codecs at
the same data rate or SACD to DVDA etc.

Please get a little experience with proper listening tests, given how
blazingly cheap and easy it is to do.

While I am all for science and accuracy, you don't need level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled tests to tell the difference between
hamburger and steak.

In this case they've both been ground before cooking...

I'm actually a vegetarian so I suppose that anology was bad, but I don't
need a blind test to hear the swirling phase problems in the cymbals on the
jazz music I enjoy. Nor do I need a blind test to hear the low end go
flabby. At least not when comparing 128kbps material to a Redbook CD. I will
admit at higher bit rates a blind test would be welcome but it's such a cut
and dried difference at 128 I'm surprised that someone of your internet
stature and apparent knowledge would be arguing this point.