Sorry for not sesrch out the links and bugs , im writing on my phone
while traveling , im out in the sticks on a work project
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5
w3wilkes wrote:
> I presume this is done by having LAME installed in LMS and then for each
> player in Settings -> Player tab -> Audio in dropdown - Bitrate Limiting
> to "No limit" and LAME Quality Level to "0 (Highest Quality, very
> slow)"?
>
> Edit: What about software players like Squeezesl
Mnyb wrote:
> And don't forget that the mp3 decoder in a squeezebox is slightly
> compromised , you should decode with lame at the server for a fair
> comparison ,the mp3 decoding at the squeezebox itself is not always
> transparent not even at 320 Kbps .
> ( there is a bug report for it, explain
Archimago wrote:
> Interesting comment about the MP3 decoding on the SB units. I assume the
> ARM-based Touch/Radio should have better decoding algorithm than the
> earlier SB3/Boom/Transporter IP3k-based devices?
>
> Indeed. Not all MP3 encoders were created equal so one can't say modern
> LAME
Mnyb wrote:
> Maybe similar with spotify premium , but not soo evident ,just a slight
> diff ( unconfirmed ) , but they use ogg not mp3.
>
> But I think they are cheaping out of CPU cycles and use less expensive
> options in these lossy formats , using the best psychoacoustic models
> use much m
foxx wrote:
> Something I came across when I subscibed to WiMP:
> The difference between their 256 kB MP3 files and their lossless FLAC
> files is VERY evident.
>
> This is quite contrary to my my previous experiences, when I converted a
> 96/24 Flac file down to 44.1/16 FLAC, 320 kB MP3 and 128
Something I came across when I subscibed to WiMP:
The difference between their 256 kB MP3 files and their lossless FLAC
files is VERY evident.
This is quite contrary to my my previous experiences, when I converted a
96/24 Flac file down to 44.1/16 FLAC, 320 kB MP3 and 128 kB MP3. Only
with the 12
FWIW 192-ish VBR MP3 is my personal trade-off between size and quality
(on my phone).
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503.
SB Touch
-
SBGK wrote:
> with mp3 vs cd all that is required is to find a complicated bit of
> music and it will be evident that the psychoacoustics employed by mp3
> cannot resolve the detail and it becomes slurred, no A/B testing
> required just listen to a 10s segment for slurred detail compared to the
>
darrenyeats wrote:
> For the MP3 versus CD test your ran, I did pick out the metal track as
> different (9/10 times no cherry picking using randomised playlists I
> correctly identified A versus B) although I couldn't actually say which
> one was CD i.e. couldn't say which was "better"! But it sh
Julf wrote:
> Without doing it under controlled double-blind ABX conditions, you won't
> know if the lack of detail is due to your hearing or your belief system.
> Some people seem to trust their belief system more than their ears.
There is a simpler way. Using AudioDiffMaker often gives the ans
get.amped wrote:
> Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said during an interview on The Colbert
> Report, Once science has been established, once a scientific truth
> emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way
> of the world. What Im saying is, when different experiments gi
Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said during an interview on The Colbert
Report, Once science has been established, once a scientific truth
emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way
of the world. What Im saying is, when different experiments give you
the same result, it
Julf wrote:
> Without doing it under controlled double-blind ABX conditions, you won't
> know if the lack of detail is due to your hearing or your belief system.
> Some people seem to trust their belief system more than their ears.
I really don't understand.
How is it that relatively informed
SBGK wrote:
> with mp3 vs cd all that is required is to find a complicated bit of
> music and it will be evident that the psychoacoustics employed by mp3
> cannot resolve the detail and it becomes slurred, no A/B testing
> required just listen to a 10s segment for slurred detail compared to the
>
Archimago wrote:
> As typical for that site.
>
> For more details around that 44 vs. 88kHz paper, have a look at this
> thread:
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264
>
> Remember, only 3/16 listeners in that paper got significant results
> overall and all admitted to f
For the MP3 versus CD test your ran, I did pick out the metal track as
different (9/10 times no cherry picking using randomised playlists I
correctly identified A versus B) although I couldn't actually say which
one was CD i.e. couldn't say which was "better"! But it shows a
difference is audible.
17 matches
Mail list logo
