Hello Sup Forums - I require you to perform a simple ABX test. Use whichever equipment you have: contrary to popular belief, a shitty equipment may be affected more by a shitty mp3 than real monitor headphones.
I'm shipping three FLACs. One of these is the source file. One is derived from an MP3, obtained from the source. Relevant switches: -m j -V 1 -q 0 --lowpass 22.1 -b 128 -Y -F One is derived from an M4A, obtained from the same source. Relevant switches: --afterburner 1 --bandwidth 18000 --profile 2 --bitrate 224k
To minimize cheating I've chopped off higher frequencies (AFTER encoding). Please don't cheat. Post results.
personally I believe I'm able to tell the difference between the original and the other two, even if I can't distinguish mp3 from m4a
Angel Rogers
forgot doggo
Jayden Edwards
Kill yourself reddit.
Alexander Morgan
But what is the question you want people to answer?
Adam Clark
1) perform ABX test 2) post results 3) ??? as simple as that I guess
Leo Rogers
>nigger music Yeah no thanks.
Noah Wood
Why did you alter the files? What music is this? You probably can't tell if it was mastered incorrectly.
Andrew Fisher
>MP3 Use OPUS
Leo Russell
in case you don't know, it's easy to spot a lossy codec just by looking at a spectrogram. frequencies above 16~18MHz are anyway near to be irrelevant as far as the overall quality of the audio is concerned the music is irrelevant
Easton Bailey
The music is relevant memeboi.
David James
opus is a big meme, nothing else. Above 128kbps does not have any advantage over aac or even mp3. Furthermore. there's zero support on anything that ain't a tinkered sansa clip.
Gavin Reyes
no, it's not. no, it's not haspichord. rather than asking just listen to it.
Cameron Morris
Why are you fucking with the dynamic range and filtering out any compression artifacts?
Ryan Ross
no, I'm not using any dynamic range compression.
Jose Cook
ive gotten the difference between flac/wav and mp3 like 7/10 times but you have to really be listening and almost guessing
Bentley Hughes
>7/10 >almost guessing >almost
Average audiophile right here.
Nathan Russell
nice, which one is the original flac/wac in your opinion? "xah3Eez7.flac", "eiB1uY4e.flac" or "IeVe1ja9.flac" ?
David Perry
lossless audio is a meme
Isaac Stewart
Here is the spectrogram difference between eiB1uY4e.flac & IeVe1ja9.flac eiB1uY4e.flac & xah3Eez7.flac IeVe1ja9.flac & xah3Eez7.flac
I don't believe it's possible to hear a fucking difference without any other references. The least difference (in absolute terms) seems to occur between IeVe1ja9.flac and xah3Eez7.flac; so, either these are the two lossy (and for some reasons they behave similarly) or one is the original and the other one is the most preferable lossy. Usually lossy codecs do not behave similarly
b-but muh 24bits 96000Hz flac
Chase Phillips
>3.png oops, bad copy paste, it wasn't there obviously
Henry Walker
My guess:
eiB1uY4e = mp3 IeVe1ja9 = m4a xah3Eez7 = flac
Leo Morales
>three options >accuracy: 1/3 >Confidence that your results are better than chance: more than 1/3 jokes on you, I was totally clueless tbqh
Samuel Green
>big meme Opus easily beats MP3 - Hell, even 256 kbps Opus is way better than MP3 320 CBR :D
It has more minor song details, more than MP3 ever could handle at maximum quality!
Austin Brooks
Just compare a 320 CBR MP3 and a 256 VBR Opus and watch out for halls and echo effects - Opus comes very close to a source lossless file. If you render a 512 kbps Opus out of a source file, you literally can hear no difference at all anymore between these two.
Tried it myself countless of times.
Nathan Torres
Here's my guess eiB1uY4e = mp3 IeVe1ja9 = flac xah3Eez7 = m4a Basically haven't got a clue. I have a feeling this is just a big meme and that they're either all lossless or all mp3 or some shit like that.
Robert Powell
No, it's not. Opus is extremely efficient at lower bitrates (64/96 kbps), an area where an MP3 would play like horseshit. At 320 CBR or even V0, or against an AAC > 128 kbps, Opus is not competitive *at all*. Actually, it's advised against. You don't have to believe me, believe wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Opus#Music_encoding_quality at something as low as 160 kbps old codecs like MP3 are competitive with Opus. No listening tests have ever been conducted above 128 for Opus. Moreover, MP3 is a free as in freedom and as in beer codec support even on toasters. VBR gives you an advantage in size even over AAC/M4A if used cleverly, and the multi-decennial codec LAME with its Y switch makes wonders. If you're worried about more minor details you won't be able to listen, AAC is the only sensible choice Have you ever conducted an ABX on it or do you hear it because you know which is the opus and which is the MP3?
Jace Campbell
close close We have a winner "xah3Eez7.flac" == M4A "eiB1uY4e.flac" == MP3 "IeVe1ja9.flac" == ORIGINAL
Since the Opus meme has been discussed, here's a track with wide imaging and different details. One is the original, one has been transcoded to Opus, one has been transcoded to MP3. To give Opus even more advantage, MP3 is V0. For Opus, the highest suggested settings in opusenc has been picked (VBR is the suggested default). Relevant switches: --bitrate 256 For MP3, -m j -V 0 -q 0 --lowpass 22.1 -b 128 -Y -F The source file was in [real] 24bits. High frequencies have been cut _after_ encoding to prevent cheating* & no filters nor compressions have been applied.
*to be honest high frequencies would have been probably the only reasonable way to tell these files apart, if you have really good ears
>no more replies k, giving out the second solution and releasing trip + polite sage ihaviaC2.flac == ORIGINAL wughoh9A.flac == OPUS taChouc5.flac == MP3