Am 12.10.2011 18:03, schrieb david:
As I said: there *is* a difference. But MP3 or OGG do not sound "bad",
they can reproduce the spectrum hearable by most people and they do not
introduce a relevant amount of noise or distortion. They simply reduce
> (LAME's variable bit rate, quality 2). Mostly more high
I never had the impression, that high frequencies where reduced by
encoding. But I did hear rather dramatic effects on dynamics and density.
> But this isn't double-blind testing.
Most double-blind-tests are made with released recordings. Such
recordings are in most cases mixed and mastered to meet the expectations
of average listeners and to fit the limitations of kitchen-radios and
MP3-players. Make a double-blind test with a fresh, un-mastered
recording of say, a band like Mastodon or Kyuss and the difference will
be obvious. But that does not say, that the listeners in the test will
actually prefer the un-encoded version....
My mobile-phone uses MP4 for its so called "high-quality"-mode for field
recordings. I do not notice any difference compared with the MP3 or OGG
used by other cheap field recorders I used.
The only compressed format, I ever found slightly listenable better than
MP3/OGG was the ATRAC on my old Minidisc-recorder.
But who cares: real recordings may never be compressed and MP3/OGG are
OK for easy distribution. People may get a CD or LP to get the real
thing or a flac to have something for net-distribution.
Linux-audio-user mailing list