[vorbis] Lossless/lossy hybrid?

[Wilson]

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Time to break out the Sennheisers again..

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksandar Dovnikovic" <aldov at EUnet.yu>
To: <vorbis at xiph.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [vorbis] Lossless/lossy hybrid?

> "Wilson" <defiler at null.net> wrote:
>
> > Can you point me to a blind listening test that shows a difference
between
> > 320kbps LAME and the original WAV? I'd be very very very very surprised.
> > Individual people can say anything they like.. "I wrapped tinfoil around
> > my power cables and now there's so much more "depth" to the music!",
> > but only a blind listening test can really sort this kind of thing out
> > from sheer fantasy.
>
> If you are using standard hard-to-encode samples like castanets.wav, you
> should be able to hear the difference easily.
>
> Now with "plain" music, I can't tell the difference between 320kbps LAME
and
> the original WAV. But some people say that they can, and although some are
> probably imagining things, I do trust some people like Matt (Monkey's
> Audio). He did some blind listening tests to see if 256 (and 320kbps) is
> "transparent" like r3mix says, but he could still pick the lossy copy.
Here
> is the message he posted on Monkey's Audio board:
>
> (Read the entire tread here:
> http://members.boardhost.com/monkeys_audio/msg/3278.html)
>
> ________________________________
> Lossy is Lossy...
> Posted by monkey on 5/14/2001, 6:44 pm
>
> Lately I've been hearing a lot of people say that lossy compression sounds
> "perfectly transparent" when done right. Places like r3mix.net say that
you
> must have "failing music equipment or ears" if you can pick a 256 mp3 out
> from the original. A guy at an audio board corrected me when I said that
> lossless compression was the only truly transparent way to encode.
> Anyway, I recently scored a new set of Sennheiser headphones and decided
to
> do some listening tests with a bunch of lossy formats just to see if I
> really couldn't hear a difference like everyone says.
>
> What I found is that I certainly CAN tell a consistent difference between
> mp3, ogg, or WMA at any bitrate when compared to the original.
>
> When blindly comparing the original and compressed tracks, one of the two
> just feels a little "wrong" and it's almost always the lossy copy. The
> differences are subtle, but certainly detectable.
>
> Anyway, just figured I'd share. Lossy is still lossy... it HAS to sound
> different.
>
> Now, is that difference worth keeping files that are tons bigger? Not sure
> on that one.
>
> -Matt
>
>
> ---
> Aleksandar @ Vorbis Xtreme | http://solair.eunet.yu/~aldov
> Ogg Vorbis is the free, open source alternative to MP3
>
>
> --- >8 ----
> List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
> Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
> containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
> Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
>

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.