So does kbps really matter in an audio file or is it just a bunch of lies? I just ripped two versions of a song, One to 64 kbps the other to 320 kbps. Put on my MDR-V6, didn't hear any difference.
deaf or troll
>>47082822
Upload both files with pomf.se and we'll be the judge of that.
>>47083032
Give me proof that there is an actual difference.
inb4 rotational velocidensity
inb4 OP used chiptune
>>47083062
a.pomf.se/yqbbji.m4a
a.pomf.se/gnrcow.m4a
I downloaded a track at 128 kbps today and nearly vomited. anyone who listens to music at less than 320 kbps doesn't know what they're missing.
>>47082822
you are too old
you are tune deaf
your conversion sucked ass
your audio source is shit
your audio setting is fucked up
your volumn is too loud
>using anything but TAK
>>47083166
>>47083216
>not using fully open and license free WavPack
>>47083166
are you trolling? you can't hear the difference?
whether the increase in quality is worth the increase in size is a separate matter, but if you seriously can't tell these apart you must have very poor hearing
did you at least transcode these from a lossless source?
>>47083250
>wavpack
I'd use FLAC.
>>47083259
it sounds like an ost from some old jrpg, the quality probably wasn't lossless to begin with
>>47083190
I just used music from a gaem whaddya expect?
>>47083246
audio beyond 320kbps is the same
which is why 320kbps MP3s are god-tier format
>>47083275
>>47083259
Star Gladiator to be exact. I really can't hear the difference
>>47083308
you can't hear the crushed drums?
You can justify using low-bitrates for old game soundtracks, but not when they feature CD-quality audio.
>>47083266
.WavPack compresses a little better
is easy to change tags because they reside at the end of the file instead of the beginning (entire file does not have to be rewritten)
.doesn't have issues with high audio resolution or bit samples (FLAC downconverts. what kind of a "storage" file downconverts?)
.has a higher 32 bit CRC error tolerance
.uses public domain techniques that can't be patented
.open source
.has a low latency version for DJs and music creators
.no weird hacks like FLAC has to make it instantly seekable
And does everything else right, just like FLAC. It's very stable for archiving, unlike Monkey's audio which has issues.
>>47083246
What program is that?
>>47083331
Well I kinda had the the idea that something sounded a tiny bit different. But I wasn't sure if it really was.
>>47082822
64kbps is not transparent for nearly all audio codecs. and if by any chance you were using OPUS or something, you'd have to be too knowledgable to already know the answer to that question anyway
>>47083166
it says for both, the file is corrupt?
>>47083308
I plugged in my V6 to check and the compression artifacts are very apparent from the start
The snare drum is completely crushed and the cymbals have no air, the synths at 0:55 sound completely different, the range of the distorted guitar is audibly compressed, pretty much everything lacks their high frequency components
Maybe you just aren't accustomed to what to look for as a decrease in quality. I could understand if you were advocating 128~160kbps vs higher bitrates, but 64 is just too low
>>47083443
>the synths at 0:55 sound completely different
But I like how 64 kbps sounds. It enhances the music.
>>47083378
spek
>>47083246
Eh, I can't hear shit above 12khz anyway
OP here. Tried with a classical CD. Can here the difference now. Sorry for my retardness.
>>47083166
Wow, you must be deaf
>>47083068
How will he or anyone prove something that ultimately is subjective?
>>47083552
>>47083558
are you telling me >>47083246 is subjective?
>>47083552
>>47083571
>opening audition for a spectogram
>>47083579
I'm telling you if you have shit hearing it's all the same.
>>47083590
do you have a better FFT tool then?
>>47083590
Wow, you're an autist.
>>47083494
Thank you.
Not OP but I was arrogant and ignored aac because weird Apple endorsed format and the fact mp3 is a common standard.
I discovered that aac sounds amazing at half the bitrate of mp3. 80kbps aac sounds great for live streams and sound webms. 128kbps sounds great for iPod, portables, earbuds, on the road and so on.
So my question is, how much of an audible quality loss am I getting by transcoding from mp3 320/v2 to aac? I have some music found only in v2.
>>47083671
>transcoding from lossy to lossy
>>47083166
I can hear the difference ridiculously clearly.
I will post ABX results to prove this claim as soon as I can get squishyball to work. (Or somebody suggests an ABX testing program that *does* work)
>>47083688
foobar abx plugin
>>47083671
just kill yourself
OP here again. Tell you something weird. If I listen to this with VLC and turn on spatializor I can actually hear a lot of difference.[spoiler]inb4 >vlc[/spoiler]
>>47083695
The dev came out with a new ABX plugin. It's really good. Completely rewrote all the code for the first time in 10 years.
>>47083727
Did the ABX plugin need improving, even?
I never had any issues with it.
>>47083695
I'm on GNU/Linux.
>>47083688
Never mind, figured it out. I didn't enable any audio outputs for libao, which squishyball uses for audio output.nand@nanodesu /mem λwget a.pomf.se/yqbbji.m4a a.pomf.se/gnrcow.m4a
--2015-03-19 00:06:30-- http://a.pomf.se/yqbbji.m4a
Resolving a.pomf.se (a.pomf.se)... 104.28.3.56, 104.28.2.56
Connecting to a.pomf.se (a.pomf.se)|104.28.3.56|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable
The file is already fully retrieved; nothing to do.
--2015-03-19 00:06:31-- http://a.pomf.se/gnrcow.m4a
Connecting to a.pomf.se (a.pomf.se)|104.28.3.56|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable
The file is already fully retrieved; nothing to do.
nand@nanodesu /mem λffmpeg -v 0 -i gnrcow.m4a gnrcow.wav
nand@nanodesu /mem λffmpeg -v 0 -i yqbbji.m4a yqbbji.wav
nand@nanodesu /mem λsquishyball yqbbji.wav gnrcow.wav
nand@nanodesu /mem λsquishyball --abx yqbbji.wav gnrcow.wav
A/B/X test results:
Correct sample identified 19/20 trials.
Probability of 19 or better correct via random chance: 0.00%
Statistically significant result (>=99% confidence).
Testing metadata:
Total time spent testing: 1:13.30
Total seeks: 17
Silent flip used 23 times.
Undo was not used.
I accidentally pressed A when I meant to press a on the 19th trial, which is why I only got 19/20 correct, and I didn't realize it had undo functionality. Let me repeat the test.
>>47083752
It has features added that make ABX much more truthful.
>>47083784
There we gonand@nanodesu /mem λsquishyball --abx yqbbji.wav gnrcow.wav
A/B/X test results:
Correct sample identified 20/20 trials.
Probability of 20 correct via random chance: 0.00%
Statistically significant result (>=99% confidence).
Testing metadata:
Total time spent testing: 33.60
Total seeks: 0
Silent flip used 5 times.
Undo was not used.
Correctly identified 20 samples in a total time of 33.60 seconds.
>>47083685
>>47083700
But not everything is published on CDs or found in flac
>>47083862
Have you ever made a photocopy of a copy?
It looks much worse than the original.
Now apply this to lossy audio compression.
