People still do business with PayPal?



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    So you're right that such a thing exists, but wrong about it being a proper MP3.
    Hmm... you know I don't remember saying that.  Time to start taking ginkgo again.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    If you're going to be a pedantic dickweed, at least make sure you're actually correct.
    Quite.@blakeyrat said:
    (Note: don't be a pedantic dickweed.)
    How are you getting on with your campaign to close the forum?

    I thought being a pedantic dickweed was part of being a geek. I received my pedantic dickweed license when I started using the internet, I was sure.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @MascarponeRun said:

    So you're right that such a thing exists, but wrong about it being a proper MP3.
    Hmm... you know I don't remember saying that.  Time to start taking ginkgo again.

    Which of us is confused here? Or both? Have I had my dinner yet?



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @MascarponeRun said:

    So you're right that such a thing exists, but wrong about it being a proper MP3.
    Hmm... you know I don't remember saying that.  Time to start taking ginkgo again.

    Which of us is confused here? Or both? Have I had my dinner yet?
    I only provided a link with a way to produce higher bitrate MP3s.  I said nothing about it being "proper".  (Although it seems as though it is defined in the standard with the "freeformat option", it's just that decoders aren't required to be able to deal with them to adhere to the spec.)


  • @blakeyrat said:

    @da Doctah said:
    My point is that all the hype about digital music reproduction being inherently better than analog is flawed because it ignores the fact that your anatomy forces you to listen to it in analog anyway.

    So you're saying that a 512kbps MP3, compressed with the highest quality compression available, stored on a digital medium rated to be error-free for 25 years, is better than a 16 year old LP record with scratches all over it and grooves full of grit?

     

     You're comparing a poorly maintained lp to a high-bitrate encoding?  To be fair, you either have to compare a clean, 180g vinyl to the 512kbps MP3, or compare the dusty, scratched record to a 128kbps mp3 with random corrupted bits.  I think in either case, the record will sound better.



  • @ShatteredArm said:

    You're comparing a poorly maintained lp to a high-bitrate encoding?

    I'm saying analog recordings are inferior because the LPs get scratched, get dust on them, the magnetic tape stretches, the stylus gets dull or out-of-alignment, etc.

    Anybody saying that a MP3 is inferior because the sound quality isn't as good as analog is missing the point:
    1) It didn't take over because of the sound quality, it took over because it's a fucking better way to store music. Smaller, lighter, easier to transport, less fragile, not susceptible to quality loss over time, etc.
    2) You're comparing it to some mythical analog system that is much better than the magnetic tapes and LP records we've been using here in this strange place called "reality", which strikes me as pretty pointless.

    For all practical purposes, digital music on a medium like a CD is superior to analog music.

    This being TheDailyWTF, I'm not surprised you missed my point. I am merely slightly disappointed.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @MascarponeRun said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @MascarponeRun said:

    So you're right that such a thing exists, but wrong about it being a proper MP3.
    Hmm... you know I don't remember saying that.  Time to start taking ginkgo again.

    Which of us is confused here? Or both? Have I had my dinner yet?
    I only provided a link with a way to produce higher bitrate MP3s.  I said nothing about it being "proper".  (Although it seems as though it is defined in the standard with the "freeformat option", it's just that decoders aren't required to be able to deal with them to adhere to the spec.)
    Yeah, just ignore everything I wrote. I seem to have had a senior moment.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @ShatteredArm said:
    You're comparing a poorly maintained lp to a high-bitrate encoding?

    I'm saying analog recordings are inferior because the LPs get scratched, get dust on them, the magnetic tape stretches, the stylus gets dull or out-of-alignment, etc.

    Anybody saying that a MP3 is inferior because the sound quality isn't as good as analog is missing the point:
    1) It didn't take over because of the sound quality, it took over because it's a fucking better way to store music. Smaller, lighter, easier to transport, less fragile, not susceptible to quality loss over time, etc.
    2) You're comparing it to some mythical analog system that is much better than the magnetic tapes and LP records we've been using here in this strange place called "reality", which strikes me as pretty pointless.

    For all practical purposes, digital music on a medium like a CD is superior to analog music.

    This being TheDailyWTF, I'm not surprised you missed my point. I am merely slightly disappointed.

    A CD sector is 2352 bytes. Data CDs usually (you can change it if you're suicidal) store 2048 bytes of data per sector, and use remaining space for error correction data. Audio CDs use all 2352 bytes for the data, and don't have any error correction.
    That's why most CD ripping software reads each sector 2-5 times, "hoping" that if all reads gave the same result the data is good.
    See also playback start offset, seek jitter.
    Digital storage is good. But Audio CD is not a well-designed format. What would be quite cool would be issuing release albums as ROMs in form factor of a microSD or other such card, as regular FLAC or even WAV/PCM files. Mass-produced would be cheap, and both the producer, the seller, and you save on physical storage size.


  • @blakeyrat said:

    1) It didn't take over because of the sound quality, it took over because it's a fucking better way to store music. Smaller, lighter, easier to transport, less fragile, not susceptible to quality loss over time, etc.
    Actually, it's a combination of both -- MP3 is smaller, lighter, easier to transport, less fragile, not susceptible to quality loss over time, AND the sound quality of a high bitrate MP3 is just as good as any analog format.  If the only music available in MP3 format was encoded at 24kbps, I seriously doubt that it would have become popular.  But with a high bitrate file, 99.9% of people can't hear any difference and the 0.1% who claim that they can hear a difference are same people who claim that music sounds better through $1000 Monster Cables.@blakeyrat said:
    For all practical purposes, digital music on a medium like a CD is superior to analog music.
    True.  Unfortunately, it is quite possible to produce shitty quality music in a digital format, and people who claim that MP3 or CD or Digital Whaterver is inferior to analog are either comparing analog to shit quality digital or just simply delusional (the brain is easily fooled and there are many examples of that).



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Unfortunately, it is quite possible to produce shitty quality music in a digital format, and people who claim that MP3 or CD or Digital Whaterver is inferior to analog are either comparing analog to shit quality digital or just simply delusional (the brain is easily fooled and there are many examples of that).
    This is the main problem - nearly all digital music nowadays is dynamically compressed, in particularly bad cases it's also clipped, which makes it sound like shit, especially if there's an analog version available that wasn't made from the same master.



  • Analogue devices have limited headroom too. Blame that on idiot producers/mixing engineers who overdrive hardware that isn't meant to be overdriven.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    the sound quality of a high bitrate MP3 is just as good as any analog format. 
    No, it just isn't. Nothing to do with horseshit cabiling. If you can't tell the difference between a FLAC and an MP3, then your music is not very challenging to the codec. Good luck to you. But don't think that my music tastes are dealt with as effectively. I'm quite happy to have about 75% of my music as MP3, but the other 25% demands to be losslessly compressed. In general, I'd say that MP3 doesn't handle fuzziness/acid/noise very well, but it comes out in some odd places like with Bach, or with a lot of modern classical music.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    No, it just isn't. Nothing to do with horseshit cabiling. If you can't tell the difference between a FLAC and an MP3, then your music is not very challenging to the codec. Good luck to you. But don't think that my music tastes are dealt with as effectively. I'm quite happy to have about 75% of my music as MP3, but the other 25% demands to be losslessly compressed. In general, I'd say that MP3 doesn't handle fuzziness/acid/noise very well, but it comes out in some odd places like with Bach, or with a lot of modern classical music.

    And you know this because you've done peer-reviewed double-blind listening tests, of course. Because otherwise you'd just be spreading the same bullshit all other ignorant audiophiles spread, and we all know you'd never stoop to that level.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    And you know this because you've done peer-reviewed double-blind listening tests, of course. Because otherwise you'd just be spreading the same bullshit all other ignorant audiophiles spread, and we all know you'd never stoop to that level.
    No, because with the right music it's really fucking obvious. I mean, seriously, indisputably fucking obvious. This is not some audiophile bullshit; I'm as sceptical as they come, and my hearing's not that great anyway. If I can hear the difference, anyone can. I'm not talking about some indefinable bollocks like 'warmness' - you can't fail to miss that a decent bit of the sound has gone, even on $50 Walmart speakers.

    Like I said, for 75% of my music, and probably 95+% of all the music out there, given that my tastes are not particularly mainstream, there is no discernible difference whatsoever. For the remainder, though, the difference is in many cases not at all subtle. People often don't realise - after all, how often do you listen to the same track twice, once in compressed and once in uncompressed format?



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    No, because with the right music it's really fucking obvious.

    Nothing is obvious.

    @MascarponeRun said:

    I mean, seriously, indisputably fucking obvious.

    Nothing is obvious. The more people think something is obvious, the more likely they are to be dead fucking wrong.

    @MascarponeRun said:

    This is not some audiophile bullshit; I'm as sceptical as they come, and my hearing's not that great anyway. If I can hear the difference, anyone can.

    Your hearing (like all your senses) is filtered through your brain. Your brain lies to you constantly. Constantly.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    In general, I'd say that MP3 doesn't handle fuzziness/acid/noise very well

    The decoder can make a difference too. Back around 2000 my friends demanded the use of Xing Audio Catalyst (IMSMR) as it was apparently better than WinAmp. I couldn't hear the difference.

    But I do remember hearing a difference between other players though. One song was La La Land by Green Velvet. I originally got it from Kazaa or something: playing it in the built-in player (WMP?) sounded like crap but playing the same file in WinAmp sounded the same as what I heard on the radio.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    And you know this because you've done peer-reviewed double-blind listening tests, of course.
    You can easily do ABX testing yourself, and with certain tracks the difference is obvious.



  •  This keeps up, I may have install TOS#8.



  • @dhromed said:

     This keeps up, I may have install TOS#8.

    Makes sense.



  • I meant this number 8.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    No, because with the right music it's really fucking obvious. I mean, seriously, indisputably fucking obvious.

    Then you wont mind telling us the name of a song which compresses really badly and obviously.
    We'll wait right here.



  • @Salamander said:

    @MascarponeRun said:

    No, because with the right music it's really fucking obvious. I mean, seriously, indisputably fucking obvious.

    Then you wont mind telling us the name of a song which compresses really badly and obviously.
    We'll wait right here.

     

    He already told you:  It is obvious.

     



  • @Salamander said:

    @MascarponeRun said:

    No, because with the right music it's really fucking obvious. I mean, seriously, indisputably fucking obvious.

    Then you wont mind telling us the name of a song which compresses really badly and obviously.

    We'll wait right here.

    Sure. I couldn't be bothered to track down, edit, and post-online some samples, but you feel free. For starters, most songs by Neutral Milk Hotel; any Bach where the organist's hands are spread wide apart, hammering away; seemingly most gypsy brass-band music. What do they have in common? Lots of rough-edged sounds not normally found in similar combinations in most Western music. Oh yeah, another good example is Steve Reich's Drumming - the whole point of the piece is that you hear sounds created by phasing which aren't actually made by the instruments; MP3 does not like that one little bit.

    Really, I think you lot are being overly sceptical. The point of lossy compression is not that it's perfect, but that it's a set of compromises carefully selected so that you can't hear the difference in almost all cases. In the same way that some patters will 'break' JPEG compression, and look terrible at compression ratios that are fine for normal photos, some combinations of sounds are not well treated by MP3 compression. I just happen to like a lot of music that is as far from the mainstream as a test image is from a typical holiday snap. I know audiophiles - and I'm definitely not one - love to claim subjective differences, but just because they talk bullshit a lot of the time doesn't mean they can't be right every now and again - stopped clock twice a day, and all that. This difference isn't subjective nonsense, it's objectively observable, with a sensible explanation relating to how MP3 compression works; I suspect some of the math-heads here could even prove the concept is mathematically true.

    Sorry to keep banging on about how 'obvious' this is, but you read about pscyho-acoustics and how MP3 actually works, and it's no longer amazing to think that some small proportion of sounds can 'break' MP3 to the extent that you can easily hear a difference (although still sounding pretty similar), so much as it's amazing that at least 99% of audio signals are handled near-perfectly. They're throwing a hell of a lot away.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    Really, I think you lot are being overly sceptical.

    Yeah! Evidence is for losers.

    @MascarponeRun said:

    I just happen to like a lot of music that is as far from the mainstream as a test image is from a typical holiday snap.

    Oh, obviously you know because you listen to music that's just too cool for the rest of us. We're too "mainstream" to hear the obvious deficiencies in MP3 music...

    @MascarponeRun said:

    I know audiophiles - and I'm definitely not one

    You just happen to sound exactly like one, complete with the heavy dose of elitism they constantly spew. Maybe you're not an audiophile, but you sure are engaging in the same kind of non-scientific bullshit they are.

    @MascarponeRun said:

    This difference isn't subjective nonsense, it's objectively observable,

    Oh; then you've done the double-blind study? Why don't you link it to us so we can read your results?

    @MascarponeRun said:

    Sorry to keep banging on about how 'obvious' this is

    Nothing is obvious, and you don't have jack shit here backing you up with facts.



  • BTW, are you honestly telling us that whenever you want to listen to some Bach, you pull out a LP from the sleeve and put it on a turntable?



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    Neutral Milk Hotel

    Pick one. I'll go download an high-bitrate MP3 and a FLAC and compare the output on my super duper headphones.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @MascarponeRun said:
    Really, I think you lot are being overly sceptical.

    Yeah! Evidence is for losers.

    Since you plainly haven't yet had time to go and download any of the suggested music in a lossless format, give it a listen, then re-encode at your preferred bitrate and relisten, and yet you're telling me my approach isn't evidence-based, I don't think you were being sarcastic there, were you?

    @blakeyrat said:

    @MascarponeRun said:
    I just happen to like a lot of music that is as far from the mainstream as a test image is from a typical holiday snap.

    Oh, obviously you know because you listen to music that's just too cool for the rest of us. We're too "mainstream" to hear the obvious deficiencies in MP3 music...

    Yeah, that's what I said, if you like. Or, perhaps not. Perhaps the point is just that I have a particular taste in music which just happens not to be similar to most people's taste, and so I'm much more likely to find that a compromise aimed at them doesn't suit me quite that well?

    @blakeyrat said:

    @MascarponeRun said:
    This difference isn't subjective nonsense, it's objectively observable,

    Oh; then you've done the double-blind study? Why don't you link it to us so we can read your results?

    This no more needs a double-blind study than you do to tell if it's day or night outside by looking out the window. But mainly because I can't be bothered to go and find a reasonable number of samples, slice them up, re-encode them, find a comparison program, and give it a go. Very simply, it would be a lot less effort for you simply to download the same track twice, once with lossy compression and once without, and then you'll stop claiming that double-blind tests are needed. Are you still trying to claim I'm talking about some kind of subtle audiophile bullshit? I'm not.

    @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, are you honestly telling us that whenever you want to listen to some Bach, you pull out a LP from the sleeve and put it on a turntable?
    No, of course not, and if that's what you think, no wonder you're thinking I've said something particularly contentious. I'm perfectly happy with a FLAC or CD or whatnot. Just not with lossy compression, in the edge cases where the compromises it makes are not appropriate for the music.

    I'm not sure if you're confused or trolling, but this is not 'subjective debatable bullshit'. You may be confusing it with the bullshit argument about digital v analogue 'warmth', and that kind of crap, but it's nothing like that. It is verifiable, well-accepted scientific fact that lossy compression throws away stuff that is not normally important to the sound. Its inventors would never have dreamed of claiming that it never throws away anything important.



  • @Xyro said:

    @MascarponeRun said:
    Neutral Milk Hotel

    Pick one. I'll go download an high-bitrate MP3 and a FLAC and compare the output on my super duper headphones.
    Try Marching Theme from On Avery Island - and if you find a FLAC version, let me know where. I've lost my CD of this. I'm sure you'll be able to tell for yourself if the sound's a bit big for your headphones, and try it on proper speakers if necessary to judge - the best headphones I've ever had weren't very expensive and wouldn't get within a million miles of handling this kind of thing well.

    You might have more luck finding a lossless copy of J.U.F. - Samiao's Day. Hell, if Blakey just gives that a listen on Youtube, and realises how much worse whatever audio compression that is handles that than most things, he might start to believe me that even at 320kbps it doesn't become perfect.



  • @Xyro said:

    @MascarponeRun said:
    Neutral Milk Hotel
    Pick one. I'll go download an high-bitrate MP3 and a FLAC and compare the output on my super duper headphones.
     

    Post some samples, if you're willing.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    . Hell, if Blakey just gives that a listen on Youtube, and realises how much worse whatever audio compression that is handles that than most things, he might start to believe me that even at 320kbps it doesn't become perfect.

    You obviously do not know Bleakyrat well



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    This no more needs a double-blind study than you do to tell if it's day or night outside by looking out the window.
     

    ABX or bust.

     



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    Since you plainly haven't yet had time to go and download any of the suggested music in a lossless format

    Wait, what? When did this turn into a debate about MP3 vs. lossless?

    @MascarponeRun said:

    give it a listen, then re-encode at your preferred bitrate and relisten,

    That wouldn't prove anything except that biased tests are biased.

    @MascarponeRun said:

    and yet you're telling me my approach isn't evidence-based, I don't think you were being sarcastic there, were you?

    I was not being sarcastic. A non-blinded test isn't evidence of anything. Hell, even the cups in the Pepsi Challenge weren't labeled.

    @MascarponeRun said:

    This no more needs a double-blind study than you do to tell if it's day or night outside by looking out the window.

    I don't take that on faith either.

    @MascarponeRun said:

    Are you still trying to claim I'm talking about some kind of subtle audiophile bullshit? I'm not.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

    @MascarponeRun said:

    You may be confusing it with the bullshit argument about digital v analogue 'warmth', and that kind of crap, but it's nothing like that.

    This is the exact same kind of crap. EXACTLY THE SAME. How can you not see that?

    The stupid thing is I'm not even saying you're WRONG. What I'm saying is you have NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE. For all I know you're 100% entirely correct. But I'm sure as fuck not going to believe you unless you've shown that you've actually bothered to do the bare minimum to make sure you aren't spouting the same bullshit that audiophiles going on about "warmer sound" are spouting. Which you haven't done.

    @MascarponeRun said:

    It is verifiable, well-accepted scientific fact that lossy compression throws away stuff that is not normally important to the sound. Its inventors would never have dreamed of claiming that it never throws away anything important.

    Yeah, well, duh. You're the one who kind of stealthily changed the debate from analog vs. digital to compressed digital vs. uncompressed digital. Now you're acting like I'm an idiot because you changed the subject.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    @Xyro said:
    @MascarponeRun said:
    Neutral Milk Hotel

    Pick one. I'll go download an high-bitrate MP3 and a FLAC and compare the output on my super duper headphones.
    Try Marching Theme from On Avery Island - and if you find a FLAC version, let me know where. [...] You might have more luck finding a lossless copy of J.U.F. - Samiao's Day.

    This is now on my to-do list. I'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks. (Or hours if my fiancee says so.)

    (I'll see what I can do about posting samples, but no promises. Due to various life circumstances, my access to computers is currently limited to an Android tablet, a Google TV, and my locked-down laptop from work. This puts restrictions on sampling. But I'm saving a ton on electricity bills!!)



  •  @dhromed said:

    What hype?

    I can assure you the output of your amplifier is 100% analog.

    I actually encountered someone once who insisted that digital music sounds worse because the square sound waves irritate your ears.

     



  • @Abso said:

     @dhromed said:

    What hype?

    I can assure you the output of your amplifier is 100% analog.

    I actually encountered someone once who insisted that digital music sounds worse because the square sound waves irritate your ears.

     

    Was this also someone who would believe most video games are made in Excel?</p?



  • @Abso said:

    I actually encountered someone once who insisted that digital music sounds worse because the square sound waves irritate your ears.
    Of course, that's why you have to convert it to 192kHz before listening to make it sound better!



  • @Abso said:

    I actually encountered someone once who insisted that digital music sounds worse because the square sound waves irritate your ears.
     

    Maybe it was that Sir James Dyson fellow who finds electric fans "unsettling".



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You're the one who kind of stealthily changed the debate from analog vs. digital to compressed digital vs. uncompressed digital.
    No, he was responding directly to a comment that was comparing high bitrate MP3s to analog.  Not at all steathily, I might add:

    @MascarponeRun said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    the sound quality of a high bitrate MP3 is just as good as any analog format. 
    If you can't tell the difference between a FLAC and an MP3...
    Also, I've never heard of a bat-shit-crazy audiophile storing 75% of his music in a lossy format.  But since I have no peer-reviewed double-blind study to support such an anecdote, you will probably just dismiss it anyway.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    Try Marching Theme from On Avery Island

    <font size="5">Free science test for everybody!</font>

    The following archive: [url]http://ifile.it/xiwkeo2/test.7z[/url] contains 7 seemingly identical WAV files. Half of them were produced from an AccurateRip-verified FLAC copy of Marching Theme by Neutral Milk Hotel. Another half were produced from a 320 kb/s MP3 that was, in turn, produced from that same FLAC copy using LAME 3.99.3. The order was randomized with a random sequence from random.org. Your task is to determine which is which, using only your hearing! And if you cheat, you'll make Fluttershy cry.

    Everybody, enjoy the test. blakeyrat, enjoy the 7-Zip. I'll post the answer some time later.

    Oh, and here's the SHA-1 hash of the answer (to ensure I don't take sides): 1a614d0d173c7667d9fd8764350916e9128d9ba1.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I seem to have a problem with 7.wav - it's slightly different in size to the other 6, and the apparent quality is noticeably better - certainly more than simple compression artifacts would suggest...



  • @Spectre said:

    @MascarponeRun said:
    Try Marching Theme from On Avery Island

    <font size="5">Free science test for everybody!</font>

    The following archive: http://ifile.it/xiwkeo2/test.7z contains 7 seemingly identical WAV files. Half of them were produced from an AccurateRip-verified FLAC copy of Marching Theme by Neutral Milk Hotel. Another half were produced from a 320 kb/s MP3 that was, in turn, produced from that same FLAC copy using LAME 3.99.3. The order was randomized with a random sequence from random.org. Your task is to determine which is which, using only your hearing! And if you cheat, you'll make Fluttershy cry.

    Everybody, enjoy the test. blakeyrat, enjoy the 7-Zip. I'll post the answer some time later.

    Oh, and here's the SHA-1 hash of the answer (to ensure I don't take sides): 1a614d0d173c7667d9fd8764350916e9128d9ba1.

    I haven't had a chance to check yet, but I note that in my experience the LAME codec is particularly bad at this kind of thing.

    Nah, just kidding: trolling Blakey there. To be entirely honest, I've been at least, ooh, 50% trolling the whole time. I kind of believe what I was saying, but I was more hoping to spark a discussion about where MP3 might fall down than to get into a debate about whether my theory is exactly correct or purely subjective - because the one thing I've said which is undoubtedly true, and which I built the troll around, is that some noises are definitely not handled well by MP3. Sadly, Blakey's responses were so weak that we didn't get into any kind of interesting discussion.

    I'll have a listen to the WAVs later - I feel kind of guilty that anyone bothered - and let you know what I think; I await the results with more interest than Blakey's answer.



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    Nah, just kidding: trolling Blakey there. To be entirely honest, I've been at least, ooh, 50% trolling the whole time

    Translation: "I finally read-up on this a little bit and realized what a huge douchenozzle audiophile ass I was being, so now I'm going to play it off as if I was just joking around the whole time, hahaha".



  • @MascarponeRun said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    the sound quality of a high bitrate MP3 is just as good as any analog format. 
    No, it just isn't. Nothing to do with horseshit cabiling. If you can't tell the difference between a FLAC and an MP3
    What?  FLAC is not an analog format. I never claimed that a lossy digital format is better than a lossless digital format.  I'm talking about things like vinyl LP, cassette tape, etc.

     



  • I could hear absolutely no difference for files 1 to 6, but then again I have shitty headphones...

    And now I'm wondering if Spectre just put 6 copies of the same file in the archive... It would still be an interesting science test, to see if someone claims there's a difference when there's none...



  • @dargor17 said:

    And now I'm wondering if Spectre just put 6 copies of the same file in the archive...
     

    Viewing with a spectrogram debunks this notion quite handily.

    But that said, the lowpass of the files that are obviously lowpassed (as part of their lossy compression) are, wel, barely lowpassed.

    These are all high-quality files even if some are technically lossy. I would be very surprised if anyone heard a difference.

     

    Oh, as a reminder: if nobody who does the test posts their ABX log, this experiment is rather moot.



  • So, seeing as everybody who wanted to take the test already didn't, here's the answer:

    #2, #3, #4, are from FLAC. #1, #5, #6 are from MP3. #7 is a rickroll.


Log in to reply