Any audiophiles here? |
Post Reply | Page <1234 6> |
Author | |||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 15:43 | ||
^ That test has always bothered me and I'm not sure it is as representative or definitive as they would like to think it is. The problem for me is that the three formats were converted back to Red Book standard (16-bit @ 44.1Hz sampling) so they could be played back on the Marantz CD14 CD-Player - for that I don't find it that surprising that people found it difficult to tell one from the other.
|
|||
What?
|
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 15:51 | ||
^ what do you mean by "converted back"? The mp3s were simply decoded and the resulting WAV burned to CD ... there is no signal degradation involved in that process. And of course they had to do that ... how else could you conduct an unbiased test? The sources had to look totally identical to the contestants.
|
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:19 | ||
^ the WAV file burned onto CD was 16-bit sampled at 44.1KHz - the two mp3 files were encoded at 128kbps and 256kbps - in real terms this means the stereo signals were upsampled from 44.1kbps to 64kbps and 128kbps respectively before the MPEG compression algorhythm was run on the digitised data stream.
|
|||
What?
|
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:27 | ||
^ sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all.
When you rip a CD, the first step is that the 16bit/44.1khz stream is extracted from the CD. Then, a 16bit/44.1khz MP3 is created from that stream. I don't know why you think that there is any upsampling happening ... the MP3 bitrate doesn't have anything to do with the resolution of the signal (16bit) or the sampling frequency (44.1khz). They really just ripped the CD, created the mp3s from them and then decoded them back to WAV and burned that to CD. |
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:36 | ||
^ Then what do the 128kbps and 256kbps bitrates do?
|
|||
What?
|
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:43 | ||
^ ok, let's go back to your first post on this page:
I can't see the logic in that statement. Suppose for the sake of the argument that what you think is happening there during the mp3 encoding ... that would degrade the signal and make it more distinguishable from the original, not less as you suppose. BTW: The third CD was created by converting the original CD to WAV and then burning it back to CD-R unchanged ... and only the worst audiophiles would claim that this process could affect the audio quality in any way. As far as your other question is concerned:
These files contain a compressed audio stream. If the source was 16bit/44.1khz before the mp3 compression, the result after decompression will again be 16bit/44.1khz. There is no downsampling happening during encoding, and no upsampling happening during decoding. |
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:54 | ||
^ You haven't answered my question - what does the 128kbps do? (or what does it mean? if you prefer)
|
|||
What?
|
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 16:57 | ||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Encoding_audio
Why should I explain what MP3 compression does? The point of the test is to decide how - and if - these mp3 files sound differently from the original. |
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:05 | ||
^ okay - the 128kbps bitrate is the datarate of the mp3 file - this datarate is split across both left and right channels, resulting in 64kbps bitrates for each channel - or 64,000 samples per second - this sampled data stream is then processed by the compression algorhythm to extract the psychoacoustic information - this means that the 44.1khz sample rate of the original signal has been converted to 64Khz sample rate - that is upsampling. On playback on an mp3 player that same sample rate (64K) is used to playback the music - converting it to a 16-bit 44.1Khz WAV for playback on a CD player is downsampling it. Any mathematical process such as up and/or down sampling between non-coherrant sampling frequencies will introduce errors that were not evident in the signal before conversion. That is my reservation with this test.
|
|||
What?
|
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:12 | ||
You're really wrong here. The psycho acoustic algorithm (the mp3 compression) is applied to the 16bit/44.1khz source. The result of this algorithm is the 128kbps stream. If - as you said - the signal was downsampled first to some combination of word length / sample rate that fit into 128kbps, the result would severely degrade ... and why would you need to apply any mp3 compression to that stream, if it already was at 128kbps? And like I said above ... even if it all was like you said, that would make the files more distinguishable from the original, not less.
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself here. EDIT: It seems like you think of the mp3 data stream like it contains a series of samples ... it doesn't. It contains information that the mp3 decoding algorithm can convert into a series of samples ... which match the word size / sample rate of the original signal. Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 03 2009 at 17:14 |
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:18 | ||
^ You're right I am - I've confused bit-rate with data-rate of course a CD bitrate is 1,411.2Kbps.
However, that does not remove or negate my reservations over that test.
/edit: don't believe all you read on the internet: http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/bitrates.htm Edited by Dean - July 03 2009 at 17:21 |
|||
What?
|
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:20 | ||
Your logic escapes me ... and I'm too tired to explain it again. I'll check back tomorrow ... maybe you'll manage to explain to me how burning a 16bit/44.1khz WAV file to CD-R degrades the audio quality.
|
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:34 | ||
I never said burning a 16bit/44.1Khz WAV to CD-R degrades quality (that is simply a storage media transfer) - I assumed (incorrectly) that the mp3 files had been upsampled during the mp3 encoding to achieve the differing bitrates and would therefore have been downsampled to produce the WAv file.
|
|||
What?
|
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 17:41 | ||
Because I didn't know and wanted to know the answer.
|
|||
What?
|
|||
cobb2
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 25 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 415 |
Posted: July 03 2009 at 20:50 | ||
Sampling rate is just simply taking a snapshot of the frequencies at a given interval. CD usually lies somewhere between 2000 - 3000 snapshots per second. MP3 is whatever you set it up to sample at. 320 would resample the original wav at 320 snapshots per second- lossing 90% of the frequency data. This is gone forever, hence the lossy format. The magic occurs in the mp3 codec algorithms which attempt to fudge the missing information. The lower the mp3 sample rate the more impossible it is to fudge this. Hence a 64kbs is perfect for web download speed but quite atrocious to listen to.
addition: if you then burn the 320kbs back to cd the algoritms in the burning software will resample it back to the higher wav sample rate, but now there are just straight lines between the original 320 rate and the new 3000 rate. Edited by cobb2 - July 03 2009 at 20:54 |
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 04 2009 at 02:59 | ||
The Wikipedia page explains it better than I ever could ... |
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 04 2009 at 03:01 | ||
Yes... for once Unfortunately I picked a website that didn't
|
|||
What?
|
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 04 2009 at 03:15 | ||
Sorry, but that's not really an accurate description of what mp3 does. THERE IS NO DOWNSAMPLING OR UPSAMPLING GOING ON. What the encoder actually does is it takes short intervals of anything from ~100 to ~1200 samples (called an mp3 "frame") from the input stream and then analyzes the frequency distribution. Have a look at this page for further technical details: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=MP3#Encoding_and_decoding In a nutshell, for each of these frames the mp3 encoding algorithm comes up with a shorter block of data , based on the frequency distribution data gathered. This data can then be used by the mp3 decoding algorithm to reconstruct a series of samples which is a reasonable approximation of the original (in that it sounds the same to the human ear). Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 04 2009 at 03:46 |
|||
cobb2
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 25 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 415 |
Posted: July 04 2009 at 04:19 | ||
Okay- mine was an attempt at explaining in a more understable way (I only mentioned resample, not up or down sample)
Here's an extract from O'Reily's Definitive MP3 MP3 uses two compression techniques to achieve its size reduction ratios over uncompressed audio-one lossy and one lossless. First it throws away what humans can't hear anyway (or at least it makes acceptable compromises), and then it encodes the redundancies to achieve further compression. However, it's the first part of the process that does most of the grunt work, requires most of the complexity, and chiefly concerns us here. Perceptual codecs are highly complex beasts, and all of them work a little differently. However, the general principles of perceptual coding remain the same from one codec to the next. In brief, the MP3 encoding process can be subdivided into a handful of discrete tasks (not necessarily in this order):
I don't doubt that you and dean will grasp this, but most won't. |
|||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 04 2009 at 04:26 | ||
^ thanks, this definition is actually more concise and to the point than the ones I found at Wikipedia and HydrogenAudio.
However, in your explanation it sounded like the mp3s were simply files with less information than the original ... like when you watch a DVD on the computer and reduce the size of the video window, which would be an analogy to downsampling (or re-sampling with a smaller resolution). That's definitely not the case with MP3 ... the key is that with MP3 you can preserve most - if not all - of the important information of the original signal. You could never do that with a downsampled version ... upsampling it will not restore the quality. |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234 6> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |