Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I was listening to some of the LAME quality test samples[0] and I found that the hi-hat pre-echo test sounds worse at 160kbps than at 128kbps (LAME 3.100, -q 0). I thought it might be because of the different low-pass filter frequency, but even with manually specified matching lowpass (16805Hz) for the 160kbps version the pre-echo sounds worse.

The 128kbps version doesn't sound much like the original, but it's still a pleasant sound with hardly any pre-echo. The 160kbps version, even with the extra lowpass, has obvious and annoying pre-echo on the first hit.

[0] https://lame.sourceforge.io/quality.php




I can confirm this. I tested with 3.100.1 and the following encodes of hihat.wav:

    -q0 -b128 (b128)
    -q0 -b160 (b160)
    --preset cbr 128 (pc128)
    --preset cbr 160 (pc160)
    --preset 128 (pa128)
    --preset 160 (pa160)
Using the Foobar2000 ABX comparator I was able to 5/5 ABX:

    wav vs. b128
    wav vs. b160
    b128 vs. b160 (this one was 7/8 ABX)
    wav vs. pa128
    wav vs. pa160
    b128 vs. pa128 (more difficult)
    pa128 vs. pa160 (more difficult)
I did not successfully ABX b160 vs. pc160.

I didn't do ABC/HR so I can't say for sure what my ranking would be, but my guess is:

wav >> b128 > (b160 or pa160) > pa128




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: