IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Confused by results of my first ABX test..., Vorbis file better when encoded from 24/96 rather than 16/44.1 FLAC?
djp
post Jun 1 2011, 10:50
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 1-June 11
Member No.: 91142



My first ABX test here, so be gentle with me! Basically what I've done is as follows...

I have two lossless FLAC files, one @ 24/96 the other @ 16/44.1. I have then used OggDropXPd v1.9.0 aoTuV Beta 5.7 to encode each file (-q 5). When played back the .ogg file encoded from the 24/96 FLAC sounds better. To test I used the ABX comparator in foobar2000. The results were as follows;



Do these results confirm that the .ogg file encoded from the 24/96 FLAC is indeed of better quality than the one encoded from the 16/44.1 FLAC and if so, how is this audible to the human ear? Having read the forums I was under the impression that anything above 16/44.1 was pointless. Now, possibly I'm going wrong somewhere, maybe with regards the encoding.

Any advice would be most appreciated.

[TOS #9 VIOLATION. Clips are to be no longer than 30 seconds. Links removed.]

*EDIT*

Just realised a log file can be saved after ABXing in foobar2000! Doh!

This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 1 2011, 17:47
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jun 3 2011, 13:30
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 4489
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (djp @ Jun 1 2011, 05:50) *
My first ABX test here, so be gentle with me! Basically what I've done is as follows...

I have two lossless FLAC files, one @ 24/96 the other @ 16/44.1. I have then used OggDropXPd v1.9.0 aoTuV Beta 5.7 to encode each file (-q 5). When played back the .ogg file encoded from the 24/96 FLAC sounds better. To test I used the ABX comparator in foobar2000. The results were as follows;



Do these results confirm that the .ogg file encoded from the 24/96 FLAC is indeed of better quality than the one encoded from the 16/44.1 FLAC and if so, how is this audible to the human ear? Having read the forums I was under the impression that anything above 16/44.1 was pointless. Now, possibly I'm going wrong somewhere, maybe with regards the encoding.

Any advice would be most appreciated.


The following two files demonstrate one way that you can obtain different-sounding results while encoding the same musical work by the same means from files at different sample rates.

24/96 version:



The 24/96 version downsampled to 16/44:



The obvious difference is the massive difference in peak levels. This is a natural recording that I madeof a live performer using an ultra-close measurement mic in an ultra-quiet, ultra-dead room.

Because of the high peak levels in the 24/96 file otherwise subtle nonlinearities in the production path could lead to audible differences.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th December 2014 - 14:12