IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
iTunes Encodes vs. Amazon (Spectrograms), Spectograms.
dhromed
post May 14 2012, 12:22
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 1288
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ May 14 2012, 08:51) *
I said that which Amazon's encoder saw fit to throw out was within the range of human hearing.

It's not quite a clear-cut as that. It's not comparable to a cropped image.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ May 14 2012, 08:51) *
I know I can't hear the stuff that was cut off of in the mp3 file.


Would you also say that ultraviolet and infrared are "missing" from paintings and photographs?

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ May 14 2012, 08:51) *
Or maybe: "which file theoretically would better represent the source to all humans?"

The one without the high frquences, most likely.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post May 14 2012, 15:34
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



I really wasn't clear as to how these spectrographs weren't somehow helpful in comparing encodes.

Nearly every reply has been helpful (to me) since my last. Thanks. I felt 2Bdecided's explanation pretty much convinced me that I shouldn't be looking at these graphs and expecting as much as I was by way of meaningful comparison.

I apologize for not being on the same page as most of you. Hopefully now I am. (This really isn't worth me getting upset over and it wasn't my intention.)


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post May 14 2012, 21:43
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 1288
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ May 14 2012, 16:34) *
This really isn't worth me getting upset over

emot-toot.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post May 14 2012, 22:18
Post #29





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3350
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ May 14 2012, 07:34) *
I apologize for not being on the same page as most of you. Hopefully now I am.
There is no need to apologize, though the sentiment is welcome. Helping people understand this stuff is one of the main points of this forum. I'm glad to see you're starting to understand.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post May 15 2012, 01:16
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



QUOTE (Porcus @ May 14 2012, 04:58) *
Just because there are high frequencies, it does not mean that they are the same as in the original.

I believe this is especially true for the AAC(-LC) file. It probably uses Perceptual Noise Substitution (PNS) to generate noise at decoding time. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those uppermost frequencies are from this effect. Maybe someone with knowledge of Apple's encoder can confirm?

This post has been edited by mjb2006: May 15 2012, 01:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post May 15 2012, 19:04
Post #31





Group: Developer
Posts: 3341
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (menno @ Mar 12 2007, 16:13) *
Given the cons of using these tools (read: iPod can't decode it properly) it is probably not a good idea to enable them.


So at least in 2007 Apple encoder didn't use PNS
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: 2nd August 2014 - 08:11