Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Explaining Lame Presets, What if someone claims CBR192 is better
post Nov 12 2002, 15:07
Post #1


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73

Being new moderator in CD Freaks, I'm facing the usual trolling "FhG 192 CBR is better than Lame, I can hear it".
I always acknowledged that those people had a valid argument :


instead of just blindly going off someone elses' opions they read from somewhere else, put those 2 encoders head to head and i bet sound forge is as good if not better. and thats from actual testing on my behalf not just passing some review along

(emphasis is mine)

All we currently do is
-linking to the recommended Lame settings
-tell to RTFF, in other words, search the forums...

...but searching for what ?
The only public blind test between 192 CBR, and Lame settings I can remember of was in r3mix.net, before the --alt-presets were made.
After that, the development was slowly commented on the forums, in threads difficult to find for the newbie, and with very specific infos in each one. I once spent hours making a list of all those threads, but the list is now completely unuseable, since both r3mix.net and HydrogenAudio.org have changed all their URLs in the meantime.

So I asked a sample. But, naturally, asking a sample, I must provide one too, so I linked http://static.hydrogenaudio.org/extra/samp...3-Test_Samples/ and http://www.ff123.net/samples.html

Dibrom, is it OK to link the first directory ? It was originally made for development purposes, and I'm not sure if I can redirect many people there. Also, will it remain online in the future ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
post Nov 12 2002, 19:29
Post #2


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1


Yes, you can link to that directory. It will be online indefinitely or at least until it starts taking too much bandwidth for me to host, which will be unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

As to what I would do to convince people of the merits of actual blind testing and listening tests to determine quality:

1. I'd do as smok3 said first. Explain some of the basic concepts and talk about some of the widely held misconceptions (ie. vbr == bad, joint stereo == bad, lowpass == bad, etc).
2. Point them to some general resource of information. The forums here, specific threads, etc... all are good examples.
3. Point them to ff123's page or Arny's page and tell them to download an abx utility and try for themselves.
4. Point them to some test samples.
5. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, point them to a sample where you know that their setting will fail compared to the others. The idea isn't to setup the test to where you know that you're side of the debate will win, it's to instead show them that their assumption did not hold true in all cases and to hopefully get them to start thinking about where it might fail elsewhere and that in order to be sure, they need to do more testing.

After this, you really don't need to say anything else until they come up with a useful and relevant response (ie. not just something like "that's dumb, I won't do it").
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: 29th November 2015 - 09:15