|
|
Posted by Jack on 11/29/07 05:01
Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in
news:fik6ot$61j$1@reader1.panix.com:
I was too lazy to upload anything but you got me started now.
> wma Blaze 128 CBR
> http://www.badongo.com/file/5333875
Oddly, that WMA file is actually 192 kbps per Winamp and Windows file
properties.
> mp3 LAME 192 VBR
> http://www.badongo.com/file/5333913
That MP3 shows as 131 kbps (VBR) per EncSpot Pro (analyzes MP3 headers).
EncSpot also shows the encoder as FhG, not LAME. Were those typos?
Also, is that a remastered version of the song? Those "slushy" highs sound
a lot crisper than on my original CD. I have Reprise Records Catalog #
2257-2.
Your recording sounds noticeably cleaner, but of course that's moot to the
WMA/MP3 comparison. The part WMA really mangles (on my CD version) is
between 3:30 and 4:00, plus similar sections. The very dullness of the
recording confuses it, IMO.
Since you gave such an easy site to work with, here are my samples. Notice
the muffled "breathing" effect in the WMA file. Very unusual in my
experience with WMA. I used GoldWave 5.22 to encode these.
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340634 (WAV 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340662 (WMA 9.2 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)
http://www.badongo.com/file/5340669 (MP3 FhG 128 kbps 3:30 to 3:40)
Don't get the impression that I'm picking on WMA. The artifacts are truly
puzzling. On many other tracks WMA sounds crisper to me than the MP3
counterpart. For example, LAME 3.97 128 kbps adds notable distortion to the
background strings on The Eagles "Take It To The Limit" (encoded using
EAC). WMA 128 kbps seems to shine on that track.
My working theory is that each encoder uses different tricks that get
tripped up by unique harmonics.
Jack
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|