Posted by Arny Krueger on 11/29/07 11:57

"Jack" <jack@beanstalk.net> wrote in message
news:13ksht4e7ah68e1@corp.supernews.com
> 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.

Where are the results of your DBTs?

Anybody can write poetry. Real men can hear differences in blind tests, or
admit they can't.

[Back to original message]