Gadget show MP3 test did you see it?

[landzw]

Just out of interest who has seen the latest episode of the gadget show? It had a very interesting section concerning MP3 and flac files, I did find it hard to believe the final test with the hi end hifi.

 

[chebby]

There is a test ...

http://gadgetshow.channel5.com/news/flac-vs-mp3-does-it-really-make-difference

 

[abacus]

It was touched upon here http://www.whathifi.com/forum/mp3mp4/ripping-cds-to-flac-pointless but didn't really attract much attention so folks probably aren't that interested.

Bill

 

[simonlewis]

I watched it and was surprised at the results too!

 

[bigboss]

I haven't had a chance to watch it. What were the results?

The self test in the link seems pointless. Doesn't SoundCloud convert all uploads to 128kbps Mp3 format?

 

[Vladimir]

Sometimes our transcoding system can create audio artifacts, as we transcode all tracks to 128 kbps[/b] mp3 for streaming playback. We recommend uploading a lossless or high-quality lossy file to reduce these artifacts to a minimum, but unfortunately there's not much we can do for the handful of individual tracks...

SoundCloud | Uploading & Recording

 

[bigboss]

Sometimes our transcoding system can create audio artifacts, as we transcode all tracks to 128 kbps mp3 for streaming playback. We recommend uploading a lossless or high-quality lossy file to reduce these artifacts to a minimum, but unfortunately there's not much we can do for the handful of individual tracks...

?

SoundCloud | Uploading & Recording

 

So it is pointless testing the tracks in that link......

 

[abacus]

I haven't had a chance to watch it. What were the results?

The self test in the link seems pointless. Doesn't SoundCloud convert all uploads to 128kbps Mp3 format?

As in previous years the panel and audience found the MP3 320 to sound best, with the FLAC and MP3 160 less so. (This is not unique to the gadget show as most tests come out the same)

The problem with the test was that they did not have the original master to compare it to, thus there was no way to ascertain which was the most acurate. (Just because something sounds better does not mean that it is the most realistic, as the encoding may have inadvertedly modified the original master, giving a perceived better sounding effect)

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[chebby]

It's a light entertainment show.

It's like making a car purchase decision based on Top Gear's findings or planning the weeks shopping according to what you see on Masterchef!

It's not real.

 

[Brittania]

It's a light entertainment show.

It's like making a car purchase decision based on Top Gear's findings or planning the weeks shopping according to what you see on Masterchef!

It's not real.

We were in the audience during the filming of this episode. It wasn't a quick go at the test, although it appeared that way on editing. But it was a genuine result. We were all surprised by the results and my husband who would have sworn the FLAC would have been the better, but was proved wrong also by the audience. So it wasn't as scientific a test as could have been conducted I'll agree with that, BUT your comment that it was 'not real' is not correct though.

 

[George]

I actually prefer 320kbps mp3 to CD. OK CD sounds richer/fuller but somehow 320kbps MP3 sounds cleaner/sharper and more defined (perhaps because there is less information to muddy things) through speakers anyway but I think CD probably sounds better through headphones than 320kbps MP3 does. Anyway I believe that 320kbps MP3 is a good compromise between sound quality, cost and convenience (ie portability and storage).