Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Can you REALLY hear the difference?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can you REALLY hear the difference? - Page 3

post #31 of 46
4/18/09 at 4:24pm
Used foobar's ABX plug in... had a time when I was 4/6 correct, then it went back to 5/10. Used Creative ASIO with 96 khz sampling rate using X-FI, bit-perfect, coaxial cable. There were times when I was almost certain that I was right, and I had found some characteristics to match, but then I lost it. Given my results, I guess it was just luck.
Reply
post #32 of 46
4/19/09 at 3:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
Something a little strange is going on here as the bit rate for 24/48 is 2250kbps, whereas your screenshot says the bit rate is 1741kbps?
Because its encoded with Apple Lossless.
Compressing the audio data as much as possible = lower bitrate.
Reply
post #33 of 46
4/19/09 at 10:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
A .wav file IS lossless.
But it's enormous. As FLAC the 131MB file becomes 55MB.

edit: the 24bit one sounds slightly crisper to me but it's hard to pick any difference so i'm not voting. I had to use the upsampled version of the 16bit to make a proper comparison as my soundcard has much higher distortion at 96khz. The original 16bit file sounded better then the other two on my setup (ESW9 off Modded Audigy4).
Reply
post #34 of 46
4/19/09 at 11:29am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMM View Post
The original 16bit file sounded better then the other two on my setup (ESW9 off Modded Audigy4).
Sweet irony
Reply
post #35 of 46
4/19/09 at 2:43pm
I think that the most amazing thing about this poll so far is that it seems to have revealed some psychics who can tell the difference between the files without even using 24bit/96khz equipment.
Reply
post #36 of 46
4/19/09 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMM View Post
the 24bit one sounds slightly crisper to me but it's hard to pick any difference so i'm not voting.
If I had to say anything, this is what I'd say also, but the differences are very minor. Seems like a tiny bit more air between the notes in the 24bit, but still can't decide if it's in my head or not so I'm not voting.
Reply
post #37 of 46
4/20/09 at 9:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoD View Post
Seems like a tiny bit more air between the notes in the 24bit, but still can't decide if it's in my head or not so I'm not voting.
That would be the politically correct option to maintain in head-fi, but is it really right?
On a PC, use foobar2000's ABX test for about 20 times. You mustn't know your results before the end of the test. Anything below 14/20 is a guess.
On a Mac, there isn't an ABX test I know of, but I did it this way: open both files on Quicktime player, let them play at the same time (as close as possible) and then press cmd+~ to swap from one file to the other. You can manufacture your own test through this. I couldn't hear a difference anyway, so I didn't have to.
Take into account that this song has very large amounts of ultrasonic material. If you can't really say it sounds BETTER without them, but that it sounds slightly different maybe, that counts as a No because the question is "a difference in Quality". If you can distinctly hear something as "more accurate" or "more real" then vote Yes.
I'm putting this on the first post as well.

Hope this helps you guys!
Reply
post #38 of 46
4/20/09 at 12:18pm
Damn, didn't read the topic title, just voted on the poll. Sorry guys.

xx
Reply
post #39 of 46
4/20/09 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
That's one of the worst recordings I've ever heard. Why this has been released in hi-rez is beyond me.

The stated «shedloads of ultra high-frequency energy» is a consequence of constant clipping and heavy distortion. The ultrasonic content is relatively modest, though, and -- for whoever might be sensitive to it -- certainly completely masked by the massive harmonic distortion.

.
Agreed, this song was just poorly poorly recorded.

Dave
Reply
post #40 of 46
4/20/09 at 3:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac View Post
Agreed, this song was just poorly poorly recorded. Dave
Mr. DAC doesn't like angry music
Reply
post #41 of 46
4/20/09 at 3:36pm
Damn, voted by misstake on "Yes".
No, I can't hear a difference. Using Compass together with HD555.
Reply
post #42 of 46
4/20/09 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
Mr. DAC doesn't like angry music
You're really consistent in thinking that someone who considers this recording inadequate for a format comparison must be someone who doesn't like this sort of music. -- That's of course a possible way of handling the subject.
.
Reply
post #43 of 46
4/29/09 at 11:57pm
I also voted yes thinking this would be a comparison of 128 vs 256 or something. Sorry guys. And I can not here a difference with 555's.
Reply
post #44 of 46
5/7/09 at 1:33am
voted yes on accident, meant to be no, my equipment isn't strong enough
Reply
post #45 of 46
5/7/09 at 2:15am
Oops, I voted before I even read the thread. I thought it was just a generic question about quality. So please ignore my vote until I have a chance to listen to the files in question. I'll edit this post later after I get my DL3 back from RAM; it accepts up to 192khz on the digital input. Thanks!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Can you REALLY hear the difference?