People rate 192kbps mp3 higher than FLAC in test - Page 3

i think the "general public" probably also prefers nascar over soccer, but that doesn't mean i wanna watch 1 second of nascar.

The general public also voted for Bush.

hehe, I especially like when each time iriverdude says "Headphones aren't that revealing, do you have a Hi-Fi with speakers"...I suggest he buys some proper cans, you can hear far more details over headphones than over speakers...duh

anyway, yes...read the comments on this one, on crappy equipment the new generation(for whom 192kbit mp3 is standard procedure) finds the sound easier to listen to/less harsh in 128 kbit/s over 320: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test!

Grado RS-1's aren't proper cans?

I honestly don't know, for what I know Grado's look like overpriced vastly uncomfy toys w/ tiny soundstage and foamy cups..

but w/ some high end SONY or Beyer and a proper source, mp3 artifacts literally bite your ears ...whether this would also happen w/ fisher price headphones, I can't really tell.

I also own KRK Rokit monitors, and even in a studio environment engineers will use headphones instead of speakers to set up a reverb tail very accurately for instance...there's no question (proper) headphones yield more details than speakers.

That is one tricky test. LOL It's hard to tell with his choice of song.

never heard the song before but I got it in first try, was not too hard to say which one I liked the best :P

Just look at that ratio of the results. LOL

yeah it was kinda scary. lucky for me I seem to like the less lossy one better

i took it and won (picked the 320). yay! you can tell if you focus on the shaker (or whatever that TSHHT TSHHT percussion instrument is). the sound of it jumped out at me as artifacty (new word) the second i heard the 128 version.

FWIW, I took this test on "crappy" equipment and still got it right. Used my cheap Logitech 2.1 speakers connected to the stock HP jack on my Inspiron 6000 laptop. Doesn't get much worse than that! Despite the equipment handicap, the lack of space and depth gave away the lower bit rate file.

People probably pick and prefer what they are used to.
MP3 with its cut off high frequencies (and more) may sound more pleasing to their ears and hence they prefer that one.

I thought I would be used to mp3 as well, but boy was I wrong.

I can relate to these findings. I'm picky about my headphones. I'm picky about the audio settings on my sound system. If something is off, I'm quick to find fault with it. Bad sound annoys me. I can't enjoy a movie if the sound is off, and more than once I've tried to point out the defects to theater personnel only to watch them give me that "what?" look. I once got into it with the manager of a Cobb cinema over the sound in Team America: World Police. He couldn't hear the droopy wah wah of an imbalance in the projection reel, and then argued, "How come I can't hear it in the dialogue?" "The dialogue?" I gasped. "You idiot! How would you hear it in the dialogue? You have to hear the tone elongate for more than a second, dummy. Listen to the long notes!"

Yes, I almost got kicked out of the theater for using abusive language during a film in which one of the supporting characters explains the geopolitical differences between an anus, a phallus and a vagina.

That said, I was surprised when I tried to run A/B/C tests on the same track in 128, 256 and lossless formats - and couldn't honestly hear any. I wasn't surprised that my computer, running iTunes, showed no difference. Nor was I surprised when I got the same performance out of my iPod without an amp. Nor was I surprised when I got the same performance when I amp'd my iPod through the earphone jack. I was, indeed, surprised when I got the same sound using the LOD jack. Maybe my amps weren't good enough. Maybe it was the music I was listening to. I dunno.