Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Double blind test 128Kbps vs lossless? I'll be amazed if you can tell much difference
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Double blind test 128Kbps vs lossless? I'll be amazed if you can tell much difference - Page 2

post #16 of 257

I'll bite; "2" appears fuller and more transparent, so I would guess that's the original.

 

I've heard that some people prefer the compressed version even when they hear a difference, so I stand prepared to be proven wrong :)

 

I used my Beyer 880 for the listening.

post #17 of 257

im gonna go ahead and call BS.  they sound exactly the same to me ...

 

not to mention after i decided that, i turned on the info columns... they are both wave files, and they are exactly the same size...

 

if one of these files is 128Kbps I'll be amazed

 

win7 64bit/foobar/wasapi

dac: keces 151mk2

Amp - Hifiman EF5

Cans: Thunderpants

post #18 of 257

2 is the flac if I recall. Check it in an editor for spectral, or run it through aucdtect to be sure.

 

LOL @ Br777. They are quite different, I assure you. Compared whichever one was the flac, to the copy I had already, and it appeared to be the same. The mp3 had the highs (which I can't hear anyways) dropped out.

WAV is not variable bitrate nor compressed, a 16bit 44khz file of the same length will always be the exact same size.

 

Seems you're another victim of the snake oil wars @ headfi.


Edited by Dalamar - 7/5/10 at 2:48pm
post #19 of 257

if im wrong, so be it, im sticking with my guess

... but regardless - and this may be a stupid question, but how can 2 files that are supposedly lossless vs mp3 both be wav files, both be showing as 1411kbps, and both be the same size?

post #20 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

if im wrong, so be it, im sticking with my guess

... but regardless - and this may be a stupid question, but how can 2 files that are supposedly lossless vs mp3 both be wav files, both be showing as 1411kbps, and both be the same size?


You can make any file a WAV. It's just going to have a lot of empty information if it was a lossy file to begin with. A lot of zeros that do nothing to the waveform.

 

You've got Foobar. I think you can convert to WAV with it. Try it on an MP3. Then try it on a FLAC with a similar length. They'll be a similar size.

 

@ below: Yes they should. All 16bit/44.1kHz WAV files are 1411kbps. It does not matter if they're lossy to begin with. They should still sound the same as the lossy MP3, just be bigger. That's why people don't recommend converting lossy to lossless, because it's always lossy and space is just wasted.


Edited by Head Injury - 7/5/10 at 2:56pm
post #21 of 257

WAV is not variable bitrate nor compressed, a 16bit 44khz file of the same length will always be the exact same size.

 

 


i dont know if you understand what im saying.. im saying if one of these files is 128bit compressed, the files should not both be the same size, and they should not both be reading a 1411 bit rate...

post #22 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


You can make any file a WAV. It's just going to have a lot of empty information if it was a lossy file to begin with. A lot of zeros that do nothing to the waveform.

 

You've got Foobar. I think you can convert to WAV with it. Try it on an MP3. Then try it on a FLAC with a similar length. They'll be a similar size.

ah...  i didnt know that.. thanks
 

and i still think they sound the same.


Edited by Br777 - 7/5/10 at 3:00pm
post #23 of 257

well...i used a spectrum analyzer... they are indeed different.. thats all i can say for sure.... i have no way of varifying if the compression is 128 though... I definitely cant tell a difference between the two files... 

 

I dont understand why some compressed songs are so much easier to pick out than others.  I was listening to a compressed paul simon album the other day with $50 ear buds, and i could hear artifacts as clear as day, and this file was less compressed than 128...   yet on this one with a much better setup and cans that clearly sound WAY better than my $50 ear buds, i could tell no difference...

post #24 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

well...i used a spectrum analyzer... they are indeed different.. thats all i can say for sure.... i have no way of varifying if the compression is 128 though... I definitely cant tell a difference between the two files... 

 

I dont understand why some compressed songs are so much easier to pick out than others.  I was listening to a compressed paul simon album the other day with $50 ear buds, and i could hear artifacts as clear as day, and this file was less compressed than 128...   yet on this one with a much better setup and cans that clearly sound WAY better than my $50 ear buds, i could tell no difference...


Which encoder was used for your file?

 

There's other variables too. Like the $50 buds could have a peak right at the frequency which distorts in your file. Or the source used to make your file could have been bad to begin with. Have you compared it to its lossless counterpart?

post #25 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post

well...i used a spectrum analyzer... they are indeed different.. thats all i can say for sure.... i have no way of varifying if the compression is 128 though... I definitely cant tell a difference between the two files... 

 

I dont understand why some compressed songs are so much easier to pick out than others.  I was listening to a compressed paul simon album the other day with $50 ear buds, and i could hear artifacts as clear as day, and this file was less compressed than 128...   yet on this one with a much better setup and cans that clearly sound WAY better than my $50 ear buds, i could tell no difference...


It's obviously highly dependent on the track. There are killer samples that an average listener can ABX even at 320, and there are tracks that are transparent at 128.

 

Also, a lower bitrate VBR encoded with the newest version of LAME may be better than a file with a slightly higher, CBR bitrate or a file encoded with an older version of LAME or an inferior codec.

post #26 of 257

I would love to know if anyone else but me feels the difference not in detail but emotion and feeling of the music. Low bitrate as I mentioned before sounds very similar but it lacks the emotion, had anyone else experienced this.

 

I guess it is a similar argument for vinyl versus CD in some ways!

post #27 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomikPi View Post

 

Also, a lower bitrate VBR encoded with the newest version of LAME may be better than a file with a slightly higher, CBR bitrate or a file encoded with an older version of LAME or an inferior codec.


that makes sense...

post #28 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I would love to know if anyone else but me feels the difference not in detail but emotion and feeling of the music. Low bitrate as I mentioned before sounds very similar but it lacks the emotion, had anyone else experienced this.

 

I guess it is a similar argument for vinyl versus CD in some ways!


Your experiences mean nothing without a blind test. That is what this thread, the whole sub-forum itself, is about. Please, don't try to convince us of anything until you have something to back it up.

 

You haven't even done the test with the two provided files, have you?

post #29 of 257

Seems you're another victim of the snake oil wars @ headfi.

 

so....music sounding good to me both compressed and lossless makes me a victim of snake oil??? 

 

where is the context for that comment?  I dont get it.

 

 

 


 

post #30 of 257

ianmedium,

 

I wouldn't say emotion, but more information. More real, which I suppose would be necessary for emotion.

 

Are you referring to movement 2?


Edited by digger945 - 7/5/10 at 5:37pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Double blind test 128Kbps vs lossless? I'll be amazed if you can tell much difference