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 13

post #181 of 257

my music folder is quite messy with songs of different rates all over.

 

what i do usually is just to chuck the whole folder into music player and listen while surfing the net.

 

and it always draws me attention when playing subsequent songs with different rates. so as i was surfing the net, i would suddenly feel the difference on subsequent songs and get bak to the music player and did found the two rates are different

 

i am using a reference 8 dac + v8p amp.

 

as the rates gets higher, to me, the mids are more brought forwards with more details.

post #182 of 257

I think the problem with common mp3s is not the format, but rather the compression process where some might use an inferior process.

 

If only there were certain compression standards hmmm

post #183 of 257


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chengbin View Post

 (I think the only softwares that beats iTunes in difficulty is Audacity and Photoshop).


LOL, try using The GIMP sometime. Photoshop is about as complicated as fixing a bowl of Corn Flakes in comparison.

post #184 of 257

The 1'st one is from the 128 and and second is flac but still very close.

Xonar DX> ultra normal non directional cable>sennheiser 555 with mod


Edited by alexxfloo - 7/25/10 at 6:34am
post #185 of 257

Sureeeeee  I have the answer, got it PM'd. Have proof of which is which, too.

post #186 of 257

 /ban

post #187 of 257

Seriously.., I can't listen to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik

post #188 of 257

I wouldn't say shit hearing. Just that they are not trained to hear the differences, or like me somtetimes, cannot be bothered to. Visually noticing differences is easy, because you can just see it. Where as listening, you really gotta concentrate and not be lazy 

post #189 of 257

By retyping that horrendously offensive word - you are no better than he - these words need to be eradicated from this forum - all of them.

post #190 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.R.A.N.C.E. View Post




I did the classical test once and could clearly hear a difference between 128 and lossless so I didn't bother with ABX as its pointless, it doesn't prove anything beyond the first test I did. Anyone who argues that there is no audible difference between 128 and lossless either has shit hearing or (extremely) shit gear and should hand in their audiophile badge and go home. ok?


The problem is that the OP flat out said what the test was, making this test invalid from the get-go. This obviously isn't a double blind test. It would've been more interesting if he put two of the same files and claimed there was a difference.

post #191 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by knubbe View Post




The problem is that the OP flat out said what the test was, making this test invalid from the get-go. This obviously isn't a double blind test. It would've been more interesting if he put two of the same files and claimed there was a difference.


How is it invalid - if one is able to hear a difference and reliably pick it blind - I can reliably pick a difference blind - though I have no idea which is the MP3.

post #192 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




So tell us all which is which superstar.  If you are so confident I don't see why you haven't posted your answers rather than taking 2 posts to call people deaf and cunt muffins.


I already posted my results back in this thread a while ago, but people just don't get it. Some people CAN EASILY HEAR THE DIFFERENCE, just because others can not doesn't mean anything except that EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT HEARING. So the people that can't hear the diff should stop telling the people that CAN that it's beyond human hearing etc and just realize that they themselves suck balls and should either admit they have bad hearing, bad gear or train themselves to hear the diff...

 

BTW the Lossless track is most definately No.2 and 128kbps is No.1. There is no mistaking the lack of "atmosphere" in No.1. If you don't understand what I mean then too bad, glad I wasn't born with your ears.

post #193 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

By retyping that horrendously offensive word - you are no better than he - these words need to be eradicated from this forum - all of them.


I'm no better than he is?  Are you the last overly sensitive person in Australia or what?  Why don't you just report an offense and quit your public moralizing to make you feel better about yourself.  Spoken like a female.  Its one thing to ask for a bit of decorum, its another to be the political correctness Gestapo.  Get over yourself.

post #194 of 257


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.R.A.N.C.E. View Post




I already posted my results back in this thread a while ago, but people just don't get it. Some people CAN EASILY HEAR THE DIFFERENCE, just because others can not doesn't mean anything except that EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT HEARING. So the people that can't hear the diff should stop telling the people that CAN that it's beyond human hearing etc and just realize that they themselves suck balls and should either admit they have bad hearing, bad gear or train themselves to hear the diff...

 

BTW the Lossless track is most definately No.2 and 128kbps is No.1. There is no mistaking the lack of "atmosphere" in No.1. If you don't understand what I mean then too bad, glad I wasn't born with your ears.

 

Now that's just mean. People should hear the difference but it helps when you have an hi-fi system. If you don't it's harder to notice the difference.
 

post #195 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxfloo View Post

Now that's just mean. People should hear the difference but it helps when you have an hi-fi system. If you don't it's harder to notice the difference.
 


Well, all my audio tends toward warmth and not anything like a 990 sounds.  So I don't know if that keeps me from hearing the artifacts in the upper registers.  Last time I did the test on his Kelly Clarkson track I, as well as others thought the MP3 sounded better.  As if the LAME encoding cleaned up the mids and body of the over compressed original master.  After finding out which was which I still thought the mp3 sounded better than the original, just sounded cleaner w/ better body.  I don't listen to poorly mastered classical and don't feel like spending the ridiculous amount of time ABing what I consider a poor sample.  As for TRANCE, he obviously has other personal and psychological issues far beyond the realm of hearing capacity.

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