Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind Test - Take Now!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blind Test - Take Now! - Page 6

post #76 of 80
4/24/11 at 8:27am


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeMusic View Post

This will get interesting now that we are at higher bitrates. For some reason these tests always seem to be conducted at 128 kbps or some rate where it has already been demonstrated that some can hear a difference. Much more interesting is testing at the higher rates most of us use in the real world, and where things become increasingly difficult to the point that the samples become essentially transparent even to the experts (unless you cheat by looking at a frequency plot that is ;-)



at 320k it is even hard to see a difference on frequency plots

Reply
post #77 of 80
4/24/11 at 12:37pm

I know this is old but I downloaded th files and did not read any comment. I've always said that noone is abble to tell the difference from mp3 320 and flac, both well ripped of course.

 

 

my ears (Click to show)

 

Flac is A

 

loosy is B

 

But i cant really tell why, just went for it because at the end A sounds 1/1000000000 more open to my ears-

 

 

 

I used AKG K601

 


Edited by JamesMcProgger - 4/24/11 at 12:39pm
Reply
post #78 of 80
4/25/11 at 12:17am
I read some comments, but not past the fist page, or far enough that the answer was reviled by the OP. I heard it right away on my K702s, Not a huge difference, but easy enough to hear still. B is lossless, after I listened I looked at the spectrals to be sure. =]

I think that is is possible to tell 320 kbps and lossless, depending on the song.... very difficult, but possible for some people none the less.....Could I differentiate between them reliably? Probably not, I've honestly never tried. Even if I can't, I'll still encode everything in flac...hard drives are cheep, and I don't like the idea of removing information / sound from my songs....
Edited by Snag1e - 4/25/11 at 12:32am
Reply
post #79 of 80
4/25/11 at 8:53am


the biggest advantage of FLAC is really the ability to re-encode it into anything else without losing quality. for example, right now i use an ipod, winamp automagically converts all my FLAC to 320 AAC, if i get a player that doesn't support AAC, and i ripped all my stuff in AAC, i would be screwed. Also if i got something like a sansa i could have it converted to OGG etc. almost every MP3 player supports MP3  (duh :P) but IMO mp3 is an old and inferior compression format, WMA, OGG, and AAC have all outdone it easy.

 

i think someone should come up with a blind test using different formats like AAC/OGG/WMA and see if it is really impossible to hear a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snag1e View Post

I read some comments, but not past the fist page, or far enough that the answer was reviled by the OP. I heard it right away on my K702s, Not a huge difference, but easy enough to hear still. B is lossless, after I listened I looked at the spectrals to be sure. =]

I think that is is possible to tell 320 kbps and lossless, depending on the song.... very difficult, but possible for some people none the less.....Could I differentiate between them reliably? Probably not, I've honestly never tried. Even if I can't, I'll still encode everything in flac...hard drives are cheep, and I don't like the idea of removing information / sound from my songs....


 


Edited by yepimonfire - 4/25/11 at 8:57am
Reply
post #80 of 80
4/25/11 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yepimonfire View Post


the biggest advantage of FLAC is really the ability to re-encode it into anything else without losing quality. for example, right now i use an ipod, winamp automagically converts all my FLAC to 320 AAC, if i get a player that doesn't support AAC, and i ripped all my stuff in AAC, i would be screwed. Also if i got something like a sansa i could have it converted to OGG etc. almost every MP3 player supports MP3  (duh :P) but IMO mp3 is an old and inferior compression format, WMA, OGG, and AAC have all outdone it easy.

 

i think someone should come up with a blind test using different formats like AAC/OGG/WMA and see if it is really impossible to hear a difference.



 


Yes, the ability to transcode flacs to anything else without the quality loss is a huge benefit as well =]. While it is true that most other lossy formats are ahead of most mp3 codecs, I feel that mp3s encoded with lame 3.98 still sound great, and are on par with iTunes aac at an equal bit rate. They also have the advantage of being compatible with literally everything. My mp3 player broke, and im too cheep to get a new one right now, but when I do, I'll probably be converting everything to V0 to put on that smily_headphones1.gif.

A blind test between formats themselves / flac would be great. I would be quite interested to see the results. While there would be differences, at similar bit rate the differences would be quite small and very hard to distinguish.......The 128 kbps mp3 compared to lossless in this thread is quite a bit more distinguishable that a 256 kbps aac / wma / ogg vs 256 kbps mp3, and still some had difficulty telling them apart. But yeah, even if the results are that no one can disinguish between lossy formats, or even high bit rate lossy to true lossless, it would still be a very interesting test. biggrin.gif
Edited by Snag1e - 4/25/11 at 10:57am
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind Test - Take Now!