BLIND TEST: 128kbps mp3 vs Lossless - Page 3

I'm using this setup because I've fared better with it or as good as many guys with expensive speaker setups, e.g. at listening tests @ HA.
Many would say that it'd be unfair to compare a good hp setup with a good speaker setup regarding ABX tests because headphones are less forgiving and distort less -> you can hear clipping/distortion/noise on the recording much more easily.

Also, usually I'm listening at fairly low volume levels with this setup so I couldn't care less for dynamic range, noise, linearity, etc. of the DAC/amp.

That's why I always use this setup for ABX tests, unless I fail the test. Btw, when I say I'm serious I mean it.
Edited by xnor - 2/5/12 at 1:06pm

I listen around 60-70dB or at least I try to.  Not really that loud.

I use the lowest volume possible that grants me maximum listening pleasure so usually I use the exact same volume level that I've found providing me optimal enjoyment (then I also can keep track on my hearing doesn't get very noticable worse haha), I'd think it lies around 70~72dB or so when vocals and everything are aproximately as loud as a person speaking (loudly), haven't measured it precisely. At say 80dB which is where I'd concider things to become very loud I don't really get any more enjoyment compared to say 70dB, possibly the opposite if there's lots of harsh highs in the recordings. 

Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 2/5/12 at 2:49pm

Same here. Actually everyone who I asked to listen to ~60 dB SPL (roughly 5% in windows mixer) told me to "turn up the volume, can't hear anything!". So I guess it's actually silent for most people, when listening to music anyway.

Of course, occasionally when rocking out I do turn up the volume to 80+ dB SPL. \m/
Edited by xnor - 2/5/12 at 3:20pm

This is pretty interesting.

 

I'd like to see this sort of test/poll repeated for a few other criteria.

 

1.  I'd like to see if Head-Fi folk could hear the difference in a WAV file that was copied straight from a CD  vs. a file that went from WAV=>FLAC=>WAV.  (Absolute Sound recently published a series of articles that claimed there would be clearly audible differences, and in fact the unmolested WAV file would sound better, even though they were bit-identical...)

 

2. I'd like to see if Head-Fi folk could hear the difference between a 96 khz / 24 bit native 'hi rez' file and the same 96/24 file resampled to 44.1 /16 then upsampled back up to 96/24.  Audio Engineering Society papers indicate that people can't hear the difference between 96/24 and redbook.  I'd be curious to see if Head-Fi'ers corroborate this.

 

 

 

1) There are better ways to waste time.

2) The problem is that you don't know if the person voting for "I can hear the difference" is cheating or honest.
Maybe we should use the same tool (ABC/HR) that is used with listening tests @ HA.
Edited by xnor - 2/5/12 at 3:43pm

rofl what a load of crap
 

 

Terrible test. It was easy to tell b was the "better" track but the recording is terrible.

LOL it will be a waste of time.  I can barely tell the difference between 320 vs flac through blind test.  WAV vs FLAC is straight up impossible which SHOULD be the case.  I already felt like I spoke too much.

 

 

Yep. Do Michael Jackson or Led Zeppelin next.

 

 

 

Hey guys, I'm new here :)

Tested with Sennheiser PC161, and some Asus integrated sound card, but I'm fine with that

Even in the first few seconds, I can hear that B's bass is so much clearer, that it was not even worth listening to more of it

it would be interesting if the test could be done somehow without having the files open to an audio editor. then I'd like to see how many of those "oh was so easy..." would guess it right.