Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › BLIND TEST: Lossless vs. MP3 320
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BLIND TEST: Lossless vs. MP3 320 - Page 4

Poll Results: BLIND TEST: Lossless vs. MP3 320 kbps

 
  • 27% (40)
    A is Lossless
  • 42% (63)
    B is Lossless
  • 30% (45)
    No Difference
148 Total Votes  
post #46 of 107

We all know that...... I was a computer enthusiast and a more worthy one than an audiophile. if rank actually matters. i would be 500+ head fi'er here. and close to a supremus over there in stuff like that. Head fi is built on trust...and if you look at most results and mine...we don't care. we post the truth. would i risk my and head fi's reputation by posting a log that said i got 80% right? .... whatever it is....we all know it's easy to fake. just copy and pasting it reminds the person that it is just that easy.

post #47 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowei006 View Post

Yes i understood this for a while now <SNIP>

 

Yes, I can tell that the two files are different.

 


Actually - you don't understand then.  Your log shows very clearly that you cannot tell the two files are different once placebo is removed from the equation.  Don't worry - I couldn't either.

post #48 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post


Actually - you don't understand then.  Your log shows very clearly that you cannot tell the two files are different once placebo is removed from the equation.  Don't worry - I couldn't either.


oh sorry. what i mean by different was not differnt per say. but that one had a different quality about it...hmm might have been placebo...but i swear. there are those times when taking it that i swear i can just hear the mp3 being a tad bit warmer but less clear with a bit less legit bass thump and scratchier vocals. ill retake the test again and see once and for all if it is placebo... or whatever. ill have a family member come in and rename A and B to something else and commence testing so i wont' know which is lossless and lossy like i did this time. testing...the only thing that you know is true gs1000.gif stupid brain! your interpretations fail me all the time mad.gif

 

 

ill retake it tmmrw..it's friday then :d and ill have more free time...for now..it's time for that playwrite...im not a liberal arts student...just some assignemtn. sometimes i feel liek i should just go back to comptuers. im way more qualified there..but audio is just so cool :D 


Edited by bowei006 - 2/16/12 at 3:20pm
post #49 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowei006 View Post


oh sorry. what i mean by different was not differnt per say. but that one had a different quality about it...hmm might have been placebo...but i swear. there are those times when taking it that i swear i can just hear the mp3 being a tad bit warmer but less clear with a bit less legit bass thump and scratchier vocals. ill retake the test again and see once and for all if it is placebo... or whatever. ill have a family member come in and rename A and B to something else and commence testing so i wont' know which is lossless and lossy like i did this time. testing...the only thing that you know is true gs1000.gif stupid brain! your interpretations fail me all the time mad.gif

 

 

ill retake it tmmrw..it's friday then :d and ill have more free time...for now..it's time for that playwrite...im not a liberal arts student...just some assignemtn



Nope - you're still not getting it.  Using foobar abx, it's completely blind - therefore placebo cannot be in effect.  The results are the results.  Want to make it better - choose to hide the results until the test is finished - even more revealing.  Your test results already speak volumes.  Don't worry about it.  Congrats though for being completely honest, and being prepared to take the test properly.

post #50 of 107


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post



Nope - you're still not getting it.  Using foobar abx, it's completely blind - therefore placebo cannot be in effect.  The results are the results.  Want to make it better - choose to hide the results until the test is finished - even more revealing.  Your test results already speak volumes.  Don't worry about it.  Congrats though for being completely honest, and being prepared to take the test properly.



ill hide results tmmrw....only problem is. I'm a PC Enthusiast. We have a lot of pride in this stuff..... ill post my log tmmrw again. and JayWalk3R. i know you can easily fake it....no point in doing that. Like Brooko said..just be honest -___- and Brooko is right. i forgot. even though i knew which file was lossless (let's not spoil it now even though we aren't on page one) ..it was still blind....aahhh soo frustrating. ill try for an 30% tmmrw. :D ill try to shave off everything that could change the sound :D move the files to the fast hard drive, disabling all of window's pretty aero theme and closing down programs. and other stuff with my setup.....that's probably not gonna do anything i can hear but hey. it's been sourced that how many processes are running, if the hard drive is too slow and other things can "change" the way audio sounds... i've read it in a article head fi also linked. it was a long lengthy on a legit looking blog/site thing written by some super high end israeli audiophile...but hey. we can never know if he wasn't just hearing things either. anyway. ill just do that just for kicks in case...why not. ya know.

post #51 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

You're not going to be able to stop anyone that wants to be a poser.  Want an easier way - take one of the files, and manipulate it - then abx the 2 files.  You don't have to fake the logs that way.

We have to rely on honesty - otherwise what is the point in posting.

I realize that there are other ways to fake the results. (Though I would argue that manipulating the files, logging into Windows, and downloading & installing Foobar would not be easier.)

We can rely on honesty without insisting on logs.
Edited by Jaywalk3r - 2/16/12 at 3:52pm
post #52 of 107

see :D let's all be good head fi samaritans here :D we shold have a mass blind test thread..but with many different music genres like 3 songs in each genre. and then average the results and see which genre is easier to tell apart from lossless and lossy. im voting on..........modern rock/metal

post #53 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post

We can rely on honesty without insisting on logs.


As we've seen a couple of times in this and other threads: obviously we CANNOT.

When the thread title says blind test a simple "I think B sounds better" is not enough.

 


Edited by xnor - 2/16/12 at 4:00pm
post #54 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

As we've seen a couple of times in this and other threads: obviously we CANNOT

Then we're SOL, because the posting the logs adds no credibility to claims.
Edited by Jaywalk3r - 2/16/12 at 4:01pm
post #55 of 107

Still better than the current drive by posters who claim they can tell a difference - but if actually confronted with a true abx - find they cannot.

 

I'd rather educate those (who don't know) about the ability of foobar to abx.  If they choose to be dishonest and falsify results, they're not only kidding those here, but also themselves.

 

It's actually quite enlightening to realise your own limitations, and how good some lossy compression is.  Especially if it means never having to question the quality of your own music files (for your portable set-up).  Mine = CD rip or high-res (purchased) download, careful conversion to aac256.  Before I actually tried the foobar abx - I used to be constantly moving music on and off my ipod in alac format.  After my revelation, I transcoded my entire library to aac256 and I can now keep almost the entire collection on my Touch G4.

 

I still use FLAC on my home set-up, but that's mainly for archiving - and also because space doesn't really matter.

post #56 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

Still better than the current drive by posters who claim they can tell a difference - but if actually confronted with a true abx - find they cannot.

 

I'd rather educate those (who don't know) about the ability of foobar to abx.  If they choose to be dishonest and falsify results, they're not only kidding those here, but also themselves.

 

It's actually quite enlightening to realise your own limitations, and how good some lossy compression is.  Especially if it means never having to question the quality of your own music files (for your portable set-up).  Mine = CD rip or high-res (purchased) download, careful conversion to aac256.  Before I actually tried the foobar abx - I used to be constantly moving music on and off my ipod in alac format.  After my revelation, I transcoded my entire library to aac256 and I can now keep almost the entire collection on my Touch G4.

 

I still use FLAC on my home set-up, but that's mainly for archiving - and also because space doesn't really matter.

same :/ audiophile pride needs to get broken every now and then. i was lucky. mine wasn't broken by another but by myself :/ i have 5TiB's of space so i keep files around also. I don't have a need to encode into 256kbps AAC yet so ill just keep it ALAC. now what do you use to convert Brooko?
 

 

post #57 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowei006 View Post

same :/ audiophile pride needs to get broken every now and then. i was lucky. mine wasn't broken by another but by myself :/ i have 5TiB's of space so i keep files around also. I don't have a need to encode into 256kbps AAC yet so ill just keep it ALAC. now what do you use to convert Brooko?
 

 


Although I use linux full time - I also believe in using the best tool (for me) for the job.  So I run windows applications via wine where necessary.

 

I use EAC for ripping CDs

I use dbpoweramp (I purchased the full copy) for all of my transcoding now.

And I either use Foobar (via wine) or Clementine (linux app) for playback from the PC.

post #58 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post


Although I use linux full time - I also believe in using the best tool (for me) for the job.  So I run windows applications via wine where necessary.

 

I use EAC for ripping CDs

I use dbpoweramp (I purchased the full copy) for all of my transcoding now.

And I either use Foobar (via wine) or Clementine (linux app) for playback from the PC.



I use all. Linux a bit less though. my main station is a self built windows gaming PC. and i have a Macbook Pro by my side. mainly for portable and audiophile purposes

 

I use iTunes for ripping. If we can rip with both..and do an ABX on the files...hmmm i might do an experiemnt or post it and have others do it. doubt theirs any diff. itunes has error checking as well..not sure it's as deep but hey..

i use dBpoweramp on PC and Max on Macintosh. Max is free....so i like that part about Max on the Macintosh :D 

i use itunes to playback really :/ i like the interface. i just got too used to it from my non audiophile days. i have used all of them(that matter) though and tested them all.

post #59 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

Still better than the current drive by posters who claim they can tell a difference - but if actually confronted with a true abx - find they cannot.

I'd rather educate those (who don't know) about the ability of foobar to abx.  If they choose to be dishonest and falsify results, they're not only kidding those here, but also themselves.

It's actually quite enlightening to realise your own limitations, and how good some lossy compression is.  Especially if it means never having to question the quality of your own music files (for your portable set-up).  Mine = CD rip or high-res (purchased) download, careful conversion to aac256.  Before I actually tried the foobar abx - I used to be constantly moving music on and off my ipod in alac format.  After my revelation, I transcoded my entire library to aac256 and I can now keep almost the entire collection on my Touch G4.

I still use FLAC on my home set-up, but that's mainly for archiving - and also because space doesn't really matter.

I agree with the usefulness of ABX testing. I believe many people unjustifiably claim to be able to easily hear differences in codecs. Performing ABX testing can be revealing about what we can actually hear.

My post (with the fake ABX log) was more in response to a poster who claimed:

"Frankly, your comments aren't worth a hill of beans in this thread unless you post logs."

Posting logs doesn't prove a thing. ABX testing can be very enlightening, but that's different from posting the logs. If someone says they successfully ABXed 320 kbps from 160 kbps, for example, then maybe we believe them and maybe we don't. But if we decide whether the claim is believable or not based on whether or not they posted the logs, then we are fools.

For the record, I back up my CD's with ALAC, but transcode primarily to 192 kbps AAC VBR for my library (external storage is much cheaper than laptop storage). I seriously doubt I could ABX the difference, and even if I could, any difference would be far too subtle to detract from my enjoyment of the music.
Edited by Jaywalk3r - 2/16/12 at 4:54pm
post #60 of 107

What about printscreens ?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › BLIND TEST: Lossless vs. MP3 320