Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › BLIND TEST: Lossless vs. MP3 320 vs. Vorbis (q=10)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BLIND TEST: Lossless vs. MP3 320 vs. Vorbis (q=10)

Poll Results: BLIND TEST: Lossless vs. MP3 320 vs. Vorbis (q=10)

 
  • 0% (0)
    A is Lossless
  • 50% (5)
    B is Lossless
  • 20% (2)
    C is Lossless
  • 30% (3)
    No Difference
10 Total Votes  
post #1 of 6
2/9/12 at 12:10am
Thread Starter 

1:48 clip of Band on the Run off the 2001 release of Wingspan: Hits and History...
 

$ flac -d Band.on.the.Run.flac

flac 1.2.1, Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Josh Coalson
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type `flac' for details.

Band.on.the.Run.flac: done

 

$ sox --version
sox: SoX v14.3.2

 

$ sox Band.on.the.Run.wav xBand.on.the.Run.wav trim 0 1:48

 

$ lame --preset insane --noreplaygain xBand.on.the.Run.wav
LAME 3.99.4 64bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 20094 Hz - 20627 Hz
Encoding xBand.on.the.Run.wav to xBand.on.the.Run.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (4.4x) 320 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
4136/4136 (100%)| 0:02/ 0:02| 0:02/ 0:02| 43.217x| 0:00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps LR MS % long switch short %
320.0 30.7 69.3 91.5 5.0 3.5
Writing LAME Tag...done

 

$ lame --decode xBand.on.the.Run.mp3 yBand.on.the.Run.wav
input: xBand.on.the.Run.mp3 (44.1 kHz, 2 channels, MPEG-1 Layer III)
output: yBand.on.the.Run.wav (16 bit, Microsoft WAVE)
skipping initial 1105 samples (encoder+decoder delay)
skipping final 767 samples (encoder padding-decoder delay)
Frame# 4136/4136 302 kbps MS

 

$ oggenc -V
oggenc from vorbis-tools 1.4.0

 

$ pacman -Qi libvorbis
Name : libvorbis
Version : 1.3.3-100

 

$ oggenc -q 10 xBand.on.the.Run.wav
Opening with wav module: WAV file reader
Encoding "xBand.on.the.Run.wav" to
"xBand.on.the.Run.ogg"
at quality 10.00
[ 99.8%] [ 0m00s remaining] /

Done encoding file "xBand.on.the.Run.ogg"

File length: 1m 48.0s

 

$ oggdec -o zBand.on.the.Run.wav xBand.on.the.Run.ogg
oggdec from vorbis-tools 1.4.0
Decoding "xBand.on.the.Run.ogg" to "zBand.on.the.Run.wav"
[100.0%]
Elapsed time: 0m 02.3s
Rate: 47.4623
Average bitrate: 466.9 kb/s

 

$ mv xBand.on.the.Run.wav ?.wav

 

$ mv yBand.on.the.Run.wav ?.wav

 

$ mv zBand.on.the.Run.wav ?.wav

 

Download A.wav (18.17 MB)
Download B.wav (18.17 MB)
Download C.wav (18.17 MB)


 


Edited by adamlau - 2/9/12 at 1:24am
Reply
post #2 of 6
2/9/12 at 10:18am

I like tests like this.  With my D2000 I typically cannot hear the difference, but with my DT990 I can.

Reply
post #3 of 6
2/9/12 at 12:22pm

I voted B. It was the heaviest to me and the clearest in the music and vocals. Regardless, it was the most enjoyable.

 

Please give the results when this is over because I want to know. etysmile.gif

Reply
post #4 of 6
2/9/12 at 4:40pm

One does not simply successfully ABX q10 and lossless. Four hundred and sixty six kilobits! eek.gif

 

a v c (Click to show)

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.8
2012/02/09 21:40:47

File A: C:\Users\Alice\Desktop\A.wav
File B: C:\Users\Alice\Desktop\C.wav

21:40:47 : Test started.
21:48:37 : 01/01  50.0%
21:49:20 : 02/02  25.0%
21:51:22 : 03/03  12.5%
21:52:44 : 04/04  6.3%
21:54:16 : 05/05  3.1%
21:55:23 : 05/06  10.9%
21:55:37 : 06/07  6.3%
21:56:39 : 06/08  14.5%
21:57:39 : 06/09  25.4%
22:04:28 : 07/10  17.2%
22:05:05 : 08/11  11.3%
22:05:52 : 09/12  7.3%
22:06:28 : 10/13  4.6%
22:08:23 : 11/14  2.9%
22:10:14 : 12/15  1.8%
22:11:50 : 13/16  1.1%
22:12:29 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 13/16 (1.1%)


I wouldn't call that a pass, but at least I have a ticket to submit my opinion. tongue.gif

 

I couldn't do AB or BC, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say A is the mp3, and either B or C is the lossless, but I'm leaning towards C because I recall I couldn't ABX v0 vs q9 way back.

 

But I'm sure I'm way off, what a vicious test. confused_face.gif Did you manage to get a decent ABX result without unplugging your sats? ahahah

Reply
post #5 of 6
3/9/12 at 3:05am
Thread Starter 

Nobody else? Certainly more difficult than BLIND TEST: Lossless vs. MP3 320 owing to the fact that the sample was selected from a more conventionally mastered release as opposed to the more dynamic DCC and unlimited HDtracks versions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply
post #6 of 6
3/15/12 at 12:00am

Although the files don't download, I can tell you that even with stock earbuds, the difference between a 10meg and a 100meg file of the same material is too obvious. So what's the point?

Reply
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 vs. Vorbis (q=10)