Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Are you a critical listener? Take the mp3 test
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are you a critical listener? Take the mp3 test - Page 2

post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

I thought the test flawed, because I  found the difference too obvious (done only 2 test,  but I  didn't hesitate at all).

They didn't specify which encoder was used, and I'm thinking there's perhaps a volume imbalance too.

I know I  reach relatively easily transparency, by  using lame encoder.

Unless using a high end headphone makes a difference (the guys at hydregenaudio, claim it doesn't matter).


That's strange, I have a pretty good ear and I don't notice much volume imbalance with it. The way I did the tests was to click all 3 immediately to get everything buffered up. Listened at normal volume.
The first test was at work on low quality headphones and bare bones built in dell audio. The second test was at home through an Audioengine DAC into DT 990's.

 

I use LAME to do all of my encoding and it works pretty well but I do it at 320 and no joint stereo. I know a lot of folks use Itunes and that is a lower quality encoder. I believe the site stated they used exact audio copy and then LAME.

 

If anyone cares to devote the time I'm sure you could load the two samples in something like Audacity and diff them.

post #17 of 29

If you're still doubting the volume difference:

 

 

 

 

volumedifference.PNG 29k .PNG file

 

 

 

 

And lol I just got 6/7 just by hitting random buttons.

 

Also where are you seeing this statement of what they used? I'm not seeing any info at all.


Edited by chewy4 - 2/15/13 at 4:44pm
post #18 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

If you're still doubting the volume difference:

 

 

 

 

volumedifference.PNG 29k .PNG file

 

 

 

 

And lol I just got 6/7 just by hitting random buttons.

 

Also where are you seeing this statement of what they used? I'm not seeing any info at all.


I mean if you want to cheat, but that kind of defeats the point of critical listening on headphones. The method was either in the first website that linked me into it, talking bout the test, or in the metadata. I did a lot of tests like jitter etc as well at the same time so I don't remember exactly.

post #19 of 29
Quote:

 

 

Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post
 

If you're still doubting the volume difference:

 

Thanks, I  didn't manage to download the tracks.

Yep, I  think I  can detect such loudness difference.

post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodhifi View Post


I mean if you want to cheat, but that kind of defeats the point of critical listening on headphones. The method was either in the first website that linked me into it, talking bout the test, or in the metadata. I did a lot of tests like jitter etc as well at the same time so I don't remember exactly.

Pressing random buttons isn't cheating biggrin.gif

 

But yeah I've been to this site before. I can hear certain differences if I listen hard enough, but it's still hard even with the volume difference here. I've done a decent deal of testing between codecs and have even set up tests myself.

 

I find the maraca the easiest instrument to be able to notice compression artifacts in personally.

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodhifi View Post


I mean if you want to cheat, but that kind of defeats the point of critical listening on headphones. The method was either in the first website that linked me into it, talking bout the test, or in the metadata. I did a lot of tests like jitter etc as well at the same time so I don't remember exactly.


It's not about cheating, it's the proof of volume imbalance we claimed before. The difference appear obvious because, the "320 kps" track is perceived as louder. This could be explained though, that some kind of low pass filter is applied to to perform the 128kps encoding (yeah, it's a bit more muddy too).  But again, what is the encoder they used.

If the encoder is crappy, the test means nothing.

post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

I find the maraca the easiest instrument to be able to notice compression artifacts in personally.

 

So as long as we don't listen to any maraca concertos we'll all be fine with 128kbps. biggrin.gif

post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

 

So as long as we don't listen to any maraca concertos we'll all be fine with 128kbps. biggrin.gif

Unfortunately 99% of my library consists of maraca concertos.

post #24 of 29

That must get rather monotonous. Click, click, clacketty-clack-clack, click-click....  tongue.gif

post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

That must get rather monotonous. Click, click, clacketty-clack-clack, click-click....  tongue.gif

Well,  then, what do you think of this ?

 

post #26 of 29

Not much. 

 

Actually I thought the audience clapping was rather better. tongue.gif


Edited by pp312 - 2/15/13 at 5:43pm
post #27 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

Pressing random buttons isn't cheating biggrin.gif

 

But yeah I've been to this site before. I can hear certain differences if I listen hard enough, but it's still hard even with the volume difference here. I've done a decent deal of testing between codecs and have even set up tests myself.

 

I find the maraca the easiest instrument to be able to notice compression artifacts in personally.


Hehe it's a humbling experience for sure. "Damn maybe my ears aren't as good as I thought??"

 

Maraca would make a good litmus test, any percussive sounds are a good tell tale. For me I listen to cymbals if the song has them. I remember back in the early days of mp3, bad compression, or low bit rate would make cymbals into this wishy washy mess.

 

I heard an anecdote tale that when Fraunhofler were developing the codec that mp3 is based on they did so because at the time, compression could fool you decently if the song was loud rock music, but it was terrible for quiet acoustic work with a lot of dynamics. So they used Suzanne Vega as their test bed. If they could develop a codec that could accurately compress Suzanne Vega without introducing artifacts they would consider it a success. I don't know if it's true or not but it's a great story.

 

EDIT I guess it's true after all. http://mentalfloss.com/article/19727/how-toms-diner-tuned-mp3


Edited by Kodhifi - 2/15/13 at 8:14pm
post #28 of 29

 

 

Pretty hard but once you hear them several times you begin to notice differences within the first 5 seconds. Hard Lovin' Woman was the hardest for me... the other two I could tell almost 100% of the time though. 

post #29 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by viralcow View Post

 

 

Pretty hard but once you hear them several times you begin to notice differences within the first 5 seconds. Hard Lovin' Woman was the hardest for me... the other two I could tell almost 100% of the time though. 


That wouldn't have anything to do with the Julliette Lewis gag factor would it? :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Are you a critical listener? Take the mp3 test