[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif 2 people could tell actually. Those results came in after the OP stopped maintaining the thread. 3 if you include a previous success at the same bitrate by one poster.

I see only one (you) that completed at least 10 trials using the specified protocol. One person who claimed 14/16 in FooBar failed on the test protocol and the other only did 7/7 which is not enough.

We do not know however how many folks did this test and did not report their results so we do not know if it was 1/20 or 1/100.

Not that this makes your achievement any less impressive.

Since I am not blessed with your ears I will keep encoding in MP3

 

[scompton]

I stand corrected

I thought I remembered someone passing it, but with a quick look I couldn't find it. It still shows that numerous people can't tell the difference, which is why I posted in reply to the comment by ZenErik that he's never heard anyone claim they can't hear the difference. I think in reality, more people can't than can.

I think some can't hear it because they don't know what to listen for, which could very well apply to me. A big factor in my case is probably my age though. I'm 49 next week. The last hearing test I had, I tested normal, but that's normal for a (at that time) 45 year old. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear the top 4K Hz.

 

[DW87]

I can usually only tell a real difference when listening to more simple electronic music like house or trance. I find more complex music harder to tell a difference for some strange reason.

 

[Nocturnal310]

i can tell a difference without comparison...

 

[milkweg]

I've done abx testing on 192kb/s mp3 vs lossless .wav and could not tell a difference, nor could my friend when I tested him. If we failed that then I highly doubt anyone could tell the dif between 192 and 320.

For the abx test I used both classical and rock music.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've done abx testing on 192kb/s mp3 vs lossless .wav and could not tell a difference, nor could my friend when I tested him. If we failed that then I highly doubt anyone could tell the dif between 192 and 320. For the abx test I used both classical and rock music.

Actually , there are one or two verified ABX tests here on this forum where folks can tell the difference even between 320 and lossless. My estimate is that approximately 1% of listeners can do this. It is not unreasonable to predict that a small sample can do the 192 v 320 thing.

I have never tried seriously but I doubt that I can do it, having 50 year old ears. V0 ~ 245K is good enough for my purposes.

Having said that "I can hear the difference" < > "In an blind ABX I scored...."

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think some can't hear it because they don't know what to listen for, which could very well apply to me. A big factor in my case is probably my age though. I'm 49 next week. The last hearing test I had, I tested normal, but that's normal for a (at that time) 45 year old. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear the top 4K Hz.

Totally agree with you. My hearing isn't special at all, below average for a 25yo if anything (~17Khz is as high as I can go). IMO it's not the ears but how well you use them. I think almost anyone could train themselves to ABX 192 vs 320, if not higher bitrates. I modified one of the ABX programs to give audible feedback for correct/incorrect attempts and to allow one handed operation (no, not for that). It works really well for training. I think there's a link to it somewhere in this thread, or if anyone wants a copy just PM me.

 

[milkweg]

If you have to train your ears to hear it then it is not worth me being concerned about. In this case, ignorance is bliss, as they say.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you have to train your ears to hear it then it is not worth me being concerned about. In this case, ignorance is bliss, as they say.

That seems like a reasonable position. Indeed, since it is your preference, it's hard to argue with it. But I would suggest it's also reasonable for someone to decide that it is worth it for them to train their ears to appreciate something of higher quality. By analogy, some folks might wish to train themselves to appreciate fine art or fine wine, or even fine food. To each his own.

 

[AlanE49]

Guys-- I'll preface the comment that follows by saying that I haven't read this whole thread from its beginning to the most recent post, however I didn't see the issue raised in any of the posts I looked at.

In my view I find that a key line of demarcation tends to be between orchestral music/opera versus chamber or instrumental music. I listen mostly to classical and jazz. Jazz and classical chamber/solo instrumental music are very similar as they both employ smaller instrumental forces. As a general rule of thumb (and admittedly a broad overstatement which some of you will no doubt pounce on), I find that the fewer instrumental voices there are, the easier it is to reproduce them clearly and (somewhat) faithfully. With smaller forces or solo instruments I find that 320k or even 192 VBR works very well, and, psychoacoustically speaking, it's hard to hear a displeasing difference between these formats and CD audio. Conversely, when I listen to symphonic music or opera, the lack of clarity and detail in the lossy formats becomes more discernable, the presentation gets kind of smushed and muddled, and the listening experience suffers accordingly. Have any of you other folks experienced this?

Alan

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you have to train your ears to hear it then it is not worth me being concerned about. In this case, ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Oh I absolutely agree with you. Though the reason I do it isn't to hear more things, it's to better understand what I do hear. Also, it's just interesting to poke at the limits of one's perceptions to see what happens, or what can happen. It's completely optional so far as it concerns the enjoyment of music

 

[krmathis]

One person stating that he/she can't hear a different and proving it with an ABX test don't tell much.
Only that there are no audible difference to his/her ears, using those specific test tracks and his/her audio gear.

There may still be differences, that others may hear.

 

[m0ofassa]

Factually, there IS a difference.
There is an audible difference between 192 CBR and 320kbps CBR (general consenus).
Line becoems blurred at 192 VBR, where people here will say they can hear the difference, but hydrogenaudio will say there is no audible difference. Its your choice who you want to believe (hint: hydrogenaudio).
That said, I store my stuff in lossless codecs because I can.
oggenc is better for small-space storage anyway.
EDIT: if you listen to the middle of the spectrum (grado-fans ahoy) then you can hardly hear the difference. If you are paying a lot of attention to the highs, its plainly obvious IMHO. Also bass articulation. but thats my 2c. some Grado fans will tell you they can hear the difference between 256 and 320 though. But maybe they can. I dont care, to be honest. It doesnt matter, as it is no indication that what they are hearing is different to (or even more so BETTER than) what you are hearing. Maybe people who dont hear it have brains that are better at compensating for the shortcomings of a particular compression.

 

[numba1]

One more time, fellas, THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE between 192 & 320, it is audible even on cx300.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by numba1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif One more time, fellas, THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE between 192 & 320, it is audible even on cx300.

Then scoring at least 20/20 in blind tests should be utterly trivial for you. Feel free to post the screenshot from your tests.