[Kodhifi]

Quote:

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.

 

[chewy4]

If you're still doubting the volume difference:
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
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.

 

[Kodhifi]

Quote:

If you're still doubting the volume difference:
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
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.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

 
 
Originally Posted by chewy4 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
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.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

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 

 
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.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

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.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

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.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

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

Unfortunately 99% of my library consists of maraca concertos.

 

[pp312]

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

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

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

Well,  then, what do you think of this ?
 

 

[pp312]

Not much. 
 
Actually I thought the audience clapping was rather better.

 

[Kodhifi]

Quote:

Pressing random buttons isn't cheating 

 
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

 

[viralcow]

 
 
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. 

 

[Kodhifi]

Quote:

 
 
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?