nauxolo
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2008
- Posts
- 316
- Likes
- 11
Did the finicky flight really ask the care?
Last edited:
Can you REALLY hear the difference?
- Thread starter DistortingJack
- Start date
krmathis
Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 34,759
- Likes
- 82
Quote:
Because its encoded with Apple Lossless.
Compressing the audio data as much as possible = lower bitrate.
| Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif Something a little strange is going on here as the bit rate for 24/48 is 2250kbps, whereas your screenshot says the bit rate is 1741kbps? |
Because its encoded with Apple Lossless.
Compressing the audio data as much as possible = lower bitrate.
Quote:
But it's enormous. As FLAC the 131MB file becomes 55MB.
edit: the 24bit one sounds slightly crisper to me but it's hard to pick any difference so i'm not voting. I had to use the upsampled version of the 16bit to make a proper comparison as my soundcard has much higher distortion at 96khz. The original 16bit file sounded better then the other two on my setup (ESW9 off Modded Audigy4).
| Originally Posted by DistortingJack /img/forum/go_quote.gif A .wav file IS lossless. |
But it's enormous. As FLAC the 131MB file becomes 55MB.
edit: the 24bit one sounds slightly crisper to me but it's hard to pick any difference so i'm not voting. I had to use the upsampled version of the 16bit to make a proper comparison as my soundcard has much higher distortion at 96khz. The original 16bit file sounded better then the other two on my setup (ESW9 off Modded Audigy4).
DistortingJack
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Posts
- 48
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
Sweet irony
| Originally Posted by TMM /img/forum/go_quote.gif The original 16bit file sounded better then the other two on my setup (ESW9 off Modded Audigy4). |
Sweet irony
deaconblues
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Posts
- 500
- Likes
- 16
I think that the most amazing thing about this poll so far is that it seems to have revealed some psychics who can tell the difference between the files without even using 24bit/96khz equipment.
GeoD
100+ Head-Fier
Quote:
If I had to say anything, this is what I'd say also, but the differences are very minor. Seems like a tiny bit more air between the notes in the 24bit, but still can't decide if it's in my head or not so I'm not voting.
| Originally Posted by TMM /img/forum/go_quote.gif the 24bit one sounds slightly crisper to me but it's hard to pick any difference so i'm not voting. |
If I had to say anything, this is what I'd say also, but the differences are very minor. Seems like a tiny bit more air between the notes in the 24bit, but still can't decide if it's in my head or not so I'm not voting.
DistortingJack
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Posts
- 48
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
That would be the politically correct option to maintain in head-fi, but is it really right?
On a PC, use foobar2000's ABX test for about 20 times. You mustn't know your results before the end of the test. Anything below 14/20 is a guess.
On a Mac, there isn't an ABX test I know of, but I did it this way: open both files on Quicktime player, let them play at the same time (as close as possible) and then press cmd+~ to swap from one file to the other. You can manufacture your own test through this. I couldn't hear a difference anyway, so I didn't have to.
Take into account that this song has very large amounts of ultrasonic material. If you can't really say it sounds BETTER without them, but that it sounds slightly different maybe, that counts as a No because the question is "a difference in Quality". If you can distinctly hear something as "more accurate" or "more real" then vote Yes.
I'm putting this on the first post as well.
Hope this helps you guys!
| Originally Posted by GeoD /img/forum/go_quote.gif Seems like a tiny bit more air between the notes in the 24bit, but still can't decide if it's in my head or not so I'm not voting. |
That would be the politically correct option to maintain in head-fi, but is it really right?
On a PC, use foobar2000's ABX test for about 20 times. You mustn't know your results before the end of the test. Anything below 14/20 is a guess.
On a Mac, there isn't an ABX test I know of, but I did it this way: open both files on Quicktime player, let them play at the same time (as close as possible) and then press cmd+~ to swap from one file to the other. You can manufacture your own test through this. I couldn't hear a difference anyway, so I didn't have to.
Take into account that this song has very large amounts of ultrasonic material. If you can't really say it sounds BETTER without them, but that it sounds slightly different maybe, that counts as a No because the question is "a difference in Quality". If you can distinctly hear something as "more accurate" or "more real" then vote Yes.
I'm putting this on the first post as well.
Hope this helps you guys!
Mayzei
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Posts
- 172
- Likes
- 10
Damn, didn't read the topic title, just voted on the poll. Sorry guys.
xx
xx
myinitialsaredac
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Posts
- 1,337
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
Agreed, this song was just poorly poorly recorded.
Dave
| Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's one of the worst recordings I've ever heard. Why this has been released in hi-rez is beyond me. The stated «shedloads of ultra high-frequency energy» is a consequence of constant clipping and heavy distortion. The ultrasonic content is relatively modest, though, and -- for whoever might be sensitive to it -- certainly completely masked by the massive harmonic distortion. . |
Agreed, this song was just poorly poorly recorded.
Dave
DistortingJack
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Posts
- 48
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
Mr. DAC doesn't like angry music
| Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agreed, this song was just poorly poorly recorded. Dave |
Mr. DAC doesn't like angry music
Muji
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Posts
- 6
- Likes
- 0
Damn, voted by misstake on "Yes".
No, I can't hear a difference. Using Compass together with HD555.
No, I can't hear a difference. Using Compass together with HD555.
JaZZ
Headphoneus Supremus
Quote:
You're really consistent in thinking that someone who considers this recording inadequate for a format comparison must be someone who doesn't like this sort of music. -- That's of course a possible way of handling the subject.
.
| Originally Posted by DistortingJack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mr. DAC doesn't like angry music
|
You're really consistent in thinking that someone who considers this recording inadequate for a format comparison must be someone who doesn't like this sort of music. -- That's of course a possible way of handling the subject.
.
Mr_Nibbles
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2009
- Posts
- 13
- Likes
- 0
I also voted yes thinking this would be a comparison of 128 vs 256 or something. Sorry guys. And I can not here a difference with 555's.
jonhapimp
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2009
- Posts
- 512
- Likes
- 10
voted yes on accident, meant to be no, my equipment isn't strong enough
IPodPJ
MOT: Bellatone Audio
Caution: Incomplete customer orders
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2006
- Posts
- 7,870
- Likes
- 62
Oops, I voted before I even read the thread.
I thought it was just a generic question about quality. So please ignore my vote until I have a chance to listen to the files in question. I'll edit this post later after I get my DL3 back from RAM; it accepts up to 192khz on the digital input. Thanks!
Users who are viewing this thread
