Latest Thread Images

Do you hear the difference? A test
Apr 9, 2008 at 2:49 AM Post #123 of 139
Got it right! They were very close because I was using Klipsch 2.1 connected to my computer but the singing in the 320 seemed a tad bit fuller.
 
Apr 9, 2008 at 5:12 AM Post #125 of 139
i got it right.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Apr 9, 2008 at 4:56 PM Post #126 of 139
Got it right using my Radio Shack Extreme Fold-Up cans plugged right into the computer. Had to A/B a few times, but my initial instinct was correct. I wanted to relisten to try to verify what made me feel the way I did. I tried to listen for cymbals, which are for me, the dead give away. There were some artifacts there that made is sound a bit shimmery and flangy. But for me, what gave it away was that in the 128 version, the reverb trail had all sorts of nasty artifacts. It was far more apparent than any of the cymbal weirdness was.

But, I have to say, that it was only upon REALLY listening that I noticed this. I mean, typically, I'm listenng to the music, not the artifacts. This wasn't a particularly bad example. I've heard it be far more distracting than this, so maybe the material wasn't great for the test. But if something this minimal is a problem for you, chances are the music itself isn't any good, you know?
 
Apr 10, 2008 at 2:27 AM Post #129 of 139
Dell XPS M1530 + Windows Vista + AKG K701, no amps, full volume.

I really don't want to sound "cocky" but it was, in my ears, very easy to find out with only two passes of the A clip, one pass of the B clip.

I don't know if the AKG really do such a good job (which I think they really do in classic music) but it was rather too easy for me. Many details, just with one pass of the B clip, just dissappeared.

I have made such "experiments" at home, with flac vs mp3s. In many music styles, the 320kbps seems more than enough. In classic music though, flac/lossless/wav seems the right path to follow, you miss many tiny details that complete the whole picture.
 
Apr 10, 2008 at 6:55 PM Post #130 of 139
I got it right.

stock soundcard--> crappy labtec speakers
 
Apr 10, 2008 at 10:31 PM Post #131 of 139
For a long time I seriously thought that 320kbps vs. 128 was a matter of perception, peace of mind, and so on, and that my 320 kbps mp3s sounded good only because I was ready to accept it!

I listened to A several times just to carefully hear all the sounds, establish a baseline, and afterwards listening to B only once it sounded like parts were missing, Pavarotti didn't sound as intense and in-your-face. The difference was very clear?

I used HD555s and creative SB live external.
 
Apr 10, 2008 at 11:49 PM Post #132 of 139
I got it right but the difference was not huge. It would be nice to listen to uncompressed vs 320 to see how much of a difference. I have tried it at home and it sounds better. Problem is I already have 75 gigs of music in Itunes, all of them 320's and already had to upgrade to a harder drive (350 gigs) in my MacBook. If I use uncompressed format i'd run out of space in a minute! Once all laptops have terabyte hard drives I'll reload all my music in uncompressed format.
 
Apr 11, 2008 at 12:04 AM Post #133 of 139
Got it right!
At first I just got familiar with the tracks, but I heard differences on the second listen. I knew the answer on the 3rd.
The upper sibilance(?) of his voice was distinctly lossy, and the burst or flourish at the end sounded that way as well.
The dead giveaway is always the highest frequencies and 'air' of the recording.
I agree though that this one wasn't the easiest. I've heard 128 before that really is evident.
320 and over I really can't tell, I just like the idea of lossless in case my ears (and brain) get better at listening someday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top