[stv014]

If I recall correctly, some problems were found in this test, the files are not level matched (the higher bitrate versions are slightly louder), and people could also tell which file is being played without even listening to any actual differences in the compression because the high bitrate files simply take longer time to load.

 

[H20Fidelity]

the high bitrate files simply take longer time to load.

Indeed they do, and that was part of the test and my thread to see who worked it out first. The 320kbps file take longer to begin and that is a dead give away, once you get the timing right after a few tests prior you can pick it everytime.

And for that you win........

One free 128kbps song download of your choice.. PM me to redeem your prize.

 

[SoundPon3]

There's my score
I think it was the same song that got me (think it was Hard lovin' woman) but I'm actually surprised at what I got. 

 My full rig isn't up and running yet (still waiting for DAC and amp, I guess on-board will have to do) so I'll re-take the test then (even though it might not be much of a factor)
As for loading time, well I knew that would be a factor but I only thought of that at the end of the 10 trials

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

I'd like to see a 320 kbps vs WAV.

I was thinking about posting some level matched files for a 128 vs 320 vs lossless blind test, using 3 different styles of music.
 
Would anyone else be interested?

 

[Strangelove424]

Quote:

I was thinking about posting some level matched files for a 128 vs 320 vs lossless blind test, using 3 different styles of music.
 
Would anyone else be interested?

Yes, this test was rubbish. If we have a high concentration of willing guinea pigs around here, why not take advantage of it? 

 

[chewy4]

I'm preparing some files now... 
 
So far I've got : One all acoustic bluegrass song, one fairly heavily layered ambient glitch song, and now I'm looking for something fairly simple with not a lot of loudness going on, and without an audible tape hiss.

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

Quote:

Indeed they do, and that was part of the test and my thread to see who worked it out first. The 320kbps file take longer to begin and that is a dead give away, once you get the timing right after a few tests prior you can pick it everytime.

And for that you win........

One free 128kbps song download of your choice.. PM me to redeem your prize.

I thought it was the software giving off a delay, I tried alternating fast between the ABX and there was a delay, so I gave it a second to load, is the delay a characteristic of lower bitrate?
 
Quote:

I'm preparing some files now... 
 
So far I've got : One all acoustic bluegrass song, one fairly heavily layered ambient glitch song, and now I'm looking for something fairly simple with not a lot of loudness going on, and without an audible tape hiss.

how about some heavy metal? something fast and crazy

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

I thought it was the software giving off a delay, I tried alternating fast between the ABX and there was a delay, so I gave it a second to load, is the delay a characteristic of lower bitrate?
 
how about some heavy metal? something fast and crazy

Sorry, closest thing I have is some fairly heavy prog rock. And it's got some tape hiss.
 
I'm trying to avoid anything with tape hiss so people can judge off the musical content itself rather than the tone of the background noise.
 
EDIT: OK, found a nice acoustic bit. 
 
EDIT2: Finished setting it up! http://www.head-fi.org/t/646411/lossless-vs-128kbps-mp3-vs-320kbps-mp3-blind-test

 

[audioandy]

This is super easy. Do the songs ever change? I keep getting the same 3. 100% for 7/7 but just got repeats.

 

[LordOctron]

Hmm, to eliminate the longer delay with the higher bitrate sample both MP3s should be decoded to PCM/WAV and presented this way, identical delay...