[TMRaven]

Well I'm talking nothing of the actual waveform in the music here-- only bit depth.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Well I'm talking nothing of the actual waveform in the music here-- only bit depth.

Bit depth is the exact same, 16 bits.

 

[TMRaven]

16 bits dithered of course, mp3 bitdepth isn't comparable to PCM.
 
It might just be me or the abx tests I've done.  The most noticeable difference in perceived 'loudness' is the Barrio San Miguel song on mp3ornot.  The other two songs I struggle to guess right at times, but the punchiness in the dynamics on that song has led me to abx with 100% accuracy from all the times I've tried it.

 

[philofthepresnt]

To tell the difference between 128kbps and lossless, that's easy. 256kbps to 320 kbps? not so much

 

[deadlylover]

16 bits dithered of course, mp3 bitdepth isn't comparable to PCM.
 
It might just be me or the abx tests I've done.  The most noticeable difference in perceived 'loudness' is the Barrio San Miguel song on mp3ornot.  The other two songs I struggle to guess right at times, but the punchiness in the dynamics on that song has led me to abx with 100% accuracy from all the times I've tried it.

I remember that song, the loss of some HF information leads to a less sense in dynamics, which is why it sounded less punchy. I don't think it has much to do with the bit depth.

Same thing with drums too, more treble can make it seem like there is more impact.

 

[Austin Morrow]

For me, here are my observations. Sennheiser HD800 - ALO Continental - CLAS - iPod Classic; Running this song.
 
Maroon 5 - Tangled (128 Kbps): Soundstage seems to be more congested, not as micro detailed, and a bit muddled.
Maroon 5 - Tangled (256 Kbps) - A lot better, more airness, not as congested, seems like I can listen "in between the lines".
Maroon 5 - Tangled (320 Kbps) Very little difference between 256 Kbps in terms of micro detail, might be mental.
Maroon 5 - Tangled (ALAC Lossless) - Can't distinguish a difference between 320 Kbps. I think I hear a slight bit of micro detail at the get go though. More than likely just mental.

 

[Audio-Omega]

The sound of one of the tracks has more body, it's fuller.  I don't know what 128kbps would sound like, so I guess the fuller one is lossless.  

 
However there is a difference between the two tracks.
 
Sony XA3000ES disc player  >  Apex Peak amplifier  >  Sennheiser HD800 headphones.
 
By the way, I was listening to them in a sleepy mode so my answer can be different next time.  

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

For me, here are my observations. Sennheiser HD800 - ALO Continental - CLAS - iPod Classic; Running this song.
 
Maroon 5 - Tangled (128 Kbps): Soundstage seems to be more congested, not as micro detailed, and a bit muddled.
Maroon 5 - Tangled (256 Kbps) - A lot better, more airness, not as congested, seems like I can listen "in between the lines".
Maroon 5 - Tangled (320 Kbps) Very little difference between 256 Kbps in terms of micro detail, might be mental.
Maroon 5 - Tangled (ALAC Lossless) - Can't distinguish a difference between 320 Kbps. I think I hear a slight bit of micro detail at the get go though. More than likely just mental.

 
Using an HD800 for this could almost be considered cheating.  
Try running those files through an ABX app and see if you're still able to identify what is what or what is different from what.  ABXer is a testing app for OSX.  I believe there's also some ABX apps for iOS as well.

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

 
Using an HD800 for this could almost be considered cheating.  
Try running those files through an ABX app and see if you're still able to identify what is what or what is different from what.  ABXer is a testing app for OSX.  I believe there's also some ABX apps for iOS as well.

Alright, will do.

 

[anjora]

i have done a lot of blind testing using foobar 2000, however i can't really listend to any lossy formats including vorbis q10(AoTuV), mp3 320kbps, mp3 v0(lame) anymore, i started to listend a lot more to musik after i downloaded my first flac album, after that album there was no such thing as turning back($20 speakers), i have never failed to hear the differense between flac and lossy with my current setup

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

i have done a lot of blind testing using foobar 2000, however i can't really listend to any lossy formats including vorbis q10(AoTuV), mp3 320kbps, mp3 v0(lame) anymore, i started to listend a lot more to musik after i downloaded my first flac album, after that album there was no such thing as turning back($20 speakers), i have never failed to hear the differense between flac and lossy with my current setup

Now that I'll need results to believe.

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

Now that I'll need results to believe.

Same here. Any chance you could get it on video? 

 

[Personnel Jezuz]

Listening with some DT 770 Pro's through a Fiio e10..
..without peeping, I heard barely a difference but from looking closely at the bass I'd say the first had better bass detail and maybe slightly smoother mids?
 
I don't listen to classical so thats my excuse! and I cab to learn the track and its classical 

 
Seems I'm not the only one stumped, wish I knew the answer though..and what do I win if right?

 

[stv014]

12 out of 12, by testing the transient at about 23.6s. With the mp3 version (the first file), the attack is slightly slower and smeared. But this track generally does not bring out the weaknesses of mp3, as it lacks cymbals, sharp attacks, and "airy" high frequency content. So I find it difficult to tell apart much of it.
 

 

[Jaywalk3r]

I admit that I could not tell the difference between the files in the opening post.

I reached a conclusion a while back; if an A-B comparison is necessary to identify a difference in audio quality, that difference isn't significant enough to worry about. YMMV.