[citywithoutmetal]

I found this on a music forum. I tested using my shuffle so it was a pain in the arse to compare all 5 codecs. I didn't do too bad tho :>
If you have a leet pc setup I think you might be able to differentiate all 5.
I'll give the answers tomorrow.

"Question SO YOU THINK YOU CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MP3 AND UNCOMPRESSED AUDIO
i've designed a little test because i'm tired of people going "oh no don't judge this by 192 kbps mp3, unless you hear it on cd you can't talk about the production blah blah i don't know ****" -- so here's your chance to show that you know what you're talking about (or not).

this file contains 5 clips of an album generally considered well-produced (iron maiden - seventh son of a seventh son) in these 5 qualities:

1. 128 kbps constant bit rate mp3
2. 160 kbps constant bit rate mp3
3. 192 kbps constant bit rate mp3
4. --alt-preset standard variable bit rate mp3
5. uncompressed audio

of course, not in that order. listen well to these and post your guesses of which order the clips come in. after i get a few answers, i will post the correct ones.

download here:
http://nw.ath.cx/~erik/listeningtest.flac (16M)flac
http://nw.ath.cx/~erik/listeningtest.zip (22M)wave "

 

[SonicDawg]

Wait, I don't understand. You are asking us to tell apart 5 different audio formats by encoding them all in LOSSLESS format?

 

[PiccoloNamek]

They were encoded lossily and then decoded, the re-encoded in lossless, so any artifacts that were present would still be there.

 

[dr.morton]

This is a very interesting test.

Let's see how many people will answer to this

Playing your file for the first time on my Logitech computer setup it I was unable to tell the pieces apart.

I will now load the whole thing on my A2 to see if it will become more clear when listening the file with headphones.
Nice idea. Thank you.

 

[citywithoutmetal]

all 5 codecs were decoded to 1 .wave and flac file. i suggest ya get the .wav if you're really anal.

good luck..i hope to see some guesses tomorrow :>

 

[jenghanHsieh]

my guesses :

#3 -- uncompressed
#4 -- 192K CBR

or in reverse order ...

 

[drizek]

128kb= 4 clip
160kb=1st
192kb= 3
Lame=5th
Flac=second

Ok, so how wrong am i? Keep in mind i just listened to these from my crappy laptop on ksc75s so i might hear a difference when i listen to it from a better source on better phones later on.

 

[TheSloth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by citywithoutmetal I found this on a music forum. I tested using my shuffle so it was a pain in the arse to compare all 5 codecs. I didn't do too bad tho :> If you have a leet pc setup I think you might be able to differentiate all 5. I'll give the answers tomorrow. "Question SO YOU THINK YOU CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MP3 AND UNCOMPRESSED AUDIO i've designed a little test because i'm tired of people going "oh no don't judge this by 192 kbps mp3, unless you hear it on cd you can't talk about the production blah blah i don't know ****" -- so here's your chance to show that you know what you're talking about (or not). this file contains 5 clips of an album generally considered well-produced (iron maiden - seventh son of a seventh son) in these 5 qualities: 1. 128 kbps constant bit rate mp3 2. 160 kbps constant bit rate mp3 3. 192 kbps constant bit rate mp3 4. --alt-preset standard variable bit rate mp3 5. uncompressed audio of course, not in that order. listen well to these and post your guesses of which order the clips come in. after i get a few answers, i will post the correct ones. download here: http://nw.ath.cx/~erik/listeningtest.flac (16M)flac http://nw.ath.cx/~erik/listeningtest.zip (22M)wave "

What's the point of this if one is not familiar with the source material? I can't even audition headphones without using source material I know well.

 

[SonicDawg]

Not to discredit you, but I think the test can be made a lot easier if they are 5 individual files (in lossless) for us to ABX test them, because one can compare directly between any two files, while your single file forces us to guess by "a is > b, and b is < d, but c is > a". You get my drift? Although I can definately tell that the first file is not the best in quality (the cymbals don't crash as hard, and are less detailed).

 

[citywithoutmetal]

i didn't make this test..i found it on a music forum. yeah, i complained to the creator about it being flawed as well.

anyways, i'm off to bed.

p.s. i hope someone here creates a better test sometime.. :>

 

[PiccoloNamek]

The third one is definitely the uncompressed one.

But I can't tell the difference between any of the others, even with my ER-4Ss.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by citywithoutmetal p.s. i hope someone here creates a better test sometime.. :>

Anyone with Foobar can create their own test in about 3 seconds by using the ABX function.

 

[HiFiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by citywithoutmetal i didn't make this test..i found it on a music forum. yeah, i complained to the creator about it being flawed as well. anyways, i'm off to bed. p.s. i hope someone here creates a better test sometime.. :>

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40

 

[aliquis]

The first time I listened for like 2 minutes and decided that part 2 sounded much better than part 1.
My short list where: 2 > 5 > 3 > 4 > 1

I think part 2 and 5 sounds almost as good and probably 3 is better than 4.

Now I've listened a little more but I'll go with that, I've only tried headphones, it's 05.58 now so I don't wanna try with my speakers and I don't sit in front of them. Now when I jump around I think it all sounds pretty similair.

So:

128kbps: 1
160: 4
192: 3
vbr: 5
original: 2

I have no idea if it's even close.

Also I use an audigy which resamples it and **** ;/

 

[aliquis]

A guy in another forum complained about the original and suggested: http://nv2a.ath.cx/anna/08-Sounds%20...A%20Melody.wav

It should also be much easier, it's only 2 variations and one is 128kbps vbr mp3 and the other is loseless, but which one is what?

Some guys (atleast I think it is his) system on that forum: