Audiophile or audio fooled MP3 vs 44.1 khz wav file
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
rob aylestone
Moderator
Great test - also great NS10 comments.
I took it three times and despite them mixing the samples up, I got 3/6 every time. Some I got right easily, but the others I misidentified repeatedly - so not the brightness and cleanness - that was the 128 (lowest!) quality one in three recordings - the neil young one worst because the best sounding I thought was the lowest quality. Really interesting!
link here
I took it three times and despite them mixing the samples up, I got 3/6 every time. Some I got right easily, but the others I misidentified repeatedly - so not the brightness and cleanness - that was the 128 (lowest!) quality one in three recordings - the neil young one worst because the best sounding I thought was the lowest quality. Really interesting!
link here
TalismanRich
Well-known member
I did that test years ago. Can't remember how well I did. These days, the hearing has degraded enough that I couldn't tell 128 from 320KBS. Too bad it wasn't around 40 years ago.
You really don't gain anything beyond 256kbps, but I don't count this video as a real test because the computer sound will do sample rate conversion and processing from a web browser source.
You tube comparison videos are sometimes bad because they will reprocess the audio. That is why some a/b tests don't work like the recorded audio when you play the video after uploading.
TAE
All you have is now
The video here is just showing someone taking the test...The test is on NPR (here's a link to it) That is a legit test. Variables like what you are listening to it on will all have a impact on what you hear but the reality is normal earthlings can not really tell the difference.
Last edited:
Papanate
Well-known member
I disagree - while it wasn't a walk in the par - The Wav files were clearer with more presense/defintion in the lower frequencies and top end - and most of the time the midrange was a little harder to tell - but I could hear difference - now what I found interesting is they didn't ask which one sounded better - that being the biggest challenge - because some people like the sound of MP3s - while others like the sound of uncompressed audio.
TAE
All you have is now
Seriously I know I am old and been through a LOT of loud noise in my life Going to a ton of CRAZY LOUD rock concerts, Playing hundreds of gigs in a rock band. Listening to music at home with speakers and with headphones too loud and lastly being in construction and using loud tools like tile saws, jack hammers etc....That I can hear and pass a hearing test and don't need hearing aids at 70 years old is a miracle...I do have tinnitus but I am used to it and just tune it out.
All that said I could not discern a significant difference between the audio files in the test. I listened and re listened and chose the one I thought ""might" be a little better sounding but for sure it was a guess... I got about 4 out of 6 right....Curious did you pick all 6 correctly?
The results at NPR are that over 80% of the testers failed to discern the difference correctly, If you click on the graph below it will take you to the article about the results of the test.....If you are actually able to consistently discern the difference blindfolded then you are a unicorn in a herd of horses.
Last edited:
Papanate
Well-known member
That's too bad - I've always worn Earplugs - and then Custom Fit Plugs - and the last 20 years I've used IEMs - very protective of my hearing - even when it's wasn't cool to do so.
No I got 5 of 6 - the Rap one was difficult for me - to dirty of a track - I've listen to it since and I don't think there is any appreciable difference between the 320Khz and the Wave file.
I think it's more of testament to what people want to listen too - and that's music - how it's delivered is down the scale a few notches - very few people are practiced at hearing nuances in music - and even the lot of them have damaged ears but they can compensate - whether that's playing - engineering - or Producing.
HumanPlanet
*Gen Xer*
I always thought these kind of tests were only indicative of how close sounding the various files were on the average listening system. Listen on a real high end setup and the differences will be more apparent.
However, if you play a single file in isolation without comparison and ask someone what it is they'll rarely if ever get it right regardless of what they're listening on/to but they'll know if they like the song or not.
However, if you play a single file in isolation without comparison and ask someone what it is they'll rarely if ever get it right regardless of what they're listening on/to but they'll know if they like the song or not.
Last edited:
dachay2tnr
One Hit Wonder
I remember someone telling me once that the NS10s were so bad that if you could actually make a mix sound good on them you had a winner. Lol.
rob aylestone
Moderator
I think you probably read more into it than was intended. I tried it on numerous devices and did badly every time. I think that the snag is that we can identify hums, noises, distortion, hiss and resonance quite easily once your ears are trained, but once those features are way down, 'quality' is far more difficult. Now I'm ancient(er) and my upper limit is coming down, I'm constantly amazed by high stuff I can hear actually being way down from the frequency it really is. The top note on a piano is only just above 4K, so on a graphic eq like a 32 band - that's very low down the faders. My hearing easily gives me that top note's first harmonic - I'm missing the 2nd one, but I can do the 2nd harmonic of a piano note just a bit lower.
What actually is quality at the pro audio level? I think in those audio files for me it was the sparkle at the top. Maybe that is an indication of quality, as in it could be compromised, but maybe the artefacts of the compression systems actually generate what I'm taking as quality? I guess we'll never know (or agree).
What actually is quality at the pro audio level? I think in those audio files for me it was the sparkle at the top. Maybe that is an indication of quality, as in it could be compromised, but maybe the artefacts of the compression systems actually generate what I'm taking as quality? I guess we'll never know (or agree).