I decided to start a new thread and see if this will work on DIYA.
I made 2 files of the same song. One is a WAV and one is AAC. Both were then placed into an aiff file to be the same size. To get the songs in full resolution you will need to download them. Just hit the 'down arrow' in the tittle bar of the recording. This is a single blind test to differentiate how important file formats are.
G49 by dantheman-10 on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
I26 by dantheman-10 on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
Please PM me with which one you think is the WAV file in the form of "i26", "g49", or "I can't tell a difference". It would be nice to have another volunteer to receive the PMs to prevent cheating and assure an accurate count.
Which file is what will be shown when participation falls.
Any commentary about how big the difference is to you would be appreciated.
I do not want to post a poll on this d/t the bias it will introduce.
Thanks,
Dan
I made 2 files of the same song. One is a WAV and one is AAC. Both were then placed into an aiff file to be the same size. To get the songs in full resolution you will need to download them. Just hit the 'down arrow' in the tittle bar of the recording. This is a single blind test to differentiate how important file formats are.
G49 by dantheman-10 on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
I26 by dantheman-10 on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
Please PM me with which one you think is the WAV file in the form of "i26", "g49", or "I can't tell a difference". It would be nice to have another volunteer to receive the PMs to prevent cheating and assure an accurate count.
Which file is what will be shown when participation falls.
Any commentary about how big the difference is to you would be appreciated.
I do not want to post a poll on this d/t the bias it will introduce.
Thanks,
Dan
In my experience the lossless file type that the audio file is stored in does not affect the sound. Its lossless!
It is the playback of it that does affect the sound.
I don't need to download these to know that converting them to .wav and then playing them back as a .wav will sound better than playing them back as an AIFF.
I've done these experiments before.
But anyhoo.....
It is the playback of it that does affect the sound.
I don't need to download these to know that converting them to .wav and then playing them back as a .wav will sound better than playing them back as an AIFF.
I've done these experiments before.
But anyhoo.....
Dan,
Respectfully, I don't get the point?
They either sound different to you or they don't. Does it really matter what others think?
Surely it should only matter how it sounds to you on your system?
You have not explained it well enough for me.
Did you rip one file direct to .wav and the other direct to AAC, and then contained them as an AIFF file?
Do you want people to play back the files as you have presented them in AIFF, or is converting them to .wav a valid way of playing them back for this experiment?
So some further explanation would go a long way.
Respectfully, I don't get the point?
They either sound different to you or they don't. Does it really matter what others think?
Surely it should only matter how it sounds to you on your system?
You have not explained it well enough for me.
Did you rip one file direct to .wav and the other direct to AAC, and then contained them as an AIFF file?
Do you want people to play back the files as you have presented them in AIFF, or is converting them to .wav a valid way of playing them back for this experiment?
So some further explanation would go a long way.
I'll just go through your questions one by one:
The point is to see how important it is to you(generally speaking) to get an uncompressed file as well as audiophiles as a whole.
It probably matters what you think to you anyway. I don't know if it matters to you what others think or not. The outcome of the test doesn't matter to me.
Exactly.
Yes.
Play back as an aiff. Compressing them again would be less than optimal. If you listen to them on the SC website, they are compressed down to 128kbps mp3.
I'm, not sure what further explanation is needed. These arguments abound on audiophile sites(more so in Australia it seems)--even involving 2 uncompressed files. This is a way to hear w/o bias the difference. That way you'll know regardless if you can tell or not, you'll be able to hear how big or how little the difference is and thus its importance. If you don't want to participate... fine. Free world.
Hope that clarifies everything.
The point is to see how important it is to you(generally speaking) to get an uncompressed file as well as audiophiles as a whole.
It probably matters what you think to you anyway. I don't know if it matters to you what others think or not. The outcome of the test doesn't matter to me.
Exactly.
Yes.
Play back as an aiff. Compressing them again would be less than optimal. If you listen to them on the SC website, they are compressed down to 128kbps mp3.
I'm, not sure what further explanation is needed. These arguments abound on audiophile sites(more so in Australia it seems)--even involving 2 uncompressed files. This is a way to hear w/o bias the difference. That way you'll know regardless if you can tell or not, you'll be able to hear how big or how little the difference is and thus its importance. If you don't want to participate... fine. Free world.
Hope that clarifies everything.
Music with no special dynamic, bandwidth limited to 12kHz, not telling what bitrate you had used for loseless...
My guess is, based on this biased test, that you are trying to make a point that lossy compressed is as good as uncompressed?
Yes, for that kind of music. And yes, AAC is better than mp3 at same rate.
I26 sounds like is the original. But there is not a distinctive difference, due to the musical program.
My guess is, based on this biased test, that you are trying to make a point that lossy compressed is as good as uncompressed?
Yes, for that kind of music. And yes, AAC is better than mp3 at same rate.
I26 sounds like is the original. But there is not a distinctive difference, due to the musical program.
Last edited:
not so difficult to hear a difference
even on my crappy PC speakers
I think main difference is in coherence of rythm section and guitar, or lack of
I have heard better, either way
both sounds pretty bad
difference is clear enough
more difficult to decide which is supposed to sound better
but you get my vote, fore trying
even on my crappy PC speakers
I think main difference is in coherence of rythm section and guitar, or lack of
I have heard better, either way
both sounds pretty bad
difference is clear enough
more difficult to decide which is supposed to sound better
but you get my vote, fore trying
Sorry, you could have said that I was wrong
As for or dynamic range... I own Pink Floyd SACD TOSOTM.
OK, maybe I did. I get usually in arguments about improvements in audio quality (like SACD vs CD, LM4562 vs NE5532, losseles vs lossy, etc) and the argument that is flown usually "on line" is that 90% of the people don't hear differences. Therfore I must be wrong.
Well, most of the "testers" design tests that want to prove with statistics something about quality. And that is mathematically FALSE. Statistics is about average and dispersion. Tests published (similar with this one) tell nothing about maximum values, dispersion. Tell nothing about the quality differences.
Sure, for a kid that grew in generation iPod, with tiny headphones in ear and compressed loud music, the reason for hi-def music is zero. Their hearing is alterated, brain cannot perceive differences.They are the reason why the musical recordings those days suck big time.
So yes, I hate those "tests". Sorry.
Well, most of the "testers" design tests that want to prove with statistics something about quality. And that is mathematically FALSE. Statistics is about average and dispersion. Tests published (similar with this one) tell nothing about maximum values, dispersion. Tell nothing about the quality differences.
Sure, for a kid that grew in generation iPod, with tiny headphones in ear and compressed loud music, the reason for hi-def music is zero. Their hearing is alterated, brain cannot perceive differences.They are the reason why the musical recordings those days suck big time.
So yes, I hate those "tests". Sorry.
So why did you blow it? No need to answer, b/c there is no good answer. No doubt some people can tell a difference. No doubt most cannot. Go to radically compressed--which was my goal eventually to see where it becomes detrimental to most. It's a really good way for everyone to test themselves and know what they need/want--blind. You can't do that when you know what you are listening to.
It's funny, you aren't the first to say there was no dynamics in that recording. You should look up micro and macro dynamics. I was actually accused of nearly brick-walling this one! HA HA HA! I used every bit of range possible with no compression or limiting. That was the point. People said that would make it most obvious which was which. I tried to comply.
Hating those tests is fine--just keep your nose out next time. Common decency.
Dan
It's funny, you aren't the first to say there was no dynamics in that recording. You should look up micro and macro dynamics. I was actually accused of nearly brick-walling this one! HA HA HA! I used every bit of range possible with no compression or limiting. That was the point. People said that would make it most obvious which was which. I tried to comply.
Hating those tests is fine--just keep your nose out next time. Common decency.
Dan
You're exactly wrong Qusp. Nothing more to say. The whole method was devised by other's input as well as mine. I used every bit of advise about what would be most easy to tell--and used none of my own thoughts in it other than I made it longer than 1 minute b/c I thought people could just stop it if they were done.
I have to say I'm surprised by the level of ignorance here. Probably shouldn't be.
Dan
I have to say I'm surprised by the level of ignorance here. Probably shouldn't be.
Dan
ignorance haha, why ignorant because i dont like tests that have been designed for a certain outcome (one way or the other). now you are just being insulting and your prejudice was already evident in your earlier comments on others views. but thats right, i'm Australian, so must be predisposed to such things
it was the combination of the test and your further posts that exposed you as being anything but impartialI didnt listen to the files, perhaps i should. that others were involved also is kind of meaningless and could be taken as conspiracy
i dont claim to hear a difference between lossless containers, i agree thats kinda odd and i believe AAC is perfectly useable in many situations, particularly those it was designed for (portable media). i just dont see that anything was to be gained, in general the members here dont listen to compressed music, at least unknowingly. the latest trend of upsampled 'hidef' 32/384 files that started much lower in bandwidth is a little humorous though, people are funny, let them be that waybtw (off topic) its also quite possible to hear the difference in bandwidth even with well modelled analogue synthesis like that used in a lot of todays electronica, i use my rig for failed attempts at music production and even electronica can make use of high dynamic range, particularly with good models, its one of the only ways you'll get to hear * the full 32/384 being used rather than upsampled other than some live recording. its the bandwidth limiting/brick wall and EQ applied in post that ruins a lot of music. it seems thats what many kids today (i'm 37, but still old enough to have seen pink floyd live at 13 when they did the delicate sound of thunder tour) its what they are used to and want to hear i guess
*not full use, youde go deaf doing that
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.