Great to see more votes added to the poll. Thanks as ever to all that are participating here.
Have any of you been able to pick up on any real audible difference, such as where you can say such and such a section sounds, well whatever... grainy, the HF a bit splashy and so on.
I think the other the thread linked to a couple of posts above this could be a winner for getting at the heart of what you hear.
If you get chance give it a whirl.
Have any of you been able to pick up on any real audible difference, such as where you can say such and such a section sounds, well whatever... grainy, the HF a bit splashy and so on.
I think the other the thread linked to a couple of posts above this could be a winner for getting at the heart of what you hear.
If you get chance give it a whirl.
OK, the wife isn't home so I grabbed a brand new PC that I just built for my soon to be built home recording studio. I plugged a MOTU USB "MicroBook II" interface into it which I connected to a POS Lepai Stereo amp that I paid $20 for. It is a class D amp or a "T" amp depending on whose ad you read. It's all I can get my hands on now. That feeds my Yamaha NS-10M Studio Monitors.
The A VS B test is a toss up for me. The two files sound somewhat different to me but frankly I don't listen to much classical music, and there aren't any audible cues that I usually listen for.
The X VS Y test now has one obvious difference That I didn't pick up on the laptop. Assuming the files are level matched X must be played at a lower setting on the amps volume knob before some ugly digital clipping shows up on the opening piano run. Y can be played with the volume knob full up. The percussive (triangle?) sounds at 2:00 sound better on X, but neither file would let me believe that I'm in the room with a grand piano.
Now, on to just for fun.
The A VS B test is a toss up for me. The two files sound somewhat different to me but frankly I don't listen to much classical music, and there aren't any audible cues that I usually listen for.
The X VS Y test now has one obvious difference That I didn't pick up on the laptop. Assuming the files are level matched X must be played at a lower setting on the amps volume knob before some ugly digital clipping shows up on the opening piano run. Y can be played with the volume knob full up. The percussive (triangle?) sounds at 2:00 sound better on X, but neither file would let me believe that I'm in the room with a grand piano.
Now, on to just for fun.
Guys, guys too much fuss for something so easy to avoid: cheaters. They WILL appear every time, learn to expect it.
So, DON'T READ THROUGH this type of threads. Vote right at the beginning. I did.
Anyway, using just the motherboard's sound system, Sony MDR-A10 headphones from an old discman, and "Free all-in-one Media Player" (sounds to me less colored than Foobar), I managed to pick as wav's the cheater's files before the cheater did (he might be bluffing though...)
But with the hardware I used, I wouldn't have been able to spot differences had I listened the files from beginning to end. Instead I listened to a section of A, than the same section of B, and so on.
The nature of the differences I thought I was hearing, was better clarity throughout - especially on complex passages and crescendos.
As for the compression rate, I don't know: what I think is an MP3 in the X-Y pair sounds better than the one in the A-B pair, but XY recording is better than AB as a whole. In any case the difference between X and Y was easier to spot than between A and B.
So, DON'T READ THROUGH this type of threads. Vote right at the beginning. I did.
Anyway, using just the motherboard's sound system, Sony MDR-A10 headphones from an old discman, and "Free all-in-one Media Player" (sounds to me less colored than Foobar), I managed to pick as wav's the cheater's files before the cheater did (he might be bluffing though...)
But with the hardware I used, I wouldn't have been able to spot differences had I listened the files from beginning to end. Instead I listened to a section of A, than the same section of B, and so on.
The nature of the differences I thought I was hearing, was better clarity throughout - especially on complex passages and crescendos.
As for the compression rate, I don't know: what I think is an MP3 in the X-Y pair sounds better than the one in the A-B pair, but XY recording is better than AB as a whole. In any case the difference between X and Y was easier to spot than between A and B.
What do you 'hear' with these files ?
That's why I keep asking... 'what do you hear' ? Have a listen to the files in the other thread.
I haven't listened to these files.
But I've done a lot of mp3 vs wav abx tests in the past.
Conclusions from that: It's quite remarkable how much information you can loose before you start to hear artefacts. Lossy coding is very very good these day's. I can thoroughly enjoy 128kbit/sec mp3, its very enjoyable although some artefacts can be heard most of the time. The artefacts are so non intrusive that I just don't give a crap. I focus my attention to things that matter a lot more than this.
But there isn't a lossy codec that can transparently code all music for all people.
But I've done a lot of mp3 vs wav abx tests in the past.
Conclusions from that: It's quite remarkable how much information you can loose before you start to hear artefacts. Lossy coding is very very good these day's. I can thoroughly enjoy 128kbit/sec mp3, its very enjoyable although some artefacts can be heard most of the time. The artefacts are so non intrusive that I just don't give a crap. I focus my attention to things that matter a lot more than this.
But there isn't a lossy codec that can transparently code all music for all people.
The poll seems to be growing with more votes coming in. A bit more of a spread now
I'd go along with much of that, in fact for in the car I use 64kbs WMA (lots of CD's on one nano flash drive) and you know what, its pretty good. I've found WMA to be much better than the ubiquitous MP3 in all honesty. Average file size for a CD (60-70 mins +) is around 30 to 34mb. Scary
I'd go along with much of that, in fact for in the car I use 64kbs WMA (lots of CD's on one nano flash drive) and you know what, its pretty good. I've found WMA to be much better than the ubiquitous MP3 in all honesty. Average file size for a CD (60-70 mins +) is around 30 to 34mb. Scary
I keep all my music on my computer in WAV format. Either 16/44.1 if it came from a CD or 24/96 if I recorded it myself. I have about 3 TB of music space, but a lot of that is just me messing around in a DAW with several tracks running at 24/96.
There are people who claim to be able to hear the difference between 24/96 and higher rates or DSD, but I am convinced that I can not. I have Meniere's Disease and my hearing is constantly degrading, as is by ability to balance. I have seen a few instances where some friends can detect the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 with test recordings. Having the original WAV's on the PC allows me to make any other format with minimal or zero loss.
While I was working I usually had some form of music player to mask out the noisy crowd in the next cubicle while concentrating on something intense like hand routing a 12 layer RF and Digital PC board. About 15 years ago I had a small tube amp, a pair of home made speakers and I carried a 500 MB USB hard drive full of WAV.
Over time, the safety police banished the tube amp, the removal of office walls in favor of the open cube format, removed the speakers, and the network police mandated no music played on a company PC, even from your own USB drive. So....
I had an iPad and a Google Nexus 7, but the lack of external storage space meant fairly low bit rate MP-3 for a sizeable music library. Someone at work pointed out that I already had the correct music device right in my pocket....my Samsung phone. I got a 64 MB flash chip, loaded it up with VBR MP-3's and bought the pair of $69 Sennheisers and I was in business. The VBR MP-3's allow for maximum music enjoyment, and very little obvious aberrations.
I remember listening to a song (maybe from the Manassas CD, don't remember) and hearing obvious distortion in the vocals. This is not usually the case with MP-3's, so I played the same song on my computer at home (EAC from the CD), and yes it was there. I even got out my old vinyl, and yes it was there too. I had been listening to that music for 20+ years and never noticed it before.....Maybe I was subconsciously looking for MP-3 nasties, so I found one?
There are people who claim to be able to hear the difference between 24/96 and higher rates or DSD, but I am convinced that I can not. I have Meniere's Disease and my hearing is constantly degrading, as is by ability to balance. I have seen a few instances where some friends can detect the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 with test recordings. Having the original WAV's on the PC allows me to make any other format with minimal or zero loss.
While I was working I usually had some form of music player to mask out the noisy crowd in the next cubicle while concentrating on something intense like hand routing a 12 layer RF and Digital PC board. About 15 years ago I had a small tube amp, a pair of home made speakers and I carried a 500 MB USB hard drive full of WAV.
Over time, the safety police banished the tube amp, the removal of office walls in favor of the open cube format, removed the speakers, and the network police mandated no music played on a company PC, even from your own USB drive. So....
I had an iPad and a Google Nexus 7, but the lack of external storage space meant fairly low bit rate MP-3 for a sizeable music library. Someone at work pointed out that I already had the correct music device right in my pocket....my Samsung phone. I got a 64 MB flash chip, loaded it up with VBR MP-3's and bought the pair of $69 Sennheisers and I was in business. The VBR MP-3's allow for maximum music enjoyment, and very little obvious aberrations.
I remember listening to a song (maybe from the Manassas CD, don't remember) and hearing obvious distortion in the vocals. This is not usually the case with MP-3's, so I played the same song on my computer at home (EAC from the CD), and yes it was there. I even got out my old vinyl, and yes it was there too. I had been listening to that music for 20+ years and never noticed it before.....Maybe I was subconsciously looking for MP-3 nasties, so I found one?
Sorry to hear about the Meniere's.
The distortion experience, or rather hearing something different on a familiar track is something I can relate to. You listen to a track for years and years and you know (or think you know) every nuance on there and then suddenly there is something different. A very strange experience when that happens. I've had that happen while listening or evaluating a new component such as an amp or CD spinner. You switch back to the familiar old set up and the same 'difference' is there, just as obvious (lol).
Something like distortion though and I can see how you would relate it to the MP3 and I think that's the trouble with tests like these and why many wont participate. MP3 or whatever, that has to be 'bad'... but what if I can't tell Better just to keep out of it.
A very odd thing this audio game.
The distortion experience, or rather hearing something different on a familiar track is something I can relate to. You listen to a track for years and years and you know (or think you know) every nuance on there and then suddenly there is something different. A very strange experience when that happens. I've had that happen while listening or evaluating a new component such as an amp or CD spinner. You switch back to the familiar old set up and the same 'difference' is there, just as obvious (lol).
Something like distortion though and I can see how you would relate it to the MP3
and I think that's the trouble with tests like these and why many wont participate. MP3 or whatever, that has to be 'bad'... but what if I can't tell Better just to keep out of it. A very odd thing this audio game.
A very odd thing indeed ...
What's swirling through one's head makes a huge difference to how one hears - I've marveled at times at people listening to sound which is stinking with obvious distortion, and they're totally oblivious of the problems - they're "listening" to the memories of what that music means to them, rather than what is actually there.
What's swirling through one's head makes a huge difference to how one hears - I've marveled at times at people listening to sound which is stinking with obvious distortion, and they're totally oblivious of the problems - they're "listening" to the memories of what that music means to them, rather than what is actually there.
If it's a very good recording I may be able to hear the difference between a 192 and a 256kbps file. With the music I normally listen to, no difference. Even if it would be music that was recorded in such a way that I would be able to hear a difference I would still enjoy it the same I think.
I still keep all my music in lossless format. Storage is cheap these days so I don't see any point in having it stored in a lossy format. On my smartphone I keep the music in 256kbps which is well enough.
I still keep all my music in lossless format. Storage is cheap these days so I don't see any point in having it stored in a lossy format. On my smartphone I keep the music in 256kbps which is well enough.
Firstly, thanks to all who listened and voted. The poll shows a good mix so perhaps differences weren't so obvious after all, or ,they were and you voted thinking your favourite has to be the WAV. That's something only you know
So then...
A = 44.1kHz MP3 at 192 kbs
B = 44.1kHz WAV Lossless
X = 44.1kHz WAV Lossless
Y = 44.1kHz MP3 at 256 kbs
So X and Y had the distinction of using what we might consider a half respectable bit rate.
A = 44.1kHz MP3 at 192 kbs
B = 44.1kHz WAV Lossless
My overriding impression is just how good these compressed files can be (honestly).
Tubelabs comments earlier were I think what make these tests useful... not knowing what you are listening too.
The 'percussive triangle' is exactly where the limitations of compression should show... and it looks like you have heard something along those lines. X should have the higher overall hf energy content according to the way compression seems to work, and from what you guys have shown with FFT analysis.
So a bit of swings and roundabouts going with these. The direct rip (X) seems to stretch the system more and I'm inferring that Y allowed you to listen at higher level without things getting subjectively uncomfortable.
A vs B you would think would have more glaring compromises, perhaps the musical content has a lot to do with how we perceive the overall result.
Very very interesting. Thanks again to all that listened.
So then...
A = 44.1kHz MP3 at 192 kbs
B = 44.1kHz WAV Lossless
X = 44.1kHz WAV Lossless
Y = 44.1kHz MP3 at 256 kbs
So X and Y had the distinction of using what we might consider a half respectable bit rate.
A = 44.1kHz MP3 at 192 kbs
B = 44.1kHz WAV Lossless
My overriding impression is just how good these compressed files can be (honestly).
Tubelabs comments earlier were I think what make these tests useful... not knowing what you are listening too.
The 'percussive triangle' is exactly where the limitations of compression should show... and it looks like you have heard something along those lines. X should have the higher overall hf energy content according to the way compression seems to work, and from what you guys have shown with FFT analysis.
So a bit of swings and roundabouts going with these. The direct rip (X) seems to stretch the system more and I'm inferring that Y allowed you to listen at higher level without things getting subjectively uncomfortable.
A vs B you would think would have more glaring compromises, perhaps the musical content has a lot to do with how we perceive the overall result.
Very very interesting. Thanks again to all that listened.
Examining the poll results.
The poll is fascinating with A and Y drawing most votes. And they are... the compressed files.
These comments (surprisingly) did not skew the results.
What would be really interesting would be to know the setup that all those who voted used. Amp and speakers, headphones, PC, laptop etc. If amp and speakers then what sort, what amp topology. Perhaps knowing that we could then see if there was some common denominator in all this... that compressed sounds better on one type of set up than other.
The poll is fascinating with A and Y drawing most votes. And they are... the compressed files.
These comments (surprisingly) did not skew the results.
What would be really interesting would be to know the setup that all those who voted used. Amp and speakers, headphones, PC, laptop etc. If amp and speakers then what sort, what amp topology. Perhaps knowing that we could then see if there was some common denominator in all this... that compressed sounds better on one type of set up than other.
Well done - a plus is that I got a clear answer for this ...
I got the results completely wrong, in every area - the relatively poor standard of my playback actually enhanced the apparent quality of the MP3 files - I note that this has been mentioned at various times by a few members, that MP3 can sound "better" in certain circumstances. A possible explanation is that the slightly lesser amount of information in the MP3 makes less demands of the playback chain, and to the ear the result is a somewhat "cleaner" sound ...
I got the results completely wrong, in every area - the relatively poor standard of my playback actually enhanced the apparent quality of the MP3 files - I note that this has been mentioned at various times by a few members, that MP3 can sound "better" in certain circumstances. A possible explanation is that the slightly lesser amount of information in the MP3 makes less demands of the playback chain, and to the ear the result is a somewhat "cleaner" sound ...
Well I would argue that there is no right and wrong in all this, its what sounds best to the listener on their own system at the time.
The higher bitrate MP3 drew the biggest percentage of votes. What all this tells us can be looked at a hundred different ways. Are we saying that by manipulating the original (direct WAV) by compression that we can end up with a more pleasing version. That's a scary thought but just look at the votes.
The higher bitrate MP3 drew the biggest percentage of votes. What all this tells us can be looked at a hundred different ways. Are we saying that by manipulating the original (direct WAV) by compression that we can end up with a more pleasing version. That's a scary thought but just look at the votes.
How it came out on my laptop is that the MP3 versions seemed to have more of an acoustic to them, and in particular the piano on X, a WAV, sounded completely wrong!
The slant I would put on it is that if the playback is not scrupulously correct then manipulation of the sound, say by MP3 compression, could produce a more "pleasing" version - or, it could be worse - depending, upon everything. My experience is that there is a barrier of quality that needs to be got through, beyond which more precisely correct sound always sounds better - if the quality is not up to that level then a "poorer" version of the track may come across better.
The slant I would put on it is that if the playback is not scrupulously correct then manipulation of the sound, say by MP3 compression, could produce a more "pleasing" version - or, it could be worse - depending, upon everything. My experience is that there is a barrier of quality that needs to be got through, beyond which more precisely correct sound always sounds better - if the quality is not up to that level then a "poorer" version of the track may come across better.
Last edited:
Most compression algorithms reduce the total dynamic range, either intentionally, or as a by product of eliminating the soft parts of the music that would be "masked" by loud stuff in a different frequency range.
If the dynamic range is reduced, then you should be able to play the music "louder" while keeping the peaks just out of clipping. This has been taken to extremes with a lot of modern music in order to sound louder than the next guy. Not only does this sound bad, it taxes the playback system more because the average power is higher if the playback system is cranked to the edge of clipping.
Somewhere on my hard drive I have a WAV file made by a friend to show off his DIY modular music synthesizer. All music was recorded directly into his PC without any processing. I can barely crack the volume control on the same playback setup without obvious clipping due to the dynamic range.
I thought X was a bit more dynamic and open with less high frequency distortion. MP3 compression often causes a sort of tizz noise around chimes or percussion sounds. Below 192kbs MP3 makes the whole piece sound choked, muffled and distorted.
My system is very open sounding but i also hear MP3 artifacts (even at 320kbs) through a portable and IEM's.
I played the files on a PC notebook using Foobar/ASIO (windows mixer bypassed) The DAC is a Music Streamer 3 which feeds a DCB1 which in turn feeds a pair of My-Ref FE mono blocks. Speakers are Rega R3 mini floor standers which sound like very good stand mounters that also do bass. The room is small - 5m x 4m so they work very well.
I just downloaded the files for the new test, might get a chance later tonight to have a LISTEN
My system is very open sounding but i also hear MP3 artifacts (even at 320kbs) through a portable and IEM's.
I played the files on a PC notebook using Foobar/ASIO (windows mixer bypassed) The DAC is a Music Streamer 3 which feeds a DCB1 which in turn feeds a pair of My-Ref FE mono blocks. Speakers are Rega R3 mini floor standers which sound like very good stand mounters that also do bass. The room is small - 5m x 4m so they work very well.
I just downloaded the files for the new test, might get a chance later tonight to have a LISTEN
Hi Mooly, it was an eye-opener, I had not expected to be able to hear any difference at all.
I thought Y sounded "better" than X and B sounded "better" than A. I could hear a difference and that alone was worth the agony of having to listen to that music over and over again.
I used two methods of playback.
1. USB stick - Laptop HDMI out - HDTV HDMI in analogue out - Cyrus2 - Driade speakers.
2. USB stick - HDTV analogue out - Cyrus2 - Driade speakers.
One question, how did you create the two MP3 files?
I thought Y sounded "better" than X and B sounded "better" than A. I could hear a difference and that alone was worth the agony of having to listen to that music over and over again.
I used two methods of playback.
1. USB stick - Laptop HDMI out - HDTV HDMI in analogue out - Cyrus2 - Driade speakers.
2. USB stick - HDTV analogue out - Cyrus2 - Driade speakers.
One question, how did you create the two MP3 files?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.