It was very easy for you - see attachment, every one can do it for lossy compression (that means votes for Bach/Bach1 are invalid from now). No skills needed.
Do the same with the files I linked to you, with no excuses, please. I assume you just do not want to bother with the test organizing.
Do the same with the files I linked to you, with no excuses, please. I assume you just do not want to bother with the test organizing.
Attachments
Last edited:
You right night and day, here i by certain prefer the CD and did not at all miss the casette tape sound. I still have my old ¼" Tandberg TD20A, have not been connected for say 15 years, as remembered it can easy record from CD and replay with high resolution. But okay don't know result be if tried today where my system have got better specs i guess.
Thanks for link Pavel, regards Ricky
We need more votes in the two part listening test. Click my signature line below to go to the thread.
And thanks to those who have voted so far.
And thanks to those who have voted so far.
Laugh on me, just now seen at top of page tools to poll and see poll results, therefore Mooly i ask if you have registered my PM-poll to there or i shall do it for the "test 1"/"test 2".
Regards Ricky
Regards Ricky
Bach cello
files content:
Bach = original rip from CD
Bach1 = Bach converted to mp3 and then back to wav. Mp3 was variable bit rate, 190kbps.
Votes were finally 4:2 for Bach (before I disclosed the FFT of both files), but started at 1:2. Some members have clearly described the difference in sound of the 2 files, which is mainly in ambient sound and bow string transients. Lossy compressions removes some of these sounds and makes the sound more 'pleasant' for some listeners. I still suspect worse hardware quality or less experience with real live sound in case that people vote for lossy compression file. Good news for recording industry and marketing departments - on iphones, ipods and similar widely used consumer electronic devices lossy compression does not matter, and it saves costs of storage media and increases profit..
files content:
Bach = original rip from CD
Bach1 = Bach converted to mp3 and then back to wav. Mp3 was variable bit rate, 190kbps.
Votes were finally 4:2 for Bach (before I disclosed the FFT of both files), but started at 1:2. Some members have clearly described the difference in sound of the 2 files, which is mainly in ambient sound and bow string transients. Lossy compressions removes some of these sounds and makes the sound more 'pleasant' for some listeners. I still suspect worse hardware quality or less experience with real live sound in case that people vote for lossy compression file. Good news for recording industry and marketing departments - on iphones, ipods and similar widely used consumer electronic devices lossy compression does not matter, and it saves costs of storage media and increases profit..
My conclusion was that the CD had already wrecked the ambient and bow sounds and after that, removing them was an improvement. Bow sound sounded to me like buzzy compression artifacts in the CD rip, presumably because they are missing HF components. Compare with the previous Linn recording where all the sounds sound like they are actually coming from a bow.
I was using bit native 44.1. I normally prefer to upsample to 88.2 and the Linn files are 24 bit 192. It's possible that my 44.1 mode isn't good enough to make the most of the material available.
I was using bit native 44.1. I normally prefer to upsample to 88.2 and the Linn files are 24 bit 192. It's possible that my 44.1 mode isn't good enough to make the most of the material available.
You would be correct. I'm happy to give you advice on this, but in order to do your test properly and foil folks who are happy to spend a great deal of time on file analysis and then claim golden ear status, it will take a great deal of time for the preparation. It also requires access to the DUTs, which I do not have.
If it's not important enough for you to do it, I fully understand.
Pavel you right, but in hardware able to reproduce natural the difference on source quality can be from "Just listening to some music" to "Be able to say it is art instead of just music, Hair raise on arms, foottapping, tears in eyes". For me it's important get at least CD qaulity, also i better like 2 way good setup, than 5 to 8 way modern reproduction. In a way very good two way also makes surround sound.
Regards Ricky
Changing the test log file....
That's why others need to verify the results.
Thing is I don't know of a simpler test protocol than ABX.
That's why others need to verify the results.
Thing is I don't know of a simpler test protocol than ABX.
For testing yourself (or your own work as part of a development process), that's certainly easy and convenient. For gathering valid group data where no supervision is done, things take a bit more work on the experimenter's part.
We need to get some industrial sponsorship to have a little get together for testing under controlled conditions. Maldives anyone?
A "bit more work" is an understatement.
www.acourate.com/Download/BiasesInModernAudioQualityListeningTests.pdf
www.acourate.com/Download/BiasesInModernAudioQualityListeningTests.pdf
Don't conflate hedonic testing with difference testing. The latter is much easier, though it still takes a great deal of preparatory work from the experimenter. However, it's a necessary gate before embarking on hedonic testing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.