No, if you presented me with two mp3s like that to compare you'd just get another "don't like either" vote (as for ruby and opal) and I wouldn't put the effort in to find the supposedly better one.
I think it's necessary to use the best recording available. Then if you get a no preference vote it's more likely to mean the samples are similar.
Yes, I understand. Of course it is better to use the best recording available for the blind test. I just trained to look at the sound in a different way. Because I have never enjoyed the expensive recording material I have purchased. They are impressive but no more than that. I'm afraid this "impressiveness" will trick us. But if people are looking for this, then it is their right.
Cello
Based on sonics ...... which do you prefer?
bach.zip - FileFactory
There are two wav files in the zip. Download should not take much time, it is about 5.6 MB.
Based on sonics ...... which do you prefer?
bach.zip - FileFactory
There are two wav files in the zip. Download should not take much time, it is about 5.6 MB.
I had just done the listening test after I had read only the First page of 50 posts.
I had no idea that you guys were going on about MP3's as the sample.
My opinion is genuine and I have yet to read what is said in the next 210 posts and I still don't know for sure if it was revealed if MP3's were used.
So, I guess I have some catching up to do!!
I have argued with friends many many times over about the quality of the MP3 format and my conclusion is that if you just want to hear the material then MP3 is for you.
If you want to enjoy the material then a recording of high resolution is much desired for me.
I can nearly pick out every time if it is a MP3,CD or Analog even though my ears are aging (I hate having to admit that!) !!! He,he,he,he
They have had much abuse working and recording with rock bands, and, loud PA systems!!
Not to mention, My own guitar rig. 😉
On that note I find that many CD's in the 16 bit format are inferior in quality of resolution.
Even when compared to the sort of noisy cassette's and record's of yesteryear!!
On the other hand the 24bit format is hard to beat as long as the sample rate is at least 96Khz or greater.
I did get somewhat half of the way through the last listening test with opamp's.
But, I too did find that the selection of material was too lengthy and boring for me at times.
So, I do sympathize with most of you.
I do love all forms of music, But I don't listen to orchestral's very much.
Although I do enjoy them from time to time, especially when I have my ESL's running.
However, By the time I got to the 4th sample I could tell right away that it was an inferior opamp by the harshness on the peaks of the stringed sections.
I will get through the rest of other half when I have more time and make a vote.
Even though it was revealed as to what the opamp's were, I am now even more curious to finish the test, and, with an open mind!!!
As for those crying about the quality of the samples presented here, I think that this was a very good test as the differences were clearly audible for what it was worth.
First, I had listened to the original samples and I could hear a difference.
Then I compared the matched level sample and the difference was even more noticeable to me.
But, I still made the same choice between the two.
Great tests Mooly and Cheer's to you!!!
jer 🙂
I had no idea that you guys were going on about MP3's as the sample.
My opinion is genuine and I have yet to read what is said in the next 210 posts and I still don't know for sure if it was revealed if MP3's were used.
So, I guess I have some catching up to do!!
I have argued with friends many many times over about the quality of the MP3 format and my conclusion is that if you just want to hear the material then MP3 is for you.
If you want to enjoy the material then a recording of high resolution is much desired for me.
I can nearly pick out every time if it is a MP3,CD or Analog even though my ears are aging (I hate having to admit that!) !!! He,he,he,he
They have had much abuse working and recording with rock bands, and, loud PA systems!!
Not to mention, My own guitar rig. 😉
On that note I find that many CD's in the 16 bit format are inferior in quality of resolution.
Even when compared to the sort of noisy cassette's and record's of yesteryear!!
On the other hand the 24bit format is hard to beat as long as the sample rate is at least 96Khz or greater.
I did get somewhat half of the way through the last listening test with opamp's.
But, I too did find that the selection of material was too lengthy and boring for me at times.
So, I do sympathize with most of you.
I do love all forms of music, But I don't listen to orchestral's very much.
Although I do enjoy them from time to time, especially when I have my ESL's running.
However, By the time I got to the 4th sample I could tell right away that it was an inferior opamp by the harshness on the peaks of the stringed sections.
I will get through the rest of other half when I have more time and make a vote.
Even though it was revealed as to what the opamp's were, I am now even more curious to finish the test, and, with an open mind!!!
As for those crying about the quality of the samples presented here, I think that this was a very good test as the differences were clearly audible for what it was worth.
First, I had listened to the original samples and I could hear a difference.
Then I compared the matched level sample and the difference was even more noticeable to me.
But, I still made the same choice between the two.
Great tests Mooly and Cheer's to you!!!
jer 🙂
Thanks for the support Gerald 🙂
If I have the time and inclination I might try one final test... but it has to be a listening test and comments based on that. We'll see 😀
If I have the time and inclination I might try one final test... but it has to be a listening test and comments based on that. We'll see 😀
Just received a correct answer from fas42 through PM regarding cello samples posted here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/246165-based-sonics-do-you-prefer-27.html#post3712412
in post #264.
Absolutely correct description of sound differences and right answer which file is superior. Thank you, Frank!
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/246165-based-sonics-do-you-prefer-27.html#post3712412
in post #264.
Absolutely correct description of sound differences and right answer which file is superior. Thank you, Frank!
I've put one more test together and this in two parts. There will be two threads, each thread with its own poll. They will be called Listening Test part 1 and Listening Test part 2
All that I would ask is that you listen and vote. If you start analysing files with software you will hear what you want to hear and that's not really what this kind of test is about. This has to be a listening/voting first and then when its all over reveal what you were listening to. Its very important its done that way to add validity to the results. It gives some insight about whether you can reliably discern any differences as much as anything.
Each of the four files contains the same complete musical excerpt and plays for around 1'19" so is quite short. Each file was produced as a one off off in its entirety, I haven't trimmed or done anything to manipulate the files in any way so there are slight differences in length etc. In fact one file "Y" has a bit of the end of the track before but I've left it. These are the unaltered files. Vote on what you hear 🙂
Listening Test 1
Listening Test 2
All that I would ask is that you listen and vote. If you start analysing files with software you will hear what you want to hear and that's not really what this kind of test is about. This has to be a listening/voting first and then when its all over reveal what you were listening to. Its very important its done that way to add validity to the results. It gives some insight about whether you can reliably discern any differences as much as anything.
Each of the four files contains the same complete musical excerpt and plays for around 1'19" so is quite short. Each file was produced as a one off off in its entirety, I haven't trimmed or done anything to manipulate the files in any way so there are slight differences in length etc. In fact one file "Y" has a bit of the end of the track before but I've left it. These are the unaltered files. Vote on what you hear 🙂
Listening Test 1
Listening Test 2
It wouldn't be energy efficient for the brain to bring everything to your attention so your tests need to make sure there's a reason for you to be aware of any signal you are trying to hear.
An example might be a conversation in a nightclub. You probably wouldn't notice it under the loud music unless there was another interesting conversation you were trying to listen to and it was interfering.
Simple sine and noise tests fail on this requirement.
You also might need to clean the old earwax out first.
This is an interesting point if somewhat off topic.
During my dabblings with electronic music, I noticed that MP3 compression removed some subtle details that I put in. I probably only noticed because I knew they ought to be there.
The lesson I took from this was not to waste time putting subtle details into my tracks when most people would be listening as MP3. 🙂
The root philosophical question is: if you can't hear some effect unless you've been primed to expect it, is it really fair to describe it as "audible"?
During my dabblings with electronic music, I noticed that MP3 compression removed some subtle details that I put in. I probably only noticed because I knew they ought to be there.
The lesson I took from this was not to waste time putting subtle details into my tracks when most people would be listening as MP3. 🙂
The root philosophical question is: if you can't hear some effect unless you've been primed to expect it, is it really fair to describe it as "audible"?
Mooly, there is a primitive and easily audible error in the beginning of the file 'Y'. Please check it and repair it, otherwise the Y x Z is useless.
I don't think priming is necessary to hear signals which are present but it's obviously necessary to miss signals which are absent. In both cases, I think there needs to be a path that leads your attention there.
It's easy to imagine a visual example of finding a small signal in a large dynamic range. A single sub pixel error in a HD TV screen would represent a -136dB signal w.r.t the screen as a whole. You don't need to be primed about it, you will notice it sooner or later. You might ignore it most of the time but you might find it annoying every time the face of an actor passed across it.
There's a TED talk by Dennet Dan Dennett: The illusion of consciousness | Video on TED.com where he shows a visual example of masking where your attention is continually drawn away from a changing image (8:30 in from the start). You can make a good analogy of mp3 compression out of this: the information about the background squares changing colour can be discarded because it's almost impossible to see it happen but if you were primed to expect the background squares to change and your attention was drawn there in the compressed version, you might find something missing.
You assumed that ears work the same as eyes, which isn't necessarily the case. The eye can spot that -136dB anomaly because it has more than 136dB dynamic range according to the definition you used.
You also more or less nimbly leapt over the philosophical issue of what it means to "hear" a signal. According to my definition, you don't "hear" some signal unless you can reliably detect it in a double-blind test. This is the same definition of "hear" used by the designers and testers of lossy codecs. The priming of expectations is the very thing that the double-blind test excludes.
Hearing is quite different from visual perception, masking is very well explored and no one is able to hear -100dB signal on the background of the 0dB signal played simultaneously. I am strongly exaggerating, because the abilities to hear low level signals in presence of high level signals are much worse and depend on frequency difference between the sounds. It would be helpful to perform some basic research on publications and study about human sound perception what is well known. Otherwise the comments are misleading.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.