Skip to main content
Topic: new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality? (Read 8191 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #25
I've already made the point that it isn't crazy to think that some people can actually distinguish 320 from lossless elsewhere, but I wonder how many of these 6/6 results were instances where the wave version wasn't offered because of the reasons given earlier in the discussion.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?


new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #27
A simple binomial distribution with n=6, p=1/3. Sorry, I should have mentioned that.

"I hear it when I see it."

new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #28
It would help if there wasn't a F ton of crackling on them!!!

I wasn't sure if I was supposed to be judging the overall sound quality taking into consideration the bad processing, or just trying to spot the least compressed/highest resolution one. What a fail test lol.

new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #29
On another note, try this test out on a good quality rig, and the story might well be different, when two of them have significantly less powerful bass!

new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #30
Got 2/6 correct, but it should be noted that all the other 4 were 128k for me.
I can find the difference between 128k and other two but not guess which is which.
It looks like I have a preference for 128k compression at least for those samples.

new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #31
What I never understand with people who claim to find mp3s really objectionable is that the problems on many commercially released CDs are far greater than those introduced by modern 128kbps mp3 encoding. (IMO. YMMV.)

Meaning that, if 128kbps is really objectionable, almost no commercially released CDs are even listenable.


IMO, mp3 was an amazing state-of-the-art codec when it was developed. My objections to it are based largely on licensing and performance compared to modern truly free codecs. The performance of mp3 is almost absolutely transparent to me at a certain VBR threshold. But, currently there are free modern codecs that achieve that goal at significantly lower VBR thresholds and have no proprietary licensing baggage to worry about. Compatibility isn't a concern because everything I own plays the newer codecs. I therefore don't use mp3 because it's now both technically and ideologically inferior. If it was the best codec around by a significant margin I would probably still use it (I use patent encumbered h.264 for video after all).

new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #32
On another note, try this test out on a good quality rig, and the story might well be different, when two of them have significantly less powerful bass!

Can anyone confirm this?
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #33
On another note, try this test out on a good quality rig, and the story might well be different, when two of them have significantly less powerful bass!

Can anyone confirm this?



I heard neither the 'crackling' nor this difference in bass between lossy/lossless...but I have not attempted it on the 'good quality' rig suggested.

new public test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

Reply #34
Yes because it has been scientifically established that mp3 artifacts are more revealing as you throw more and more money at your sound system.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019