Egad! Only 2/6

And I was really trying.

Earphones on - check
Eyes closed - check
Doors closed - check
Assume meditative stance, channelling all chakras towards my ears - check

Score: 2/6 :-[

I chose 128kbps on two and I did so without a shadow of a doubt that I had picked the right one.

it's only a matter of time before the pundit-zealots start proclaiming: "the test is FLAWED!"


.....nothing sounds as good as "vinyl" anyway :?

I got 4/6. But I was only pretty sure of three of them. Of the incorrect two, I chose the 320kbps once and the 128kbps once.

3/6 - Laptop plugged into a Bose Soundlink Mini

I found it easier to tell with the last 2 songs (Dark Horse and Tom Ford) which were bass heavy... The Compression was much easier to note. And the Mozart Concerto was a toughie but the violins gave it away for me.
The others I chose 320 twice and 128 once..

I'd like to see people who did this test, repeat it next week, making sure you forgot which choices went where. I have a feeling that most of these high scores were luck and I'd like to see the aggregate scores of everyone who tried it. I've known for a while that I can hardly tell the difference between 320kbps and wav files, even with my fancy cans. I can tell when the audio is ripped badly or compressed beyond what is reasonable but when the quality gets above 196kbps it starts getting tricky and I don't actually care anymore.

I listened to the samples over and over again, and I really couldn't distinguish them (other than the 1 I got right which I was fairly confident about).

Unless there are noticeable artefacts and the compression is below 128 then generally I'm oblivious. I also think you get good and bad rips and one 128kbps track can definitely sound way different to another.

ez wrote: I'd like to see people who did this test, repeat it next week, making sure you forgot which choices went where. I have a feeling that most of these high scores were luck and I'd like to see the aggregate scores of everyone who tried it. I've known for a while that I can hardly tell the difference between 320kbps and wav files, even with my fancy cans. I can tell when the audio is ripped badly or compressed beyond what is reasonable but when the quality gets above 196kbps it starts getting tricky and I don't actually care anymore.

Yup, I doubt my choices would be the same! I have heard problems with 128kbps MP3s, so I encode my CDs at 320. HDD space is cheap.

Its also not uncommon for people to take a 320kbps mp3 and convert it down to 128kbps, so it's an mp3 of an mp3.

Mixerboy wrote: so it's an mp3 of an mp3.

6/6. Setup used was a Macbook > Apogee Ensemble D/A > Focal CMS 65 monitors.

The differences between the tracks certainly weren't night and day.

Well I just blame my tinnitus for my poor score!

I got 5/6. PreSonus HD7 phones via a Behringer Eurorack UB1204FX 8 channel desk. Surprisingly, the one I got wrong was the Mozart- I chose 128k. You'd think that that would have been the most obvious. The Susan Vega was the most obvious to me, as the .wav version showed up the reverb to great effect. Btw, I'm quite surprised that I did so well, given my age and the state of my hearing after playing in so many rock bands without benefit of ear protection. ?

Pardon my French but... What The Foudroyer!?!?

I got only 1/6 and I can't say that I'm confident is didn't involve a bit of lucky guess. The only one I got right was the classical piece.

deefstes wrote: Pardon my French but... What The Foudroyer!?!?

I got only 1/6 and I can't say that I'm confident is didn't involve a bit of lucky guess. The only one I got right was the classical piece.

When you listen focus on one element in the mix rather than trying to listen to as many of the instruments as possible. This works for me. I tend to focus on high mid frequencies of a certain instrument (snare or violin for instance) when trying to distinguish the difference.

The differences are small so don't loose sleep if you can't tell the difference even after trying this.

You could also train your ears, to be able to pick up the differences more easily, by doing more tests of the sorts.

Mixerboy wrote: Its also not uncommon for people to take a 320kbps mp3 and convert it down to 128kbps, so it's an mp3 of an mp3.

Yes some people do. Though it isn't ideal because transcoding a lossy compressed audio file (320kbps mp3 for instance) to another lossy compressed audio file (128kbps mp3 for instance) degrades the audio quality more than what transcoding an uncompressed audio file (1441kbps wave for instance) to a lossy compressed audio file (128kbps mp3 for instance) does.

The only one I could actually "hear" (perhaps) was Suzanne Vega.
I suspected I could hear the Mozart and got it right. May have been luck.

I could not distinguish any difference in the others & guessed wrongly for all of them.
I would not therefore pay more money for an apparent benefit I couldn't experience.

However.
I could easily hear a difference in sound quality from one production to the other.
e.g. Suzanne Vega vs. Neil Young

Therefore seems better to target production quality rather than reproduction quality.
Doesn't help if there's a particular song you want to hear (e.g. Neil Young)
But does help if you want a high quality music listening experience.
There is enough well produced music to satisfy most tastes.

Would be nice therefore if streaming services would rank music by their production quality.

Micron wrote:

deefstes wrote: Pardon my French but... What The Foudroyer!?!?

I got only 1/6 and I can't say that I'm confident is didn't involve a bit of lucky guess. The only one I got right was the classical piece.

When you listen focus on one element in the mix rather than trying to listen to as many of the instruments as possible. This works for me. I tend to focus on high mid frequencies of a certain instrument (snare or violin for instance) when trying to distinguish the difference.

+1, that's what I found myself doing.

Although I can't claim my score of 5/6 to be a completely blind test - I saw the wav's were a lot slower to stream than the mp3's...

What I found odd was that I preferred the 320kps mp3's sound to a wav (at moderate listening volume). To me, the wav sounded a bit lacking in highs, the 128kps too harsh and the 320hkps sounded right - I reckon because the vast majority of my collection of music is ripped in 320kps and I'm 'used to it'.

Though I'm told by my mates who DJ on bigger sound rigs (PA's) that the difference is very noticeable between a lossy format (320kps mp3) and lossless formats (wav/flac) when they play. I havn't had a opportunity to test that yet - but when we had a few informal listening sessions, their ability to pick out detail & identify subtle differences in eq & lossless vs lossy formats makes me inclined to believe them...