| Author | Message | ||
     Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 9431 Registered: 05-2005 |
I just came across this blind audio test on NPR's website, where it plays six song snippets in three audio format - mp3 128, mp3 320 and WAV. You have to listen to them and tick which you think is the highest spec. I only got one right. Embarrassingly, I picked the worst file as the best on four occasions. The one I got right was something I'd never heard before, so that was interesting. It backs up my theory that most people (me, for instance) can't tell the difference between something encoded as a WAV, versus something encoded as an mp3 at 320. I'd be interested in seeing how others get on with this test. I see this as more a bit of fun than scientific proof, especially when I didn't even have the patience to play the entirety of any of the snippets. https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2 015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hea r-audio-quality | ||
| Andreas Severins Member Username: Andreas_severins Post Number: 492 Registered: 11-2007 |
HiPadraig, Quite an interesting experiment. I got three right: - the Classic Song - Suzanne Vega and - Neil Young Guess it has something to do with the loudness war. the wav-file is uncompressed | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 9432 Registered: 05-2005 |
The classical piece was the one I got right. Speaking of Neil Young; I knew his Pono music player would be an utter failure. Portable players are primarily about convenience, not fidelity only a dog could notice. And given Young was well into his 60s at the time of Pono’s development, and had been playing in bands for 50 years, there’s not a chance he was able to tell the difference between an mp3 encoded at 320 and a WAV file. | ||
| Hugh Nimmo Member Username: Hugh_nimmo Post Number: 1292 Registered: 03-2007 |
Padraig, I had a listen but, as I could not hear any obvious difference between the three recordings, I did not make a pick as it would have only been a wild guess. Listening was carried out via my computer soundcard / computer speakers. I use my computer soundcard / computer speakers for checking out new music which I then listen to almost exclusively on my hi-fi system. What I can say is that, to my ears at least, music sounds much better when played through the hi-fi than it does through my computer soundcard / computer speakers. Cleaner, more detailed and I can turn up the volume to more realistic levels without distortion. I have a decent set of Sennheiser headphones which I use with a Portable Media Player loaded with FLAC files but, for me, there is no substitute for listening to music through a good well balanced hi-fi system. | ||
| Randy Adams Member Username: Randy_adams Post Number: 4423 Registered: 03-2005 |
The one time I definitely picked up a difference in sound was when I heard two copies of the same song installed on my iPod. One was a 128kps per channel AAC (Apple) version and the other was a 160kps per channel MP3. The latter had a greater depth in sound. It was an obvious difference. After that discovery I abandoned the AAC option entirely. The AAC had been a nuisance anyway as it was not playable by people with Windows computers back then. That's why that particular song had been installed twice; I'd had to put an MP3 version on the computer so that I could email it to a friend and had forgotten to remove the redundant copy. | ||
| Pádraig Collins Member Username: Pádraig_collins Post Number: 9433 Registered: 05-2005 |
Hugh, I agree 100% about music sounding vastly better through a hi-fi than through computer speakers, which was why I wasn’t too concerned about only getting one out of six right on that test. When I buy music from Bandcamp I get both MP3s at 320 and WAV files. The MP3s are for my iPod and the WAVs are for burning to CD to listen through the stereo. Randy, I’ve come to agree with you, too, that MP3s are better than AACs. |