Has anyone else ever taken this test? I found out I could not tell the difference (and I really tried with headphones).

So, yay me(!) because I suppose I don’t need to fuss about losslessness...?
I’m sure some people can tell the difference, but I bet many people only think they can.

Note: I truly appreciate the value of trading only lossless or the least lossy sources available, and do not intend to convert anything!

Me neither. I'm too old anyway to hear the higher frequencies above about 12 kHz. But the good thing is that I do not notice that at all.
Edit: Of course it depends on the bitrate of the lossy recording.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-08 19:27 by wiredallnight.

Even with bad hearing I can hear differences with lower quality MP3. But also there's equally bad quality with some lossless recordings (distortion). Any way I look at it I really wish the loudness war never happened. Used to be easy, if it was too loud turn it down, or up if it was to low.

Quote
frankotero
Even with bad hearing I can hear differences with lower quality MP3. But also there's equally bad quality with some lossless recordings (distortion). Any way I look at it I really wish the loudness war never happened. Used to be easy, if it was too loud turn it down, or up if it was to low.

mp3 - yes - there's a big difference. Listen to the cymbols.

Quote
frankotero
Even with bad hearing, I can hear differences with lower-quality MP3s. But also, there’s equally bad quality with some lossless recordings (distortion). Any way I look at it, I wish the loudness war never happened. It used to be easy: if it was too loud, turn it down or up if it was too low.

Good point; 64kbps mp3 can easily be distinguished. I do not know where my limit is.

Quote
exilestones
mp3 - yes - there’s a big difference. Listen to the cymbals.

I tried my best on the test and listened to the cymbals. Oh well, what can I say? Getting old. What score did you get on the test?

42% and I've some problems in two songs.
Very hard to tell the difference between some songs.

SERIEUSEMENT ? non. La plupart du temps j'écoute la musique à fond,très.Le mieux c'est en voiture, Mercedes a du très bon materiel.
Mais quand j'utilise mes super écouteur,à la maison, la qualité "CD " est parfaite pour moi.
The best is live PIT A OR B

SERIOUSLY ? No. Most of the time I listen to music loudly, very. The best is in the car, Mercedes has very good equipment.
But when I use my super headphones at home, the "CD" quality is perfect for me.
The best is live PIT A OR B

should this topic be in tell me?

I got 100% correct





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-09 16:20 by CaptainAcid.

Quote
CaptainAcid
I got 100% correct

AMAZING! Congratulations on your superb auditory system!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-09 17:24 by blakeeik.

Quote
JMARCOU
The best is live PIT A OR B

Should this topic be in Tell Me?

yes, probably, sorry...

If it's the same source recording, yes, lossy is like a single piece of toast and lossless is like a club sandwich........(Please excuse my wholly untechnical analysis........

I love a good club sandwich...

...if you have a good system and a nice woofer you can always hear lossy in the low end and also the high end crashes...

It's actually a bit more complex than just lossy or losless. Depends on the exact encoder which is used (Fraunhofer MP3 or Lame MP3 makes a big difference, also AAC is a step up), the bitrate and other factors.

Quote
blakeeik
Has anyone else ever taken this test?

Convinced that in most cases, people can not generally tell the difference, I argued such vs. a coworker, close to 20 years ago. That night, I ripped a wave and mp3 (192kbs, I believe) of the same song, brought it in the next day -- played it on my mp3 player over my pc speakers and challenged him to tell which was which ... he listened, then after about 30s, he refused to guess and walked away.

I find the difference hard to tell, but i blame that on years of drumming and loud music. So if an MP3 is @320 it's fine with me. Trading is a different story, imho. It has to be lossless to preserve all high and low end of a recording. Once converted to MP3 you'll lose that. High-end anyways.

That's another very good test: [www.npr.org]

Quote
StonedRambler
That's another very good test: [www.npr.org]

Found 3 WAV, and 3 MP3@320. Not too bad, with these ears of mine....

Quote
gimme_shelter
High-end anyways.

Imho not just high-end. With lossy files I nearly always get the feeling the whole music is compromised, all the instruments sound strange, altered, not natural. With mp3 the music has a glassy quality that I find annoying.

And do not even try to play a lossy file at high volume...

swirling

I have 5 good and one wrong... the classical one

TBH these samples all sounded bad to my ears !


As for the actual question, I challenge anyone to hear the difference betwwen 320kbps MP3 and FLAC !

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

At this point in the game, I'm wondering if I can tell the difference between stereo and mono...

Anyway this aural scourge tends to disappear, right? With the cost Gbs going down for quite a few years now, onecan afford to store everything he wants in lossless format.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-12-16 10:23 by dcba.

It is not only about whether you can tell the difference. Your brain is constantly working to process the sound it receives, and it has to work harder the poorer the sound quality. It cleans up noise and distortion and adds missing tones based on overtones etc. This effort accumulates fatigue and after a while of listening to lower quality sound you become tired, irritated or even get headaches, even though it all "sounded" OK. That's why you can't listen too long to distorted sound, and conversely, why we can listen to very loud sound on good equipment without getting annoyed.

I have had people freak out when I sent them an 320 kbs MP3 of bootleg, where the original was an audience recording to hissy tape in 1972. But I guessing the lack of dynamic range of the original meant that it would not matter if transferred via lossless FLAC or 320 MP3 or down to 192 MP3....none of the music on the original was anywhere nearly as high as 16,000 hz or remotely as low as 100 hz.

Were it a pristine soundboard or well-mixed studio outtake I could accept that lossless is the absolutely best way to go.

Quote
mm2053
It is not only about whether you can tell the difference. Your brain is constantly working to process the sound it receives, and it has to work harder the poorer the sound quality. It cleans up noise and distortion and adds missing tones based on overtones etc. This effort accumulates fatigue and after a while of listening to lower quality sound you become tired, irritated or even get headaches, even though it all "sounded" OK. That's why you can't listen too long to distorted sound, and conversely, why we can listen to very loud sound on good equipment without getting annoyed.

Thats not bad! I'll accept that...

I will say it now : mp3 is the corn syrup of music.
It is artificial un-natural and it messes up your metabolism : your brain or your liver.
Choose molasses for your liver and 24/192 for your brain.