Jump to content
IGNORED

The Audiophile Challenge


Dragon

Recommended Posts

It's simple. I have uploaded a one-minute sample of "Dance V" by Philip Glass. Although the entire file is encoded in FLAC, it randomly switches between two different samples: A FLAC, and a 128kbps MP3. Both are exactly the same apart from the quality, and your job is to figure out exactly when it switches between the FLAC and the MP3.

 

If you really can't tell when it switches, congratulations! You're free! You can encode all your albums in 128kbps and have peace of mind. But if you notice the switches... well, maybe there's a good reason for FLAC encoding after all...

 

RULES:

Place ALL your guesses in spoiler tags

Ears ONLY (no computer analysis!)

 

Have fun!

Audiophile Challenge.flac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, ears aren't necessarily the limiting factor if one is listening to some shitty earbuds plugged into the front of your desktop.

 

Also, you're not really free until you stick icepicks in both earholes and sever all bonds of aural maya (Krishna sez this somewhere).

Edited by baph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Enter a new display name

Rhombix is pissed because he has always encoded his music in 128kbps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's really hard:

 

~0:08 switch from flac to mp3, 0:14 back to flac, 0:21 to mp3, 0:27 back to flac, 0:38 to mp3, 0:52 to flac

 

 

 

Wow, that's actually pretty close. You have a rough idea, for sure.

 

Rhombix is pissed because he has always encoded his music in 128kbps.

 

I did it for 1 or 2 years when I first started collecting music, but I slowly started uploading my CDs in higher bitrates until now, where I usually use MP3 V2. I still have some music in 128kbps, but that's OK. I'll put up with 192kbps or higher when obtaining new music.

 

edit: you posted while I was writing

 

oh this is interesting, never made this test with myself:

 

flac until ~10s, flac again around 31s until 49s.

 

well? :emotawesomepm9:

 

:cerious:

Edited by Rhombix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MrSparkle666

Nice idea, but that track you posted is one of the worst possible examples you could have used for discerning compressed from uncompressed audio. It's a nice piece of music but it's absolutely shit for this kind of test. I'm definitely in the pro-mp3 camp, and I agree that it's much more difficult to tell the difference than people make it out to be, but there are very specific ways in which mp3s tend to show their faults: things like big splashy decaying cymbal hits, big layered percussive sounds, and ambiences with lots of sharp dynamic changes and complex harmonic content. This track is like the perfect antithesis of all of that. It's like trying to show off the quality of an HD television by playing old Disney cartoons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah this is definitely a weird piece to choose for this test. I remember I was able to do it with some 192kbps vs wav test at some point, but it had a lot of tons of high range and low range, unlike this. Not that I really care. I listen to things in 128 if that's what's available, and it's 100% listenable for me. I rip/download/buy everything in flac though, because I can spare the space, and if I have to convert or re-render or whatever the case may be, I do not want to deal with generational loss if I can help it. Plus some people are snobby about DJs playing mp3s, so I try to avoid it when I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Blanket Fort Collapse

Nice idea, but that track you posted is one of the worst possible examples you could have used for discerning compressed from uncompressed audio. It's a nice piece of music but it's absolutely shit for this kind of test. I'm definitely in the pro-mp3 camp, and I agree that it's much more difficult to tell the difference than people make it out to be, but there are very specific ways in which mp3s tend to show their faults: things like big splashy decaying cymbal hits, big layered percussive sounds, and ambiences with lots of sharp dynamic changes and complex harmonic content. This track is like the perfect antithesis of all of that. It's like trying to show off the quality of an HD television by playing old Disney cartoons.

 

EXACTLY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh this is interesting, never made this test with myself:

 

flac until ~10s, flac again around 31s until 49s.

 

well? :emotawesomepm9:

 

:cerious:

at least I got the first part somewhat right :sup:

*enocdes himself to 128kb*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say something like :

 

 

 

- begins with flac

- 7sec mp3

- 14sec flac

- 21 sec mp3

- 26 sec flac

there may be something between 26 and 38 sec but i'm not sure

- 38 sec mp3

- 42 sec flac

- 55 sec mp3

 

hope this is not just bullshit lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nene multiple assgasms

Nice idea, but that track you posted is one of the worst possible examples you could have used for discerning compressed from uncompressed audio. It's a nice piece of music but it's absolutely shit for this kind of test. I'm definitely in the pro-mp3 camp, and I agree that it's much more difficult to tell the difference than people make it out to be, but there are very specific ways in which mp3s tend to show their faults: things like big splashy decaying cymbal hits, big layered percussive sounds, and ambiences with lots of sharp dynamic changes and complex harmonic content. This track is like the perfect antithesis of all of that. It's like trying to show off the quality of an HD television by playing old Disney cartoons.

 

whenever I play one of my high resolution dvd-audios I'm amazed at how great the cymbals sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

there might be another switch between 42 and 55 sec, something like 45 : mp3 and 51 : flac. but that could just be my brain over-wanking

 

 

PS : I did the test with some beyerdynamic DT 990 headphones

Edited by Antape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Calx Sherbet

I did it for 1 or 2 years when I first started collecting music, but I slowly started uploading my CDs in higher bitrates until now, where I usually use MP3 V2. I still have some music in 128kbps, but that's OK. I'll put up with 192kbps or higher when obtaining new music.

 

VBR makes a surprising difference

 

also, i think something like ae would have made for a better test

Edited by Calx Sherbet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MrSparkle666

Can't tell anything wit this but, in real-life file sharing, huge differences can be detected. I slsk'd "Hail To The Thief" in 2003 and then bought the CD. It was like I was listening to a completely different album. Same with "Temple Of Transparent Balls". In the underground, you can make anything say 192, 320, whatever but there is definitely something a lot deeper happening. Like the old melamine-in-the-milk trick that the Chinese pulled off.

 

There are a lot of just plain bad quality mp3s floating around out there. I don't know what encoders and settings people are using to get such shit results, but it happens a lot. If everyone just used LAME with VBR at settings above 192kbps, everything would be fine. It's poorly encoded mp3s that give the format a bad name. Using LAME at bit rates above 192kbps, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between uncompressed and compressed audio. Double blind tests have been conducted many times. Even audiophiles usually have tough time telling the difference in a blind test.

 

The real culprit in this day and age is bit depth. 24bit audio is so vastly superior to 16bit it's like night and day, yet everything is still typically downsampled and released in 16 bit even though there is no fucking reason. It's just stupid. That's why DVD audio on movies sounds so much better than cds. It's the bit depth. We really need a shift in standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.