Can u hear a difference ?

[Thony]

Something for Audiophiles or those who like the challenge.

The following link contains 6 songs, 3 samples for each (uncompressed wav, 320kbps mp3 and 128kbps mp3)

Listen to it and screenshot your results please

I did it yesterday so dont have my screen My score was: 2 out of 6 correct and 3 out of 4 i picked 320kbps mp3. But i have to say that in some cases i couldnt hear a difference at all even with eyes closed and trying 10 times.

To listen to the samples i was using my crappy SteelSiberia V2 (crappy becuase its not for music and such) and my Asus Z97-A onboard audio.

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

[Ketcchup]

128kbps is totally noticeable, but the difference between WAV and 320kbps mp3 it's really hard to notice

2/6 btw

 

[Chickenator]

Something for Audiophiles or those who like the challenge.

The following link contains 6 songs, 3 samples for each (uncompressed wav, 320kbps mp3 and 128kbps mp3)

Listen to it and screenshot your results please

I did it yesterday so dont have my screen My score was: 2 out of 6 correct and 3 out of 4 i picked 320kbps mp3. But i have to say that in some cases i couldnt hear a difference at all even with eyes closed and trying 10 times.

To listen to the samples i was using my crappy SteelSiberia V2 (crappy becuase its not for music and such) and my Asus Z97-A onboard audio.

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

I'm actually having screenshotting troubles on my computer right now.  However, I got all six right.  One reason for this would be my Audio Technica ATH-M50X's, and a soundblaster soundcard.

[Retro1989]

2 out of 6, honestly couldn't tell the difference.

 

Used my HyperX Cloud headset.

[Thorium19]

I got 3 out of 6 with my bose triports plugged into my laptop. If I had an amp and dac, I could probably get maybe one or two more, but I highly doubt I could get all 6, I just don't have the ear for it.

[Guest]

I can't hear the difference...

[mr.skyrim_pc]

I have the sennheiser hd 518 and got 3/6. I was able to rule out the lowest quality one on every one but the Jayz one. Jayz was a more electronic so it was hard to tell if it was just part of the music though.

[Thony]

Nice comments I want to come back to this test once i got some high audio quality headphones and an amp (probably Xmas).

[Zambonie]

Using my Bose AE2's.

 

I can hear a slight difference between them.

[Extingquish]

I got 3/6 but I think it was a fluke if I'm honest

 

With my SE215s plugged into onboard audio (that's awful, and I can hear electrical noises through it) I was only sort of able to hear the difference between 128 and 320kbps

 

I'm probably going to buy an external sound card soon, so hopefully that'll make a difference

[azurezeed]

my crappy internet told me everything lol

[KE2012]

So, I apparently thought the 128kb/s was best in each of the samples....... May need a speaker update.

 

 

EDIT: Did it again with expensive headphones, got exactly the same result. Maybe I just think shitty sounds sound good?

[Umair]

1/6, and that was by luck.

[Guest Kloaked]

What's weird is I could hear an audible distortion in some samples but they turned out to be the lowest bitrate. Audio isn't my forte but something about that doesn't make sense to me; I chose the lowest bitrate for the ones that I got wrong every time.

 

[SSL]

Managed to get three right by chance, I don't think I heard a difference between 320 and lossless. Using $10 Skullcandy earbuds

 

 

So, I apparently thought the 128kb/s was best in each of the samples....... May need a speaker update.

audio.JPG

 

 

EDIT: Did it again with expensive headphones, got exactly the same result. Maybe I just think shitty sounds sound good?

 

High frequency hearing loss? Treble is the tell for low bitrate since it's the first thing to go.

[KE2012]

High frequency hearing loss? Treble is the tell for low bitrate since it's the first thing to go.

 

I don't think so. Although saying that I didn't think I had bad eye sight till an optition pointed out that my eyes were actually abysmal. 

[KaminKevCrew]

I'll have to try this one I get home!

[xtroria]

Got 3/6 with 2 errors picking 320kbps mp3, 1 error picking 128 kbps mp3. Even guessing the 128kbps mp3 is already tough for me, I had to really focus to look for shimmery sound where 128kbps is a bit less detailed.

 

Additional challenge, this is AAC 320kbps and FLAC, I can't for the life of me tell one which one's which 

[SSL]

Got 3/6 with 2 errors picking 320kbps mp3, 1 error picking 128 kbps mp3. Even guessing the 128kbps mp3 is already tough for me, I had to really focus to look for shimmery sound where 128kbps is a bit less detailed.

 

Additional challenge, this is AAC 320kbps and FLAC, I can't for the life of me tell one which one's which 

 

I misidentified one of the 128kbps too, part of it was the program material they picked just wasn't demanding enough (of the bitrate).

[xtroria]

I misidentified one of the 128kbps too, part of it was the program material they picked just wasn't demanding enough (of the bitrate).

 

Ironically, it was neil young's song where I picked the 128 kpbs mp3. The song is seriously too old to need "higer bitrate"

[swizeus]

It is hard to tell the difference because I think we always refer to our own standard of listening (at least me)... So because my headset not so descent, I prefer not to hear the voice peak (and the compression made that possible). I only score 2 out of 6 btw. I relisten again, some of the uncompressed wav have a wider range of hiss, but sometimes because it is compressed that they have hiss...

 

Maybe we can also say, the modern compression method is darn good, we can't tell it apart

[blackadder]

4/6 htc m8/clouds

Can clearly hear reverberation/echo in toms dinner.

[brandishwar]

128kbps is totally noticeable, but the difference between WAV and 320kbps mp3 it's really hard to notice

2/6 btw

 

2/6 here as well.

 

And I agree that 128kb to 320kb is very noticable. It's why I have all of my MP3s that were ripped from CDs encoded at 320kb with some exceptions (comedy routines, for example). The one that really stood out to me that I could instantly tell the difference was the piano concerto, but that's because pianos have a very distinct tone quality, so if you know what to listen for, you can tell the difference pretty quickly. On all the others, if I was wrong, it was because I selected the 320kbps instead of the uncompressed.

 

The one that was pure voice, however, I picked the 128kbps, but that's because there isn't enough harmonics to really tell the difference, and it's the harmonics that set it apart, as it's the harmonics that are degraded by the compression.

[EnsoZero]

I got 3/6 and picked 320kbps the other 3 times, but the test was poor. The final track would not suffer much if any in compression, and many of the others just weren't mastered well enough to really even tell much of a difference. Then again 320/lossless are so damn close it doesn't matter. 

[Nomy]

So, I apparently thought the 128kb/s was best in each of the samples....... May need a speaker update.

audio.JPG

 

 

EDIT: Did it again with expensive headphones, got exactly the same result. Maybe I just think shitty sounds sound good?

I'm in the same boat as you... It seems my ears are fond of the 128kb/s music :rolleyes:

I can't tell the difference with my HD598.