quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Someone on another forum I frequent got all of the answers right, so (assuming he didn't cheat) it looks like there may be something to this claim at least some of the time. I do still feel that most people who say this are bullshitting, but now I think that at least some of them probably aren't.

I can tell 320kpbs from WAV, but as someone said earlier, I have to hear them side-by-side. I can't hear one alone and know.

The only time I can tell in that situation is if I know the song really well.

A good example is Mannix vs Kaymak - World Gone Mad. First time I ever heard the song was on A State Of Trance 2006 which is of course WAV quality. Love the bass line on that one so I always have it quite loud in the car.

The first time I heard it in 320kpbs mp3, it was instantly noticeable.

For me the biggest point is when I'm mixing from mp3s to records at home, even if I have my gains the same, the mp3 sounds to be at a far lower volume, simply because it doesn't have the depth of a vinyl recording. It's immediately noticeable and very annoying to my ears.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

Ok, I'm going to take your test with the twenty wavs.

Only thing is, as I've said in previous threads regarding this topic:

How can you tell a fake Picasso if you've never seen a real one?

It's hard when you don't know the songs...

edit: Sorry, didn't realise you had multiple copies of each track from different sources. This will be a good subjective test!

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

underage church rave ftw?

fuck i'm too late.



edit: and no i don't think you can hear the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Here we go. This is a WAV file made from a CD and various bitrates of MP3: http://www.philosophaster.com/music/test/Gabriel.wav 1411 Kbps (WAV) -- 320 MP3 -- 256 -- 192 -- 128 -- 64 -- 32 The same four bars play seven times at seven different descending bitrates. At what point can you tell the difference?

I can hear a difference between the WAV and 320 because the snare's reverb tail mainly and the WAV seems to have more of an airy feel to it and sharply defined instrumentation. It seems like the further down in quality it goes the more white noise is added and the less realistic things sound.


good test i never knew i could actually hear the difference. but i probably wouldnt be able to pinpoint it out of the blue, like most people i could only hear the difference if they were being played one after another.

Such difference would only be apparent on ultra high-end hifi set ups.

Most pc speakers, car or club sound systems do not offer the clarity or are too bass focused for anyone to be able to tell.

I've played 192kbps mp3s through a big club rig and it sounded perfect.

___________________
My Mixes

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated For me the biggest point is when I'm mixing from mp3s to records at home, even if I have my gains the same, the mp3 sounds to be at a far lower volume, simply because it doesn't have the depth of a vinyl recording. It's immediately noticeable and very annoying to my ears.

Well uncompressed analogue signal vs compressed digital signal... bound to be more noticeable, but then a poorly mastered and pressed record can still sound shitty.

___________________
My Mixes

I think we never really learned to listen that way to music, paying close attention to the sound quality, because we're so used to garbage sound quality from (old) live sets, at least a lot of us.

Now that I've started mixing not too long ago, I'm really trying to change my way of listening to music overall, including the sound quality (but also the structure of the track, intro, outro etc), hope my ears will develop in a way that I can distinguish a 320kpbs track from a .wav track or even less than 320kpbs from 320kpbs.

___________________
♪♫ Hearts On Fire (prog house tech)

If I am the storm, if I am the wonder..
Will I have flashlights, nightmares and sudden explosions?

quote:

Originally posted by Unique2701 I think we never really learned to listen that way to music, paying close attention to the sound quality, because we're so used to garbage sound quality from (old) live sets, at least a lot of us. Now that I've started mixing not too long ago, I'm really trying to change my way of listening to music overall, including the sound quality (but also the structure of the track, intro, outro etc), hope my ears will develop in a way that I can distinguish a 320kpbs track from a .wav track or even less than 320kpbs from 320kpbs.

the first thing you should discern between is the difference between kpbs and kbps

annnnnd secondly, i severely doubt anyone can audibly hear a difference between wav and 320kbps mp3's, i could record a shit-ass wav sample and i'm sure all of you would think it was a 64k mp3. obviously you can hear a difference between 128 and 320 but 320 to wav.. not buying it. unless you're one of those super-sense people, like spiderman perhaps

YES

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue annnnnd secondly, i severely doubt anyone can audibly hear a difference between wav and 320kbps mp3's

I dont doubt it at all. try taking a sample or sound and applying a high quality reverb with a long tail. Listen to it on wav then 320 one after the other. you should be able to tell there is a clear audible addition of white noise to the 320 also the reverb should seem to be less "airy" and less realistic/smooth in the 320. the difference is not outrageous yet it is enough to be audible. but as i said in my previous reply it would be very hard to tell unless you listened to them back to back. and without a back-to-back comparison i must admit its hard for me to really tell the difference between anything that is 192kbps and above unless turned up very loud.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue the first thing you should discern between is the difference between kpbs and kbps

Woah, thanks for the advice

quote:

annnnnd secondly, i severely doubt anyone can audibly hear a difference between wav and 320kbps mp3's, i could record a shit-ass wav sample and i'm sure all of you would think it was a 64k mp3. obviously you can hear a difference between 128 and 320 but 320 to wav.. not buying it. unless you're one of those super-sense people, like spiderman perhaps

In my case, I wasn't just talking about telling the difference between a 320 and a wav. Anyways, I'm not gonna get into the discussion of "it's just big talk if you say you can hear it" vs "just because you don't hear it... ". I was just talking about paying more attention to the sound quality and setting your mind into listening differently to music.

___________________
♪♫ Hearts On Fire (prog house tech)

If I am the storm, if I am the wonder..
Will I have flashlights, nightmares and sudden explosions?

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue annnnnd secondly, i severely doubt anyone can audibly hear a difference between wav and 320kbps mp3's

Some can, actually. On another board where I posted a similar test, two guys got all the questions right:

http://olio80114.yuku.com/reply/3944#reply-3944

Assuming they didn't cheat, of course.