It is rediculous to have three different songs (IMO). It ruins any "scientific listening". Instead of one variable (sound quality), there are two (sound quality, and track).

es

___________________

Don't take me too seriously.

Oh well, was just doing it coz I was bored. NM then.

quote:

Originally posted by Swing Oh well, was just doing it coz I was bored. NM then.

Eh it is a good idea, I'd make another one with just one song, and try that out.

es

___________________

Don't take me too seriously.

Nice idea there..

Would have a look but I know that I can't point out which is mp3 and which is wave cause my ears are fcuked..

I'd like to test this as well...

I agree....make it the same song. Only one problem.
It'll be easy to tell because of the filesize right?

How do you proceed then without the filesize giving it away?
You have to use more than one song. RIGHT.

Back to square one then, arent we.



Just for fun though, I listened to all three and thought that they all sounded pretty good as far as quality...so I'd have to disagree with you about the MP3 being a lousy medium. I think it's still the best way to go!
I mean, if the quality is that difficult to differentiate then the MP3 format can't be all that bad now, can it?

___________________
please review my latest AMBIENT track HERE.

quote:

Originally posted by Digital Aura I'd like to test this as well... How do you proceed then without the filesize giving it away? You have to use more than one song. RIGHT. Back to square one then, arent we.

The filesize doesn't give it away.. Because each file has an mp3 and wave sample.

And also because they're all wave files therefore despite the quality of source media the wave files "encoded" with same sample rate are equally sized (if the lenght is same)
=)


(Wondering if that makes any sense... Insomnia is not the best thing to have)

quote:

Originally posted by Digital Aura I'd like to test this as well... I agree....make it the same song. Only one problem. It'll be easy to tell because of the filesize right? How do you proceed then without the filesize giving it away? You have to use more than one song. RIGHT. Back to square one then, arent we.

IF the file sizes aren't the same... just don't look at the sizes. Case closed.

es

___________________

Don't take me too seriously.

I guesstimate the audiable difference between an MP3 encoded at 192kb/s(44100Hz) and an equvilent wav file can only be determined by advanced frequency analysis software, and even then the differences would be minimal to null(and thus definitly non-distingusihable by the human ear)

I suspected that might be the case.

So, why does everyone flame MP3's so much ?

Well some mp3s I've downloaded are mastered better then my CDs (So I'm definitly not one of those who flames mp3s). My argument about sound quality however doesn't lie in the medium the sound is encoded in, but rather the mastering of the particular track.

Here's an example or a classic trancer, that I've just ripped off two seperate cd's. One of the cd's sounds terrible, while the other one sounds slightly better(but still badly mastered).

So c'mon, which sample do you think sounds better. The first or the second?

TROY SAMPLES 438kb

Oh yeah, sample 1 is off a gatecrasher experience cd, while sample two is off a cream anthems cd.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob So c'mon, which sample do you think sounds better. The first or the second? TROY SAMPLES 438kb Oh yeah, sample 1 is off a gatecrasher experience cd, while sample two is off a cream anthems cd.

Rob...good points. You know much of the debate is still subjective. I happen to like the first sample because the "air is more open and the experience is wider". The synth sounds dirtier. I Like.
The second seemed to have more NOISE REDUCTION and some may like that better. So.. subjective...isn't it?

___________________
please review my latest AMBIENT track HERE.