mp3 or not - don't you hear it?

[detfella]

http://mp3ornot.com/

[BRADLEE]

I hear it....

[massplanck]

both are mp3.

[Microdot]

both are mp3.
the point is to identify which one is the better quality, you retard.

[massplanck]

Wow. Did you figure that out all by yourself?

Isnt calling the site mp3ornot.com stupid is when the answer to the question isnt whether the file is an mp3 or not?

The whole mp3 sound quailty debate doesnt revolving around 192 mp3s vs 320 mp3s. Its CD, Vinyl, Wav whatever vs mp3.

Engage your own brain retard.

[rhythmtech]

http://www.chrome-metronome.net/rhythmtechnologies/mp3.jpg

[rhythmtech]

fairly audible differance thru the mackies

[massplanck]

There is a massive difference. I was expecting WAV vs high quality MP3 or something.

Not much of challenge if its 320 vs 128 now is it?.

[stjohn]

320 vs 128 .... piece of piss

[stjohn]

comeon barry ...we all know u listened, failed, then clicked the only other option


http://www.chrome-metronome.net/rhythmtechnologies/mp3.jpg

[massplanck]

Why doesnt someone do a WAV vs 320k vs FLAC version. ie a real challenge?

[Martin Dust]

The Wav would be probably to big to play/download I guess.

[massplanck]

The Wav would be probably to big to play/download I guess.

just a small clip. worth a go i reckon. the page would load all the clips up first obviously so you wouldnt know which one took longer.

[BloodStar]

nonsense

[DannyBlack]

I think you're all missing the point. This song is used to scare badgers, but seeing as badgers can only hear at a bit rate of 128 number 2 is teh gay.

Oh yeah, you're ma's.

[TechMouse]

fairly audible differance thru the mackies
Fairly audible difference with my shitty £5 headphones through this on-board sound card.

[TechMouse]

Why doesnt someone do a WAV vs 320k vs FLAC version. ie a real challenge?
Erm...

What's the point of doing WAV v's FLAC?

FLAC is lossless, so there is no difference between WAV and FLAC.

[massplanck]

Erm...

What's the point of doing WAV v's FLAC?

FLAC is lossless, so there is no difference between WAV and FLAC.


Erm. I said WAV vs 320 vs FLAC.

Which meant high quality mp3 vs the best formats.

And TM seeing you are being so pedantic today there is a massive difference
between WAV and FLAC. The size. ;)

[TechMouse]

And TM seeing you are being so pedantic today there is a massive difference
between WAV and FLAC. The size. ;)
Yeah, but you can't really hear size can you.

Not quite sure how your blind comparison would work.

[DannyBlack]

Yeah, but you can't really hear size can you.

You can yeah. I hear Rhythm tech has a tiny penis.

[TechMouse]

You can yeah. I hear Rhythm tech has a tiny penis.
Touche.

[Microdot]

I suck dicks for crack rocks

figured.

[rhythmtech]

You can yeah. I hear Rhythm tech has a tiny penis.

you wont be hearing very much after i stick my tiny penis in your ear and drill your wannabe coulchie brains out the other saide..















.. in a non-gay way.

[DannyBlack]

you wont be hearing very much after i stick my tiny penis in your ear and drill your wannabe coulchie brains out the other saide..















.. in a non-gay way.


That should make April 19th even more fun!

[rhythmtech]

you comin down to it?

should be a rockin night!!

[DannyBlack]

you comin down to it?

should be a rockin night!!

Damn right man, I'm gonna be reviewing it too i think, so loads of mad pictures and obscure questions! :lol: Session on?

[tocsin]

Why doesnt someone do a WAV vs 320k vs FLAC version. ie a real challenge?

I did a WAV vs 320kbit thing here once. Can't remember if anyone bit. Did it on another board with bits from "Hotel California" as the test, since it wasn't a techno board. All the people who absolutely knew they'd be able to spot a difference were, after requesting I waste the time putting loops together, amazingly silent once that had occurred.

Either way, it's probably Radiohead's fault. ;)

[rhythmtech]

Damn right man, I'm gonna be reviewing it too i think, so loads of mad pictures and obscure questions! :lol: Session on?

possibly.. i might be fecked though.. ill be flyin in from berlin that mornin after seeing dj godfather & sven vath!!! :lol:

i could be a little incoherant!

[DannyBlack]

possibly.. i might be fecked though.. ill be flyin in from berlin that mornin after seeing dj godfather & sven vath!!! :lol:

i could be a little incoherant!

I'm sure we can source something that'll kick some life into ya!

[massplanck]

I did a WAV vs 320kbit thing here once. Can't remember if anyone bit. Did it on another board with bits from "Hotel California" as the test, since it wasn't a techno board. All the people who absolutely knew they'd be able to spot a difference were, after requesting I waste the time putting loops together, amazingly silent once that had occurred.

Either way, it's probably Radiohead's fault. ;)

do it again! please

[tocsin]

I'll have to reupload tonight. I'll post a link when it's done.

[detfella]

haha, ah well, i didn't hear a MASSIVE difference. i think if the music had more highs on it i would have been able to tell instantly. all i heard was some frequencies were getting masked...no wonder i could never master my tracks heh! another thing, it didn't ruin my listening experience. i can admire a picture of art from afar i don't need to be super close to see it. (what the **** am i on abooot...)

be interesting to try the 320 vs flac or wav test, reckon massplacnk is gonna fail ;)

[detfella]

i found the difference on this test much more audible

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/11/few_listeners_can_distinguish.php

[detfella]

test via doa


Done something similar for a module for uni, so I'll quickly whack it up here.

I ripped a track from a CD (in this case, Fanu - Salam from Daylightless) into a wav, then exported 5 second-sections at different bitrates. On the clip I've done, there is;

5 seconds of Wav 44k/16bit
5 seconds of 320 mp3
5 seconds of 192 mp3
5 seconds of 128mp3

Not in that order. See if you can work out which is which


For the record, I done this for a number of different songs in different genres and eras. My own take is that mixdown/mastering can make a massive difference to the quality of the Encoded MP3. There are, in my opinion, too many variables involved to make any sweeping statements.

File located here. http://files.filefront.com/FanuTest...;/fileinfo.html

Have fun!

EDIT - 16bit, not 24 bit

[Microdot]

I did a WAV vs 320kbit thing here once. Can't remember if anyone bit. Did it on another board with bits from "Hotel California" as the test, since it wasn't a techno board. All the people who absolutely knew they'd be able to spot a difference were, after requesting I waste the time putting loops together, amazingly silent once that had occurred.

Either way, it's probably Radiohead's fault. ;)

what was radiohead's fault?

maybe your efforts were met with silence because people find you generally very tedious and lacking in charisma.

tbf, someone who spends their spare time putting loops together to play on an internet forum is more than likely a cockless wonder with no social life.

[detfella]

i sent a pm to the guy with my answers and got it 100%!! i asked him what results he got from uni


Wotcha mate,

You got it spot on. From the group at uni, only a few could pinpot exactly what bitrate, about most could tell there was a change in quality, a few couldn't tell any difference at all.

We found that some tunes translated nicely to 192k, some of them sounded awful, so mixdown and mastering probably plays a part in it. Different encoders brought different results too, so there's alot that can affect quality.

Nice one for getting it 100% right though. Clearly got the golden ears!


come on then, any of you ****s gonna match me?? post up your answers and i'll post up the correct ones after a bit.

[massplanck]

i sent a pm to the guy with my answers and got it 100%!! i asked him what results he got from uni



come on then, any of you ****s gonna match me?? post up your answers and i'll post up the correct ones after a bit.


where are the files. thats a link to some kiddie games site by the looks of things. Doesnt work right. Just brings me to filefront.com

[massplanck]

@microdot.

Let it go. 2 months ago we had a bit of barney and your still up for it for some reason.

[detfella]

where are the files. thats a link to some kiddie games site by the looks of things. Doesnt work right. Just brings me to filefront.com

there's a download link on the filefront page

[massplanck]

there's a download link on the filefront page

Im not seeing it danny. it just goes straight to filefront.com mainpage. :confused:

[detfella]

Im not seeing it danny. it just goes straight to filefront.com mainpage. :confused:

soz, it truncatedd it cos i copied and pasted, try this

http://files.filefront.com/FanuTestwav/;9936456;/fileinfo.html

[massplanck]

Id much prefer if the clips were separate and of the exact same sample tbh. When its a passage of music thats changing how can you judge correctly against each other?

Not scientific!

[Microdot]

@microdot.

Let it go. 2 months ago we had a bit of barney and your still up for it for some reason.

mind your own business son.
wasn't talking to you.

[massplanck]

ok dad.

[detfella]

give it a shot mass & pm me your answers

anyone else going to give it a go?

[tocsin]

Ok. So here's the archive from the challenge I posted elsewhere.

http://www.septiknexus.com/challenge.zip

It's in a zip format with no compression used so the files haven't been altered. I set them up as loops so you can seamlessly repeat them. They are loops of 3 sections from "Hotel California" which I figured was a fair track to pick since it hasn't been mastered in the same way dance music is, and there's a full range of frequencies in the song.

When you are listening to the loops, they could be 1 of 3 formats:
1.) Uncompressed WAV (CD)
2.) 320 Kbit Joint Stereo Mid/Side MP3
3.) A mix of both of the above.

I have PM'd the answers to Slav for independent verification. Have fun. :)

[tocsin]

For the record, just so there isn't confusion, the actual file format of everything in that archive is WAV. This is to prevent cheating. An easy way to spot the difference between a WAV and an MP3 is to look at a file header. While the format for all of these files is WAV, I saved WAVs from MP3 for the MP3 test. Those files will sound no better than the original MP3. And best of luck to anyone spotting the mixxed files. ;)

[tocsin]

maybe your efforts were met with silence because people find you generally very tedious and lacking in charisma.


What's your excuse?



tbf, someone who spends their spare time putting loops together to play on an internet forum is more than likely a cockless wonder with no social life.

*YAWN* Yeah, it could be that. Or, it might have something to do with the fact that, after commuting 209km for work each day, on Monday through Friday I'm pretty much home at night. :) Either way, for a so-called "producer" to give another crap about that is pretty comical.

[detfella]

silence....

seems people are only prepared to do a test where their eyes only see the results

[massplanck]

No need to get upset danny. My critera would be to have full songs encoded in all the different formats, then listen to them on good quality (hifi?) speakers and then judge. Not the way that dude did it and using crappy PC speakers.

Also That track doesnt have much highend in it either ,which is where you really notice the lossiness of mp3. For the record the first 5 secs is WAV i reckon.

@Tocsin. I'm downloading that now.

[detfella]

hah hardly upset mate! just interesting that people (not only you) don't mind taking the test for their own eyes, but not when other people might see the results.

[massplanck]

Ill do it at home tonight on a set of decent speakers and post up the results tommorrow. ok? who has the answers anyway?