• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can you tell the difference between 128kbit and 192kbit mp3? (results)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
My bad, fudged up on the linking.. the original wav is there too for downloading at the bottom of the page.

Please note this 'static' is actually part of the song. Its one of those 'stylistic' things like the stupid AM radio voice everyone uses now adays.
 
first off -

the winamp mp3 decoder blows...

there are much better ones out there

find one.

and yes rar+par+par2 rule you all

oh and yes i can tell the diff w/o dling you samples.
 
Well aside from telling the difference between the two wav files by looking at the size,

Test Y has more DEPTH to the music than test X.

Test X sounds a little flat compared to Test Y.

 
Originally posted by: beatmix01
first off -

the winamp mp3 decoder blows...

there are much better ones out there

find one.

and yes rar+par+par2 rule you all

oh and yes i can tell the diff w/o dling you samples.
Click to expand...

where does winamp mp3 decoder fit in.. whos supposed to find a better one.. all of us? also note, winamp5 uses fraunhofer codec now.. not nitrane anymore..

and im so happy for you that you can tell. What is the 192 file then champ?

------------------------------------------

The file sizes are the same... ? Unless your talking about the compressed sizes, which are different, but dont nessicarly reveal the truth..

------------------------------------------
is anyone checking the second set of files?
 
great thread idea. i'm downloading now, i'll post my results 🙂

edit:, ok i say X. i listened on Sony MDR-V6 headphones powered by my recording hardware, and Klipsch La Scala speakers, again fed from the recording hardware. X sounds smoother and more natural. Y sounds harsher. I feel like I'm detected a hint of the dreaded MP3 hi-end garbage in it.

however, those were possibly the worst samples you could have chosen. MP3 really fails during sustained detailed high-frequency content, like cymbals or strings. this song had nothing like that, and to make matters worse, it was all samples, and all the samples sounded like crap to begin with. besides, who knows what formats the samples went through before they got in the song.
 
Originally posted by: blahblah99
Well aside from telling the difference between the two wav files by looking at the size,

Test Y has more DEPTH to the music than test X.

Test X sounds a little flat compared to Test Y.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I agree. Haven't listened to the other though... I will tomorrow probably.
 
as a better (?) test, i did exactly the same thing but with a different sample. my sample is on the other end of the spectrum, very dense. i'm not sure if that will make it harder or easier. i'm pretty sure i can tell them apart, but of course, i know the answer. bonus points if you have speakers good enough to hear the chanting that is going on underneath everything when he's singing. actually, if you can't hear the chanting clearly, you're automatically disqualified because your system stinks. 😉

test.zip

edit: i'll post the answer when the answer is posted to the first tests.
 
Originally posted by: thomsbrain
as a better (?) test, i did exactly the same thing but with a different sample. my sample is on the other end of the spectrum, very dense. i'm not sure if that will make it harder or easier. i'm pretty sure i can tell them apart, but of course, i know the answer. bonus points if you have speakers good enough to hear the chanting that is going on underneath everything when he's singing. actually, if you can't hear the chanting clearly, you're automatically disqualified because your system stinks. 😉

test.zip

edit: i'll post the answer when the answer is posted to the first tests.
Click to expand...

Why must you do this at night? By the time I turn it up enough to really hear it, I'm afraid i'll piss the neighbors off (thin walls).
 
hehe, so I don't know what the original post said, but it sounds like a good amount of people were wrong? hehe, very cool.
 
Originally posted by: Maleficus
Rar > Zip
Click to expand...

Yup, for those that missed it, I saved 2.8megs with WinRAR compression, and only 800k with Zip compression.

Originally posted by: EvilYoda
hehe, so I don't know what the original post said, but it sounds like a good amount of people were wrong? hehe, very cool.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I find it odd that there was like 20 extra votes AFTER I revealed the results.. so I posted the actual results in original post..
6 for 128
10 for 192..

not everyone has as good an ear as they thought! 🙂
 
Originally posted by: amnesiac
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: DaZ

I didnt know people still use .zip ?
Click to expand...

What? I didn't know people still used .rar.

What's next, .arj?
Click to expand...

What are you smoking?

RAR is a far superior format, and way more widely used for packing large files.

Not only does it have the capacity to be spliced into chunks, but it has FAR superior CRC correction. I take it you haven't heard of PAR or PAR2 either then?
Click to expand...

NS. Obviously most of these people have never heard of Usenet. Everything of any size is RARerd.



 
Here are the real results:

test-x 9
test-y 13
test-r 6
test-s 5

Where did I get them? I just made them up, which stands at least as good of a chance if not better of being as sound and credible as the results of this poll. 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top