Poll: Round 2, which file is the MP3, which is the CD?

[divinemartyr]

Glen and I have been collaborating to see if people can tell the difference between 2 files, one being an original from a CD, the other is the same file in mp3 format. Here is a link to the original thread started by glen. The only thing is, both files are in wav format now, your job is to pick which one is the mp3 and which one is the original wav file!

The directions for encoding were followed here and all the same tools were used.

I am listening on some pretty good speakers and so far I can't tell, let's see if you can!

Sample1

Sample 2

Thanks to DannyLove for hosting these files!

dm

 

[DannyLove]

okay, I'm going to say that sample1 is the original. (keep in mind, this is based on my ear being next to my speakers, no headphones )

i have no idea, they sound close.

DannyLove

 

[kertmit2004]

sample 2 is the original....(i think)

 

[glen]

I can't tell.
Roomate is asleep.
Is it OK to play loud music in the name of science?

 

[divinemartyr]

I guess I should also mention, please post how you came up with what you found (i.e. specific times of WHEN during the files you think there is a noticeable difference).

dm

 

[Imported]

Can't play my music loud right now, but as of right now, I think Sample 2 is the original.

As for how I came up with my preliminary decision.. I found a bit more noise at the end of the first one than the second one. I still need to turn up my volume.. but it's kinda late right now.

 

[Cerb]

about 7 seconds in...the one I voted for seems to transition to the more intense sound smoother to my ears, so I'm syaing sample 1 is the original. This was a much more difficult chpise than the first one!

 

[bastula]

Sample 1 seems like the original too me. The timpani rolls sound more distinct and precise also. (I hate being a percussionist )

 

[alext]

I am going that have to vote for number 1 (as the orginal). Sample2 seems a little more assulting. When I first listened to it I thought that maybe the cymbol was a bit more harsh on sample2. On my computer I had a very hard time telling them apart though.

SO I then burned a CD to listen to it on the CD player. It seems like they were more noticbly different, but again very close.

As I haven't gotten out recently to listen to this sort of music recently live, its kind of hard for me to say which sounds more real. I would not be suprised to find out that sample2 was the orginal at all. From my ears point of view i think I'd perfer to listen the whole thing in sample1's sound though. Would be funny if sample2 was the orginal ;-)

Fun test, thanks for doing it. Obviously these samples sound dramatically better than the average mp3 out there, so its kind of a moot test though. Waiting on the results and test 3 none the less.

Added: Oops, didn't see the vote picks. I think sample2 is the mp3.

 

[divinemartyr]

I'm not doing any spoilers for a while, so keep listening and voting on these.

dm

 

[VoodooExtreme]

What bitrate did u use then you encoded the the mp3?

 

[Z24]

I like the concept--downloading now. If you do post a spoiler, please put a big warning, then leave a lot of blank space below so you can't see it without scrolling.

Question: what bitrate is the mp3 encoded at? It would be interesting to do a sample 1&2 with the mp3 at 128, 160, 192, 256 maybe? Just to see where you can really start to tell. In the past, I've been able to pick out 128kbps mp3's without too much trouble--but only on some music.

EDIT: I'm just burning them to a CD now... A suggestion might be to zip them so that if there are any errors in the download, it won't unzip. Otherwise, the .wav file could get corrupted slightly, but still play. This would ensure the integrity of the files.

 

[Rix0r]

I'm going to have to say that number 2 is the original and number 1 is the mp3. The reason I say so is that at around 25 seconds when the flute and triangle pick up in the background they don't seem quite as pronounced/natural to me in number 1. I can barely tell the difference though, for the general listening environment of mp3s (computer/mobile/car) they would certainly both seem basically the same.

Later,
Rick

 

[StageLeft]

U need to try it as the other guy said at a few different bitrates GOnna listen now.

 

[VoodooExtreme]

number2 = original

 

[StageLeft]

Most people are saying 2 is original, but then in poll they are saying 2 is the "mp3", so who knows if people are "reading the question" !

I'm rather positive that 2 is original, only because I listened to the same part about 6 times, looking for a difference. Finally the fairly quiet bells at the beginning are more pronounced in #2, thus I think its original. For regular music if I wasn't trying to notice I could not tell a diff.

 

[poop]

Man, those are both very good sounding. I cannot really tell.

If you recorded with VBR, or a bit rate > 160, I wouldn' be surprised. I can generally hear a difference on lower bit rates. I will have to listen again when I get home, and see if I can tell a difference on better speakers. I am trying to judge with some Sony headphones at the moment.

 

[VoodooExtreme]

Come on now... I wanna know which one it was.
PM me or something

 

[glen]

Wow, amazing it is so close. I still have not had a chance to listen and I still don't know which is which.

 

[DannyLove]

Stats from original thread:

::FILE::HITS::Bytes::
1/glen/bbmx.wav::203::459,075::
2/glen/bbmy.wav::100::359,040::


strange how bbmx was hit doubled then bbmy, i think people only based their thoughts on bbmx and didnt consider to download bbmy

 

[divinemartyr]

<< What bitrate did u use then you encoded the the mp3? >>



In the original post I said I used the techniques found at r3mix.net but it's using the LAME encoder with VBR (variable bitrate) from 128-320, joint stereo.

No spoilers!

dm

 

[glen]

nm

 

[glen]

bump

 

[gunf1ghter]

DivineMartyr;

So you are saying that you encoded the MP3 file at 128kbps with LAME VBR Codec?

 

[divinemartyr]

<< So you are saying that you encoded the MP3 file at 128kbps with LAME VBR Codec? >>



That's not at all what I'm saying, VBR is Variable Bitrate which means it isn't encoded at 128kbps or 160 or even 192. What it means is the encoder looks at the music, sees how dynamic it is, and adjusts on-the-fly to whatever bitrate is needed. I used a range of 128 to 320 so that it never goes below 128kbps and it will go as high as 320kbps depending on the needs of the music. That's essentially what a VBR codec is/does. I used the LAME 3.87 codec, using VBR technology, joint stereo mode.

dm