 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hm. I got two right, Katy Perry and Murray Perahia. The latter one being the easiest since the music is closest to what I listen all the time: orchestral soundtracks. I didn't know on what details to listen with the other ones, so I consider the Perry sample a lucky pick.
Yeah, I can almost always tell piano quality; low bit rate makes piano sound warbly - not, I think, the technical term. 
Um, Basil, the author makes the very same point about how one listens making a big difference. Let's be clear: on the Internet, where this test is, you know, posted, and where most people do their listening or get their music, the vast majority are going to listen on computer speakers, earbuds or a mobile speaker. So yes, in the world of the interwebs, this is a legitimate test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It took multiple listens on my rinkydink boombox, but I got all of them right except Coldplay. Can't help but to think that, other than the equipment of the time, some tracks are meant to sound distorted in terms of aesthetics. It still seems like 128kbps should sound far worse than it does here. Somebody's lying. I'm just going to blame......
.............. Tom Ford.
PS: His pause was so pregnant, it had twins!
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnmullin, I like your post a lot. Did you take the test? If so, how many did you get right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have not tried it but I doubt one can hear the differences via laptop speakers. :-)
(Though I'm not gonna hook up my PC now to my stereo system just to try this out.)
PS: Wow, I just did sample it and got 4/6 on my (rather cheapo) built in laptop speakers, though maybe I just got lucky, I was just guessing at times.
I did find it most obvious in the Mozart recording. Some of the other music was already heavily processed, so how the hell is one to determine which one is the emost natural sounding? These tests should be made with music performed on natural acoustic instruments and voices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the other music was already heavily processed, so how the hell is one to determine which one is the emost natural sounding? These tests should be made with music performed on natural acoustic instruments and voices.
This test isn't about which version is the most natural sounding. Only whether one can tell the difference between low, mid and lossless quality, using well known artists and songs, and listening through a computer or smartphone. This is how the vast majority of people listen to music these days.
The test is valid on its own terms, even if it doesn't meet audiophile standards. It's not about audiophilia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good job, Bagby. I admire your ears though I don't envy them. I enjoy not being too worried about audio quality as long as the baseline is good enough. (The Mozart, for example, is just NOT at 128.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This test isn't about which version is the most natural sounding. Only whether one can tell the difference between low, mid and lossless quality, using well known artists and songs, and listening through a computer or smartphone. This is how the vast majority of people listen to music these days.
I've done some blind testing before, and the more familliar I am with the music, the more I can hear the differences. Though I find that music with natural acoustic instruments is best for such tests. I mean, if one is mostly listening via ear buds to pop music on the go, I'm sure a decent mp3 will do just fine. No need for a test there. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 out of 6 for me using speaker's built into PC base (Dell)...giveaway for me was the opening seconds of the tracks, slight warble I found...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-5842318-1404267589-6583.jpeg.jpg)
