| Author
|
Why you use MP3?
|
DETOX
Moderator
Started Topics :
296
Posts :
6194
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 16:10
|
Spindrift apart the fact that this test cant be subjective for many reasons i cant also download 17mb on my 56k line LOL
Yeap no ADSL for me for at least one more month.
  Toodaloo Motherfuckers!!!!! |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 16:26
|
It will for sure be a lot less subjective than the claims made previously in this thread.
So I agreee, this test will not be subjective, but rather give an objective answer to if you can tell an mp3 from a wav.
If mp3 sounds bad I really expect some people to be able to say which versions is wav.
Go ahead and download it...17Mb is in my experience very doable also on 56k.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
DETOX
Moderator
Started Topics :
296
Posts :
6194
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 16:56
|
Spindrift i dont know if you have studied any psychology (though you mentioned the placebo effect previously) but you should learn that a test is as objective as the person who hands it to its 'subjects' and you mate are not objective on the issue 
In any case i am not going to spend three hours of my time and my precious low bandwidth on downloading such a test since i dont feel i have to prove anything to noone,neither i have to win anything from the mp3 versus wav battle since people dont buy original cds anyway in our days so supporting the original cds against mp3s is as objective as it can get
Toodaloo Motherfuckers!!!!! |
|
|
|
Krell
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1114
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:26
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-12-04 15:29, Spindrift wrote:
That sound is very subjective is something that manufacturers of audio equipment have realized for a long time.
Make two identical microphones, but put a high price and renowned label on one and a vast majority will say that that one clearly sounds better.
Thats just how our hearing works, so the only way to make objective mesuremkents of audio quality is by blind tests.
I put together some snippets from some tracks that you can test with.
There is three versions of each snippet, a, b and c.
They will be either wav, 320k CBR or 190k VBR, but the mp3 versions have been decompressed to wav again so you cannot tell them apart.
I'd be very happy if especially DETOX and Mahamudra would like to have a quick listen and tell which ones is the truly horrible sounding and which one is the obviously clearer sounding wav.
And anyone else is of course welcome to post the result of their listeing test here as well.
The download (17Mb):
http://resoearth.gotdns.com/tmp/mp3test.zip
|
|
Tried listening to this in traktor using the crossfader to switch quickly between the tracks, and with the exact same EQ settings. As loud as I dare go...
I had a very hard time even finding any difference, and when I found one it was difficult to say what was best. In fact, I had to kill high, mid and lo and open them up seperately to try and analyze it, and still, the same result... any difference I noticed, to my ears, where indifferent.
Things to consider - Sound Card is Creative Audigy in a noisy PC, Software was Traktor, Headphones Technics RP-DH1200 color the bass and mid somewhat, not neutral.
Invisible World a -
Invisible World b -
Invisible World c - Sounds a bit different in the high
Mystery Sun a -
Mystery Sun b - Seem to distort a bit more in the mid range.
Mystery Sun C - Perhaps sounds better in the hi range, but worse in the mid range.
Wishbone a - I like the mids in this one a bit better. Also the lows.
Wishbone b -
Wishbone c -
I dont even want to guess at what is what  Inconclusive, but then again, I have tinitus, that might cut off some of the frequencies
Best Wishes
Krell
Label DJ>
www.jesterrecords.ca |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:32
|
I have done and studied actual objective tests myself, and thats what I base my opinion on.
Your comment on the matter was:
Quote:
| I am not a producer or dj or mastering engineer but i can tell from a mile whether a track playing on a big soundsystem is an mp3 or a wav.
Specially in parties and festivals mp3's are so different than wav's that i feel embarassed for the dj up there who plays his music using this kind of format. |
|
Are you telling me that I or anyone else should give more weight to that extremly loose statement instead or accepting proper tests done on the subject?
I offered you a chance to prove that you can indeed tell the difference, and now you start going on about that you can't trust the test methology.
The problem is that if you prepare the test yourself it will not be a blind test, so hence there would be no way to tell.
What is perculiar is if you think by hearing some DJ play in a party that the methodolgy used for that test was objective.
Since you think the blind test I have put together will be subjective, can you tell me what is the potential problems that makes you unsure of the tests value?
I can easliy say that you are the one being subjective, denying a fact that been proven in test after test.
At least I can back up what I say with more than some loose bla bla with something like "I once heard this DJ playing from mp3 in a party and it sounded bad".
Like I said, I have no reason to prefer one format over the other....infact I prefer FLAC usually because I can recompress it without loss if I like.
You obviously prefer CD's because you are in the business of trying to sell them, so I would say that you are the one being subjective.
I find your last sentence a bit telling about why you like to diss mp3 as a format:
Quote:
| people dont buy original cds anyway in our days so supporting the original cds against mp3s is as objective as it can get |
|
To be objective is not to "support original CD's against mp3's".
Your personal interest in one format over the other for business reasons have nothing to do with an objective discussion of the soundquality.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:34
|
|
Krell
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1114
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:39
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-12-04 17:34, Spindrift wrote:
Thx nolightatend and Krell.
I will publish the results tomorrow so you can check how well you fared
|
|
Give it some time, so more can join in - I posted the link on our site, perhaps some will take the test there as well.
But, I still dont think we can 100% trust a test like this - After all, most of us do not have a 5000+ watt sound system at home, and this is really the true environment for the test isnt it ?
Best Wishes
Krell
Label DJ>
www.jesterrecords.ca |
|
|
|
Krell
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1114
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:41
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-12-04 17:37, nolightatend wrote:
Now when two man confirm there is no way to find out, check this.
Last time i've done this test to some smart asses, i took three identical MP3 files and gave them to listen to, when they were sure some of them was "high quality WAV". Results were as the ones now. Just now we can't see faces of Mahamudra and Detox after they got pwned.
Also Leo, i've told you in past about this test. I think i did. Jeje seems it is the case!
|
|
Hehe, thats what I though Spindrift did when I listened to these...
But hey, thats just a waste of time then
I actually couldnt hear the difference between a 128kbps MP3 and a 192kbps MP3 not so long ago - I listen for what I can understand and hear clearly - Distortion and bottled up sound... Havent heard it yet... but perhaps on a huuuuuge PA its there, so we HAVE To try it - and with more people listening.
Best Wishes
Krell
Label DJ>
www.jesterrecords.ca |
|
|
|
DETOX
Moderator
Started Topics :
296
Posts :
6194
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:45
|
Spindrift since i noticed in the past the way you fanatically support mp3s over wavs i have many serious doubts concerning the objectivity of this test of yours.
Without knowing you in personal i think i have a lot of valid ground doubting your 'integrity' concerning this matter by judging your attitude towards original cds in various internet forums.Who can guarrantee me for example that the tracks in your test are not all wavs or some other kind of format?
Sorry for being suspicious but it is in my nature you see since i have seen a lot of things in my short life so far
By the way you also have a shop selling mp3s no?So accusing me that i am not being objective since i have an audio cd label is at least an unethical hit below the belt dont you think?
Toodaloo Motherfuckers!!!!! |
|
|
|
DETOX
Moderator
Started Topics :
296
Posts :
6194
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:51
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-12-04 17:37, nolightatend wrote:
Last time i've done this test to some smart asses, i took three identical MP3 files and gave them to listen to, when they were sure some of them was "high quality WAV".
|
|
This is the reason why a test such as Spindrift's one cant be considered as true and valid.
Thanks for proving my point nolightatend,my part in this discussion is over i think.
P.S Krell said correctly some things about the audio environment and the sound system so if anyone takes this test make sure you got the right hardware people
Toodaloo Motherfuckers!!!!! |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:52
|
Ok, I'll give it a few days before I give the answers away.
Sure to make a proper ABX test with 100% reliable results require carefully following the methodolgies set up for this kind of tests.
I've done my best to make sure that the files is made in a correct way, and I think the results will be quite conclusive.
About it being possible to spot easy on a PA...I doubt it.
The main problem when you go down below 320k is in the treble. I can spot the 190k VBR a lot of the time I think by paying careful attention to hats.
I'm very convinced that testing on a pair of nautilius speakers would reveal that problem more than a PA which usually have less than silk smooth treble.
The really low frequencies is usually cut on a PA and any problems there would also be more obvious on a set of mastering speakers.
Most decent hi-fi systems have a fidelity far greater than a good PA, so the only reason it should be easier to spot on the PA is the higher volume, which I have hard imagining would be the case.
The test by mixmag seems to confirm that it's just as hard to spot on a PA as well.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Krell
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1114
Posted : Dec 4, 2005 17:53
|
Quote:
|
P.S Krell said correctly some things about the audio environment and the sound system so if anyone takes this test make sure you got the right hardware people
|
|
Yep - but you can be sure I WILL test this at my next event - Put it on a turbo sound system, LOUD - MP3 burned to CD vs Source CDs - And I will have both djs & producers listening.
Should be over quickly I think
Best Wishes
Krell
Label DJ>
www.jesterrecords.ca |
|
|
|
