15 ms·

> There have been tests showing we cannot hear the difference between minimally lossy audio (e.g. mp3 320kbps) and lossless. But Balvin can. And it sounds "bigg

> There have been tests showing we cannot hear the difference between minimally lossy audio (e.g. mp3 320kbps) and lossless. But Balvin can. And it sounds "bigger and stronger". On the contrary, you can actually do these tests yourself (https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/...). I and many others running good high end gear can repeatedly score well on these tests. Of course, it's not only the compression that's at stake-- it's also the mastering quality. So a very well mastered track with plenty of dynamic range will still sound noticeably better on high performing speakers or headphones than a compressed version, even 320kbps MP3. A poorly mastered track will be much harder (if not outright impossible) to tell the difference on.

Someone1234 5y ago
> I and many others running good high end gear can repeatedly score well on these tests. I, too, run high-end gear and cannot. The problem scope isn't simply reproduction accuracy, it is also one of taste: Different compression can elevate/alter parts of the sound, and your opinion may not lean to the highest bit rate but rather some other coloring of the music. The fact you've run this test "repeatedly" actually hurts your argument, since you may just be learning what to expect in your environment. The crux of the article/discussion is that people cannot blindly pick the highest quality, which they cannot (since the different colorings of the music are subjective anyway).
- pwagland 5y ago
  This is crux to the argument. If you know what to listen for, you can pick out the "bad bits", since you know that is where the issue lies. Once you know how to identify bad bits, then you'll be able to "hear" compression artefacts because you'll be primed for them. In A/B tests this is true, I _can_ reliably (not 100%, but way better than random) tell you which of A/B is compressed, and I can normally do this on somewhat crappy headphones, since I _know_ where to listen to pick out the compression. And this despite being partly deaf. However, if I am just listening to music I never notice these artefacts, since when listening to music, I'm not trying to determine which A/B stream is wrong. Most of the time, the music is just playing in the background anyway.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Problem is, sometimes when you learn how to spot a deficiency, you can't unlearn it and stop spotting it. It's like with kerning[0] or image compression artifacts. Everyone has a different level, and I haven't measured mine, but even when casually listening to music - including music from bad speakers in a waiting room somewhere - I can identify too badly compressed music and get immediately annoyed by it. -- [0] - https://xkcd.com/1015/ https://xkcd.com/1015/
    - JohnBooty 5y ago
      It's like with kerning Kerning is a great comparison, I think. Studies have shown that well-compressed lossy audio is nearly indistinguishable from the originals. This is certainly true for me. I can sometimes pick out the compressed version if I know the track well and can look for specific details, but generally I'm absolutely not consciously aware of any compression artifacts. Similarly, I doubt most people could pick out small problems with kerning and other typographic issues. And yet... I strongly suspect folks would enjoy a book with excellent typography more than they would have if it had slightly less-good typography, despite not being consciously and acutely aware of the differences. I believe there may be parallels with lossy vs. lossless compression when it comes to music, and with many other experiences as well -- you may not be able to tell the difference between cookies baked with cheap butter and grass-fed butter in an A/B test, but might you enjoy one cookie more than the other anyway?
      - haecceity 5y ago
        But the question is do they enjoy the book with excellent typography because they're told it's excellent or can they perceive the higher excellence and derive enjoyment thereof.
        TeMPOraL 5y ago
        I'd say: before being aware of how typography should look, the main difference is that reading a badly-set book will feel tiring for some reason that's hard to pin, but it's definitely not content. After being made aware, it's just annoying - if you can name the thing that's wrong, you recognize it's wrong.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  Why does any of this matter? The point of a blind ABX test (and the whole question) is to see whether you can tell the difference between two formats. If you can, you can. Personally, I stop being able to tell somewhere around 200 kbit MP3s (with cheap equipment), anything above that is wasted space. You can run the tests as much as you want, if the hypothesis is that "people can't tell the difference between lossless and 320 kbit MP3", even one person demonstrating that they can, disproves the entire hypothesis.
  - cies 5y ago
    > I stop being able to tell somewhere around 200 kbit MP3s (with cheap equipment) Yups. Me too. Even with cheap professional equipment I cannot hear the difference of lossless vs >= 192kbps MP3. > anything above that is wasted space. Unless you want to mix/remix/etc. Changing the pitch brings out the artifacts.
    - StavrosK 5y ago
      > Unless you want to mix/remix/etc. Changing the pitch brings out the artifacts. Certainly, you probably need lossless if you're going to do any sort of editing.
      - squarefoot 5y ago
        Lossless, and possibly upsampling before editing, but high end gear probably does that by default. As for bitrate compression, although I have a good musical ear, I can't find any appreciable difference from a high bitrate (320) mp3 and the corresponding lossless track, so no problems using mp3s to listen to music. I also managed to resample my entire portable playlist (yeah, making mp3s out of mp3s, I know in some circles I could be killed just for thinking about that:*) to overcome that dreadful loudness craze that makes pretty much every track produced in the last 20-25 years destroy your ears if you happen to listen to it just after something 10 years older. Unfortunately all methods to level the tracks (mp3gain, replaygain etc.) don't work properly because they should analyze all tracks dynamic content, not just the average/maximum level, then first adjust their dynamics and later normalize their level. In other words, level compression should be applied more to softer tracks and not the other way around. So I faked a solution to the problem by reconverting my playlist after applying compression to an extremely low threshold, making clear to myself that none of those tracks would ever leave my player. Some sound really horrible, but I spared my ears.
- ksec 5y ago
  I think the Key point would be, could you hear any difference in those test? If you could, then yes there is a quality differential, rather you got it right or wrong may be subject to taste. But at least we established there are differences. But when we say 128Kbps are sort of CD Quality or CD being no-difference to 320Kbps mp3, they generally refers to vast majority of consumers, not audio experts. I think most consumers could tell the difference between 256kbps AAC and 128Kbps MP3. But beyond that it sort of goes into consumer dont give a damn territory. Although most Pros would want the highest quality possible and there are no reason why we cant deliver lossless with today's infrastructure. I am wondering if there is a market for an even cheaper Music Streaming Services that target lower quality, 128Kbps music.
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    128kbs is absolutely noticeable drop imo. I can't see any reason for 128kbs service unless you're absolutely starved for data. There is no other advantage.
    - ksec 5y ago
      >I can't see any reason for 128kbs A lower price tier? Or even a Freemium model. Considering most of them are already available on Youtube. As strange as this may sound I dont think Streaming is the business model that will save Music industry. And despite the headlines ( whatever MSM likes to print these days ) most artist's real income are from somewhere else.
      - mixmastamyk 5y ago
        128k Opus is quite a bit better, if for some reason that bit rate is crucial.
      - breakfastduck 5y ago
        Streaming definitely wont 'save the industry', it woefully underpays the artists. You're only making that problem even worse by offering a low quality, even lower price model. Frankly I can't imagine there would be many artists particularly happy with having huge swathes of people introduced to their music at 128kbs.
- tarsinge 5y ago
  MP3 compression is not the same thing has compression the audio effect. Compressed music in the effect sense can be enjoyable and is a matter of taste, but hearable MP3 compression artifacts is nearly always crap.
  - chuchana 5y ago
    For those unfamiliar with the other definition referenced here: dynamic range compression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression)
- numpad0 5y ago
  Been out of high end audio for few years, trying this test for past 30 minutes, and can't seem to get past 2/6 with wireless or wired or dynamic or BA or through proper amps or out of a laptop jack. Constantly falling into 320k. Maybe source isn't great in the first place, equalizer slightly suppressing low-mid and noise at the high is doing it.
svantana 5y ago
When you say "score well" on that test, what does that mean? From the marketing around lossless, they make it sound like most folks will get 6 out of 6. I've got good monitors and good hearing (in the audiology sense), and I can mostly rule out the 128kbps, but it's a tossup between 320 and lossless.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  It really depends on the encoder and song; I think the vast majority of people would have a very hard time getting above-chance on an ABX test vs a properly encoded MP3 at 320kbps, but I would not discount specific instances where things fall over and it still introduces artifacts that you can learn to recognize. Lossy compression is, unfortunately, not predictable in this sense, so there are always corner cases (or even outright bugs in encoders). Here's one result which lines up pretty much with what I'd expect - if you get lucky with very specific songs/styles, you can pick out a 320kbps mp3, just barely, with good playback hardware. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/abx-test-of-320kbps-vs-flac-results.431522/ https://www.head-fi.org/threads/abx-test-of-320kbps-vs-flac-...
Mediterraneo10 5y ago
> Of course, it's not only the compression that's at stake-- it's also the mastering quality. HN threads on lossless music so often descend into "well, you couldn’t hear the difference". But historically a key reason for people to prefer e.g. SACD releases of recordings is not because one can hear the extra frequencies of this format, but because the SACD release – being targeted at people with a good stereo and silent listening environment – is mastered with more dynamic range. The mainstream release of the same music, on the other hand, often features a different mastering with levels pushed up, because they assume that ordinary people will be listening to music in noisy environments, like through earbuds in the metro. This is often a problem for re-releases of 1960s recordings of jazz where the producer and engineer really exploited dynamic range, but that is lost in the most recent of the digital-era re-releases. (Another reason to prefer SACDs and Blu-ray releases of recordings is for the possibility of 5.0 surround sound, because of course CD and mainstream downloads or streaming are limited to mono or stereo only.)
- StrictDabbler 5y ago
  Absolutely agreed. People spend so much time arguing about whether we're "past the limits of human perception" on sound or video. They want to quote Nyquist and check frequencies. Spend a million dollars on audio equipment. Turn on your speakers, play some chamber music in insane multi-channel high-res audio, and invite a friend over. Your friend does not think you hired a string quartet. Your friend thinks you have nice speakers. If your friend is naive and easily fooled, do an A/B test by actually hiring a quartet and alternating with the speakers. There are a thousand compromises between the source of music and your ear. What is worth paying for is a recording where those compromises were made well. The compression level is a very small part of the picture.
  - Retric 5y ago
    I have been surprised in both directions where what I thought was live music was prerecorded and what I thought was prerecorded turned out to be live music. Which shouldn’t be that surprising, audio equipment has gotten really good and audio standards are based around what people notice.
marcan_42 5y ago
This is largely because MP3 is a crappy, old format. Try high-bitrate Opus on most samples and you're a lot less likely to get above-chance results on an ABX test, pretty much ever, at high bitrates. Ultimately though, lossy compression is always program-dependent ("program" here means the song, not the app). The encoders use psychoacoustic algorithms, and there is no way to prove they will perform well on all samples. So you will always be able to find corner cases where an encoder or format does worse and results in more audible artifacts; some of these might be encoder bugs, some might not. Therefore, it is fair to say that you might not want to rely on lossy compression for archival. But it is perfectly reasonable to use it to put music on devices to actually listen to. You say good mastering makes it easier to notice encoding artifacts, but actually, bad mastering can do that too. Over-compressed stuff (in dynamic range) with inter-sample peaks above 0dB can clip and distort after getting run through a lossy codec. As for lossless formats, though, anything above 48kHz 16 bits is complete nonsense for final delivery to consumers. All the "high resolution" stuff with higher sample rates and bit depths is just marketing bullshit, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated in trials (the well-designed ones anyway; there are plenty of terrible ones - no, comparing the 96kHz download to the 48kHz download of a song is not how you test this properly). Bit depths above 16 are useful during production (because quantization noise accumulates and is boosted by things like dynamic range compression); in practice you want to record at 24 bits for headroom reasons, and process in 32-bit float because there's no reason not to with modern computers (and many practical advantages, e.g. ~infinite dynamic range). Sample rates above 48kHz are less so; the main reason to use them is to avoid aliasing artifacts, but it is usually much more effective to do that with well-designed DSP algorithms that include internal oversampling, as opposed to just doing everything at a higher sample rate. Unless you're doing extreme pitch shifting; then higher sample rates may make sense. Videos everyone interested in audio production should watch: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCwIsT0X8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCwIsT0X8M The little tidbit at the end of the second video about how 48kHz is, in some respects, twice as good as 44.1kHz, is quite neat and not something I'd realized before.
- andybak 5y ago
  MP3 with a good compressor and reasonable bitrate has repeatedly shown to be indistinguishable from uncompressed. The reason to avoid mp3 is to be able to squeeze the bitrate and save on storage bandwidth - but that has mattered less year on year. I'm personally baffled and irritated by this move from Apple. They'll be selling healing crystals next.
lukevp 5y ago
You may be confusing data compression with dynamic range compression, since you mention dynamic range. Dynamic range compression (limiting / brick wall limiting) has nothing to do with data compression, which is just referring to the removal of unnecessary data that is not noticeable from a psychoacoustic perspective (eg humans can’t hear above 24khz so that data isn’t needed, etc.) here is more info on DRC and MP3: http://www.tonestack.net/articles/digital-audio-compression/mp3-aac-dynamic-range.html http://www.tonestack.net/articles/digital-audio-compression/...
RIMR 5y ago
I took the test, and it pretty conclusively proved to me that I cannot detect the difference. And even if I could detect the difference, I am not convinced that the improvement in bitrate would actually result in any increased enjoyment.
stephc_int13 5y ago
I tried it with my decade old entry-level Seinheiser headset plugged into my desktop computer. 4/6 with two errors where I confused 320Kbps and raw wav. But to be honest, I could hardly distinguish between the samples and I mostly guessed.
Workaccount2 5y ago
I highly suggest that people check out/try out "ABX comparator" plugin for Foobar2000 player. You give it two files (say a 128kbps mp3 version and a lossless flac verison) and it runs you through a double blind test of the two versions, quizzing you along the way. It's not just "listen to A" "listen to B", it gives you lots of options to listen to them and compare them in different ways, including obfuscating what track is A and what track is B. If you think you can really hear fine differences in audio, it can be very eye opening (ear opening?).
- ehsankia 5y ago
  +1 I have nothing against NPR but that has like 5 samples and absolutely nothing about methodology. As far as I know, the goto test is: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ They have a few other tests heres: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
  - threeseed 5y ago
    I wish people would stop posting this useless test. It compares FLAC with 320 Kbps AAC which no streaming service uses (Apple uses 256 Kbps) and is a very high bit rate. And its choice of indie tracks isn't suited for demonstrating codec artefacts. At least have classical, EDM etc as well.
- rokweom 5y ago
  There's a great tool for creating online ABX tests: https://abxtests.com/ https://abxtests.com/ The guy who made it, jaakkopasanen, is also the author of other great audio tools - AutoEQ and Impulcifer.
spawnthink 5y ago
Not sure how reflective that test is, since my perception is already primed by noticing the loading time per sample
- marcan_42 5y ago
  If they are delivering a compressed file and an uncompressed file, that already disqualifies the test. The only way to do ABX comparisons is to round-trip one version through the encoder and back to the original format. Anything else introduces uncontrolled dependencies (e.g. on a particular device's decoder implementation) and side channels that unblind the experiment (like loading time). This is a common mistake people make, e.g. comparing 48k vs 96k files. What you need to do is take a 96k original, downsample it to 48k, upsample it again to 96k (both using very high quality algorithms), then compare it to the original 96k file again. Otherwise you're relying on your playback software or hardware's resampling algorithm, and I guarantee that's a compromise between quality and performance, and not valid for a scientific test.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I've done blind tests and I can tell if I try really hard but I wouldn't even say that the mp3 sounds worse, just different. I focus on hi hats. I do collect lossless audio for archival reasons and the ability to convert from a non lossy source. I believe that high bitrate audio is entirely bullshit though- as Chris Montgomery has shown: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
- adrianmonk 5y ago
  > high bitrate audio Based on the opening part of that video, I think you must have meant to say high sampling rate.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Yes. Thanks. It's been awhile since I watched.
- snvzz 5y ago
  >I wouldn't even say that the mp3 sounds worse, just different. If you're comparing against lossless, sounding different means sounding worse. The goal is transparency: Preserving the qualities of the original audio that you can actually hear, while occupying less space.
tarsinge 5y ago
I'm actually quite skeptical random people with high end gear can hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless. It has more to do with ear training, mp3 compression is not really on the same axis than what high end gear give you (basic equipment can have a large frequency response).
- leviathant 5y ago
  On the topic of ear training and hearing differences most people don't hear, I had a recording I was mixing down that featured a squeaky kick pedal on the bass drum. I spent more time than I should have trying to scoop that out of the mix, and in the end, I could still hear the squeaky kick pedal, but no one else in the band could. Later that week I put in a CD with songs I'd heard hundreds of times, and to my absolute horror, I could now hear the squeak of that drummer's kick pedal, like an icepick jabbing me in the ear. It had been there the whole time, pressed to millions of CDs, broadcast over countless radio stations, but only became apparent to me after intense focus on that particular sound. I imagine that people who claim to hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless experience something like that. There may be a particular, narrow band of frequencies that sound slightly more modulated in 320 when compared to lossless, but unless you make a concerted, drawn out effort to find that, you'll never know. And if you do make that effort, you can end up ruining your otherwise pleasant experience for absolutely no good reason. Anyway, after the kick pedal squeak incident, I switched to listening to wholly electronic music for the next month or so as a palette cleanser, and I haven't picked up on the squeak anywhere else since.
unfamiliar 5y ago
> I and many others running good high end gear can repeatedly score well on these tests. Every time this comes up someone says this. I've never seen anyone actually doing it. e.g. a video of setting up a double blind test of this and someone actually passing consistently. When I've challenged people IRL who claim the same thing the response is always "Well, obviously I can't do it with any of the audio gear that either of us have access to... but if I did have high end gear I could tell for sure!"
- jorvi 5y ago
  Not only that, biology is also against them. Somewhere between 25-30 years of age, your hearing already dips <17KHz. Where does lossy do the vast amount of its information discarding? >17KHz.
  - foo_barrio 5y ago
    I am almost 40 and can easily hear pure ones over 17khz but can't differentiate pure noise with or without anything above 13khz. Right around 18.5khz there's a sharp falloff on pure tones no matter how much I pump the volume. I use a loudness meter that shows me the freq spectrum to confirm that my speakers and headphones are producing a pure constant tone. On the tests at: "https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_frequency.php?frq=14 https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_frequency.php?frq=14" I can get 10/10 on the 10khz and 11khz test, 9/10 on the 12khz test and then it's just guessing at 13khz and higher. High hats tend to fall around 16khz and I have been able to differentiate on audio tests just by listening to high hats but that has more to do with how aggressive the codec is and not necessarily my hearing capability. I enjoy piano music and using the Apple afconvert tool I've been able to get piano tracks down to under 100kbps and they sound fine to me which is pretty amazing. I cannot use some of the more popular Berydynamic headphones because they sound too trebly and some pop songs are physically painful for me to listen to (eg the marimbas at the start of Ed Sheeran's Shape of You are like ear daggers on the 880 headphone and unlistenable on the 990's). I wonder if some of that brand's popularity comes from older ladies/gentlement being able to hear treble in the music that they otherwise wouldn't hear at all.
Ashanmaril 5y ago
Being able to discern a difference in a side-by-side test doesn't really mean much. You can tell which of 2 similar shades of blue is lighter next to each other, but if you were to look at one and then another a day apart you probably couldn't say which was lighter
- xkjkls 5y ago
  It's a good point about optimization of certain things in general. Like, yeah, someone might post a study that in an anechoic chamber you can tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed audio, but how much of a difference is that making for people in the real world? Often when I listen to music, I'm at the gym, or the office, surrounded by all sorts of background noise that is going to impact my experience way more than compression.
thrdbndndn 5y ago
Can people who claimed that they can distinguish 320Kbps MP3 and lossless start posting their ABX log already?
kwanbix 5y ago
There are a very small % of people that can. You can check HydrogenAudio's double blind test for explanation on how to do a proper test. https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Blind_test https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Blind_test
baldfat 5y ago
I use to be a sound engineer. Those "test" usually with gear they owned and you can of course tell the difference with gear you are use to. Most gear has anything but clarity. Most people will dislike clear sound. The POINT is blind test 128 MP3 and lossless. Still the vast majority of people don't have the equipment to hear any difference. The Second POINT is most people prefer to have boomy colored sound and again that ruins the need for lossless. This is why people prefer old vinyl records. It compresses the sound and makes it sound better in most people's opinion. If people would listen to 80s tapes I bet they would love that sound also. The Third POINT music is heard with background noise all the time. No way while listening to music people could tell the difference and those that can it would require great concentration. There is a limited return of investment for most people. Personally I own a DAC and a preamp and have my hundreds of dollars headphones and my Genlec speakers that cost thousands of dollars. I hear a SLIGHT difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC and that is 100% concentration and I can hear a difference in only certain types of music. Classical Jazz and Classical music. I can't tell with pop and electronic music which is what most people listen to.
lloeki 5y ago
There is also the theoretical case of double lossy encoding, e.g with Bluetooth headsets. Something not perceivable when listening to AAC decoding directly punched into a wired headset vs reencoding for BT transport which could transform previously unhearable compression artifacts into the perceivable range (think editing a jpeg and resaving as jpeg often produces artifacts) I have not seen any tests for that. (Of course if the device is able to push the AAC stream to the headset this does not happen. This kind of thing is quite opaque and hard to get info about as to which hardware or combination of hardware would support that) > So a very well mastered track with plenty of dynamic range will still sound noticeably better on high performing speakers or headphones I'm quite convinced that a good part of vinyl being reputably better comes from that, especially with the virtuous loop of audiophiles being the main audience for modern vinyl, which calls for good mastering.
sporkland 5y ago
I could hear the difference on the first question on my pixel 5 phone speakers.
- ehsankia 5y ago
  Try a proper ABX audio test like: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ It is a bit lengthy, takes 5-10m, but it is a true blind A/B test with enough samples to be significant.
raggi 5y ago
Test using pixel 4 xl built in speakers at 2/3 volume. You don't need high end gear, you can pick artifacts in half the test cases almost more easily on low end speakers. A few of the tracks only become noticeable once theyre busy. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bx1XZP5DKpMvvmHf8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bx1XZP5DKpMvvmHf8
robbyking 5y ago
This is really interesting! I did the test you linked, and for all but one I picked the lowest bitrate version. I'm using WH-1000XM3 headphones and am a lifelong musician with pretty mild tinnitus.
- bentcorner 5y ago
  Similar thing happened to me. What sounded "best" is subjective and I really had no idea what to listen for. Listened using Beyerdynamic Custom Studios with a cheap-ish DAC on a windows PC.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Same headphones and tinnitus and picked out WAV 5/6 times. I did spend some time to listen tho, not pick blindly. I did have aptX enabled at some point in Macos, not sure if it's still working.
squeaky-clean 5y ago
These sorts of tests are BS in my opinion. How often are you listening to the same track 3 times across different quality settings in the same listening session? The only "real" test for these sorts of things is > You've got a new device. Your streaming app defaults to low-quality upon installation. How long until you notice this?
- peeters 5y ago
  There are plenty of things that can poison the user experience that don't rise above the sub-conscious. Just because you don't notice something doesn't mean that if that thing is improved, you won't have a better experience. E.g. an added 15ms latency on a website.
not_good_coder 5y ago
On NPRs site I can tell which track is the wav file by observing the load time of each track.
IceWreck 5y ago
I gave these and I can't distinguish between 320kbps and uncompressed.
summerlight 5y ago
It's technically possible to distinguish between 320kbps and loseless but it's nothing to do with perceived sound quality or not but more of whether you're trained to hear high-freq sound domain which tends to more suffer from compression.
86J8oyZv 5y ago
I just got 5/6 with just my MacBook Pro speakers (but am a musician). "Bigger and stronger" is kind of an asinine way to describe the difference though. Was "you hear more subtle details" too many words?
INTPenis 5y ago
That test was amazing. You made me really excited and I even guessed the first one correctly by seemingly hearing the difference. So I spent minutes on each of the other questions, listening and listening, but I just couldn't hear it and sure enough I guessed wrong on every other question after that. And I have a mid-range mini amp that fits in between my books, and two mid-range dali speakers hooked up with a regular 3.5mm outlet to my Ryzen MSI PC board, volume up to max on the computer but not on the amp.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
treeman79 5y ago
Audio is a deep rabbit rabbit hole. There is always a next level of quality. You can hear the difference, so always a reason to spend just a bit more. Then you have a 100k setup and someone is wondering why you just book the band directly.
snvzz 5y ago
>even 320kbps MP3 Not "even" as if that was any good. MP3 320kbps is a very low bar. OPUS vbr averaging 128kbps is much harder than mp3 320kbps to ABX against FLAC. MP3 simply is a really bad codec by current standards.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Yet if you open Soulseek 99% of tracks are mp3.
Seb-C 5y ago
I run what I consider to be "good high-end gear" and am surprised that I cannot even tell the difference between 128kbps and 320 kbps, let alone lossless...
dzhiurgis 5y ago
Guessed WAV's 5/6 on bluetooth headphons, but took a lot of attention. Also - the samples can steer you in many directions.

Someone1234 5y ago

> I and many others running good high end gear can repeatedly score well on these tests. I, too, run high-end gear and cannot. The problem scope isn't simply reproduction accuracy, it is also one of taste: Different compression can elevate/alter parts of the sound, and your opinion may not lean to the highest bit rate but rather some other coloring of the music. The fact you've run this test "repeatedly" actually hurts your argument, since you may just be learning what to expect in your environment. The crux of the article/discussion is that people cannot blindly pick the highest quality, which they cannot (since the different colorings of the music are subjective anyway).

pwagland 5y ago
This is crux to the argument. If you know what to listen for, you can pick out the "bad bits", since you know that is where the issue lies. Once you know how to identify bad bits, then you'll be able to "hear" compression artefacts because you'll be primed for them. In A/B tests this is true, I _can_ reliably (not 100%, but way better than random) tell you which of A/B is compressed, and I can normally do this on somewhat crappy headphones, since I _know_ where to listen to pick out the compression. And this despite being partly deaf. However, if I am just listening to music I never notice these artefacts, since when listening to music, I'm not trying to determine which A/B stream is wrong. Most of the time, the music is just playing in the background anyway.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Problem is, sometimes when you learn how to spot a deficiency, you can't unlearn it and stop spotting it. It's like with kerning[0] or image compression artifacts. Everyone has a different level, and I haven't measured mine, but even when casually listening to music - including music from bad speakers in a waiting room somewhere - I can identify too badly compressed music and get immediately annoyed by it. -- [0] - https://xkcd.com/1015/ https://xkcd.com/1015/
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    It's like with kerning Kerning is a great comparison, I think. Studies have shown that well-compressed lossy audio is nearly indistinguishable from the originals. This is certainly true for me. I can sometimes pick out the compressed version if I know the track well and can look for specific details, but generally I'm absolutely not consciously aware of any compression artifacts. Similarly, I doubt most people could pick out small problems with kerning and other typographic issues. And yet... I strongly suspect folks would enjoy a book with excellent typography more than they would have if it had slightly less-good typography, despite not being consciously and acutely aware of the differences. I believe there may be parallels with lossy vs. lossless compression when it comes to music, and with many other experiences as well -- you may not be able to tell the difference between cookies baked with cheap butter and grass-fed butter in an A/B test, but might you enjoy one cookie more than the other anyway?
    - haecceity 5y ago
      But the question is do they enjoy the book with excellent typography because they're told it's excellent or can they perceive the higher excellence and derive enjoyment thereof.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        I'd say: before being aware of how typography should look, the main difference is that reading a badly-set book will feel tiring for some reason that's hard to pin, but it's definitely not content. After being made aware, it's just annoying - if you can name the thing that's wrong, you recognize it's wrong.
StavrosK 5y ago
Why does any of this matter? The point of a blind ABX test (and the whole question) is to see whether you can tell the difference between two formats. If you can, you can. Personally, I stop being able to tell somewhere around 200 kbit MP3s (with cheap equipment), anything above that is wasted space. You can run the tests as much as you want, if the hypothesis is that "people can't tell the difference between lossless and 320 kbit MP3", even one person demonstrating that they can, disproves the entire hypothesis.
- cies 5y ago
  > I stop being able to tell somewhere around 200 kbit MP3s (with cheap equipment) Yups. Me too. Even with cheap professional equipment I cannot hear the difference of lossless vs >= 192kbps MP3. > anything above that is wasted space. Unless you want to mix/remix/etc. Changing the pitch brings out the artifacts.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    > Unless you want to mix/remix/etc. Changing the pitch brings out the artifacts. Certainly, you probably need lossless if you're going to do any sort of editing.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      Lossless, and possibly upsampling before editing, but high end gear probably does that by default. As for bitrate compression, although I have a good musical ear, I can't find any appreciable difference from a high bitrate (320) mp3 and the corresponding lossless track, so no problems using mp3s to listen to music. I also managed to resample my entire portable playlist (yeah, making mp3s out of mp3s, I know in some circles I could be killed just for thinking about that:*) to overcome that dreadful loudness craze that makes pretty much every track produced in the last 20-25 years destroy your ears if you happen to listen to it just after something 10 years older. Unfortunately all methods to level the tracks (mp3gain, replaygain etc.) don't work properly because they should analyze all tracks dynamic content, not just the average/maximum level, then first adjust their dynamics and later normalize their level. In other words, level compression should be applied more to softer tracks and not the other way around. So I faked a solution to the problem by reconverting my playlist after applying compression to an extremely low threshold, making clear to myself that none of those tracks would ever leave my player. Some sound really horrible, but I spared my ears.
ksec 5y ago
I think the Key point would be, could you hear any difference in those test? If you could, then yes there is a quality differential, rather you got it right or wrong may be subject to taste. But at least we established there are differences. But when we say 128Kbps are sort of CD Quality or CD being no-difference to 320Kbps mp3, they generally refers to vast majority of consumers, not audio experts. I think most consumers could tell the difference between 256kbps AAC and 128Kbps MP3. But beyond that it sort of goes into consumer dont give a damn territory. Although most Pros would want the highest quality possible and there are no reason why we cant deliver lossless with today's infrastructure. I am wondering if there is a market for an even cheaper Music Streaming Services that target lower quality, 128Kbps music.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  128kbs is absolutely noticeable drop imo. I can't see any reason for 128kbs service unless you're absolutely starved for data. There is no other advantage.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >I can't see any reason for 128kbs A lower price tier? Or even a Freemium model. Considering most of them are already available on Youtube. As strange as this may sound I dont think Streaming is the business model that will save Music industry. And despite the headlines ( whatever MSM likes to print these days ) most artist's real income are from somewhere else.
    - mixmastamyk 5y ago
      128k Opus is quite a bit better, if for some reason that bit rate is crucial.
    - breakfastduck 5y ago
      Streaming definitely wont 'save the industry', it woefully underpays the artists. You're only making that problem even worse by offering a low quality, even lower price model. Frankly I can't imagine there would be many artists particularly happy with having huge swathes of people introduced to their music at 128kbs.
tarsinge 5y ago
MP3 compression is not the same thing has compression the audio effect. Compressed music in the effect sense can be enjoyable and is a matter of taste, but hearable MP3 compression artifacts is nearly always crap.
- chuchana 5y ago
  For those unfamiliar with the other definition referenced here: dynamic range compression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression)
numpad0 5y ago
Been out of high end audio for few years, trying this test for past 30 minutes, and can't seem to get past 2/6 with wireless or wired or dynamic or BA or through proper amps or out of a laptop jack. Constantly falling into 320k. Maybe source isn't great in the first place, equalizer slightly suppressing low-mid and noise at the high is doing it.

svantana 5y ago

When you say "score well" on that test, what does that mean? From the marketing around lossless, they make it sound like most folks will get 6 out of 6. I've got good monitors and good hearing (in the audiology sense), and I can mostly rule out the 128kbps, but it's a tossup between 320 and lossless.

marcan_42 5y ago
It really depends on the encoder and song; I think the vast majority of people would have a very hard time getting above-chance on an ABX test vs a properly encoded MP3 at 320kbps, but I would not discount specific instances where things fall over and it still introduces artifacts that you can learn to recognize. Lossy compression is, unfortunately, not predictable in this sense, so there are always corner cases (or even outright bugs in encoders). Here's one result which lines up pretty much with what I'd expect - if you get lucky with very specific songs/styles, you can pick out a 320kbps mp3, just barely, with good playback hardware. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/abx-test-of-320kbps-vs-flac-results.431522/ https://www.head-fi.org/threads/abx-test-of-320kbps-vs-flac-...

Mediterraneo10 5y ago

> Of course, it's not only the compression that's at stake-- it's also the mastering quality. HN threads on lossless music so often descend into "well, you couldn’t hear the difference". But historically a key reason for people to prefer e.g. SACD releases of recordings is not because one can hear the extra frequencies of this format, but because the SACD release – being targeted at people with a good stereo and silent listening environment – is mastered with more dynamic range. The mainstream release of the same music, on the other hand, often features a different mastering with levels pushed up, because they assume that ordinary people will be listening to music in noisy environments, like through earbuds in the metro. This is often a problem for re-releases of 1960s recordings of jazz where the producer and engineer really exploited dynamic range, but that is lost in the most recent of the digital-era re-releases. (Another reason to prefer SACDs and Blu-ray releases of recordings is for the possibility of 5.0 surround sound, because of course CD and mainstream downloads or streaming are limited to mono or stereo only.)

StrictDabbler 5y ago
Absolutely agreed. People spend so much time arguing about whether we're "past the limits of human perception" on sound or video. They want to quote Nyquist and check frequencies. Spend a million dollars on audio equipment. Turn on your speakers, play some chamber music in insane multi-channel high-res audio, and invite a friend over. Your friend does not think you hired a string quartet. Your friend thinks you have nice speakers. If your friend is naive and easily fooled, do an A/B test by actually hiring a quartet and alternating with the speakers. There are a thousand compromises between the source of music and your ear. What is worth paying for is a recording where those compromises were made well. The compression level is a very small part of the picture.
- Retric 5y ago
  I have been surprised in both directions where what I thought was live music was prerecorded and what I thought was prerecorded turned out to be live music. Which shouldn’t be that surprising, audio equipment has gotten really good and audio standards are based around what people notice.

marcan_42 5y ago

This is largely because MP3 is a crappy, old format. Try high-bitrate Opus on most samples and you're a lot less likely to get above-chance results on an ABX test, pretty much ever, at high bitrates. Ultimately though, lossy compression is always program-dependent ("program" here means the song, not the app). The encoders use psychoacoustic algorithms, and there is no way to prove they will perform well on all samples. So you will always be able to find corner cases where an encoder or format does worse and results in more audible artifacts; some of these might be encoder bugs, some might not. Therefore, it is fair to say that you might not want to rely on lossy compression for archival. But it is perfectly reasonable to use it to put music on devices to actually listen to. You say good mastering makes it easier to notice encoding artifacts, but actually, bad mastering can do that too. Over-compressed stuff (in dynamic range) with inter-sample peaks above 0dB can clip and distort after getting run through a lossy codec. As for lossless formats, though, anything above 48kHz 16 bits is complete nonsense for final delivery to consumers. All the "high resolution" stuff with higher sample rates and bit depths is just marketing bullshit, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated in trials (the well-designed ones anyway; there are plenty of terrible ones - no, comparing the 96kHz download to the 48kHz download of a song is not how you test this properly). Bit depths above 16 are useful during production (because quantization noise accumulates and is boosted by things like dynamic range compression); in practice you want to record at 24 bits for headroom reasons, and process in 32-bit float because there's no reason not to with modern computers (and many practical advantages, e.g. ~infinite dynamic range). Sample rates above 48kHz are less so; the main reason to use them is to avoid aliasing artifacts, but it is usually much more effective to do that with well-designed DSP algorithms that include internal oversampling, as opposed to just doing everything at a higher sample rate. Unless you're doing extreme pitch shifting; then higher sample rates may make sense. Videos everyone interested in audio production should watch: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCwIsT0X8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCwIsT0X8M The little tidbit at the end of the second video about how 48kHz is, in some respects, twice as good as 44.1kHz, is quite neat and not something I'd realized before.

andybak 5y ago
MP3 with a good compressor and reasonable bitrate has repeatedly shown to be indistinguishable from uncompressed. The reason to avoid mp3 is to be able to squeeze the bitrate and save on storage bandwidth - but that has mattered less year on year. I'm personally baffled and irritated by this move from Apple. They'll be selling healing crystals next.

lukevp 5y ago

You may be confusing data compression with dynamic range compression, since you mention dynamic range. Dynamic range compression (limiting / brick wall limiting) has nothing to do with data compression, which is just referring to the removal of unnecessary data that is not noticeable from a psychoacoustic perspective (eg humans can’t hear above 24khz so that data isn’t needed, etc.) here is more info on DRC and MP3: http://www.tonestack.net/articles/digital-audio-compression/mp3-aac-dynamic-range.html http://www.tonestack.net/articles/digital-audio-compression/...

RIMR 5y ago

I took the test, and it pretty conclusively proved to me that I cannot detect the difference. And even if I could detect the difference, I am not convinced that the improvement in bitrate would actually result in any increased enjoyment.

stephc_int13 5y ago

I tried it with my decade old entry-level Seinheiser headset plugged into my desktop computer. 4/6 with two errors where I confused 320Kbps and raw wav. But to be honest, I could hardly distinguish between the samples and I mostly guessed.

Workaccount2 5y ago

I highly suggest that people check out/try out "ABX comparator" plugin for Foobar2000 player. You give it two files (say a 128kbps mp3 version and a lossless flac verison) and it runs you through a double blind test of the two versions, quizzing you along the way. It's not just "listen to A" "listen to B", it gives you lots of options to listen to them and compare them in different ways, including obfuscating what track is A and what track is B. If you think you can really hear fine differences in audio, it can be very eye opening (ear opening?).

ehsankia 5y ago
+1 I have nothing against NPR but that has like 5 samples and absolutely nothing about methodology. As far as I know, the goto test is: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ They have a few other tests heres: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
- threeseed 5y ago
  I wish people would stop posting this useless test. It compares FLAC with 320 Kbps AAC which no streaming service uses (Apple uses 256 Kbps) and is a very high bit rate. And its choice of indie tracks isn't suited for demonstrating codec artefacts. At least have classical, EDM etc as well.
rokweom 5y ago
There's a great tool for creating online ABX tests: https://abxtests.com/ https://abxtests.com/ The guy who made it, jaakkopasanen, is also the author of other great audio tools - AutoEQ and Impulcifer.

spawnthink 5y ago

Not sure how reflective that test is, since my perception is already primed by noticing the loading time per sample

marcan_42 5y ago
If they are delivering a compressed file and an uncompressed file, that already disqualifies the test. The only way to do ABX comparisons is to round-trip one version through the encoder and back to the original format. Anything else introduces uncontrolled dependencies (e.g. on a particular device's decoder implementation) and side channels that unblind the experiment (like loading time). This is a common mistake people make, e.g. comparing 48k vs 96k files. What you need to do is take a 96k original, downsample it to 48k, upsample it again to 96k (both using very high quality algorithms), then compare it to the original 96k file again. Otherwise you're relying on your playback software or hardware's resampling algorithm, and I guarantee that's a compromise between quality and performance, and not valid for a scientific test.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

I've done blind tests and I can tell if I try really hard but I wouldn't even say that the mp3 sounds worse, just different. I focus on hi hats. I do collect lossless audio for archival reasons and the ability to convert from a non lossy source. I believe that high bitrate audio is entirely bullshit though- as Chris Montgomery has shown: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

adrianmonk 5y ago
> high bitrate audio Based on the opening part of that video, I think you must have meant to say high sampling rate.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Yes. Thanks. It's been awhile since I watched.
snvzz 5y ago
>I wouldn't even say that the mp3 sounds worse, just different. If you're comparing against lossless, sounding different means sounding worse. The goal is transparency: Preserving the qualities of the original audio that you can actually hear, while occupying less space.

tarsinge 5y ago

I'm actually quite skeptical random people with high end gear can hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless. It has more to do with ear training, mp3 compression is not really on the same axis than what high end gear give you (basic equipment can have a large frequency response).

leviathant 5y ago
On the topic of ear training and hearing differences most people don't hear, I had a recording I was mixing down that featured a squeaky kick pedal on the bass drum. I spent more time than I should have trying to scoop that out of the mix, and in the end, I could still hear the squeaky kick pedal, but no one else in the band could. Later that week I put in a CD with songs I'd heard hundreds of times, and to my absolute horror, I could now hear the squeak of that drummer's kick pedal, like an icepick jabbing me in the ear. It had been there the whole time, pressed to millions of CDs, broadcast over countless radio stations, but only became apparent to me after intense focus on that particular sound. I imagine that people who claim to hear the difference between 320kbps and lossless experience something like that. There may be a particular, narrow band of frequencies that sound slightly more modulated in 320 when compared to lossless, but unless you make a concerted, drawn out effort to find that, you'll never know. And if you do make that effort, you can end up ruining your otherwise pleasant experience for absolutely no good reason. Anyway, after the kick pedal squeak incident, I switched to listening to wholly electronic music for the next month or so as a palette cleanser, and I haven't picked up on the squeak anywhere else since.

unfamiliar 5y ago

> I and many others running good high end gear can repeatedly score well on these tests. Every time this comes up someone says this. I've never seen anyone actually doing it. e.g. a video of setting up a double blind test of this and someone actually passing consistently. When I've challenged people IRL who claim the same thing the response is always "Well, obviously I can't do it with any of the audio gear that either of us have access to... but if I did have high end gear I could tell for sure!"

jorvi 5y ago
Not only that, biology is also against them. Somewhere between 25-30 years of age, your hearing already dips <17KHz. Where does lossy do the vast amount of its information discarding? >17KHz.
- foo_barrio 5y ago
  I am almost 40 and can easily hear pure ones over 17khz but can't differentiate pure noise with or without anything above 13khz. Right around 18.5khz there's a sharp falloff on pure tones no matter how much I pump the volume. I use a loudness meter that shows me the freq spectrum to confirm that my speakers and headphones are producing a pure constant tone. On the tests at: "https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_frequency.php?frq=14 https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_frequency.php?frq=14" I can get 10/10 on the 10khz and 11khz test, 9/10 on the 12khz test and then it's just guessing at 13khz and higher. High hats tend to fall around 16khz and I have been able to differentiate on audio tests just by listening to high hats but that has more to do with how aggressive the codec is and not necessarily my hearing capability. I enjoy piano music and using the Apple afconvert tool I've been able to get piano tracks down to under 100kbps and they sound fine to me which is pretty amazing. I cannot use some of the more popular Berydynamic headphones because they sound too trebly and some pop songs are physically painful for me to listen to (eg the marimbas at the start of Ed Sheeran's Shape of You are like ear daggers on the 880 headphone and unlistenable on the 990's). I wonder if some of that brand's popularity comes from older ladies/gentlement being able to hear treble in the music that they otherwise wouldn't hear at all.

Ashanmaril 5y ago

Being able to discern a difference in a side-by-side test doesn't really mean much. You can tell which of 2 similar shades of blue is lighter next to each other, but if you were to look at one and then another a day apart you probably couldn't say which was lighter

xkjkls 5y ago
It's a good point about optimization of certain things in general. Like, yeah, someone might post a study that in an anechoic chamber you can tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed audio, but how much of a difference is that making for people in the real world? Often when I listen to music, I'm at the gym, or the office, surrounded by all sorts of background noise that is going to impact my experience way more than compression.

thrdbndndn 5y ago

Can people who claimed that they can distinguish 320Kbps MP3 and lossless start posting their ABX log already?

kwanbix 5y ago

There are a very small % of people that can. You can check HydrogenAudio's double blind test for explanation on how to do a proper test. https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Blind_test https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Blind_test

baldfat 5y ago

I use to be a sound engineer. Those "test" usually with gear they owned and you can of course tell the difference with gear you are use to. Most gear has anything but clarity. Most people will dislike clear sound. The POINT is blind test 128 MP3 and lossless. Still the vast majority of people don't have the equipment to hear any difference. The Second POINT is most people prefer to have boomy colored sound and again that ruins the need for lossless. This is why people prefer old vinyl records. It compresses the sound and makes it sound better in most people's opinion. If people would listen to 80s tapes I bet they would love that sound also. The Third POINT music is heard with background noise all the time. No way while listening to music people could tell the difference and those that can it would require great concentration. There is a limited return of investment for most people. Personally I own a DAC and a preamp and have my hundreds of dollars headphones and my Genlec speakers that cost thousands of dollars. I hear a SLIGHT difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC and that is 100% concentration and I can hear a difference in only certain types of music. Classical Jazz and Classical music. I can't tell with pop and electronic music which is what most people listen to.

lloeki 5y ago

There is also the theoretical case of double lossy encoding, e.g with Bluetooth headsets. Something not perceivable when listening to AAC decoding directly punched into a wired headset vs reencoding for BT transport which could transform previously unhearable compression artifacts into the perceivable range (think editing a jpeg and resaving as jpeg often produces artifacts) I have not seen any tests for that. (Of course if the device is able to push the AAC stream to the headset this does not happen. This kind of thing is quite opaque and hard to get info about as to which hardware or combination of hardware would support that) > So a very well mastered track with plenty of dynamic range will still sound noticeably better on high performing speakers or headphones I'm quite convinced that a good part of vinyl being reputably better comes from that, especially with the virtuous loop of audiophiles being the main audience for modern vinyl, which calls for good mastering.

sporkland 5y ago

I could hear the difference on the first question on my pixel 5 phone speakers.

ehsankia 5y ago
Try a proper ABX audio test like: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ http://abx.digitalfeed.net/ It is a bit lengthy, takes 5-10m, but it is a true blind A/B test with enough samples to be significant.

raggi 5y ago

Test using pixel 4 xl built in speakers at 2/3 volume. You don't need high end gear, you can pick artifacts in half the test cases almost more easily on low end speakers. A few of the tracks only become noticeable once theyre busy. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bx1XZP5DKpMvvmHf8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bx1XZP5DKpMvvmHf8

robbyking 5y ago

This is really interesting! I did the test you linked, and for all but one I picked the lowest bitrate version. I'm using WH-1000XM3 headphones and am a lifelong musician with pretty mild tinnitus.

bentcorner 5y ago
Similar thing happened to me. What sounded "best" is subjective and I really had no idea what to listen for. Listened using Beyerdynamic Custom Studios with a cheap-ish DAC on a windows PC.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
Same headphones and tinnitus and picked out WAV 5/6 times. I did spend some time to listen tho, not pick blindly. I did have aptX enabled at some point in Macos, not sure if it's still working.

squeaky-clean 5y ago

These sorts of tests are BS in my opinion. How often are you listening to the same track 3 times across different quality settings in the same listening session? The only "real" test for these sorts of things is > You've got a new device. Your streaming app defaults to low-quality upon installation. How long until you notice this?

peeters 5y ago
There are plenty of things that can poison the user experience that don't rise above the sub-conscious. Just because you don't notice something doesn't mean that if that thing is improved, you won't have a better experience. E.g. an added 15ms latency on a website.

not_good_coder 5y ago

On NPRs site I can tell which track is the wav file by observing the load time of each track.

IceWreck 5y ago

I gave these and I can't distinguish between 320kbps and uncompressed.

summerlight 5y ago

It's technically possible to distinguish between 320kbps and loseless but it's nothing to do with perceived sound quality or not but more of whether you're trained to hear high-freq sound domain which tends to more suffer from compression.

86J8oyZv 5y ago

I just got 5/6 with just my MacBook Pro speakers (but am a musician). "Bigger and stronger" is kind of an asinine way to describe the difference though. Was "you hear more subtle details" too many words?

INTPenis 5y ago

That test was amazing. You made me really excited and I even guessed the first one correctly by seemingly hearing the difference. So I spent minutes on each of the other questions, listening and listening, but I just couldn't hear it and sure enough I guessed wrong on every other question after that. And I have a mid-range mini amp that fits in between my books, and two mid-range dali speakers hooked up with a regular 3.5mm outlet to my Ryzen MSI PC board, volume up to max on the computer but not on the amp.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

treeman79 5y ago

Audio is a deep rabbit rabbit hole. There is always a next level of quality. You can hear the difference, so always a reason to spend just a bit more. Then you have a 100k setup and someone is wondering why you just book the band directly.

snvzz 5y ago

>even 320kbps MP3 Not "even" as if that was any good. MP3 320kbps is a very low bar. OPUS vbr averaging 128kbps is much harder than mp3 320kbps to ABX against FLAC. MP3 simply is a really bad codec by current standards.

dzhiurgis 5y ago
Yet if you open Soulseek 99% of tracks are mp3.

Seb-C 5y ago

I run what I consider to be "good high-end gear" and am surprised that I cannot even tell the difference between 128kbps and 320 kbps, let alone lossless...

dzhiurgis 5y ago

Guessed WAV's 5/6 on bluetooth headphons, but took a lot of attention. Also - the samples can steer you in many directions.