Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: The Great Lossy Listen Off! Test Your Ability To Detect Lossless vs Lossy

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default The Great Lossy Listen Off! Test Your Ability To Detect Lossless vs Lossy

    I now have files ready for download to conduct a blind listening test. Each lossless file contains ten samples of a little over two minutes each. The files will contain:

    Original Lossless
    Frauenhofer MP3 192 / 256 / 320
    LAME MP3 192 / 256 / 320
    AAC 192 / 256 / 320

    All files have a constant bit rate (CBR). The musical sample was selected by Millionrainbows. It includes a bit from a choral work (very hard to encode without artifacting) and a full frequency range orchestral recording with stepped dynamics from quiet to loud. Excellent samples!

    It will be up to you to find the lossless file by listening alone. No waveform peeking or checksums. Every participant will receive the ten different samples in a different order. The test file is available in either FLAC or Apple Lossless. You can feel free to burn it to a CD or listen on your computer. It's up to you.

    ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST POST THEIR CHOICE(s) IN THIS THREAD. I won't reveal your score unless you do that. Drop me a PM and let me know if you would prefer FLAC or Apple Lossless format and I will send you a download link.

    For your convenience, here is the start point time of each of the ten tracks...

    TRACK 01: 00:00
    TRACK 02: 02:15
    TRACK 03: 04:35
    TRACK 04: 06:55
    TRACK 05: 09:10
    TRACK 06: 11:30
    TRACK 07: 13:50
    TRACK 08: 16:05
    TRACK 09: 18:25
    TRACK 10: 20:45

    Good luck!

    EDIT: Mahlerian, KRoad and mmsbls have joined the test and have received their files.
    Last edited by bigshot; Mar-01-2013 at 07:45.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I just listened informally to the file myself, and I think it's going to be tough for anyone to detect any difference between the samples. They all sound good. Interestingly enough, the lowest bitrate I used is 1 1/2 notches below what is sold in the iTunes store and at Amazon. It shows how good downloads actually sound.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Is the original lossless 16/44.1 ?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Yes. It's full CD quality. millionrainbows sent it to me in ALAC format and I converted it to AIFF and mixed it in with the lossy versions.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I don't think I can tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 320 mp3.
    I think I can tell the difference between 24 bit and 320 mp3 though. Is it possible to include one such sample?
    In any case I'm in. Can you send me the FLAC please?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Ravndal, ZombieBeethoven and vertigo have joined the test.

    I'm afraid I'm not set up to do 24 bit right now. I posted a test of that a few weeks ago, but no one replied on it. I'll try again in a while. In the meantime, I've pm'ed you your download link, vertigo.

  7. #7
    Senior Member emiellucifuge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,934
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    sign me up
    "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." - Rousseau

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emiellucifuge View Post
    sign me up
    Flac or Apple Lossless?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    10,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    44

    Default

    1: Clear separation. Sounds good to me. 9/10
    2: Muddier. Some distortion. 6/10
    3: Cleaner than 2 by far. Perhaps a tad worse than 1. 8/10
    4: Better than 2. Around the same as 3. 8/10
    5: Very clean. Sounds fine. 9/10
    6: Not quite as separated as 1 or 5. 7/10
    7: Some problems. 7/10
    8: Sounds fine, but not as good as some. 8/10
    9: Sounds good. 9/10
    10: Around the level of 3 or 4. 8/10

    I choose number 5.

    I don't necessarily expect that to be right, though. The only one that sounded really noticeably affected was 2.

    I've also decided that I don't want to hear the Polovtsian Dances for quite a while...

  10. #10
    Senior Member EddieRUKiddingVarese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Father of Electronic muse
    Posts
    5,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Must admit, I was struggling to hear anything or any difference on my equipment.

    The development of digital wax is sadly lacking.........

    colleenZ_sanantonio.gif
    "Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"

  11. Likes vertigo, Ramako liked this post
  12. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mahlerian View Post
    8: Sounds fine, but not as good as some. 8/10 aiff

    1: Clear separation. Sounds good to me. 9/10 aac192
    10: Around the level of 3 or 4. 8/10 aac256
    9: Sounds good. 9/10 aac320

    6: Not quite as separated as 1 or 5. 7/10 lame192
    4: Better than 2. Around the same as 3. 8/10 lame256
    5: Very clean. Sounds fine. 9/10 lame320

    3: Cleaner than 2 by far. Perhaps a tad worse than 1. 8/10 frau192
    7: Some problems. 7/10 frau256
    2: Muddier. Some distortion. 6/10 frau320
    Here is the results of your test. I've grouped them by codec to make it easier for you to analyze your results. Every test file is random, so the rest of the people testing will not be in the same order. I'll let you comment on your results first if you'd like.
    Last edited by bigshot; Mar-02-2013 at 07:00.

  13. #12
    Senior Member KenOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SoCal, USA
    Posts
    20,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Results, perceived best to worst:

    9 - AAC192
    9 - AAC320
    9 - LAME320*

    8 - AAC256
    8 - AIFF
    8 - FRAU192
    8 - LAME256

    7 - FRAU256
    7 - LAME192

    6 - FRAU320

    *Chosen best
    Last edited by KenOC; Mar-02-2013 at 07:22.


  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'm going for the one starting at 19:30 in my file.

  15. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    10,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
    Here is the results of your test. I've grouped them by codec to make it easier for you to analyze your results. Every test file is random, so the rest of the people testing will not be in the same order. I'll let you comment on your results first if you'd like.
    Interesting. There are actually some patterns there. I guess I find AAC (iTunes) and LAME to be better codecs in general.

    (I'll let people know up front that I didn't exactly use a Hi-Fi quality system for testing...)

  16. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I think basically, you're right there, but some of it looks like randomness to me too... for instance, you ranked LAME in the correct order, but frauenhofer in reverse order. You ranked the file that should have sounded the worst (frau192) the same as the lossless file, and the highest bitrate of frau as the worst. That has to be just randomness.

    My take is that your results show a little edge for AAC, but overall they all were so close to each other, finding the lossless file was pretty much just random guesses in the dark.

    That was fun. We'll see what else we find out when more people have a chance to weigh in.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. People's 'ear' for music versus their singing ability
    By Catharsis in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Jun-01-2017, 11:55
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: Jun-14-2014, 13:41
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: Dec-14-2011, 19:54
  4. Yiruma - From The Yellow Room (2003) Lossless
    By Seening in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jun-16-2011, 17:43

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •