What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Gibson Guitar Pack view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - A Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) carol about the righteousness of the Gibson Guitar Pack.
307 Comments
- slightlyoffbeat, on 10/12/2007, -18/+147Unfortunately, most people will probably be trying to compare the two song files by listening via their generic ipod ear buds, or cheap computer speakers. I used my studio headphones and the difference was easily noticeable.
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -23/+130I hate to ask (because I have a feeling I'll be the victim of a severe digg-beating), but if the point of this exercise is to prove that you can tell a difference, what does that accomplish? If you can, good for you. Do you intend to wear the giant-sized $300 headphones every time you're walking around listening to your ipod? Are you planning to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to upgrade your car stereo system so you can actually hear the difference in there too? If you can't, then are you an inferior person, lacking the ability to divine even the simplest of things from 2 vastly different encodes? If by chance, you're talking to someone who can't tell the difference, would you ridicule them for not being able, or would you somehow try to explain how it's different, and why that matters?
Sorry if these questions seem a little too ... practical for your tastes. - dadof2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+88This is awesome I got all 4 songs right! If you have good speakers/headphones it should be easily apparent. Great info!
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6696kbps? Your poor ears.
- nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56This test is not very helpful in determining if AAC sounds different than the original (which was the stated goal).
Reason being, what if AAC makes the original sound better? That is, the artifacts of compression actually improve the sound (for example by making an instrument sound smoother).
Looking at the results .. it seems this was the case for Crossfade - Starless ... since the "incorrect" recording was considered better.
I'll change a quote from Mark Twain so it seems appropriate: "Crossfade's music is a lot worse than it sounds" - smackit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43
I used my [insert expensive audio equipment here] to listen and got (lie) correct! I must be an audio genius!!! - logic6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41I only read the first 10 words of your comment and knew you were an idiot.
- TheCheeks, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3896? ow... i can tell a 128 from 192-320, i cant imagine how a 96 would sound...
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30128 kbps is not necessarily the same as 128 kbps.... My point is that the encoder, the encoding method and the source also matter, and greatly so. I recently had a "spring cleaning" in my music files, and found several mp3 files @320 kbps that sounded like they were recorded through a telephone. I also found a LOT of semi-high bitrate mp3 files (160-192 kbps) that sounded worse than a properly encoded 96 kbps mp3 file would.
Newer technologies, like AAC, can easily sound better than mp3 at half the bitrate. Use a good mp3 encoder (like LAME) and the quality markedly improves though. - likephatec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30I was so good at this test the CIA and the FBI both showed up at my door and asked me to meet the president.
Luckily, since I am a former compositor and an accomplished Yoyo-Master I head their footsteps from 2.554 miles away, and ran away in time, to my endless fields of douchebag trees and assclown bushes. - conradpaul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33douchebag
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30"The point the guy was making is that about 50% people get it wrong, that means that 50% people are unable to recognize the original,"
No it doesn't. If they can't tell which is which then how are the people who don't know... going to pick the incorrect one??
The flaw here is that it's a 50:50 question. If you don't know then are just as likely to get it right.... which is why the results have all come out 50:50 across the board. It's a completely meaningless poll.
Every single person could have been unable to distinguish the difference ... picked at random, and the results we are seeing would be exactly the same.
It's quite bizarre actually. - Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -16/+43You're all just a bunch of pretentious, uppity audiophile wannabes that annoy the ***** out of most people.
- sicapitan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34you probably have a black and white tv and a 386SX!
- slightlyoffbeat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I have a lot of 96k and 128k music from my napster days, and from the days when I thought that was best to rip cds at lower quality because it saved hard drive space. My listening tastes have matured greatly since then and I can't stand to listen to those old music files anymore. They sound muddy. I suppose if you can't tell the difference then it doesn't matter, but if you CAN tell the difference then low quality music files can really ruin the listening experience.
- pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Here are the totals so far:
http://duxlist.com:81/song/show_results
It's not statistically relevant yet, but if this makes it to the front page it will be. - zolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21And statistically they are correct. If you choose randomly from two you should get around 50%.
- Shaman760, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27I really miss the "vinyl hiss"..... ffffff-----pt ffffffffffff--------pt....So warm, so analog.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Yeah, nothing like *noise* to really enhance your listening experience.
I know there are a lot of vinyl proponents out there and that's fine, but WTF? - ashmodai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19That, that's nothing, in my day we were listening to 16 kbps and we LIKED it!
- insovietrussia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I remember when I bought my Rio Mp3 player for AU$700 in 1999. Had 32MB of memory which held 10 songs, but you could fit 11 if you encoded at 96kbps. Ah those were the days.
- TheCheeks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+152/4. If i tried hard enough and long enough i'm sure i could get better results, but honestly just getting the songs and listening for enjoyment, i would not have noticed a difference.
- aussieNickuss, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23I guessed the wrong one but (i may have forgotten which one was which) but one of them had the faint "hiss" in the background (like off old cassette tapes) that gives me the ***** about the songs I buy from iTunes.
- Azurensis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14>The flaw here is that it's a 50:50 question. If you don't know then are just as likely to get it right.... which is why the results have all come out 50:50 across the board. It's a completely meaningless poll.
No, if there *was* something about one sample that made it sound better to the average person, it would have showed on this poll. As it is, AAC at 128k is good enough for most people. - TriaLunae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13... and you deserve a hearty STFU.
Where the hell is your dedicated CD transport and external DAC? Your tube-based headphone amp? Oh, right, because Foobar and ASIO4ALL (read: half-ass ASIO support for consumer hardware that does a fine job of soaking up all that lovely EMI bouncing around the inside of your computer case) are more than equivalent replacements to support your $2200 headphone setup. Or not.
Ass. - insovietrussia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The points is, as far as Apple is concerned, the vast majority of their customers are going to be listening to the music on their iPods, on their computers and in their cars - where the difference is indistinguishable/negligible. This is the market they are trying to reach, not the audiophiles.
If you need higher quality sampling, then the iTunes store probably isn't the place for you. - kaffein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You don't "convert" you re-encode an already encoded file... That would sound horrible on a good set of cans or monitors.
- zolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12nullcode: The objective of test is not to tell "which one is better" but the ability to distinguish them. If the probability of selecting the real one is equal or close to 0.5 then they are "the same" (random) for the user.
Search for "ABX testing" or even for "winabx" software if you want to prove your ears/headphones are superior to others. - Zaphodi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10192 seems to be the limit of my ears. After that i don't hear any difference to the original. Seems to be the exact same thing as CRT refresh rates. some people are happy with 60Hz and some people see the screen flicker even at 85Hz
- randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It's kinda funny. Every single time I pick the compressed version. I'm not listening to the highs, to the lows, and trying to figure out which one reproduces these ranges perfectly, all I'm doing is listening to the clips and picking which one sounds the best to me. It's interesting that I've been listening to Mp3s since about '94, that's 13 years of hearing mostly compressed music. I wonder if "what sounds better" to me is simply just picking what I'm used to?
In any case, the stated goal of the experiment - can you tell the difference - seems to have been verified, even with my strange results. Evidently I -am- hearing a difference because I pick the same one every time. I'm just not sure what it means.
(for the record, I'm using over the ear semi-expensive headphones) - shableep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10crap, 128kbps AAC sounds really freakin' good. with MP3 i can totally hear the difference between 128kbps and 196kbps. i heard almost no difference between the 2 tracks on all except the Shins. for some reason the Shins one sounded a lot more obvious. maybe try throwing in an orchestral track. with the wide range of frequencies in orchestral tracks, it might more distinctly show the difference between the too rates. would be cool to see.
- Buchardt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I've listened to the songs now, and I couldn't hear a damn difference, but again, my stereo setup now sounds like ***** (lame Linux drivers?). Anyways, when you guys say the the difference is obvious, I don't understand it. What do I need to listen to, to hear the difference?
Distortion?
Noise?
Flat/dull tones?
Although not working 24/7 with music, I'm rather interested in music, and I do play a lot of music myself aswell. But partially my music setup right now (I just installed Linux, and there are LOADS of background noise in my speakers, dunno why) sux, and partially I just don't know what to listen to. Maybe if I brought the music to some other DAC, I could hear a difference, but right now I don't know what to listen to.
So all you "it's easy to hear" people, please enlighten us and tell us WHAT exactly is easy to hear. - pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"This test is not very helpful in determining if AAC sounds different than the original (which was the stated goal).
Reason being, what if AAC makes the original sound better? That is, the artifacts of compression actually improve the sound (for example by making an instrument sound smoother)."
You're totally right, and at this point I'm really pissed that I didn't make it a true ABX test. I was a bit pressed for time though, and I cut corners. If I had known it was going to the front page, I would have probably spent a week on it instead of a couple hours. - sn0wkitty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I got it wrong, however I would argue that the difference between the two would be much easier to discern if you were using an example with a fuller frequency spread, such as a rock or dance track (with higher high frequencies and lower basses.)
Don't quote me on this, but isn't the "Squishing" that occurs when you compress audio most noticeable in the high treble and low bass frequencies? If that is the case, a midrange-centred piano wouldn't be a good basis for comparison.
Or maybe I'm just having a hard time admitting I got it wrong.. heh heh heh
edit: oh, wait, there are more examples on the page. oops - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I can't tell if he's being sarcastic. There are people who swear by vinyl and I don't get it either.
- tuzziel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18The point the guy was making is that about 50% people get it wrong, that means that 50% people are unable to recognize the original, thats significant find and congrats to Apple for such a good codec.
- screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10My ears are not as sophisticated as some peoples' ears, and I'm happy about that. It must suck to have to listen to music that is 320kbps (or lossless) in order to enjoy it. Though, I suspect that many of those who claim to have such sensitive ears are lying (probably lying even to themselves), because they think it makes them cool.
I didn't try this test, but have done my own testing in the past. I found that I couldn't reliably tell the difference between 160kbps and the original. So, I ripped all my CDs at 192kbps (just to err on the side of quality). - KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9...if you live in the magical land of infinite storage space, especially on mobile devices.
- chewy5000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Real Player ftw!
/sarcasm - Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I can't tell the difference because I can't play the files.
- FreeiPodGuy.com, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I listened to them through a wire connected to a needle resting on a piece of tinfoil with six kids beating pots and pans around my head, and I got them all right, because I'm such a kick-ass audiophile, and therefore a better human being than anyone who got even one wrong.
- eMximeR, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12It just depends on which MP3 player you have, my iRiver requires WMP and I don't mind it at all. v11 looks pretty nice
- AggieTales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Actually... no, both files are the same size(at least on The Shins and Franz Liszt), and both are encoded in Apple Lossless (from the 265 kbps, so its lossy -> "lossless" encoding) so there's no "smaller" file. the only slight difference I noticed was on one of the songs the "Data Rate", as Quicktime puts it, differed by 0.04 kbps (790.62 vs 790.58)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I dont suppose someone has a mirror of the files?
- ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18But WMP is about as rubbish as you can get, though.
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I got one correct. I did 2 with the "24bit crystalizer" from my sound card on.. and two with it off. The one I got correct was with it off (the third one)...... what this means, I have no idea. My speakers aren't too bad.
... I'm going to go to guess that I got one correct from chance and I'm actually tone deaf. - Dawson1066, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The test uses 256k AAC files--not 128k. Of course it will be tough to tell the difference on computer speakers.
- LeonardNimrod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9[sarcasm]Yeah! That makes sense![/sarcasm]
If you are storing audio digitally you should be using a compressed, but lossless audio format such as FLAC or Apple Lossless. - xmuzik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6These debates always remind me of the software vs. hardware debates on music production forums, the sad truth that most of the heads wont admit is that most people in the general buying public never notice the difference.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 310 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is