yeah, i noticed that too. wasnt sure if it was definitely indicative of quality though, since i know little about computers.
Audio test: 128kbps vs 192kbps vs 320kbps vs cd quality
- Thread starter Sadguru
- Start date
Good idea. I might actually do that...
edit: But it would still be possible to manually crop segments from that single file et eventually check out their compressed size.
Scourge of Malice
Member
Couldn't people have just checked the file size..
*** Oops looks like people already discussed this
*** Oops looks like people already discussed this
Manbient
Queer Old Man
I seriously can't believe how many people didn't at LEAST get the 128 kbps one. That's rediculous to me haha... it was baltantly obvious to my ears which one was the lowest. Funny how not only did many get it wrong, many mistook it for CD QUALITY or 320 kbps! haha!
Aw man... and I worked reaaaalllly hard to distinguish those. I'm a computer 'tard, btw. Where would I fin this info? In the folder on my desktop, they all look the same??
edit: Oh, I see now.... geez...
I thought so too, but it seems the compressed file size is different from the extrated one.Aw man... and I worked reaaaalllly hard to distinguish those. I'm a computer 'tard, btw. Where would I fin this info? In the folder on my desktop, they all look the same??
Manbient
Queer Old Man
I suppose. The first listen i did was on a pair of 400 dollar Monitors with a SB Audigy Platinum card, which is probably above average for a computer sound system. I still think i could tell on a pair of crappy iPod ear buds though. There's a lot missing to me... everything just seems dull, the crisp tightness isn't there and there just seems to be too much missing in the ultra high frequencies (which makes sense, since they outright cut those out completely above ~16KHz when encoded at 128)
Okay, can we talk about what we actually HEARD? For me, I keyed on the cymbals, particularly on the left channel (ride? HH?) within the first 10 seconds of the sample. There's a quick succession of hits that get kind of buried in the lower quality versions. The tails also disappear. And the other thing that really did it for me was the snare. To distinguish between the lower quality ones, I listened for the attack of the snare. On the lower quality one, it sort of splats, and it doesn't have the crispness, though it's a slight difference.
I thought I'd be able to key on the sibilance in "sleep" and "glass", but it didn't really help. The higher quality one did seem to have more "air" in the vocals. They were a bit richer somehow...
What else did people do?
I thought I'd be able to key on the sibilance in "sleep" and "glass", but it didn't really help. The higher quality one did seem to have more "air" in the vocals. They were a bit richer somehow...
What else did people do?
Manbient
Queer Old Man
Studio monitors. They are a type of speaker meant to give a very flat response over a full frequency range. They're used for recording. They are a very "dry" sounding speaker, without any colouration to "pretty up" the sound. Monitors are usually quite "clinical" in sound.
Solid post. I'll see if I can focus on the keypoints your mentionned because honestly, I can't tell.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
i'm gonna go with dave and say i paid close attention to cymbals, snare, and bass drum. he and mumble already explained the keys for the former, in terms of the kick drum i listened for the punchiness (for lack of a better term). in the lower bitrates, you could still hear the hits, but 'feeling' them diminished significantly where transient samples were cut out. those were the telltales for me, and damn, i didn't even look when i unrar-'d it 
i was curious how you would manage to deal with filesize so i checked properties of them all, and found that you managed to have them roughly the same size (to the point where it was not distinguishable), as well as file creation time varying by seconds, if that. on that front, you made it quite fair.
i was curious how you would manage to deal with filesize so i checked properties of them all, and found that you managed to have them roughly the same size (to the point where it was not distinguishable), as well as file creation time varying by seconds, if that. on that front, you made it quite fair.
Manbient
Queer Old Man
To me, the low frequencies of compressed audio always sound "weird" to me, almost like the sound is clipping a little bit. That, and listening to the washy, digital hiss were the big indicators for me, ESPECIALLY for the 128. There was a pretty huge difference between that one and even the 192 to me. For the others it was a sound stage thing that set me off. Everything just felt "duller" with increasing compression, and i felt like i couldn't as accurately locate where in the soundstage sound was comming from. I mean, the sound started to feel more like a wall of sound with more compression with less identifiable holes. It was like the compression made the notes "leak" out into the soundstage and make it harder to distinquish.
waz416c
New Metal Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 724
- 7
- 0
Because, there's no way to know if people were cheating or not. That being said, I still think the winners were honest.
metal_wrath
I dip my forefinger...
I have an idea, is it possible to put all the songs into one file seperated by silence as someone mentioned, then you can put right protection on it so that noone can edit the mp3 file?????
Manbient
Queer Old Man
Similar threads
