http://mp3ornot.com/
Printable View
I hear it....
both are mp3.
the point is to identify which one is the better quality, you retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
Wow. Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Isnt calling the site mp3ornot.com stupid is when the answer to the question isnt whether the file is an mp3 or not?
The whole mp3 sound quailty debate doesnt revolving around 192 mp3s vs 320 mp3s. Its CD, Vinyl, Wav whatever vs mp3.
Engage your own brain retard.
fairly audible differance thru the mackies
There is a massive difference. I was expecting WAV vs high quality MP3 or something.
Not much of challenge if its 320 vs 128 now is it?.
320 vs 128 .... piece of piss
comeon barry ...we all know u listened, failed, then clicked the only other option
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtech
Why doesnt someone do a WAV vs 320k vs FLAC version. ie a real challenge?
The Wav would be probably to big to play/download I guess.
just a small clip. worth a go i reckon. the page would load all the clips up first obviously so you wouldnt know which one took longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Dust
nonsense
I think you're all missing the point. This song is used to scare badgers, but seeing as badgers can only hear at a bit rate of 128 number 2 is teh gay.
Oh yeah, you're ma's.
Fairly audible difference with my shitty £5 headphones through this on-board sound card.Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtech
Erm...Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
What's the point of doing WAV v's FLAC?
FLAC is lossless, so there is no difference between WAV and FLAC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechMouse
Erm. I said WAV vs 320 vs FLAC.
Which meant high quality mp3 vs the best formats.
And TM seeing you are being so pedantic today there is a massive difference
between WAV and FLAC. The size. ;)
Yeah, but you can't really hear size can you.Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
Not quite sure how your blind comparison would work.
You can yeah. I hear Rhythm tech has a tiny penis.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechMouse
Touche.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyBlack
figured.Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
you wont be hearing very much after i stick my tiny penis in your ear and drill your wannabe coulchie brains out the other saide..Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyBlack
.. in a non-gay way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtech
That should make April 19th even more fun!
you comin down to it?
should be a rockin night!!
Damn right man, I'm gonna be reviewing it too i think, so loads of mad pictures and obscure questions! :lol: Session on?Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtech
I did a WAV vs 320kbit thing here once. Can't remember if anyone bit. Did it on another board with bits from "Hotel California" as the test, since it wasn't a techno board. All the people who absolutely knew they'd be able to spot a difference were, after requesting I waste the time putting loops together, amazingly silent once that had occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
Either way, it's probably Radiohead's fault. ;)
possibly.. i might be fecked though.. ill be flyin in from berlin that mornin after seeing dj godfather & sven vath!!! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyBlack
i could be a little incoherant!
I'm sure we can source something that'll kick some life into ya!Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtech
do it again! pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by tocsin
I'll have to reupload tonight. I'll post a link when it's done.
haha, ah well, i didn't hear a MASSIVE difference. i think if the music had more highs on it i would have been able to tell instantly. all i heard was some frequencies were getting masked...no wonder i could never master my tracks heh! another thing, it didn't ruin my listening experience. i can admire a picture of art from afar i don't need to be super close to see it. (what the **** am i on abooot...)
be interesting to try the 320 vs flac or wav test, reckon massplacnk is gonna fail ;)
i found the difference on this test much more audible
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedai...istinguish.php
test via doa
Quote:
Done something similar for a module for uni, so I'll quickly whack it up here.
I ripped a track from a CD (in this case, Fanu - Salam from Daylightless) into a wav, then exported 5 second-sections at different bitrates. On the clip I've done, there is;
5 seconds of Wav 44k/16bit
5 seconds of 320 mp3
5 seconds of 192 mp3
5 seconds of 128mp3
Not in that order. See if you can work out which is which
For the record, I done this for a number of different songs in different genres and eras. My own take is that mixdown/mastering can make a massive difference to the quality of the Encoded MP3. There are, in my opinion, too many variables involved to make any sweeping statements.
File located here. http://files.filefront.com/FanuTest...;/fileinfo.html
Have fun!
EDIT - 16bit, not 24 bit
what was radiohead's fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by tocsin
maybe your efforts were met with silence because people find you generally very tedious and lacking in charisma.
tbf, someone who spends their spare time putting loops together to play on an internet forum is more than likely a cockless wonder with no social life.
i sent a pm to the guy with my answers and got it 100%!! i asked him what results he got from uni
come on then, any of you ****s gonna match me?? post up your answers and i'll post up the correct ones after a bit.Quote:
Wotcha mate,
You got it spot on. From the group at uni, only a few could pinpot exactly what bitrate, about most could tell there was a change in quality, a few couldn't tell any difference at all.
We found that some tunes translated nicely to 192k, some of them sounded awful, so mixdown and mastering probably plays a part in it. Different encoders brought different results too, so there's alot that can affect quality.
Nice one for getting it 100% right though. Clearly got the golden ears!
Quote:
Originally Posted by detfella
where are the files. thats a link to some kiddie games site by the looks of things. Doesnt work right. Just brings me to filefront.com
@microdot.
Let it go. 2 months ago we had a bit of barney and your still up for it for some reason.
there's a download link on the filefront pageQuote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
Im not seeing it danny. it just goes straight to filefront.com mainpage. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by detfella
soz, it truncatedd it cos i copied and pasted, try thisQuote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
http://files.filefront.com/FanuTestw.../fileinfo.html
Id much prefer if the clips were separate and of the exact same sample tbh. When its a passage of music thats changing how can you judge correctly against each other?
Not scientific!
mind your own business son.Quote:
Originally Posted by massplanck
wasn't talking to you.
ok dad.
give it a shot mass & pm me your answers
anyone else going to give it a go?
Ok. So here's the archive from the challenge I posted elsewhere.
http://www.septiknexus.com/challenge.zip
It's in a zip format with no compression used so the files haven't been altered. I set them up as loops so you can seamlessly repeat them. They are loops of 3 sections from "Hotel California" which I figured was a fair track to pick since it hasn't been mastered in the same way dance music is, and there's a full range of frequencies in the song.
When you are listening to the loops, they could be 1 of 3 formats:
1.) Uncompressed WAV (CD)
2.) 320 Kbit Joint Stereo Mid/Side MP3
3.) A mix of both of the above.
I have PM'd the answers to Slav for independent verification. Have fun. :)
For the record, just so there isn't confusion, the actual file format of everything in that archive is WAV. This is to prevent cheating. An easy way to spot the difference between a WAV and an MP3 is to look at a file header. While the format for all of these files is WAV, I saved WAVs from MP3 for the MP3 test. Those files will sound no better than the original MP3. And best of luck to anyone spotting the mixxed files. ;)
What's your excuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Microdot
*YAWN* Yeah, it could be that. Or, it might have something to do with the fact that, after commuting 209km for work each day, on Monday through Friday I'm pretty much home at night. :) Either way, for a so-called "producer" to give another crap about that is pretty comical.Quote:
tbf, someone who spends their spare time putting loops together to play on an internet forum is more than likely a cockless wonder with no social life.
silence....
seems people are only prepared to do a test where their eyes only see the results
No need to get upset danny. My critera would be to have full songs encoded in all the different formats, then listen to them on good quality (hifi?) speakers and then judge. Not the way that dude did it and using crappy PC speakers.
Also That track doesnt have much highend in it either ,which is where you really notice the lossiness of mp3. For the record the first 5 secs is WAV i reckon.
@Tocsin. I'm downloading that now.