Support NeoGAF

[Matlock]

I'm curious as to whether or not you really can tell or not, so I've ripped a song three times--128, 160, 192 respectively, then trimmed them down to ten second clips (not exact clips, but close). Your job is to tell me which is which.

Got it? Okay, let's go.

One.
Two.
Three.

And for the benefit of the rest, please put your answer in

Spoiler

tags.

 

[Hitokage]

You should have decoded to wav so the player doesn't give the answer away.

 

[Matlock]

You should have decoded to wav so the player doesn't give the answer away.

Obviously you've not opened the files. I planned for that. :lol

 

[RevenantKioku]

Well, mine comes up in my browser, so no cheating done. Uh

Spoiler

I'm totally fucking guessing.
1) 192 2) 128 3) 160
I hope this is one of those tests where they're all the same and people get all omg 3 is totally 128

 

[acidviper]

I'm curious as to whether or not you really can tell or not, so I've ripped a song three times--128, 160, 192 respectively, then trimmed them down to ten second clips (not exact clips, but close). Your job is to tell me which is which.

Got it? Okay, let's go.

One.
Two.
Three.

And for the benefit of the rest, please put your answer in

Spoiler

tags.

Spoiler

Spoiler

wtf

 

[AlphaSnake]

They're all the same to me.

 

[Diablos]

Hey buddy, critical flaw with your test here - they are ALL 192kbps, meaning there is some transcoding... they all sound way too lossy for 192kbps btw.

Let me give you a YSI link to some 10 second clips, the right way (CD->MP3 for each one) and then you can upload it again.

 

[123rl]

Spoiler

The first one sounded like 128 but I couldn't hear a difference between the other two. I'm sure the first one is a lower bitrate than the other two

But I'm playing it through laptop speakers...everything sounds bad :lol

btw this was streaming it via Quicktime/Firefox so it didn't say what bitrate they are

 

[Matlock]

Hey buddy, critical flaw with your test here - they are ALL 192kbps, meaning there is some transcoding... they all sound way too lossy for 192kbps btw.

Let me give you a YSI link to some 10 second clips, the right way (CD->MP3 for each one) and then you can upload it again.

Hex edit :X

I'll recut and put to wav like hito suggested in #GA, tho.

 

[Crispy]

Spoiler

1 = 160
2 = 192
3 = 128

What? The test is faulty? oh well...see if I can get it later

 

[Ecrofirt]

I've listened to each one around 20 times. I think the best way to hear the differences would be if you included an uncompressed wav of the same area.

I'm not positive, but I think the first is 128, and here's my reasoning: There is a subtle underlying pop sound ad the end when he says "double vision", but more specifically during the "v" in vision.

The next two sound very very similiar to me, an dI'm having a really hard time deciding which is which.

Now they do all say 192k, and I don't know how you got them to say that for all of them, so I don't know what is what for sure.

Coinicdentally, this is exactly the same kind of test I was asking for in the big MP3 thread awhile back were people were saying VBR >>> CBR. Matlock, if you can, try and do a VBR comparison as well with it on Extreme.

 

[Matlock]

The order for this session (going to be redone due to my trickery!) was

Spoiler

160, 192, 128.

 

[Diablos]

Ooh, slick.

I'm gonna have to say...

Spoiler

Clip 1: 160
Clip 2: 192
Clip 3: 128

The very beginning of

Spoiler

clip 3

kind of gives away that it is 128kbps.

 

[Diablos]

The order for this session (going to be redone due to my trickery!) was

Spoiler

160, 192, 128.

Oh snap! I got it!

 

[Matlock]

If someone can hook me up with something that can translate mp3 to lossless .wav, that'd be hot and I could do this the right way.

 

[Crispy]

The order for this session (going to be redone due to my trickery!) was

Spoiler

160, 192, 128.

Whoohoo I was right!

 

[Diablos]

A winner is us! I didn't look at your answers till I submitted my reply, btw.

Matlock... Winamp does it. WaveOut plugin.

And I hope you're using LAME 3.96.1 and not iTunes.

 

[Matlock]

A winner is us!

Matlock... Winamp does it. WaveOut plugin.

Thanks, Diablos, I'll be right on it...with...uh...I dunno, but I'll find another CD laying around here somewhere, heh.

 

[Diablos]

Why don't you let me do some 10 second clips and YSI them to you? I have 30+ CD's right in front of me.

 

[Matlock]

Why don't you let me do some 10 second clips and YSI them to you? I have 30+ CD's right in front of me.

Hey, works for me. You can send them to me on AIM too, if you want, Conan36x.

 

[Papi]

Spoiler

128, 192, 160
I lose

No, but seriously. It's 128, 192, 160. Matlock is WRONG!

 

[Phoenix]

They're all the same to me.

All the same to me as well. The only thing I can tell is that the first 2 are higher than the last, but all pretty much sound the same.

 

[Diablos]

Check your PM's Matlock.

The next song does not feature vocals. Just a little bit of bass playing at the beginning (to throw off your senses; deeper sounds always compress best in mp3's, even at the lowest bitrates), then lots of guitar noise with some semi-intense jungle drumming. Should be fairly challenging.

I'm almost positive 192kbps will be easier to figure out from the other two. The first clip Matlock posted had a lot of vocals, but the also lots of bass and not much else. These clips show you how mp3's really mess up songs that are a lot more dynamic than that.

 

[Matlock]

Check your PM's Matlock.

Got it, I'll post it in a new thread, because this one's kinda sunk.

 

[Diablos]

woot.

 

[GG-Duo]

oh, shit, my answers were correct

I'm going to have to download at higher bitrates from now on

 

[Diablos]

Exploiting your ears to audio compression is a terrible thing. Once your brain and ears recognize how to identify compression artifacts, you really can't go back to listening the way you used to.

I figured it out the old fashioned way, using ancient encoders like Plugger and BladeEnc which would produce so many freaking compression artifacts.