Was posted in an FLS thread so didnt make sense, so i post it here again.
Just curious.
I have to say i hear no difference, but i may have bad ears...
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/easymode/TEST/mp3test.wav
try to guess
find out which is mp3 / wav
-
- KVRist
- 133 posts since 22 Apr, 2004
-
- Rad Grandad
- 38041 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine
more of the difference lies in ones confidence of the recording, that and the fact that you can find samples that are hard to tell apart. But just as easy something else can crap out on you with mp3 and you're never quite sure when. Using mp3 to post and share music is one thing, but I would never record my tracks to mp3 pre mix...
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.
-
- KVRAF
- 10597 posts since 13 Jun, 2004 from Alberto Balsam
can i ask a few questions?
what bitrate is the mp3?
were any mp3 samples used to create the music?
what bitrate is the mp3?
were any mp3 samples used to create the music?
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 753 posts since 15 Mar, 2002
No mp3 used in the track itself.Chase wrote:can i ask a few questions?
what bitrate is the mp3?
were any mp3 samples used to create the music?
As for the bitrate, i wont tell, but there is indeed (of course) mp3 & wave in the snapshot.
-
- KVRAF
- 10597 posts since 13 Jun, 2004 from Alberto Balsam
so 320 then?easymode wrote:No mp3 used in the track itself.Chase wrote:can i ask a few questions?
what bitrate is the mp3?
were any mp3 samples used to create the music?
As for the bitrate, i wont tell, but there is indeed (of course) mp3 & wave in the snapshot.
-
- KVRAF
- 10597 posts since 13 Jun, 2004 from Alberto Balsam
-
- Rad Grandad
- 38041 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine
so what exactly is the purpose of this? No offense, but this just seems like a pretty lame point to try and prove. I mean are you on a crusade to do away with wavs and use only mp3's? Sorry I just dont see the point...cds are currently 16 bit 44.1...that's where I work 
I do know that I have finished a song and then converted (in AA) to mp3, only to have it lose quality...
I also have to say that it's under 8mb total, how can any conclusive evidence be gathered from that? Make a test of many forms of music with a wide variety of ranges, present that test to a large group of mixed listeners (from audio pros to children), then you're starting to gather some empirical evidence to evaluate, otherwise this is just purely subjective...
I do know that I have finished a song and then converted (in AA) to mp3, only to have it lose quality... I also have to say that it's under 8mb total, how can any conclusive evidence be gathered from that? Make a test of many forms of music with a wide variety of ranges, present that test to a large group of mixed listeners (from audio pros to children), then you're starting to gather some empirical evidence to evaluate, otherwise this is just purely subjective...
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.
-
- KVRAF
- 3511 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England
I'll admit that I find this extremely difficult, particularly with this sample. The bitrates used seem too high to exhibit the obvious 'watery' effect/loss of highs, and the levels are too slammed to listen for other things like smeared transients.
A lot of this is down to knowing what you're listening out for. I can play a 96kbps mp3 to somebody which sounds like it's been put through a bitcrusher and they'd have no idea. If these were ogg samples (at half the bitrate even) I'd probably find this even harder since I'm not as familiar with what that particular type of distortion sounds like.
I'll have a go at this later regardless, but I reckon I'm stumped after just 2 minutes.
A lot of this is down to knowing what you're listening out for. I can play a 96kbps mp3 to somebody which sounds like it's been put through a bitcrusher and they'd have no idea. If these were ogg samples (at half the bitrate even) I'd probably find this even harder since I'm not as familiar with what that particular type of distortion sounds like.
I'll have a go at this later regardless, but I reckon I'm stumped after just 2 minutes.
-
deleted deleted https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1
DELETED
-
- KVRAF
- 1907 posts since 29 Oct, 2003
-
- KVRist
- 133 posts since 22 Apr, 2004
pointless or not, i took my shot and gave my estimations - can i have answers now please?
-
Programentalist Programentalist https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8597
- KVRian
- 657 posts since 21 Aug, 2003
A bit hard with this kind of hectic and loud sample, but I'd guess:
1.wav
2.mp3
3.mp3
4.wav
I think number 3 might be the 192kbit one and I'd guess number 2 has a slightly lower bitrate (128 or 160?).
As a disclaimer (in case I'm 100% off
), I'm not listening on my proper hifi right now but on my computer set-up, the hifi is a lot more detailed but I can't be bothered putting that much time into this 
Again you'd really need some other music for this though, there's so much happening in this one so you can hardly concentrate on any detail...
1.wav
2.mp3
3.mp3
4.wav
I think number 3 might be the 192kbit one and I'd guess number 2 has a slightly lower bitrate (128 or 160?).
As a disclaimer (in case I'm 100% off
), I'm not listening on my proper hifi right now but on my computer set-up, the hifi is a lot more detailed but I can't be bothered putting that much time into this Again you'd really need some other music for this though, there's so much happening in this one so you can hardly concentrate on any detail...