• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Test Your Digital Format Perception

dumptruck

Lunatic Member
EDIT: I just want to be very clear on this point: Digital copies of recordings are potentially forever. Not vinyl, not CD, not anything physical that we actually make. I do not want anybody's record to be a crap quality MP3 100 years from now. There is every reason to save the best quality copies we have. Now, on to what I wrote:

So, you say you can hear the flaws in 128kbps CBR MP3s? Hear a difference between FLAC and WAV? 320k CBR and 320 VBR HQ? Here is any easy way for anyone that has good (or good enough) sound sourced off a Windows computer to really find out what they can actually distinguish. Whether or not you feel like sharing your results, please give it a try for your own benefit.

If you do enough trials, you can use this method to definitively prove that you can tell the difference between two files! You cannot, of course, prove the opposite.*

I have tried to make this excessively detailed, but please let me know if anyone gets stuck on a step and I'll revise the instructions. Note that most of these steps are one-time efforts.

1. Install the foobar2000 audio player, and examine the settings to your satisfaction: http://www.foobar2000.org/

1.5 Also, install the ABX comparator http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx. I think the ways to do this vary depending on your version of windows, not sure, but there are many. you can right-click the file and choose "install", you can go into the foobar menus and do it there, you can do it by running the foobar installation and picking it then, etc.

2. Install Audacity: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

3. Install Lame encoder: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq_i18n?s=install&i=lame-mp3

4. Start up Audacity, and import (you can just drag it to the window) a lossless track that you want to use.

5. Go to file>export and select a format (MP3/etc) that you want to test yourself with. Click options in the lower-right to set specific parameters for the format (bitrate, etc.). Save the file somewhere convenient, and repeat this step for any other formats/options you want to try.

6. Start up foobar, and drag the files you have just made into the default playlist (or make a special one, doesn't matter). Select (highlight) two files to test yourself with by holding down ctrl and clicking each of them on the playlist. If you need to be able to see file names or bitrates or etc. on the playlist in order to choose your two files, right-click the column headings to add more information to the playlist. The playlist isn't used during the test, so don't worry about what you can see.

7. Now right-click either of the highlighted files, and go to utilities>ABX Two Tracks. Leave the replaygain and DSP options unchecked unless you already know you need them.

8. Now the test is on. A and B are your two tracks. X and Y are also your two tracks, but you don't know which corresponds to A and which is B. Most of the controls on this screen are just options for you to use comparing the tracks, which you can do however you like for as long as you like.

Nothing you do counts toward the test until you click a choice AND click Next Trial. Whether or not you check the box to hide your results during the test is sure to affect your behavior during the test, but it's up to you. You can get valid results either way. You need to do at least 10 trials, but you can keep going as long as you want. Remember to relax. It's your test, and you can always start it over.

When/while you show the results, you need to get a 5% or lower probability of guessing to demonstrate that you can tell the difference between A and B. Yes, really. No, really, I mean it. 5%.

*Interpreting Your Results:
1. If you passed a test with flying colors, this does mean you could hear a difference. This doesn't necessarily mean you heard a difference due to what you wanted to test. It could be something happening with the downsampling, changing DAC performance, etc., etc. If you want to really track down what you heard, you can play scientist and start figuring out how to eliminate more and more variables. It is passing your initial test that makes this worth investigating in the first place, though.

2. Relatedly, if you failed a test, it's always possible something prevented you from being able to tell the difference. It's also possible you could pass the exact same test a different day. People tend to lose interest in investigating after failing an ABX, but if you don't, nothing is stopping you from trying more things. If you've got a microphone, try using your own recordings! Keep using blind ABX as a deciding factor. It is the correct type of test for "difference vs. no difference" issues. If you don't trust this software, it's not too hard to figure out how to set up a blind ABX in most pro audio software. Just resist the temptation to skip statistical significance when you don't have a tool keeping track for you.

Have fun!
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • rubbers.png
    rubbers.png
    78.3 KB · Views: 338
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Don't have Windows. However, I do find this interesting. Only because those who cannot tell the difference between various formats will have lots and lots of super-specific, super-scientific reasons why the test is bogus. People are going to believe what they believe, and they all believe they have the correct answer. I say leave it be.

I've tested my own ears in informal ways, by simply encoding in various formats, playing back in windows opened next to each other and pausing/playing back and forth. I can tell when an MP3 of a really nicely-recorded bit of music gets below 192, I think. Above that, even when I think I can tell a difference, it's really, really, hard for me. Granted, I know what I am listening to, so that' nothing but anecdotal evidence and only applies to me, my equipment, and my ears.
 
I'm just tired of seeing boasts and sneers about hearing various digital differences coming from people that don't actually have any idea what they themselves can perceive, so I wanted to have a thread here to present the OPTION of finding out, and pretty easily too.

I'm entirely in favor of high quality file formats, for the record.
 
I'm just tired of seeing boasts and sneers about hearing various digital differences coming from people that don't actually have any idea what they themselves can perceive, so I wanted to have a thread here to present the OPTION of finding out, and pretty easily too.

I'm entirely in favor of high quality file formats, for the record.

Let's just see how it turns out. I bet on human nature.
 
Haha, I forgot a pretty important step at the beginning. I guess that means nobody tried it yet (shocking! ;)). Fixed now. Happy new year's eve, probably about time to get partyin'.
 
While I haven't tried the test in this thread, I have listened to 320 VBR mp3 and FLAC side by side. On most music, I can tell no difference, but there is the occasional album that I can. That said, I like FLAC because I know I'm getting the full monte, regardless if I can hear it or not. It's peace of mind of some sorts
 
Last edited:
It may add some other variables, but I've compared the same album on flac ripped from CD, MOG (320K stream), and downloaded from iTunes. On the large majority of albums, it is very easy to tell the flac from the others. This is with volume matched as best I can (within .5 dB).
 
While I haven't tried the test in this thread, I have listened to 320 VBR mp3 and FLAC side by side. On most music, I can tell no difference, but there is the occasional album that I can. That said, I like FLAC because I know I'm getting the full monte, regardless if I can hear it or not. It's peace of mind of some sorts :thmbsp:

What BaB said. I *think* I can reliably hear difference once you're below 192 kbps, but I wonder if that's because I'm always hearing it as a stream from some place, and I'm picking up clues from the occasional interruption in the signal.

I also suspect that when I can tell the difference between a 256AAC/320mp3 and a flac file, (rarely), it's because of a specific problem or weakness with the encoding of that particular album and not something general with lower bit rate encoding.

That said, I like my files in flac or Apple Lossless, mostly for the intangible peace of mind. Right now, I'm debating whether I want to drop $49 at the iTunes store for an AAC copy of "Jim Hall Live Vol. 2-4." I didn't know about this when it was up on ArtistShare and missed the opportunity to buy the cds. I think my single biggest frustration with music continues to be that I can't routinely buy cd quality resolution files (not compressed AAC/mp3, not hi-res) for cd prices.

s.
 
Last edited:
I think my single biggest frustration with music continues to be that I can't routinely buy cd quality resolution files (not compressed AAC/mp3, not hi-res) for cd prices.

s.

My frustration echoes yours, but there are some outlets that do sell lossless music files, such as Bandcamp and HD Tracks. In the case of Bandcamp, oftentimes their lossless music prices are cheaper than a hard copy on physical media. I'm not sure how iTunes works, but with Bandcamp, once you've purchased the music, you have the option of downloading all available formats concurrently. With Bandcamp, you are paying for the music, not the format it comes in.
 
I have used the foobar ABX plug in before to try and discern differences between Hi-Rez and CD quality files.
  • The file I used was Dave Brubeck's Take Five. I downloaded the 24/176.4 file from HD Tracks, and downsampled to create 24/88.2 and 16/44.1 files.
  • With the ABX tool, I could not tell the difference between them.
  • Next, I ABX'ed the 16/44.1 file downsampled from the HD Tracks download, with a 16/44.1 file extracted from my Time Out CD.
  • No problem here: the differences between the two 16/44.1 files were very easy to identify, and I was correct each time.
  • I have not done any comparisons using mp3s.
In any case, if I like the music, and it is something I absolutely must have, I go for the highest resolution that I can get.
 
Don't forget that downsampling is a destructive, non-transparent process that is usually to be avoided.
 
how about hearing the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 24/192??

I have done this kind of testing before , there is a distinct sonic signature between them all , 24bit has much less digital noise and 24/192 sounds like analog in the sense of retaining naturalness and size .

Regards ..
 
how about hearing the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 24/192??
How about it?

It may add some other variables, but I've compared the same album on flac ripped from CD, MOG (320K stream), and downloaded from iTunes. On the large majority of albums, it is very easy to tell the flac from the others. This is with volume matched as best I can (within .5 dB).
What BaB said. I *think* I can reliably hear difference once you're below 192 kbps, but I wonder...
...I also suspect...
Don't forget that downsampling is a destructive, non-transparent process that is usually to be avoided.
there is a distinct sonic signature between them all , 24bit has much less digital noise and 24/192 sounds like analog in the sense of retaining naturalness and size.
I look forward to all of your blind ABX results on these. Other methods of comparison are NOT the same at all, which is the point.
 
Dump - I've run blind abx before and can't reliably (better than guessing, outside the margin of error) distinguish between cd quality files and anything above 128 or 160, I don't remember which. I know when I'm listening to streaming radio at 192 Kbps I think it doesn't sound as good as a cd, but I'm mindful of how easy it is to fool oneself.

s.
 
I can hear a difference between 24/96 and 16/44. 24/192 doesn't play nice with Vista and the DAC I am using but it's benefits aren't noticeable to me immediately anyway. Perhaps a percieved wider soundstage but it is subtle if what I think I'm hearing is actually there. I found when shopping for DACs, the quality and build of the analog output stage is equally if not more important than the DAC's bitrate capabilities. I've heard 16 and 20 bit DACs that sounded better than a few 24 bit DACs that have passed through here. All most likely due to a superior analog output stage.
 
I can tell - the minor harmonics are gone. The trick is to use tracks that you know well. If you don't it is hard then.
So no, you haven't passed an ABX is what you're saying? I'm a little confused about why you're posting here. I'm sure you can identify some MP3s. If you can pass the ABX this thread is about with two lossless formats, your ears deserve a medal, and your computer deserves an investigation.
 
My frustration echoes yours, but there are some outlets that do sell lossless music files, such as Bandcamp and HD Tracks. In the case of Bandcamp, oftentimes their lossless music prices are cheaper than a hard copy on physical media. I'm not sure how iTunes works, but with Bandcamp, once you've purchased the music, you have the option of downloading all available formats concurrently. With Bandcamp, you are paying for the music, not the format it comes in.

<rant>

I buy through Bandcamp, cdbaby and HDTracks but what I'm after is something different: I want to be able to go to iTunes or Amazon and download cd quality files for the same price as the CD. That's a concession on my part, since I'm not asking someone to spend a buck or so manufacturing the physical product, which should increase the profit margin by $1, but I'm willing to slightly overpay in exchange for convenience. (I really think the price should be what an mp3 or an AAC track goes for.) I don't believe in high res files at all. Why oh why can't everything be available this way?

</rant>

s.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom