Digital audio listening test

[patchell]

    I did something like this.  I used Stravinskys Firebird suite from the
Telarc recording.  Nobody was able to get them all correct.  I also asked that
they say which one sounded the best.  Most people picked the MP3 versions....One
of these people had about 10K worth of equipment (Tube amps, electrostatic
speakers, real big suckers), even he could not pick the correct ones.

    Not too sure what this proved, but it was interesting

Colin Fraser wrote:

> Here's a little quiz for you guys then...
>
> I ripped roughly 20 seconds of audio off a professionally produced CD by a
> well known German band...
> (I'm open to suggestions for a 'real music' candidate for the same listening
> test)
>
> I converted it to 256 kbps mp3 and 128 kbps mp3, then decoded these to wav
> files.
> I also transferred it digitally to minidisc, then back.
> For good measure I also encoded the minidisc transfer to 256 kbps mp3.
>
> All transfers were done in the digital domain.
> The final results are in 16 bit stereo, 44.1kHz wav files.
> The 5 files are zipped up at http://www.doorsbydesign.demon.co.uk/wavs.zip
> It's an 18 Meg file, so modem users beware.
>
> Anyone care to match the 5 files to the 5 encoding processes ?
> The prize is deep respect for having 'golden ears'...
>
> If you can't hear the difference, then thank god you don;t need to spend a
> fortune on hi-fi gear.
>
> Colin f
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Goddard, Duncan" <goddard.duncan at mtvne.com>
> To: "Synth DIY" <synth-diy at node12b53.a2000.nl>
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:12 PM
> Subject: RE: minidisc
>
> > >>>BTW Wavelab bit depth calculation proves the MD records all 20 bits
> onto disc.<<<
> >
> >
> > ? how does it do that, then?
> >
> > most of my misgivings re this format are subjective; I didn't bother to
> learn all about atrac coding when it first appeared, I read as far as "and
> this part is thrown away because this other part is happening at the same
> time and it's louder so no-one will notice if that first part's not there
> anymore and that, boys and girls, is how we get 16 bits down to 4.....".
> > "bollocks," I thought to myself, "but it'll be ok for walkthings". then
> when I got one and listened to some familiar stuff, it sounded like it had
> been remixed in a subtle but significant way. but as I said before, the very
> thing that makes it an inferior reproducer (and I'm being picky) make it
> useful for live recordings- it seems to filter out the things that your ear
> would filter out, which I suppose was their point. it's just that as a
> reproducer, it filters out too much.....

--
 -Jim
------------------------------------------------
* Visit:http://www.silcom.com/~patchell/
*-----------------------------------------------
*I'm sure glad Merry Christmas comes just once a year
* -Yogi Yorgensen
------------------------------------------------