Re:What Data Compression Does to Music (2012)
by tom_ on Friday January 04, 2019 @09:25PM
(#18829494)
Ha. That was interesting. I got 1/6, though out of the 5 I got wrong, I picked the 320Kbps MP3 for 4 of them. This backs up a few blind tests I did when I was younger, though then with music I was familiar with: 320Kbps MP3 and uncompressed WAV were typically indistinguishable to me, and, when they were audibly different, I still couldn't say which was better and which was worse.
The one I got completely wrong was the Jay Z track. Even re-listening knowing which is which, I still can't tell the difference :( - but this is a style of music I rarely listen to, and maybe that's the reason.
It's also a fair few years since I was 30, and that could be an alternative explanation.
(I'm actually quite surprised I did as well as I did, as the 128Kbps versions weren't obviously worse, and it did take a few listens on headphones. I should probably do another blind test with a 2003 build of LAME or whatever, not so much to compare MP3 vs WAV, but more to measure how much my hearing has deteriorated over the years...)
The one I got completely wrong was the Jay Z track. Even re-listening knowing which is which, I still can't tell the difference :( - but this is a style of music I rarely listen to, and maybe that's the reason.
It's also a fair few years since I was 30, and that could be an alternative explanation.
(I'm actually quite surprised I did as well as I did, as the 128Kbps versions weren't obviously worse, and it did take a few listens on headphones. I should probably do another blind test with a 2003 build of LAME or whatever, not so much to compare MP3 vs WAV, but more to measure how much my hearing has deteriorated over the years...)