Listening Test

[greenmachine]

Can you tell the difference between an uncompressed wav, ripped directly from CD, and an ATRAC (Type R) (SP mode) encoded song? Which is which?

Of course, you have to listen very carefully with good equipment, it's not obvious. Pay special attention to the ride cymbal and high frequencies in general. I imagine to hear a slight difference, but have to verify it yet with a double blind abx test.

no. 1 (gallery_6863_60_3198768.wav)

no. 2 (gallery_6863_60_3199574.wav)

Please don't cheat by looking at the frequency analysis or using similar tools, just use your ears.

It's important to perform these tests blindly, in order not to underlie the effects of placebo.

You can use this abx tool for accurate comparison if you're running Windows:

http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/winabx.zip

Otherwise take a look at the pcabx homepage:

http://www.pcabx.com/

Once the propability you are guessing gets below 1%, i believe you actually hear a difference. Please provide the log or an explanation how you compared it if possible. Also, please try to describe the sound differences if you were able to tell them apart.

Since you can't *know* the correct answer, please choose the one you prefer (if you can hear a difference at all).

[bmanalansan]

Can you tell the difference between an uncompressed wav, ripped directly from CD, and an ATRAC (Type R) (SP mode) encoded song? Which is which?

Of course, you have to listen very carefully with good equipment, it's not obvious. Pay special attention to the ride cymbal and high frequencies in general. I imagine to hear a slight difference, but have to verify it yet with a double blind abx test.

no. 1 (gallery_6863_60_3198768.wav)

no. 2 (gallery_6863_60_3199574.wav)

I'll tell the solution as soon as we have some replies.

Please don't cheat by looking at the frequency analysis or using similar tools, just use your ears. 

←

Number 1 - wav

Number 2 - SP

[matrulesok]

set this up as a poll - it would be good to see results!!

Edited May 13, 2005 by matrulesok

[greenmachine]

Looks like i have been a victim of my imagination, once I didn't see which one's which, the difference disappeared mysteriously.

Damn, I forgot choice #3: "I can't tell a difference..."

Edited May 13, 2005 by greenmachine

[matrulesok]

Can't really tell, but i went for 2. I converted it to vbr mp3 (about 192 on average) and can't tell the difference there either. Perhaps for another topic you could try lp2 and wav.....

[Ishiyoshi]

Looks like i have been a victim of my imagination, once I didn't see which one's which, the difference disappeared mysteriously. 

Damn, I forgot choice #3: "I can't tell a difference..."

←

Choice #3 added to your poll.

[MusicBringer]

...to my ears the first one was rather thin and open, whereas number two was a richer sound, fuller, more rounded. I don't know what describing words to use, so I hope I got my findings across to you. My ears preferred number two.

[determined2bme2]

I'm no pro, I simply voted for the one I preferred - no idea if it's compressed or not.

THERE IS a noticable difference. I don't want to influence others so I'm keeping it to myself.

p.s. If you voted for #3 then CLICK HERE

[matrulesok]

I'm no pro, I simply voted for the one I preferred - no idea if it's compressed or not.

THERE IS a noticable difference. I don't want to influence others so I'm keeping it to myself.

p.s. If you voted for #3 then CLICK HERE

←

I would have voted 3 if it was there but i hope that it is my hardware letting me down rather than my ears - im using motherboard sound into headphones free with my sharp mt-md15 about 4 years ago! Dont worry though, I have just ordered some porta pro's and I am likely to upgrade my soundcard over the summer. Shame you cant vote twice....

[greenmachine]

Can't really tell, but i went for 2. I converted it to vbr mp3 (about 192 on average) and can't tell the difference there either. Perhaps for another topic you could try lp2 and wav.....

←

I would do it if I had the gear, at the moment I can only transfer SP encoded material digitally, but i guess it would be too easy anyway...

[greenmachine]

Choice #3 added to your poll. 

←

Thank you very much.

Although I know the result, I voted for no. 3 after an unsuccessful abx test.

[greenmachine]

I'm no pro, I simply voted for the one I preferred - no idea if it's compressed or not.

THERE IS a noticable difference. I don't want to influence others so I'm keeping it to myself.

←

How would you describe this noticable difference?

p.s. If you voted for #3 then CLICK HERE

LOL

[toxigenicpoem]

Thanks looks my hearing is HORRIBLE.

[determined2bme2]

How would you describe this noticable difference?

It's warmer - you can hear it immediately in the drums. In the guitar it's not shocking (for me).

I voted for the warmer one, I can hear the difference - but to be honest I don't know which is which !!!

[bug80]

I did an ABX test, but didn't succeed.

So I voted for #3.

* EDIT * I know the answer I'll stick to option #3, however.

SP rules!

Edited May 14, 2005 by bug80

[Breepee2]

Easy one. When will you acknowledge my suspicions ?

Edited May 14, 2005 by Breepee2

[greenmachine]

Easy one. When will you acknowledge my suspicions ?

←

Anyone who wants to know the answer, just write me a personal message, it's too early to make it publicly available yet.

[determined2bme2]

Easy one. When will you acknowledge my suspicions ?

←

Suspicions?? Have we been had?

[jadeclaw]

I'd say, it is #1 (...768.wav).

There is a slight ringing/glossing over on #2(...574.wav), especially on the cymbals.

However, the difference is small, but audible.

I didn't used the ABX-tool, as the difference popped out immediately after loading both files into Winamp and switching between them.

[greenmachine]

I'd say, it is #1.

There is a slight ringing/glossing over on #2, especially on the cymbals.

However, the difference is small, but audible.

I didn't used the ABX-tool, as the difference popped out immediately after loading both files into Winamp and switching between them.

←

I know what you're talking about, i had the same picture, but I nevertheless didn't succed with the abx tool, you should definitely try it.

[SlowMo]

I'd say, it is #1 (...768.wav).

There is a slight ringing/glossing over on #2(...574.wav), especially on the cymbals.

However, the difference is small, but audible.

I didn't used the ABX-tool, as the difference popped out immediately after loading both files into Winamp and switching between them.

←

definitly, there's something with those cymbals, sound more natural in #1 to me as well.

but i couldn't have heard it without comparison. sp-love !

[zerodB]

Man, I wish I hadn't read all of this thread PRIOR to downloading the samples...

So much for trying to remain unbiased - now I'm gonna have to make my own test for myself...

[KJ_Palmer]

Seems like a good test. Well, without peeking at these views, I voted no. 1 (=uncompressed), simply because that sounded somehow 'better' to my ears. Just played directly through Sonicstage. Better as in the cymbals and high frequencies seemed more realistic in 1, but a bit rougher in 2. Love to be proved wrong, obviously...

Of course in normal usage I wouldnt have noticed any of these effects, and 2 didn't sound at all bad either... Anyway, maybe I was biased by listening to 1 first... who knows...

[greenmachine]

Man, I wish I hadn't read all of this thread PRIOR to downloading the samples...

So much for trying to remain unbiased - now I'm gonna have to make my own test for myself... 

←

Seems like a good test. Well, without peeking at these views, I voted no. 1 (=uncompressed), simply because that sounded somehow 'better' to my ears. Just played directly through Sonicstage. Better as in the cymbals and high frequencies seemed more realistic in 1, but a bit rougher in 2.  Love to be proved wrong, obviously...

Of course in normal usage I wouldnt have noticed any of these effects, and 2 didn't sound at all bad either... Anyway, maybe I was biased by listening to 1 first... who knows...

←

You can easily get rid of your biased-ness by doing a 'blind' abx test (see topic description).

Don't let your eyes mislead your hearing.

Edited May 17, 2005 by greenmachine

[determined2bme2]

Don't let your eyes mislead your hearing.

←

Exactly. But what seems to be clear already is that nobody agrees.

Maybe one sounds better maybe not, but most people seem uncertain which is which.

Has anybody got anything against one of these tracks? I find that both are acceptable.

[greenmachine]

Has anybody got anything against one of these tracks? I find that both are acceptable.

←

I'd really like to see abx results from those who think they can hear a difference...

[bug80]

I'd really like to see abx results from those who think they can hear a difference...

←

Yeah me too. Like I said in an earlier post, I tried to ABX, but failed. Every time I thought I heard a difference, I was wrong.

Still it's possible that other people really hear a difference on their system. I used simple Sennheiser headphones (not very expensive) that don't really excel in the high frequency area.

[The Low Volta]

I used my Senn HD497 'phones which are very enjoyable otherwise...but even as I often thought I heard a difference...in the end I almost had 50/50% with the ABX test (really) so, seems that my ears are numbed enough by loud shows to enjoy compressed music

but I have tried it as a refference with a very demanding "The Mars Volta"-bit in Hi-sp vs (SS3.1) fake sp and I nailed it big time... so at least we can establish that the difference between uncompressed/real sp is smaller (in my ears) than between Hi-sp/fake sp...but then again, most of you guys already knew this I guess

[matrulesok]

I'd really like to see abx results from those who think they can hear a difference...

←

I voted before option 3 was available, so thats one vote that doesnt really count to option 2.

[greenmachine]

I used my Senn HD497 'phones which are very enjoyable otherwise...but even as I often thought I heard a difference...in the end I almost had 50/50% with the ABX test (really) so, seems that my ears are numbed enough by loud shows to enjoy compressed music 

but I have tried it as a refference with a very demanding "The Mars Volta"-bit in Hi-sp vs (SS3.1) fake sp and I nailed it big time... so at least we can establish that the difference between uncompressed/real sp is smaller (in my ears) than between Hi-sp/fake sp...but then again, most of you guys already knew this I guess 

←

I'm not a Sonicstage / HiMD user, so could you please explain what you mean with 'fake sp'?

[Christopher]

When you transfer "SP" via Sonicstage to a NetMD or Hi-MD unit, it's actually rebadged LP2. For a few reasons, Sony was never able to reproduce true SP in such a manner.

SP should be done in realtime anyway..that's the way we used to do it back in the day and it's not that bad.

[Mr_Bass_Man]

This is all very interesting, and possibly a good demonstration of the "Pscycho" bit of "Psycho Acoustic Modelling". I hope the spelling is close ...

I expect that means (amongst other things) that the perception of sound differs somewhat between individuals.

I set up a "blind" listening test of the two samples using good old Windows Media Player (WiMP ...) and got it to play the two randomly in an infinite loop/

Then you just set the thing going in an invisible window (my PC connected to my hi-fi and me using fairly decent cans to listen with).

I just dipped in and out from time to time and tried to distinguish which version I was listening to (I got that right 90% of the time).

I had already determined I "preferred" the sound of sample #1, and I based my vote on that.

I must say however that the source material sounds "compressed" (in terms of amplitude compression) anyhow, I'd quite like to compare something more in the "orchestral" domain, where dynamic range is likely to be much larger.

I accept that I could easily be wrong about identifying the samples, as, frankly, to my ears (47years old ...) there wasn't much to choose between them.

I wouldn't buy the disc, though - not exactly my "cup of tea".

As I said before, very interesting, nontheless ...

Edited July 14, 2005 by Mr_Bass_Man

[L7R]

I downloaded and did an ABX and was pretty confident I can recognise easily which is which.

First I think I heard a difference, but when I started a test, I don't.

I have to give up.

1/5 went right. 4/5 went wrong!

Edited July 15, 2005 by L7R

[L7R]

to jadeclaw and others who didn't use ABX tool.

It's obvious there's some difference when you listen these samples at first. Even if the two samples were exactly the same brains thinks there is some. The point is: can you tell the difference when you can change the source whenever you want and then make a decision at your free will? It's whole another ball game. Try it guys. I thought I'm a pro, but what a disappointment!

btw. I used my studio monitors MDR-7506 headphones with Yamaha stereo receiver. Only the soundcard was the weak link, it's some soundblaster from 90's.

If only my Terratec 6fire didn't broke....

Edited July 15, 2005 by L7R

[greenmachine]

I need to do some Hi-SP quality testing as well, i've heard some rumors about inferior quality compared to SP.

Placebo is a dangerous beast.

[L7R]

I need to do some Hi-SP quality testing as well, i've heard some rumors about inferior quality compared to SP.

Placebo is a dangerous beast.

←

I think Hi-SP sound a little warmer than SP or LP2.... like tube amp kind of way, but very little. I can't describe it with my ankward english, but highs (or higher mids) sounds a tad warmer or smooth. And that affects soundstage a little too, I think. I really don't know after that ABX test. That was my first test and it really almost made me crazy!

btw. I did a little test a while back to my friends and parents but I didn't have Hi-MD machine so I did it with sonicstage 3.0.

Here is my method:

I converted the same song (Maroon5 - Tangled). Nobody haven't heard this song earlier)

First was LP4

second Hi-LP

then LP2

then Hi-LP

then PCM

and finally was LP2 again.

songs appeared in this order in sonicstage. 5 people listens these samples whatever order and as long as they liked. Equipment: Sony MDR-7506 studio monitor headphones, Terratec DMX6Fire soundcard headphone-out.

Here are the results:

LP2: 4/5 vote this as the best (3 votes to last one and one to that 3rd one)

PCM: 1/5 vote this as the best

4/5 vote LP4 better than Hi-LP (64k)

1/5 vote HiLP(64k) better than LP4

As you might know, LP2 was a real winner, but 3 votes were given to that last LP2 and one to that earlier LP2. When I ask why they vote that last one the best, they told that the previous sample (PCM) sounded more bass heavy or boomy.

I gave good laughs!

I don't remember actual scores but I wanted them to give scores between 1-5 and leave one without vote. But LP2 was winner in big margin.

Then in this order:

PCM

Hi-SP

LP4

Hi-LP (64k) (only one point)

I asked why LP4 sounded better than Hi-LP and the answer was exactly what I personally think about it. There was no highs at all in Hi-LP or they "sway" or they got "pumped" back and forth. LP4 though, in my mind has a lot squeeks or other flaws, but it still sounds like music should, which I can't say about 64k Hi-LP.

Please do more of these ABX tests. Personally I really want a test between ATRAC3@132kbps vs. Hi-SP. And Hi-LP@64kbps vs. LP4.

That first one could be closer fight than most people think.

And between old SP and Hi-SP, I like SP more and I previously thoough I can clearly tell which is which, but as I say earlier that ABX testing was harder than I never thought of.

Edited July 15, 2005 by L7R

[Mr_Bass_Man]

to jadeclaw and others who didn't use ABX tool.

It's obvious there's some difference when you listen these samples at first. Even if the two samples were exactly the same brains thinks there is some. The point is: can you tell the difference when you can change the source whenever you want and then make a decision at your free will? It's whole another ball game. Try it guys. I thought I'm a pro, but what a disappointment!

btw. I used my studio monitors MDR-7506 headphones with Yamaha stereo receiver. Only the soundcard was the weak link, it's some soundblaster from 90's.

If only my Terratec 6fire didn't broke.... 

←

Maybe the solution to remove "soundcard issues" from the equation is to drop both files onto a CD-R or CD-RW or whatever your best CD player will read, then engineer a "blind test" somehow.

If I get an opportunity, this is what I will do ...

[Later] - I now have the ABX stuff to play with as well !

Edited July 16, 2005 by Mr_Bass_Man