Do you hear the difference?

hacktheplanet · Post by **hacktheplanet** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:59 am

I nailed it! Hooray me!
However, it took a few listens. It's not very apparent because there isn't much very high frequency noises. If there were some hihats for instance, you could tell more easily.

misteron · Post by **misteron** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:19 am

Shit rip or not, the question was can you tell the diffrence and the difference is very clear.
I'm listening on a turd pair of laptop speakers on a borrowed laptop and I got it first time.

evernaut wrote:Can you describe the really obvious difference?

For example the final 'pulse' feels more powerful, probably coz it is more rich sonically.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:29 am

The stupid part of this is both are mp3s and both suffer from some loss of quality from the original, which you never get a chance to hear. I could tell the difference in that one had more high end, but it was hard to tell if the one with more high end was the bad one because the one with less high end sounded sort of flat, while the high end one had some aliasing.

Lame test is lame. Simple as that.

Tarekith · Post by **Tarekith** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:10 am

I got it right away, for me the difference was noticeable in the decay of the little percussive bits at the end, and in the stereo width of the recording. Definitely more open sounding in the original.

cope · Post by **cope** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:51 am

I just posted this as a curiosity

If someone could dig up a more comprehensive test, that would be cool, but I guess if you would compare WAV/Lossless to MP3, everyone would get it right...

But it's obvious that 192k did make a difference.

Guess it's even more important today to do as few bit rate conversions as possible, when the end user listens at 16/44.1 @ 128kbps....

Do you hear the difference?

Do you hear the difference ...?