Search results

Probably diminishing returns at play. Since both tweeters are fairly high end (as in accurate) you might not even be able to tell them apart (depending on implementation). There are ways to test speakers blind but might not be practical for you to do it on your own.

Satory beryllium (at least one of the models) looks better going by measurements and practicality of using it. The raal ribbins might be better past 50Khz (i cannot find any date about that though) but i am not sure if that even matters. Even finding music with tones extending that far is a big...

I would be willing to collaborate on a paper but that would require others to be willing to put in work for it. There are some interesting studies that has already been performed but i would like to do some more tests to get a better idea about it...

There are various theories for how sound above 20Khz can make a difference. So that's the main thing i want to investigate with blind testing (after getting better speakers). Testing 24-96 vs 24-192 with very high end speakers would be interesting, i should do that one day.

Yea i don't think opus at 192Kbps (or even 256 Kbps) would be better than ogg vorbis Q9. I am pretty sure most people can learn to tell the difference eventually even if they cannot tell right away which version is lossless. I do find that i can hear a clear difference even without having...

It's not "cheating" but you have to keep it in mind when it comes to the results. I ended one test when i got 30 out of 43 in favor of 16-44 over 24-96 (i was thinking at ending it at 27 of 40 but decided to to 3 extra to verify i could actually distinguish them). But yea having a fixed...

For untrained listeners (when you just want to find out what the general public prefers if anything) i do think blind AB testing is the way to do. I do think it works better with human psychology since people don't want to fail (you can kinda fail an ABX test in you being unable to hear a...

I think you missed the point. I am not arguing that non-blind listening tests would be better. Actually this is something we can test. We can divide the participants into 2 groups where one group does ABX and the other does blind AB. Blind AB testing is already used in studies. It's not...

Is "double blind" even a thing when it's you yourself doing the test on a computer? The main thing i am interested in is very high frequencies (such as above 26 Khz) i would like to figure out what difference those frequencies can make for the listening experience (if any). I don't actually...

You can actually test this by opening the file with audacity and then cut out the section you want to test. Probably best to use a pretty short section for this since it takes too long otherwise and it's probably easier to given how the audio memory works. Of course you should also verify that...

Not a good development for me since i like to watch bluray remuxes of anime. Crunchyroll has awful audio quality.

I already covered that. But you should ideally decide that the first round (what you are actually going to listen for). But in regardless of method you can get fail to get any significant result due to not knowing what to listen for.

I made a folder with different versions https://mega.nz/folder/J2dmRTKT#DOIJw-ZwVS3OyzJubo_qpA Someone on reddit asked specifically for an ABX test claiming that nobody could pass that at say opus 192 Kbps, feel free to prove them wrong (they were mostly interested in the "opusenc" encoder).

Sure it is one way to see if you can tell the difference but you can actually do it a different way. You simply listen to both versions (not knowing which is which) and then you pick the one which sounds the best. You can set it repeat where the versions alternate so if you are unsure you...

I have the full song as flac (not the exact same release though) and here there is more HF content. So all the files were lossy it seems. The one i guessed was the flac was simply the highest quality version (probably).

Here 3.flac - 1.flac (amplified 30db) https://mega.nz/file/FKtG1AJI#3uXItzq6XgcycbdRa_Y6YTKs81tm_nZbtNvNMI8lt8I One possibility i overlooked was none of them actually being lossy such as 1 being ogg Q100 and 3 being ogg Q90

Someone sent me a folder with 5 files over 10 years ago https://mega.nz/folder/tWcAjBqT#2PUGuitdvw4CiwYDL5UkcA First i tried listening to them and then i thought 1: Lossless 3: mp3 320 Kbps 4. mp3 128 Kbps But when i did some spectral analysis i found out that while 1 and 3 wasn't the same...

Oh i just looked at a blindtest folder. It's 5 flac files someone sent me over 10 years ago and i was able to successfully identify one of them as flac just from listening to them. https://mega.nz/folder/tWcAjBqT#2PUGuitdvw4CiwYDL5UkcA I don't think that particular music clip is ideal in terms...

I think i checked that. Pretty much everything uses the lame encoder. From what i have read you can train yourself to notice artifacts even in music where mp3 does relatively well but untrained listeners may struggle to hear a difference. Might be worth to do some more tests on this...

I remember over 10 years ago where i asked a student to listen and see if he could hear the difference between flac and mp3 (i think i said compressed vs uncompressed). I used my htc desire HD and a cheap pair of speakers (maybe 10$). I had an mp3 320 Kbps and flac version of a kalmah song (i...