- 2,144
- 6,213
The debate about analogue and digital seems to be eternal. Some swear vinyl is superior; others say digital sampling reproduces a sine as pure as that produced by the transducer -- the plucked string vibrating above the pickup, the vocal sung into the mic. The problem is that reproducing a live performance relies on a wide variety of variables in both recording and playback that color the final product. Some audio enthusiasts talk about faithful reproduction of the original master, while others discuss the merits of measurements. But those in the business of reviewing music and audio equipment almost always emphasize the value of listening, using subjective adjectives to describe a personal listening experience.
So how good are your ears? Can you tell the difference between a compressed file and a lossless file, MP3 versus FLAC?
Take this test: How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?
I know I have hearing loss above 13khz from decades of working in high noise environments, yet I was still able to pick five out of six of the high fidelity files. Was it just luck, or have years of listening trained my ears to recognize high quality? The results seem to indicate the general public can do no better than picking a file at random.
It was pretty easy for me to differentiate between MP3-128 and MP3-320 in everything but Tom's Diner; when I try to pick out 128 versus the higher-quality options, I try to focus on the background, and Tom's doesn't really have one.
I didn't select any 128s on the quiz, but I didn't do better than random chance on WAV vs. 320. In my case, ATH-M50Xes plugged directly into a computer with no DAC and Windows Sonic spatial sound activated.
Difficulty, IMO:
Speed of Sound<Tom Ford<Dark Horse<Concerto No. 17<There's a World<Tom's Diner
Last edited:
- 1