Potentially Interesting Test?

I did this test twice. Once on my mobile phone and once on my desktop with my monitors.

On my phone I only picked the uncompressed WAV once. But what was interesting is that I picked the high-quality compressed (yeah I know, "high", right?) the other 5 times. I could tell which were the low-resolution ones.

On my desktop I got 5 out of 6. And the one I got wrong, I still picked the high-quality compressed.

But what interested me is that I picked the high-quality over the WAV, 5 times on my tiny phone speaker(s?). A couple of friends with me at the time, picked the same choices. Albeit but one, who selected 2 out of 6 of the WAVs when listening from my phone. I also noted on a different site where people were discussing this, that the majority seemed to be having the same experience.

So basically, I'm curious if we're all just deaf? Which is as likely conclusion as any.

However, I was wondering if someone with some technical knowledge on the specifics of small speakers versus monitors, can weigh in here?

Do high-quality MP3's sound better on small speakers? If so, I'm curious as to why? Is it purely the amount of info being syphened as it relays to the device doing the output.

Or Is there an optimal point of vibrational information in relation to the size of the speaker?

Or is it that on small devices we tend to carry the compressed versions for space reasons and perhaps have psychologically dis-positioned ourselves to expecting a song to sound a particular way, when coming out of these devices with smaller speakers?

Of course there's also the possibility that whoever created the test is just messing with us all and having a big laugh over this?

Here it is:

http://www.npr.org/sectio...you-hear-audio-quality

If anyone is wondering? It appears that each time you do the test, the answers are re-jumbled so you can't just click from memory.

*Note: Oh and please feel free to let loose with the tomfoolery as well as serious answers! I will mark a good joke as helpful as that of serious insight. Though, for best answer? THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!

Royal Yaksman
Oh and please feel free to let loose with the tomfoolery as well as serious answers! I will mark a good joke as helpful as that of serious insight.

Just what exactly are you trying to imply?
 
We're ALWAYS serious here....
 
 
 
 
ok, maybe not Bapu.
 
 
 
 
 
or craigb(ITHRN)
 
 
 
or UB  (though it's hard to tell sometimes)

Karyn

Royal Yaksman
Oh and please feel free to let loose with the tomfoolery as well as serious answers! I will mark a good joke as helpful as that of serious insight.

Just what exactly are you trying to imply?

As long as it's "serious" about the funny?
We got a ball game!

bapu
I'm def deaf.

Who needs all them extraneous notes anyway?

I hear monotone is the new black!

Interestingly, when I do look for "free MP3's", I've been adding HQ in the search function as most of it is just plain meh quality. I listen to a lot of music via H-phones at work and do appreciate good quality ear candy.
 
Do you know any good sites that offer free HQ MP3's?  

As we often find with the continuing evolution of technology. Where something we thought was as good as it gets? But then something is created or a new way of doing an old thing, comes about.

How do we know the stuff that speakers are made of, are the best thing for producing sound?

I mean I know they have got the piece of glass that acts as a speaker. But how big of jump is glass, from speaker material?

What I'm saying is, has anyone tried testing the audio output capabilities of say, a barbecue chicken?

Or a, French alp?

Or a, corporeal spirit?

*Note: Yeah I've had a couple of bourbons! What of it?*

Karyn
If you always (or mostly) pick the mp3 over the WAV when listening on your phone that's a +1 for mastering specifically for mp3...

I have noticed sometimes what's good for the monitors, isn't always good when mp3-ed. Often gigantic drums wind up sounding like plastic buckets...
 
I wonder is it possible to run a mathematical calculation on the probability of the parts that will be removed during the compression and not bother to have them there in the first place? Seems like a waste of sums, really... Who is building these plugs/synths/romplers that removes all the extraneous sampling, that the human mind cannot process, before it even hits the track? 
 
And as for all these unnecessary room sounds! Where are the companies making tin-can verbs? Nothing fills an ear-bud with the sense of depth, that the band was playing "live" right inside a can of Heinz!!!

craigb
In addition to what Dave said above, I would also imagine that the nature of human hearing comes into effect along with the Fletcher-Munson curve (which I just coincidentally happen to have a document about HERE ).

 
Couple this Fletcher-Munson curve, with the ability to psychologically fool yourself into thinking that you are hearing something, that may in fact not even be there. And dear luuuurd, what is this wily mistress known as sound?
 

If it sounds good to me, well, I'm not a pompous audiophile-type trying to impress anyone else anyway. 

craigb
If it sounds good to me, well, I'm not a pompous audiophile-type trying to impress anyone else anyway. 

When it comes to impressing people with audio quality? It will likely become one of those things that grandma's and grandpa's used to speak of...
 
I should state that I'm not a professional's jockstrap and only do hack-job mixing/mastering for friends. But I have noticed that when I try to present them with the final product, that the bands either don't want, or often aren't fussed with the stereo wav version. They just want the high-quality mp3. When I tell them, I put a copy of the full wav version on the CD or thumb drive? It is more often than not, met with a slightly puzzled look, followed by the question of, "Yeah but, you did make a 320 mp3 for us, right?"
 
I'm not sure if this means that people genuinely think mp3 quality is more than fine? Or if it is just another strand in the rich tapestry of musical subjectivity? Or indeed if it has to do with the hearing damage, that Bit referenced, a few posts back?

Karyn

craigb
 I'm not a pompous audiophile-type trying to impress anyone else anyway. 

I am,  but I'm rubbish at it

Considering all the barely-any-difference-between-them dynamics plugins, that sell like something that sells well?
 
I'm fairly sure all you'll have to do to convince people of quality? Is just to tell them that it was recorded on/with *insert which ever famous artist or producers name/equipment, that pops into your mind at the time* and then let the psychology of expectation do the rest!
 
Bunny 1: It sounds like it was recorded in a public restroom...
 
Bunny 2: Apparently it was recorded on Lenny Kravitz's dreadlocked, bean pouch by Bigwig McFapsbury...
 
Bunny 1: Actually now that you mention it? I think it sounds better than I previously thought!!!
 
See?... No actual quality required...

Karyn
 
How many people do you know that share their photos (on Facebook or thumb drive or however) using .RAW format?
.mp3 is to .WAV  as .jpg is to .RAW
 If the band were going to get 1000 CDs duplicated then I'm sure that most would specifically ask you for the files "in CD format, so we can make some CDs"

I'm just slightly puzzled that they don't want the wav? I say only 'slightly puzzled,' because I'm certain the answer is that they don't give a rat's exit door. But when surely in the not too distant future, a new form of completely lossless compression will be invented to replace the mp3 standard? They can't expect me to keep copies for them to re-do? My policy is 1 month and it's gone!
 
Unless I actually like the music? In which case, thanks for the free tunes... (<This has yet to happen )

This test has me flustered. I listen to MP3's a lot because of the convenience; straight out of my iPad via Bluetooth into headphones or Jambox speakers. Any audio deficiencies that may exist are acceptable to me for the listening environments where this medium may be used (e.g., relaxing out on the patio). I do appreciate quality sound though also. I took this test twice through $15.00 Logitech headphones via my office computer's internal soundcard. And again with a ~$100 set of Logitech gaming headphones that do have a fairly good sound. I came out 3 of 6 both times, and quite frankly was guessing most of the time. They never indicated what the sample rate was for the MP3 samples.** Some MP3 rates achieve near CD quality sound. Maybe the differences are more pronounced through a high quality amplifier and speakers. (I'll have to try later through my recording gear setup).  
 
I was hoping to be able to discern the differences. Could be my ears are just aging and I don't realize (or accept) that fact as yet.
 
** Aging eyes also don't see as well. Replayed and finally saw the sampling rates after one makes their choice. Doh!