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!!!

I'm def deaf.

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)

I listened via my "Beats" H-phones and was able to pick the "higher quality" MP3 5 out of 6......on both times I tried it. Of course, the decision-making process was made only by the noticeable difference in loudness levels.
 
 

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!

The difference in loudness on my phone wasn't as obvious as it was coming out of my computer monitors. But to me the low-quality compressed files also has a bit of fizz on sibilants and higher frequency noises.

I'm sure the average fan doesn't care as long as it is free?...

bapu
I'm def deaf.

Who needs all them extraneous notes anyway?

I hear monotone is the new black!

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...

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?  

Mesh
Do you know any good sites that offer free HQ MP3's?  

This is always a good place to start.