Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
.
Mar 17, 2019 17:34:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2019 17:34:55 GMT
.
|
|
|
.
Mar 17, 2019 18:04:00 GMT
Post by Roadrunner on Mar 17, 2019 18:04:00 GMT
I have not tried it, but the crap speakers on my laptop are not the best way to find out. We need Twelfth to run them through his super duper HiFi and give us the verdict.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
.
Mar 17, 2019 18:16:51 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2019 18:16:51 GMT
If I had a way of feeding it into my CD player's DAC, I'd give it a bash. But hi res audio doesn't seem to be detectable over CD, other than having a lower noise floor. I can't tell the difference between CD and SACD, assuming the mixes are the same - which they were on the ones I tried. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_CD
|
|
|
.
Mar 17, 2019 18:22:39 GMT
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 17, 2019 18:22:39 GMT
Once you get over 25 your ears are fucked anyway..
|
|
|
.
Mar 18, 2019 5:57:45 GMT
Post by Ben on Mar 18, 2019 5:57:45 GMT
Nah I can't tell the difference.
|
|
|
.
Mar 18, 2019 7:59:21 GMT
Post by ChrisM on Mar 18, 2019 7:59:21 GMT
Using a Sennheiser headset (for Skype) plugged into my work laptop, 2 out of 6 correct. The other 4 I had the 320kbits as the best quality. TBH in a car or at home with even a little background noise, I don't reckon many people would be able to tell the difference. However for me, a couple of the 160kbits clips were definitely the worst audio quality; it may depend upon how much low frequency sounds were in the cip as opposed to high frequency.... for me the classical piano piece was "easiest" of the lot to identify the differences
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
.
Mar 18, 2019 8:10:01 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 8:10:01 GMT
Once you get beyond a certain age you lose the highest frequencies, that's true. But I don't have especially good hearing - appreciating good hifi and music reproduction is down to learning to use what you've got. I'd also doubt that the sort of music made by Jay Z is really the kind where the subtleties are paramount.
|
|
|
.
Mar 18, 2019 8:10:10 GMT
Post by johnc on Mar 18, 2019 8:10:10 GMT
I got 3 out of 6 using my work PC and cheapish Logitech speakers but like Chris, I picked 320kbits as the best in the ones I got wrong.
|
|
|
.
Mar 18, 2019 8:34:09 GMT
Post by Roadsterstu on Mar 18, 2019 8:34:09 GMT
I'll have a try later if I can get it to play through the Naim Muso at home, although it might have to be via Bluetooth, which possibly won't be ideal.
|
|
|
.
Mar 18, 2019 11:16:55 GMT
Post by Blarno on Mar 18, 2019 11:16:55 GMT
PARDON?
I'm pretty cloth eared when it comes to sound quality, but can spot random production issues in songs easily.
|
|
|
.
Mar 18, 2019 11:17:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by franki68 on Mar 18, 2019 11:17:37 GMT
Attempted it in the gym with Bluetooth headphones and it is nigh on impossible to tell the difference ,only the Suzanne Vega was clear to me because there was no mix to hide any lack of detail . The 128kbps tracks were slightly brighter but for the way most people listen to music there is little benefit of hi res music . Might try it again with my proper headphones .
|
|
|
.
Mar 20, 2019 14:48:45 GMT
Post by alf on Mar 20, 2019 14:48:45 GMT
Using fairly decent ear buds on the laptop I chose the 320k MP3 almost every time and never the uncompressed one. They sound very similar. If I could get them on the iPod I have a dock that outputs digitally to the hifi amp, that has a DAC in it, then I might be able to hear
|
|
|
.
Mar 20, 2019 14:54:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 20, 2019 14:54:56 GMT
The higher the quality, the longer each sample takes to load. Once you realise this it's hard to make your selection on perceived sound quality alone.
|
|
|
.
Mar 20, 2019 18:32:15 GMT
Post by ChrisM on Mar 20, 2019 18:32:15 GMT
Whelk........ I've just repeated the test at home using the squeakers on my HP LCD monitor.... and picked the lowest quality as the best-sounding every time !
Looks like the squeakers are more important than your (my) ears
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
.
Mar 20, 2019 20:08:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 20:08:29 GMT
.
|
|
|
.
Mar 20, 2019 21:22:59 GMT
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 20, 2019 21:22:59 GMT
The higher the quality, the longer each sample takes to load. Once you realise this it's hard to make your selection on perceived sound quality alone. You still on dial-up where you live?! 300 Mbps?
|
|
|
.
Mar 22, 2019 18:01:03 GMT
Post by Andy C on Mar 22, 2019 18:01:03 GMT
I’ve just treated my self to some monster Sony noise cancelling headphones so will try this over the weekend
|
|
|
.
Mar 22, 2019 18:12:03 GMT
Post by Roadsterstu on Mar 22, 2019 18:12:03 GMT
I’ve just treated my self to some monster Sony noise cancelling headphones so will try this over the weekend Nice. I tried my mate's Bose noise-cancelling headphones whilst on holiday last year and they sounded amazing. Even more impressive, they muted all the kids and our other halves.
|
|
|
.
Mar 22, 2019 20:37:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by Andy C on Mar 22, 2019 20:37:44 GMT
I imagine they were the quiet comfort 35?
They were really comfortable , more so than the Sony’s , but the Sony’s edged it for me when it come to sound quality . I’ve only had them a couple of days and the sound quality and noise cancelling is amazing . Been told they will get better still once they’ve bedded in .
|
|
|
.
Mar 22, 2019 22:50:02 GMT
Post by LandieMark on Mar 22, 2019 22:50:02 GMT
I have some Quiet comfort 15 I bought about 10 years ago while visiting friends in the USA and they are still superb.
Saying that, modern earbuds are getting decent these days.
|
|