Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

For your eyes and ears.
Post Reply
User avatar
Achtung Englander
Posts: 2201
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:37 pm
Location: Wokingham

Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by Achtung Englander » Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:34 pm

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/ ... io-quality

I got 3/6 right at Loss less

I choose 2/6 320Kpbs and believe it or not choose Mozart at 128Kpbs.

I guess if you have an amazing system with top of the range speakers, app and streaming device you could hear the marginal improvements, but given I got 50% right, it was a lucky guess between loss less and 320Kpbs.

Try it, its kind of fun. This has reassured me I do not need to subscribe to loss less and current Spotify is good enough.

https://gizmodo.com/lossless-audio-does ... 1851341155
Games playing : Bioshock (Remastered) / Total War Britannia / Dirt 4

User avatar
Alan
Posts: 2368
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: Through that hairy wormhole.

Re: Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by Alan » Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:55 pm

I got uncompressed on all but Vega and Young which were 320. I just guessed the coldplay one because I didnt want to listen to it ¬___¬



Theres stuff you can listen for but its probably more luck with the beatings my ears have taken over the years :p
A man who could tell more truth and eat fewer pies.

arqueturus
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by arqueturus » Tue Mar 26, 2024 5:35 pm

I considered making the jump to Tidal when I treated myself to some new Hi-Fi stuff a year ago including a Cambridge Audio Network player. I had a month trial so was able to play the Hi-Fi Quality Tidal source (same as CD so 44.1kHz so not technically lossless I think?) against whatever the high quality setting is on Spotify. The difference was astonishing - there was loads missing from the Spotify stream - which didn't sound bad by any means mind, just not as good. So there was definitely a significant jump up - something I wasn't expecting at all. Tidal do do a Master Quality level which is truly lossless but I doubt my old ears would get any mileage from that.


I was sold and moved to Tidal and it's been absolutely decent - the algorithm isn't as good and some integrations aren't as good or as broad but other than that I've really enjoyed the sound improvement. On top of this they're dropping the price of subscription from next month.

User avatar
Sly Boots
Bar Staff
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:34 am
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by Sly Boots » Tue Mar 26, 2024 5:53 pm

I guessed one 'right', but for the rest pretty consistently picked the 320Kbps options.

I have some really cheap speakers though as I had to replace my nice old Creative ones at a time when money was tight, supposedly they were temporary but I've had them a couple of years at this point :lol: They're fine for my needs honestly as I'm not an audiophile by any means, but for the purposes of a quiz like this I expect it had a detrimental effect.

User avatar
Achtung Englander
Posts: 2201
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:37 pm
Location: Wokingham

Re: Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by Achtung Englander » Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:21 pm

I think arqueturus you are in the minority which is great. If you can afford it and its important to you, why not. The Gizmodo article was interesting. Streaming over Bluetooth really downgrades the quality because the data gets compressed. I listen to music 2 ways - on my phone to my wireless headset or from PC, so Tidal would be a waste of money.
Games playing : Bioshock (Remastered) / Total War Britannia / Dirt 4

arqueturus
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by arqueturus » Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:53 pm

Achtung Englander wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:21 pm
I think arqueturus you are in the minority which is great. If you can afford it and its important to you, why not. The Gizmodo article was interesting. Streaming over Bluetooth really downgrades the quality because the data gets compressed. I listen to music 2 ways - on my phone to my wireless headset or from PC, so Tidal would be a waste of money.
You're not wrong Achtung, Tidal actually warns you if you're streaming for just that reason - shows the quality as 'disabled' in the app. Ignoring actual hearing ability (I assumed that I have old man ears at this point) I'd expect to be able to tell the difference on any half decent setup. I no longer have Spotify to compare to and test on my PC's old Creative setup but I think focus is an important one - you have to be actively listen to hear the differences and I almost never do that on my PC.

Tidal is marketed as an audiophiles platform to be fair - I just wanted to have a source that my reasonably pricey Hi-Fi could take advantage of.

User avatar
Animalmother
Local
Posts: 3226
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:44 pm

Re: Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by Animalmother » Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:54 pm

I got 5 out of 6 but admittedly at least two of those were a lucky guess. Used headphones on my laptop and just picked the ones where I could hear the background instruments the best. With Susanne Vega it was the wet sounds of her mouth opening and closing :?

User avatar
Sly Boots
Bar Staff
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:34 am
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by Sly Boots » Wed Mar 27, 2024 2:48 pm

That wasn't her mouth...

User avatar
Snowy
Local
Posts: 2634
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:57 am
Location: Ballhang

Re: Loss less v 320Kbps v 128Kbps. Take the test

Post by Snowy » Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:34 am

3/6. but these ears have taken a pounding with far too many too loud gigs etc, so not a great surprise.
RCHD wrote:Snowy is my favourite. He's a metal God.
08/10/2003 - 17/08/2018
10501 :-({|=

Post Reply