Originally Posted by pondosinatra This really wouldn't address what was stated
- that comparing a song from your iPod to a SACD recording was ridiculous - you can't 'rip' a SACD so that point will never be able to be proven or disproven.
That is perfectly true, but audiophiles usually state that compressed music is the spawn of the devil and sounds so obviously inferior that the idea of listening to it is beneath their contempt.
They usually claim the audible difference between compressed and source (CD usually) is huge, not subtle.
I know you personally have not made that claim, apart from making a remark about me listening to compressed music.
My reasoning sort of goes; if one can't hear a difference between compressed and uncompressed, then the chances of being able to hear even more subtle differences becomes less likely vis a vis CD vs SACD.
The next best thing would be a comparison between a song off of iTunes and the same song off a CD. However that was never my argument - which was that I prefer SACD over CD.
We then went on to arguing over cables and on that one we'll have to agree to disagree.
However I'd still do this test as I'm curious if I can tell between an AAC file and the same thing from a Redbook CD.
You can download the file here: http://hotfile.com/dl/106252620/faa0...23aac.rar.html
I ripped the track from CD as a WAV in iTunes. I had iTunes create a 223 kbps AAC version.
I loaded both tracks into Audacity and created a third track that consisted of sections from both the WAV and AAC then saved this third track as a WAV.
I would have a few conditions....
- the song is something I'm familiar with (I have a wide range of tastes)
- that it not be something spliced, but that it be two full recordings (or a decent time snapshot ie. 2 minutes)
The CD if ripped would have to be the same bitrate as a store bought CD - 1.4Mb/s I believe. Conversely I don't think it's fair using a song with the maximum bitrate (256k?) in iTunes, some of my songs are at that higher bitrate but most aren't - I'll have to check when I get home - however I'm not suggesting they be at the lowest setting either (128k) either.
And of course I'm assuming that you'd be honest with the results...
If you like, I can email a text file to Mr H which specifies the time details of the file specifying which sections are from which original file, prior to you stating results - if any. I will say that there is no trickery, the file does contain several sections from each format and is not an unmodified WAV or anything.
Your proposed methodology is flawed, it gives a listener a 50/50 chance of guessing which bit is which. It also relies on humans possessing an appreciable audio memory, something i don't think they do. My methodology should actually make it easier to distinguish differences. I don't see any reason why you would have to be familiar with a piece of music when listening for what is usually considered to be a big difference in SQ. I can only rip what I have on hand and there might not be a single CD we both happen to have. Lastly, I am being lazy and just posted a file I created a while ago so apart from uploading, no further effort was required on my part.
I would be prepared to exert myself to do a 192 kbps MP3 vs Source with a track of your choice if we happened to both have the CD.
Anyway, this is just for fun so no need to get too serious about it.