Try this audio test

Well, I have a set of 598's and old 595's plus some Grado 325's. I keep one pair at work, one in the basement and one in the backpack for travel. Sure, there are differences but it's mostly in ear as you say.

I've got over 110gb of mp3's ripped at 320 and there is just not enough reason to justify lossless for me. Tidal's argument fails to me, the difference just is not enough for what they want to charge and the price of really high end audio. If their audience is only people who can hear the difference, they are excluding a large part of the population which seems stupid if you are trying to grow a business.

B00nie said:
Uh, finding out the differences on a shitty pair of headphones does not imply that you wouldn't benefit from the HD600's it only implies that you can hear the difference between compression levels. If you really think there aren't differences between audio gears then hifi (or God forbid, High End) is not for you.
Click to expand...
 
thekipper said:
Well, I have a set of 598's and old 595's plus some Grado 325's. I keep one pair at work, one in the basement and one in the backpack for travel. Sure, there are differences but it's mostly in ear as you say.

I've got over 110gb of mp3's ripped at 320 and there is just not enough reason to justify lossless for me. Tidal's argument fails to me, the difference just is not enough for what they want to charge and the price of really high end audio. If their audience is only people who can hear the difference, they are excluding a large part of the population which seems stupid if you are trying to grow a business.
Click to expand...

I would totally get Tidal unless for two reasons:

1) The selection at first glance seems to be too Northern America popular orientated
2) While the quality definitely is better, it doesn't justify the 20 dollar a month price tag. I prefer to purchase two full albums a month with that kind of money instead of getting tied up to a subscription model.
 
They don't have a Windowsphone app... I subscribed a few days ago and now in the process of a refund.
 
lol, 4/5, I only missed the Daft Punk one, and I'm a huge fan of Daft Punks older works.

As for equipment.... Xonar DGX & Panasonic RP-HTF600-S.

Yes that is about $70 of gear, damn I love my ears.
 
B00nie said:
70? I have cables that cost more than that :D
Click to expand...

Well, given how few samples there are in the test, the rather high chance of getting it right at random etc. any score is pretty much useless, but it was fun to try.
 
My beef with the sound test is that they are comparing 320kbps AAC to loss less. iTunes uses 256kbs and probably so do many of the streaming services around. So why are we reducing potential customers' chances of getting a high score? Way to sell the service guys.
 
Yeah, I have a very hard time judging 320kbps from lossless when the AAC codec is used, simply because I keep most of my music in 320kbps AAC or MP3, and therefore my 64 band stereo EQ is set to defeat AAC sharpening and aliasing... I scored 1/5 on my 2.2 4 way PA system, but 5/5 with my M50's. Used headphones first, as I expected that result and was worried they'd tell you where you went wrong (as they did).

Guess I don't need to pay more, hah. DI.fm's new MP3 320kbps streams are wonderful.

Not to mention that the recording quality, compression and mixing of much modern music is downright garbage.
 
Last edited:
4/5 with Surface Pro powered audio and Logitech cheap ass speakers.

Luck. Maybe 1 I could tell a difference with the highs.

I'd love to try it on a high end audio system to hear the differences. Right now, though, it wouldn't make a lick of difference for me to go lossless....
 
Staples said:
My beef with the sound test is that they are comparing 320kbps AAC to loss less. iTunes uses 256kbs and probably so do many of the streaming services around. So why are we reducing potential customers' chances of getting a high score? Way to sell the service guys.
Click to expand...

They sell a 320Kbps service for 1/2 the price of the lossless. It's more to help you choose between the two services. Also you can just fire up the Spotify and compare the same songs across the services to hear the difference in sound quality.

It's also worth mentioning that if you are a student, then you get an additional 50% discount. Pretty sweet deal!
 
3/5

Xonar DG

Thank God I got Daft Punk and "Hotel California" right....

That could've been shameful.
 
The Dixie Chicks one got me the first time I couldn't distinguish any difference on cheap headphones. After that was easy to find the differences on my high end speaker and headphone setup.
 
I got 3/5 right using my AmpliFi tt DAC and external M-Audio speakers :)
 
2/5

#2 and #3 were guessed right. #2 was just a WAG, #3 was actually more evident.

Thing is, my hearing's been compromised. Nearly went deaf as a kid from fluid buildup in my inner ear.
Then, spent WAY too much time near amp stacks at rock concerts in my 20's.

When the concert's been over for an hour and you look over at your buddy and go "What?", there's been damage...
 
The real meaning of this test was to listen to the hidden subliminal message 'buy a big mac'. It requires very careful listening to be affected by this...
 
Last edited:
Five in five correct, fantastic!
You have an ear for detail and a good audio system, it’s for people like you that we have created the service. You deserve TIDAL for 30 days.
SHARE YOUR RESULT

I passed the High Fidelity Test, will you?
Test here if you have the audio system and ears for lossless High Fidelity sound. Lossless provides all the details and the complete sound image. Pass the test and get TIDAL access for 30 days.

MB Quart Head Phones 35X, Asus Z97-A onboard sound.

Oh, I'll be 68 in November. It's not hard if you know what the instruments are supposed to sound like. No harmonics? MP-3. No sustain on the Dixie Chick banjo? MP-3. Same things with each of the song cuts, No harmonics, no overtones piss poor bass...and chopped off highs = MP-3.
 
Last edited:
The chopped off highs and piss poor bass is what gave me the up for the lossless comparison to the MP3.
 
First 2 times with my Audio-Technica ATH-AG1s and it's USB DAC I got 2/5. With my HT Omega eClaro instead of the USB DAC, I get 3/5. The first 2 times were inconsistent with the exception of the Dixie Chicks song, but I couldn't really pinpoint why I got that one right all the time, except that one track was clearly different from the other. But I guess the eClaro clarified that song -- one of the tracks has a very "artificial" sounding bass which really doesn't sound right, and so must be the MP3 track.
 
Last edited:
Lol guys. 'you deserve TIDAL for 30 days' - it's marketing BS. They're not going to release a 'test' that would be too hard for an average person to pass. In fact they have made sure that even an average user/system can hear the differences.
 
B00nie said:
Lol guys. 'you deserve TIDAL for 30 days' - it's marketing BS. They're not going to release a 'test' that would be too hard for an average person to pass. In fact they have made sure that even an average user/system can hear the differences.
Click to expand...

They COULD have just used 128kbps and compare it to their lossless. But they used 320kbps vs lossless. Which is undistinguishable on a lot of cheap systems and even for a lot of non audiofiles with a great setup.
 
Henri108 said:
They COULD have just used 128kbps and compare it to their lossless. But they used 320kbps vs lossless. Which is undistinguishable on a lot of cheap systems and even for a lot of non audiofiles with a great setup.
Click to expand...

Yep but anyone who falls to the 'deserve' part should think twice when the fact is that anyone with $$ deserves Tidal as far as they're concerned :)
 
BillR said:
Five in five correct, fantastic!
You have an ear for detail and a good audio system, it’s for people like you that we have created the service. You deserve TIDAL for 30 days.
SHARE YOUR RESULT

I passed the High Fidelity Test, will you?
Test here if you have the audio system and ears for lossless High Fidelity sound. Lossless provides all the details and the complete sound image. Pass the test and get TIDAL access for 30 days.

MB Quart Head Phones 35X, Asus Z97-A onboard sound.

Oh, I'll be 68 in November. It's not hard if you know what the instruments are supposed to sound like. No harmonics? MP-3. No sustain on the Dixie Chick banjo? MP-3. Same things with each of the song cuts, No harmonics, no overtones piss poor bass...and chopped off highs = MP-3.
Click to expand...

Could be down to pure luck that you got 5/5. Take the test ten times and report back.
 
rezerekted said:
Could be down to pure luck that you got 5/5. Take the test ten times and report back.
Click to expand...

You do realize, if you know what to listen for instrument wise, repeating the test just makes it easier?

After 3 tries it just got boring, but I hit it all three times 1/4 way through each piece.

Compressed, the music sounds like you're listening through a curtain, many of the details are gone. No studio detail (every recording studio has it's own sound).

Go listen to the Dixie Chicks and listen to the banjo. On the compressed version all the string detail (harmonics) are cut way back as an example. On the first song there is some percussion like sticks being hit together and on the one test the echo is very veiled, on the non-compressed version the echo is clearly there, you can hear the echo and the echo lasts longer (sustain)

Compressed music uses an algorithm that determines notes it sees vs notes that seem to be hidden behind other notes so it's ok to throw them out of the final product. Sure you hear the music, but not ALL of the music from the original source material.

A Steinway piano sounds nothing like a Yamaha piano which sounds nothing like a Kawai piano etc. Until you learn to listen non music people won't know the difference and frankly they don't care...And that's ok. If you are happy with MP-3 enjoy, I have a few on this machine for background music.

When I'm listening to actually hear the music I go un-compressed or High Bit and I play that on my home system, not the computer.

I doesn't hurt that I was in the audio business back in the early 80's with two stores either. Companies like Sumiko and Magnepan etc. would pay for concert tickets for myself and my employees to attend up to 2 live venue acoustical concerts a year. They wanted us to be able to teach people how to listen...And we did.

There is no right or wrong here, it's about actually hearing the music and what makes you happy, you are the customer after all, listen to what makes you happy.

MP-3 killed off almost all the real B&M audio stores so I got out and with very few exceptions the business as a whole died and that's sad for a music lover.

Times change and most are happy carrying their music on a phone and very few people actually don't take the time to just listen and many people don't have the time just sit and listen.

Take it for what it's worth:)
 
3/5, xfi brauvia + a900's. Would have helped if every two seconds the recording wasn't skipping...

If I remember my codecs correctly and how it works, it's hard to tell midranges lossy vs compressed. The secret is in the high notes.
 
pheonix991 said:
3/5, xfi brauvia + a900's. Would have helped if every two seconds the recording wasn't skipping...

If I remember my codecs correctly and how it works, it's hard to tell midranges lossy vs compressed. The secret is in the high notes.
Click to expand...

Pretty close for sure, usually the highs are the first to go during compression. Now go back and listen to the bass lines, I think you will find a lot of missing bass as well.

Next, on a good recording of course, listen to the vocals, lotta lost info from the vocals.

That said a lot depends on how much money was spent to make the recording. On a lot of today's music there is no need to spend a ton on studio time because many simply won't hear the difference so why spend the money.
 
I got 1/5 on my soundblaster z > pioneer elite sc-63, polk RTI8, hsu stf-2 subwoofer

and

3/5 on my 1964 Ears V3 via onboard sound.

Felt that it was easier to listen through the headphones. Still shows I have bad hearing though :p
 
hafnium911 said:
I got 1/5 on my soundblaster z > pioneer elite sc-63, polk RTI8, hsu stf-2 subwoofer

and

3/5 on my 1964 Ears V3 via onboard sound.

Felt that it was easier to listen through the headphones. Still shows I have bad hearing though :p
Click to expand...

Or probably because you didn't know where to hear to hear a difference between the two files.
 
Try listening to the gain and the bass. I'm almost certain you'd find one track louder then the other.
 
Matthew Kane said:
Try listening to the gain and the bass. I'm almost certain you'd find one track louder then the other.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for that. I actually did notice that when listening(one louder), but didn't think much of it. Will retry later.. So I guess it not so much my hearing, just that i am still a noob :p
 
Guys don't you get that this test is made deliberately so that you can hear the difference? It's MARKETING.
 
I got 4/5 first try and 5/5 second try on NAD D1050 + Shure SRH 1540, was not really listening for anything specific except which one sounded more "HIFI"

You cannot really try to listen for "flaws" because the flaws are in the recording and will be there anyway, if you listen for clarity and details, also slight compression artifacts, you will get them correct, also if you have crappy headphones, dac / amp etc. they will prob all sound the same.
 
Last edited:
3/5 - Missed the James Blake and Daft Punk

Using Sennheiser HD598 with onboard Realtek ALC889
 
B00nie said:
Guys don't you get that this test is made deliberately so that you can hear the difference? It's MARKETING.
Click to expand...

You'd think. But the majority of people can't hear the difference. They didn't make it very easy by comparing 320kbps AAC to lose less. If they wanted to make it easy, they would have pit 192kbps against lossless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top