mp3 compresses frequencies that are impossible for the human ear to even hear. The test wasn't a specification test, it was a listening test to see if in fact 1 could hear the differences between a 320 mp3 and a wav. There is no doubt that a wav is technically a better file. If you looked at an mp3 and a wav on an oscilloscope the difference would be clear. But when listening and knowing what to even listen for its nearly imppossible to tell.
Forum member Mostapha set up a double blind test, 10 tracks. For each track, first the mp3 was played 4 times, then the wav 4 times to orient you to what you were listening to...then the track was played 10 times at random mixing up the mp3 and the wav. The majority of people who took the test couldn't tell the difference, I think I got like 55% right. I was 1 of the poeple that said you couldn't hear a difference. Mostapha was the only person that was really able to hear a difference, I believe with like 80% right, I'm sure he still has all the figures. Mostapha himself did admit that it was a lot harder than he thought and that he probably would not have scored as high if it wasn't with music that he knew and he wouldn't have been able to pick out the file type if the test wasn't in the ABX format meaning if someone just played a file and said tell me if that was an mp3 or a wav, he couldn't do it. The difference, if there even is 1, is so miniscule that even when really listening hard and concentrting it was nearly impossible to pick out.
Bookmarks