Lossy vs lossless

[Ghitulescu]

I am not taking back a thing. If I hear the difference and you don't, you'll say the very next reply that's 50% and not 90%. Calm down, you're not [yet] the etalon of the Universe or mankind.

You managed to find a statement of mine from a remote thread, so curiously enough, you couldn't find the other one/s ...:search: Hint: it was always said in the context of video compression mutatis mutandis.

[yetanotherid]

I am not taking back a thing. If I hear the difference and you don't, you'll say the very next reply that's 50% and not 90%. Calm down, you're not [yet] the etalon of the Universe or mankind.

I don't know what you're on about there. You made the 90% claim, then modified it to 80%. I'm just quoting you.

I see we're onto the comments about what I may or not be. It's a fairly sure sign your horse is dead but you're still flogging it in vain anyway. ;)

You managed to find a statement of mine from a remote thread, so curiously enough, you couldn't find the other one/s ...:search: Hint: it was always said in the context of video compression mutatis mutandis.

I found it easily because I replied in the same thread, and your comment was so ridiculous it stuck out and stayed in my memory.

Here's the entire thread from which I took your quote which was also the entirety of your post, one made in an audio only discussion. No mention of video compression in sight.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1471580
You'll have to tell me which other posts you're referring to, although to be honest I can't see them being even remotely relevant to the topic.

Do you remember the topic and the reason for my uploading the samples or have you forgotten already?

90% of the population can detect MP3 if one is kind enough to draw their attention to what exactly are the differences.

[Ghitulescu]

I found it easily because I replied in the same thread, and your comment was so ridiculous it stuck out and stayed in my memory.

What a coincidence?! Whenever you see a reply from me you feel the urge to contradict, and to take over that thread, trying to force me to explain something to you. Get a life, pal, this is not a chat room.

My comments are not ridiculous. But there are people that will mock of everything, regardless of its subject. Why is
quality is a matter of personal choice, experience, native gifts and expectations ridiculous?

[kypec]

Test results: just as I expected, listening on cheap headphones plugged into on-board RealTek ALC888 I couldn't tell any apparent differences between music samples [foobar2000 v1.1].
Given that I'm only 36 my hearing must be either damaged or I must belong to 10-20% minority of people together with yetanotherid :)

[kypec]

Excuse me, but why do you think that statements like On such setups the "golden ears" can sense differences between 2 CDR with the exactly same data. are not ridiculous? :confused:

[Ghitulescu]

Test results: just as I expected, listening on cheap headphones plugged into on-board RealTek ALC888 I couldn't tell any apparent differences between music samples [foobar2000 v1.1].
Given that I'm only 36 my hearing must be either damaged or I must belong to 10-20% minority of people together with yetanotherid :)

So why bother spending time for compression, when there's so much space available on the latest HDDs (2TB, maybe more)?

[Ghitulescu]

Excuse me, but why do you think that statements like are not ridiculous? :confused:
http://www.prismsound.com/m_r_downloads/cdinvest.pdf
http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/cd-recordable/4-18-2-The-audio-data-matches-exactly-why-do-they-sound-di.html
FYI

But I was expected to hear this from someone that doesn't even discerne MP3 from its original LPCM source.

[yetanotherid]

What a coincidence?! Whenever you see a reply from me you feel the urge to contradict, and to take over that thread, trying to force me to explain something to you. Get a life, pal, this is not a chat room.

No, what it is, is you posting from some imaginary moral high ground which apparently gives you the divine right to remain un-contradicted and for nobody to disagree with you.
And as per usual it has you resorting to personal attacks and snide remarks, not me.
FYI information it was me who PM'd the mod and had this thread split off from the original so the discussion could be continued, so if it's anybody's thread it's mine, therefore if you don't like the way the discussion is being carried out, maybe it's you who needs to post elsewhere or you who needs to go and get a life. Your moral high ground doesn't extend to this thread. Nobody is forcing you to post here. Get over yourself.

My comments are not ridiculous. But there are people that will mock of everything, regardless of its subject. Why is
quality is a matter of personal choice, experience, native gifts and expectations ridiculous?

That's another of your favourites, offering a fallacious argument after your original one falls apart.
Nobody has argued as to whether quality is personal choice. First you've tried an argument of dismissal (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dismissal) with the whole "get a life" thing etc. Now you've moved on to putting words into my mouth and countering an argument I never offered.

Anyway, there's no point continuing the discussion with you. Well in fact I've barely discussed the topic with you because you've avoided it every which way possible. If ever you want to get back to the topic I'm happy to continue discussing it.

For the record....
You claimed 90% of the population can hear the difference between an MP3 and the original audio if they're taught what to listen for. ramicio, who seems to have disappeared, claimed anyone under 80 without hearing damage can easily tell the difference between an MP3 and the original audio. That's the topic I'm discussing, whether people can in fact hear the differences as you've claimed. Lossy v lossless audio.

I've uploaded some audio samples for you and ramicio to listen to, report the differences you can hear and educate the rest of us as to what they are in order for the rest of us to hear them too. If you're not willing to do so to support your claims... well I won't speak for everyone else.... but I'll hardly be taking your opinion on the subject seriously. We're waiting. Teach us what to listen for.

So why bother spending time for compression, when there's so much space available on the latest HDDs (2TB, maybe more)?

For fun. Once again though, it's not the topic. We are compressing our audio, even if it's only because our CPUs get bored and we want to keep them amused. Please teach us how to hear the differences we'll be able to hear once you point them out to us.

[GodofaGap]

http://www.prismsound.com/m_r_downloads/cdinvest.pdf
The article concludes that no differences were heard.

[kypec]

The article concludes that no differences were heard.
Yes, precisely. Articles and studies like these are usually full of "assumptions and general comments of wide auditorium swearing that they're able to hear differences" - once they're put in test to prove their expert hearing abilities the real results are:

Listener 'A' was correct four times and wrong six times. The probability of getting four or more trials correct would have been 0.83 if responses had been offered at random.
Listener 'B' was correct three times and wrong seven times. The probability of getting three or more trials correct would have been 0.95 if responses had been offered at random.

[Groucho2004]

So why bother spending time for compression, when there's so much space available on the latest HDDs (2TB, maybe more)?

Why do you quote kypec's post when your reply is completely unrelated to it?

[kypec]

So why bother spending time for compression, when there's so much space available on the latest HDDs (2TB, maybe more)?
Because of:
I can put my whole music collection onto single 8GB SDHC memory card and carry it in my wallet.
Time needed to rip+encode a CD album is only marginally longer compared to rip-only process on my PC.
I can play my MP3 in far more devices than uncompressed WAV or FLAC as it happens.

[Ghitulescu]

Yes, I am completely and utterly wrong.

May MP3 live forever!

And may that you'll get only MP3 from the music producers.

PS: you really missed the point. The point was that there are differences. A surprising and important point is that of the 50 responses included, only three claimed that all the discs sounded identical to the reference.
You said that statistically they couldn't agree whether Obama is better than Bush. I (they) said that 94% noticed that Obama is not Bush.

[yetanotherid]

PS: you really missed the point. The point was that there are differences. A surprising and important point is that of the 50 responses included, only three claimed that all the discs sounded identical to the reference.
You said that statistically they couldn't agree whether Obama is better than Bush. I (they) said that 94% noticed that Obama is not Bush.

I think the point you're missing is that people can easily convince themselves they can hear differences if they think they should be able to, but when tested properly they're not able to reliably show they can in fact hear those differences. Or they refuse to listen to samples to show they can hear the difference they claim they can hear after having made such claims as being able to pick out an MP3 audio track while using their car CD player in a noisy environment, and without even needing to use the original audio track as a reference.

So you won't be downloading the samples and educating us as to the difference you can hear so the majority of us can also hear them?

[pandy]

http://ljforestier.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/flame-war.jpg

[Ghitulescu]

I think the point you're missing is that people can easily convince themselves they can hear differences if they think they should be able to, but when tested properly they're not able to reliably show they can in fact hear those differences.

Conversely, they could also be convinced that there's no difference - this goes both ways.

In the end, one should get what s/he likes. I'll be upset if one feeds me with MP3s when I wanted the original WAV (and not a WAV from a compressed file), and you'll probably be upset if someone tries to sell you a WAV file (gosh, now I have to pay for a bigger HDD, too!).

I sense the MP3 from a WAV most of the times (much easily when the bitrates are lower) and that settles the things for me. I also sense the differences between a black CDR (MAM) vs. a regular one (say TDK or Sony). I'm not a placebo.

[yetanotherid]

Conversely, they could also be convinced that there's no difference - this goes both ways.

I somehow doubt it.
I'll happily believe people often imagine hearing differences they can't hear simply because they think they should be able to hear them, and I'll happily believe people would deny hearing a difference if they're sure they can't hear one, but you'll probably have an easier time convincing me the world is made of chocolate than you'll have convincing me too many people would listen to two samples of music, hear a difference (or think they can) and then report they didn't hear any difference at all.


In the end, one should get what s/he likes. I'll be upset if one feeds me with MP3s when I wanted the original WAV (and not a WAV from a compressed file), and you'll probably be upset if someone tries to sell you a WAV file (gosh, now I have to pay for a bigger HDD, too!).

Sorry, but that's a silly argument and irrelevant to the topic.
Those samples I uploaded. Did you notice I mentioned they came from flac files stored on my hard drive which had previously been ripped from CDs?

I sense the MP3 from a WAV most of the times (much easily when the bitrates are lower) and that settles the things for me. I also sense the differences between a black CDR (MAM) vs. a regular one (say TDK or Sony). I'm not a placebo.

Well, I guess downloading the samples I uploaded, making notes of the differences you can hear and explaining them to the rest of us so that we might hear the too will simply be child's-play for you. I continue to wait to learn.

For the record, I earn my living mixing live bands, and while I'm fully aware it's completely different situation to listening to CDs or working in a studio, it's made me completely aware of how easily the brain can fool the ears if it thinks it should be able to hear a change. Many times I've changed something, been positive I've heard the difference, only to discover when I've looked closely I've not actually made the change I thought I had.

Likewise I can drive myself crazy hearing things which nobody else in the room would probably notice, sometimes to the point where my brain focuses on specific frequencies and drives me nutty, even though to everyone else in the room who's listening to the "whole sound" those frequencies probably don't stand out at all.

Of course none of the story relates directly to the subject, except to show why I'm fairly confident that if there were noticeable differences between uncompressed audio and an MP3, if I can't hear them now, I'm sure I'll hear them once they're pointed out to me.

In some respects though maybe it's good I don't pretend to myself I can hear MP3 compression at work, or that I can't really hear it.... it'll just be one more thing to add to the list of things which I do hear in preference to just enjoying the music. Over-done vocal reverb is one of my favourite music-enjoyment killing distractions.

[GodofaGap]

PS: you really missed the point. PS: you really missed the point. The point was that there are differences.
The conclusion of the article does not leave room for such a statement. It is you who is missing the point.

A surprising and important point is that of the 50 responses included, only three claimed that all the discs sounded identical to the reference.
It is not very difficult to say there is a difference between A and A', now is it? The article then goes on saying that no significant evidence was found that these claims where just.

[ramicio]

If I let my hygiene go I can smell myself. I just don't mind me.

[Ghitulescu]

The fact that so many professional listeners are hearing disc-dependent differences with jitter-rejecting external DACs is especially interesting.

I know exactly how many kg I weight. That doesn't make me a winner of the contest, if the contest rule is "The winner is the one who is the closest to the mean weight of the guessed results". Any ABx test concerning the traffic lights which is performed among blinds will yield similar results (assuming the traffic lights do not have buzzers for blind people, so they don't guess the colour by the noise). However, if a professional (in this case someone who actually sees) has an opinion, this opinion is lost in the sea of nonsense results (noise).

[GodofaGap]

The fact that so many professional listeners are hearing disc-dependent differences with jitter-rejecting external DACs is especially interesting.
The fact that they stop hearing those in controlled conditions is even more interesting.

However, if a professional (in this case someone who actually sees) has an opinion, this opinion is lost in the sea of nonsense results (noise).
Are you now criticizing the article that was supposed to prove your point, or you just rambling in any random direction?

[yetanotherid]

I know exactly how many kg I weight. That doesn't make me a winner of the contest, if the contest rule is "The winner is the one who is the closest to the mean weight of the guessed results". Any ABx test concerning the traffic lights which is performed among blinds will yield similar results (assuming the traffic lights do not have buzzers for blind people, so they don't guess the colour by the noise). However, if a professional (in this case someone who actually sees) has an opinion, this opinion is lost in the sea of nonsense results (noise).

Wow! Speaking of noise.....

[Ghitulescu]

http://www.meridian-audio.info/public/cdr%5B1389%5D.pdf

[yetanotherid]

Well this thread is kind of boring me now. I'll probably return later to see if there's been any developments, but so far the two posters making the claims as to the majority of people being able to hear the difference between an MP3 and the original audio, once those differences are pointed out to them, have flatly refused to download a few samples to make notes of the differences they hear and point them out to the rest of us so we may hear them too. Therefore I can only conclude such claims are more than likely, complete bullocks, and any further claims regarding their procession of magic ears are more than likely attributed to a vivid imagination.

Until the samples are download and discussed by those involved in this thread, it's going to continue to be nothing more than arguments going round in circles while those making the claims continue to attempt to avoid the real subject, so for the moment at least, there seems little point in continuing.

[ramicio]

Sensing the differences in CD media IS placebo. Differences can't even be measured because there should be none. Do we not know what digital means? The only difference there can be is if one of the two tested media is not written correctly and there is error correction taking place, interpolating data.

[Ghitulescu]

Are you now criticizing the article that was supposed to prove your point, or you just rambling in any random direction?
No, I'm pointing out the key elements.

I am saying exactly that people that can hear will hear, those that can see will see and so on. Those that cannot will not.

Statistics are used to whatever one wants.

[Ghitulescu]

Sensing the differences in CD media IS placebo. Differences can't even be measured because there should be none. Do we not know what digital means? The only difference there can be is if one of the two tested media is not written correctly and there is error correction taking place, interpolating data.

Sorry, you're wrong, there is a difference, and this is documented, at least between pressed and burned disks. The document/s come/s from Philips, the inventor of the CD and CDR, and since its pickups are used in the majority of high end gear (CDM series) it's also demonstrable and repeatable.

[yetanotherid]

I am saying exactly that people that can hear will hear, those that can see will see and so on. Those that cannot will not.

You left out the group of people who are convinced the world is made of chocolate.... or who can pick an MP3 playing in their car CD player. They're people too.....

[GodofaGap]

No, I'm pointing out the key elements.

I am saying exactly that people that can hear will hear, those that can see will see and so on. Those that cannot will not.

Statistics are used to whatever one wants.

Even individually no significant results that support your position were found in that article. If you claim that you hear a difference, we don't need to test me, we only need to test you.

Sorry, but you have not read the article or have no experience with reading scientifically orientated articles. Like you said, those who cannot read, cannot.

[ramicio]

Data is data. There is no difference. If your rips and burns are secure then there will be no difference. Rip the two "different" discs and then CRC the tracks. If they aren't identical then there is lost data because of an insecure burn, lost data because of defects on the disc, or an offset is wrong. Identical data yields identical sound. This CANNOT be argued, it's logic, of the digital kind. By your logic I can take a text file, put it on a CD, copy that CD on another computer onto a hard drive. Copy it from that hard drive to flash drive. Take that flash drive to the original computer, or even any other computer, and the data will be different.

[yetanotherid]

Sorry, you're wrong, there is a difference, and this is documented, at least between pressed and burned disks. The document/s come/s from Philips, the inventor of the CD and CDR, and since its pickups are used in the majority of high end gear (CDM series) it's also demonstrable and repeatable.

Excuse me, Mr. "don't take the thread off topic", Captain "go and start you own thread", Professor "stop taking over the thread for you own purposes"....
Before I leave may I remind you the thread topic is Lossy vs lossless audio. The differences between CDs and other variations in audio quality can be discussed in a new thread. Your hypocrisy is almost endless.....

[Ghitulescu]

Let's start it all over.

Let's skip the abstract, as this generally gives us the conclusion of the authors (which is not always accurate).

So, Introduction says: a flood of reports that digital data on CD sound different that on the master. Wow, people that are paid to mix the music, sense that there are differences and cry out loud WTF is going on?....

2§ explains how a press works, the authors did not investigate it

3§ (Politics) - oh no, the artists too noticed that what they get is not what they sang? Well, it's a bit too much to say that people that sing and compose do not have the ears and the hearing ...

4§ (reprodution basics) demounts what ramicio said (and is wrongly circulated in many fora)

4-5§ describe the assets

6§ (Listening test strategy) mentioned that there is no good or bad, just aimed for a difference

7§ assured that the disks are binary identical

8§ explained the basics for playback

9§ (listening tests analysis) - now, here's one crucial point. The authors wanted to have an universal compatibility and they assumed that anyone will hear the differences in the exact same way. That was a mistake, luckily they provided the extra information (see below)
The principal objective of the listening tests was to assess 'concordance' among listeners, i.e. to establish to what degree they agreed in their ranking of the discs.

10§ (listening test results) - A surprising and important point is that of the 50 responses included, only three claimed that all the discs sounded identical to the reference. Despite this fact, it can be seen from figure 13. that concordance among listeners was poor, and that ranking of the anonymous copy of the reference disc was astonishingly high: it was generally rated as the MOST DIFFERENT from the primary reference disc in the global/all players set, principally as a result of professional listeners' responses, many of whom were using two box players. However, even in the one-box player analysis, it is mid-ranked.
So, people used to asses the quality of music and mixes found that there is a disk that is most different from the others, and even with normal people that disk stand out. - my conclusion.

§11 (golden ears) - the test was not to establish whether there is a difference, but to recognize a disk from two. The problem with this test is that the auditive memory is very short (few seconds) and experts are not very different from regular people in this respect. So the expert had to find key points as references. Should have been no differences, the result should have been "statistically null". The 3:7 and 4:6 results indicate that the golden ears found a difference, yet they missed the right correlation. Many people cannot distinguish a Chinese from another one. Even people that can distinguish one form another may be put into difficulty in positively identifying one of them, yet they know the differences.

§12 (conclusions) - their conclusions. Listening tests have so far failed to produce convincing evidence for consistent sonic differences among the TD-2 sets. However, respected listeners maintain that the differences are present and reliably audible. They aimed at concordance, they did not aim at differences as such.
The fact that so many professional listeners are hearing disc-dependent differences with jitter-rejecting external DACs is especially interesting. If this can be reliably confirmed, there is almost certainly a flaw in our understanding of the limits of perception. So, taking apart all the differences in jitter and interferences that could mask or amplify the differences, with neutral equipment, professional listeners could easily sense a difference.

This is why a scientific article needs to present experimental (raw) data, because the conclusions can be wrong. Not necessarily wrong, but it may be wrong. Or pointing into another direction.

[ramicio]

If they made sure the discs were BEING READ identically then there will be no difference. It's one thing to claim differences between something untouched and something using psychoacoustic tricks to fool the ears, but it's totally idiotic to claim you can sense a difference when it can't even be measured.

[Ghitulescu]

If they made sure the discs were BEING READ identically then there will be no difference. It's one thing to claim differences between something untouched and something using psychoacoustic tricks to fool the ears, but it's totally idiotic to claim you can sense a difference when it can't even be measured.

One difference that exists between two bit-identical disks that are differently pressed (or recorder) was also mentioned in that article (1st page right) - the EFM encoding. There are reports that the EFM matrices used in the standalones recorders from Yamaha (which uses the same pickups as the computer drives, only a different FW) are different from those used in the professional recorders of the same company.

And as I said, Philips recognises that in case of the CDR they will switch the reading mode compared to the silver CDs.

Anyway, this is strictly personal. And if there are differences between at least a silver CD and its recordable copy (otherwise bit identical), there should be differences between lossy and lossless formats.

[ramicio]

Bit identical will sound the same. If the player shows a difference, then I would think Redbook would have a problem with its specification of claiming it's a CD player. Lossless and lossy are not bit identical, therefore there is a difference. One difference only exists in people's diluted minds. The other exists, can be measured, but is ridiculed even when people pass tests. It's all just as silly as people claiming USB cables to DACs sound different.

[yetanotherid]

Still no takers? Ghitulescu? ramicio? Neither of you yet willing to download the samples I uploaded and explain the differences you both stated you could easily hear? Differences the majority of us should also be able to hear once you point them out?
Still preferring to engage in an off-topic debate over esoteric differences in CD audio?

Oh well.... funny about that....

Not to worry, I won't harp on it any more. Obviously neither of you expect to be taken seriously. :rolleyes:

[Ghitulescu]

Still no takers? Ghitulescu? ramicio? Neither of you yet willing to download the samples I uploaded and explain the differences you both stated you could easily hear? Differences the majority of us should also be able to hear once you point them out?
Still preferring to engage in an off-topic debate over esoteric differences in CD audio?

How can one explain a colour to a blind? How can be described a colour in words? How can one describe a sound?

[ramicio]

Patience. Some people have lives. Most of my posts are from work. At home I don't spend my time arguing with people over the internet.

[yetanotherid]

How can one explain a colour to a blind? How can be described a colour in words? How can one describe a sound?

You're not explaining sound to the deaf. You're not describing a sound to the deaf.

90% of the population can detect MP3 if one is kind enough to draw their attention to what exactly are the differences.

.... The trick is to recognize compression artefacts: once you got them you can't overlook them.

It's your story, I'm just waiting for you to run out of excuses for not finishing it.

You're not necessarily describing a sound but the difference between two similar sounds. That makes it a lot easier.
Phasing effects, frequency losses, attack transients, underlying harmonics, spatial differences, stereo imaging, or even more subjective descriptions such as clarity, warmth, detail.... etc. etc. There's a list of subjective descriptions which apply to audio here:
http://www.diyaudioandvideo.com/FAQ/Sound/
I'll try to find some more for you if you find yourself lost for words.
I'm capable of understanding descriptions of sounds. If you describe the types of differences you hear, I.... and no doubt others participating in this thread.... can listen for them.

That's it for me for the day. Plenty of time for you to describe the differences you hear. Catch you tomorrow.

[mike20021969]

Still no takers? Ghitulescu? ramicio? Neither of you yet willing to download the samples I uploadedIt must've taken you ages to do them, too.

[shon3i]

Double blind ABX is only approved measurement to determine quality of audio. If someone say "i can hear difference" without post proper ABX log, is speaking bs.

Thanks.

[RunningSkittle]

...I know exactly how many kg I weight....

Ok now everyone knows not to take you seriously. Kg is not "weight." It is not a force. It is mass.

Either download the samples and point to specific sections where the 'artifacts' occur or get out of the discussion. Otherwise you are just trolling.

Trolls are not welcome here.

[GodofaGap]

So, people used to asses the quality of music and mixes found that there is a disk that is most different from the others, and even with normal people that disk stand out. - my conclusion.
Can you also mention *which* disk this was?


Should have been no differences, the result should have been "statistically null". The 3:7 and 4:6 results indicate that the golden ears found a difference, yet they missed the right correlation.
Ok, so in addition to not being able to read, you suck at statistics too. A coin flip method could have produced similar results, and you actually claim this indicates they heard a difference?

[ramicio]

So people don't weigh themselves in kilograms?

[GodofaGap]

So people don't weigh themselves in kilograms?
Scientifically speaking not always, but it's rather besides the point here. (Hint: scales don't always work everywhere)

[leeperry]

Still no takers? Ghitulescu? ramicio? Neither of you yet willing to download the samples I uploaded and explain the differences you both stated you could easily hear? Differences the majority of us should also be able to hear once you point them out?
where are the samples??? I wanna play :D

last time a guy called for "they all sound the same, duh", I did pass the test: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/502889/so-who-can-abx-this-recording-from-the-source#post_6790330

the diff between his two samples is dead audible.

[yetanotherid]

http://ifile.it/40wzm3i/Music%20Samples.zip

Here's the description again:
Seven 1 to 2 minute samples from songs ripped from CDs then ReplayGained to the same level (well they actually came from flac files stored on my hard drive which would have originated from CD). I tried to ensure each one was different in some way in order to ensure there'd be a wide variety of compression artefacts to point out (for those who claim to be able to hear them). For instance one is a live recording containing audience applause, others range from only acoustic guitar and vocals to full pop tunes to hard rock etc.
Once I'd edited out the samples I converted each wave file to 320kbps MP3 and also to VBR MP3 using the standard LAME V2 preset. The latter is the method I use for all of my own MP3 conversions. I then converted the edited wave files to flac to include as the original audio in the samples.

The question is, can you hear a difference when comparing the original audio and the MP3 versions.

[leeperry]

Oh I thought it was some sort of blind test, all converted to WAV...Well, the VBR V2 sounds pretty bad. The intro of the Grace Jones tune is audibly clearer in FLAC than in VBR V2, and so is the intro of the Kate Bush song, even when comparing 320CBR/FLAC. MP3 adds harmonic distortion, and that's what it sounds like, the SS becomes blurry and the sound is colored(for the worst). Now if you can do the same all converted to WAV, that will make it more interesting.

Funnily, most ppl fail/prefer 128kbit to 320kbit: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/

[yetanotherid]

Oh I thought it was some sort of blind test, all converted to WAV...Well, the VBR V2 sounds pretty bad. The intro of the Grace Jones tune is audibly clearer in FLAC than in VBR V2, and so is the intro of the Kate Bush song, even when comparing 320CBR/FLAC. MP3 adds harmonic distortion, and that's what it sounds like, the SS becomes blurry and the sound is colored(for the worst).

It can be a blind test. And it probably should be, but you need to find a way to blindly listen to each version yourself.
I can't hear any difference, but maybe you're one of those who can. What sort of equipment are you using to listen to the samples? Maybe try playing each version of each song at random. If you can really hear the difference you should be able to pick which version is playing without knowing which version it is beforehand. Try it that way and see if you get the same results. I figured I could upload each sample in different formats and let the listener decide if they want to be honest with themselves. ;)

I actually listened to them several times and each time I thought I could hear a difference such as loss of clarity (I had the player playing them at random) when I looked to see which version was playing it wasn't the version I expected it to be. Several times I thought I'd picked the MP3 and it turned out to be the flac file playing. Therefore I concluded I couldn't really hear a difference and any differences I thought I could hear were due to my perception having been coloured by previously listening to a different track etc.

Now if you can do the same all converted to WAV, that will make it more interesting.

For the purpose of the test flac = wave. It's lossless. You can decode the flac files to wave yourself if you want to but they'll sound exactly the same (at least they should).

[yetanotherid]

Oh I thought it was some sort of blind test, all converted to WAV...

Now if you can do the same all converted to WAV, that will make it more interesting.

Sorry, I understand what you're getting at now. I must be having a slow day.
Actually, if those who've claimed to be able to pick an MP3 also claim they can hear a difference in the samples I've uploaded it'd be an interesting second part to the test (if they ever download the current samples and listen to them).
I could upload them all converted back to wave and PM another forum member with the specifics of which is which beforehand so I can't be accused of tampering with the results.

But one thing at a time. So far there's been nothing but resistance to downloading the current samples from those who claim they can easily pick the difference.