|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-10-2009, 08:52 AM | #11 (permalink) |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
I realize there are a couple of hidden variables I haven't accounted for that I could include.
PS! All particpants! Could you post roughly what kind of equipment you used when you did the comparison? Did you use good earphones or PC speakers? Or an expensive hi-fi system? Also, I thought age or hearing ability might be a hidden factor. Hearing ability is predicted to decrease with age, so perhaps I can just ask you to rate your own hearing. How is your hearing? Bad, Good or Medium?
__________________
Something Completely Different |
11-10-2009, 08:42 PM | #12 (permalink) |
Blue Bleezin' Blind Drunk
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the largest wine glass (aka Lebanon)
Posts: 2,200
|
+ I did some kind of test last year to see which is the highest frequency that I can hear ... and I was hearing up to 22 000 Hz, so there's no weakness in that part.
+ As for the equipment used, it was my laptop's Built-in speakers, a 13'' Mac BookPro: Device ID: 0x10DECB79 Audio ID: 77
__________________
Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? |
11-11-2009, 02:24 AM | #14 (permalink) |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
Super! Thanks for the info
__________________
Something Completely Different |
11-11-2009, 08:15 AM | #16 (permalink) |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
Good earphones should be a definite plus when doing this kind of stuff. Thanks for the info Mr. Phantom!
__________________
Something Completely Different |
11-26-2009, 01:15 AM | #17 (permalink) |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
I see people stopped taking my test! I don't really have enough data to base anything on so I'm reluctant to post the right sequence just yet ..
What I can say is so far based on my own data so far is it indicates people in general don't seem to be good at this - as I predicted and other studies have shown. Still, I'd like more data .. Come on people, take the test!
__________________
Something Completely Different |
02-21-2010, 11:04 AM | #19 (permalink) |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
Alright, it seems people are not interested in doing this challenge, so I'm gonna take it down. I don't think I have enough results to bother with any kind of sophisticated statistics, but I'll post them here in case someone's curious.
The test was listening to a four different versions of a 30 seconds mp3 encoded in different bitrates. You were asked to arrange sample 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the order lowest bitrate to highest. The correct sequence was : 2, 1, 4, 3 The bitrates (kbps) were : 128, 160, 256, 320. Those who took the test were assigned numbers. You can see how they did here :
The average guessed sequence (counting which BR is found most often in each place) would be : 128, 320, 160, 256 Although there's not much data to base evidence on, from what I can see, people don't seem very good at separating bitrates higher than 160 and not really reliably down to 128 either. It's the result I would expect to find even with more data, so I'm not surprised. Maybe it'll make some people reconsider the worth of very high BR/lossless files even if there's nowhere as much data as I'd like.
__________________
Something Completely Different |
|