A while ago, I decided to switch to mp3 music instead of cd’s, so I painstakingly ripped all my cd’s (500+) onto my computer. It’s much easier finding albums on a computer than it is sifting through piles of cd’s only to find out that I put the wrong cd in the case that I was looking for. Plus, I really love “super random” play.
Anyways, I did all my encoding at 128kbps. After I finished (a week later!), I was talking to a friend of mine who had just finished doing the same thing with all of his cd’s, except he did then at 320kbps. He and everyone I spoke with told me that at 128kbps the audio is pretty much garbage and that I needed to do it all over again.
I thought to myself “Damn!” why didn’t I rip them at 320kbps? Now I have to deal with inferior quality music or go through the entire ripping process again!”.
In any case, I have a fun test for everyone: Listen to these 2 clips. One is encoded at 128kbps and the other is encoded at 320kbps (over twice the bit rate). Can you tell the difference?
| Clip 1: |
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser. |
| Clip 2: |
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser. |
So… which one sounds better to you (and find out the answer) ?
The only difference is the file size… (lolz)
Anyway, I bet you will notice very different sound when you compare the 128 one with the 64 one…
sry, but I hear it
Yeah there’s definitely a difference, and I don’t even have good quality speakers. It just has a much crisper sound. (:
Yeah, you need a high-end headphones + amplifier to feel the differences.
Hi,
It depends on the use of the audio (obviously); for example:
If at a low amplitude the errors tend to cause resonance in the speak at a frequency beyond our hearing range.
However, if played on powerful speakers, line-arrays for example, the greater amplictude causes lower frequency resonance in the speaker which is noticeable.
Try it yourself: if you have a pair of high power rated speakers listen to both 128 and 320 at both high and low amplitudes; at low amplitude they should sound the same (ish), but at higher amplitudes distortion will be heard first on the lower bit rate 128 track.
George
Have to second that. Try listening to 128 versus 320 kbps Dance/Electronic music. And yes, your speakers completely matter. With quality speakers, and 320kbps music encoded from a quality source, I can pick out new things I never heard before. Try it!
Wrong. Impossible, to be exact. As the differences between bitrates occur in the higher frequencies, what you are proposing contradicts the basics of wave theory.
Not necessarily. The amount of “depth” you hear in a low-frequency note is dependent on the amount of overtones you hear in the high-frequency range.
Even a lower frequency sound at 100hz may have a resonant overtone or sympathetic frequency at even harmonics from the base frequency. For example when you pluck an A string you are also inducing subtle vibrations into the instrument that resonate at the 440 hz and at others such as 880, 1320 and 1760 hz. This is also known as sympathetic vibration. When the A string is oscillating these frequencies are “excited” and those within the 20hz to 20khz range of human hearing are very much noticable to many people, especially trained musicians. This is the “depth” in which true audiophiles refer to and much of this is lost in digital. It’s not as apparent in a beat box situation nor in a-lot of POP music but listen to music with melody, harmony and rythem put together such as an orchestra or a good multi instrument band with non-digital instruments and you too will notice an appreciable difference, AND the quality of the sound systems your listening to also plays a big part.
Spot on dude! I would have to say as someone who has spent the last decade “playing” wiht audio, video, IT, and Comms that you are 100% correct. 320kbps should be the standard. However, believe it or not, 33′s and 45′s sound better in many instances. (My father has proved it to me. lol)
Great overview dude. Kudos.
I am so glad my hearing still works. I was expecting the first audio clip to be at 128 kbs. I just assumed it was, but after listening… I went with the correct choice. So my 52 year old ears did not fail me. Now, how many young rap lovers would appreciate the difference ?
A wonderful test. I am a trained musician, so this was fun.
It was a 50/50 chance if you made a complete guess [removed].
Well,
I’m a DJ who uses Technic 1200s and Serato SL3. I spin hip-hop, soul, R&B, etc all the time and my 21 year old ears did just fine. Thanks for the ignorant comment though; it’s always nice when people generalize your mental faculty based on your taste in music.
Your “Mental Faculty” seems intact. Considering that he made no jabs at anybody’s intelligence. He was referring to hearing loss, a problem known to DJ professionals. As well as having good enough hearing to hear it at 21 is not special. Having this at 52 IS something special.
He was stating that people who listen to their music at dangerously loud volumes (which young people tend to do when listening to Rap music) their hearing at age 52 will not be anything close to what he has.
Well said David, I don’t listen to rap yet find Thomas’ comment quite ignorant even though it’s not aimed at me.
Here is what it (((sounded))) like to me… “young” “rap-lovers” can’t appreciate lossless quality sound like a “trained musician” comparing Rap listeners ability to hear to that of a “trained musician.” Nothing to do with dj’s exposure to noise… but if it was the case, as covered before on this thread at higher amplitude speakers/volume one is able to more easily differentiate the quality of music files. He may have a case if he says as a “trained musician” he has access to better speakers but at that point he’s just being a [removed]. But lets not get ahead of ourselves and put words in the mans post Sherrif…
I’m a teen who loves pop, dubstep, classical, you name it. But I’m also a well seasoned musician. I play the horn and violin. Because of my ears, I got it right as well. It was pretty clear to me. So, I would appreciate the difference.
Well, For the first I heard, both of them sound same but I again listenned to them and I found 320 bitrate(#2 clip) was better because the drum sound more sharp and clear at the second clip!
But #2 is the 128kbps one.
lol, that makes me laugh.
I think its randomized, which makes sense, because it was #1 for me.
Don’t mean to sound mp3 snobbish and from what i have read your friend may actually be one but just try a little experiment. If you listen to dream theater or any band of that ilk then first encode it in 92 kbps (don’t listen to it yet), then encode the same song in 192 kbps and then in 320 kbps. Even if you can’t hear properly the difference will be obvious. The cymbals, hi-hats and instruments in that frequency will lose their clarity in the 92 kbps and 192 kbps ones but will sound much better in the 320 one. Most important of all will be the loss of sound definition and focus. Kinda like when we hear a song in a stadium and in an open space it sounds different. Though not literally so much out here. Try it and see or in this case hear for yourself. Oh and if you are not into loud music then try it on Kesha’s song ‘Tik tok’. You will certainly find that the chorus isn’t as punchy as when listening to it on a higher bitrate as the drums and the cymbals lose their clarity and you don’t need a hifi stereo to notice it. No offence to anyone but some songs aren’t made to be heard on lower bitrates or maybe even mp3s.
This was pretty easy in my opinion even with sucky headphones. The 128kbps one definitely has distorted cymbals and percussion sounds. The 320kbps on the other hand sound much more crisp, natural sounding, and the soundstage seemed wider.
Is there an application that I can use to change 128 Kps tracks to 320 Kps, besides riping.
No.
No. You will just make it worse by doing so.
The only thing that would do is take up unneeded space, there would be no quality gain (to counter, there would also be no quality loss in comparison to original MP3).
Every time you transcode you lose fidelity. It doesn’t matter the bitrate. MP3 is lossy by nature. So you would have 32kbs but worse fidelity than the orignal 128kbps rip.
*320
I have music in 128 & 320 and iv done my test but what you need in a high end stero and let it blast…Then you really can tell the difference…It much richer sound…Try On your Torrent site..Down Load say zz Top in 128 Then find a remastered copy at 320 then there will be no more questions asked yes 320 is better
Comparing a remastered copy with the original relase isn’t fair. Maybe you’re hearing the extra effort put into the remastering?
You can use Adobe Audition.
ya, found it
Cymande – Brothers On The Slide
good stuff
Yes is better than 128kbps,but if you extract 128 to 320,thats not better
I hate mp3 at 120kbps. It appear ‘flanging’ effect in certain parts of the music and the sound lose quality in high frequencies. 320k sound better.
sorry, 128kbps.
The original is pretty lo-fi and will not illustrate the difference well.
I can always tell when when song is encoded in 128kpbs. Those songs have a lot of treble and distortion, low bass, which gets worse the higher one turns up the volume. 320kpbs files sound better and better the more the volume is turned up. As far as space is concerned, yes 320 encoded songs can take up to three times more space, but If you are a music fan, space is not a factor, being that space is so cheap nowadays. I mean, you can buy a 200 gigabyte hard drive for not a lot of money. Space is not an excuse as far as I’m concerned to settle for poor sounding music. Actually, I consider 128, and anything under 192, to be almost not worth listening to. The truth is 128, and similarly like low bit rates, sound terrible!
Go with 320, for sure.
There is no difference in the low frequencies. You can measure this if you like but it’s a mathematic certainty.
Maybe theoretically there’s no difference in the low frequencies, but if you listen to music with a lot of bass, it will sound “off” at a lower bitrate. Especially when you’re young and your hearing ability is better. It’s the reason I once switched to 320kbps ripping. (At that age nobody around me even cared about music, so my reasons were genuine).
Either way, I do think this test is a really good initiative, as it shows that 320kbps isn’t really necessary for all types of music and that it differs less and less the older you get.
Listening to the two files, it was easy to see that the first file was 320. I did not have to listen to the second file to know this, within seconds I knew because everything was clear, even the cymbals were crystal clear, which would never happen with the 120 file.
When I heard the second file–very muffled.
In 320kbps, the sound is more clearer and accurate. 128kbps have the same sound of the 320k stream, but some distortion is perceived in certain instruments. So, 320k sounds better.
how can i find all 320kbps mp3 files at once?
It’s funny how most people are wrong when answering this, they say the 128kbps is more clear, Mp3s remove frequencys from the file that we cant hear anyway like above 20khz and below 20hz i think
Actually the ear(wave to brain neural activity) can only decipher one frequency at a moment in time but a CD holds all frequencies for a given moment in the recorded music.
MP3 using an algorithm will remove the frequencies that the algorithm result says the human ear(wave to brain neural activity) will not hear(brain neural activity) given all frequencies that will be present for the ear to hear in that moment in the music.
Everything depend on the sound source, 128k reprensent the amount of byte used to encode the sound for a given time line. most of time 128kb is enough to record every frequency at the time without some lost. sometime when soud become more rich ( heavy metal ) more bitrate ( 320kb ) it more suitable to record everuy frequency without loss. it easyer to notise the bitrate diference with a black metal song that with a smooth music song. more the frequency at at time is presend more the bitrate is need to record the song without loss.
I must have lead ears, or my 200$ head-phones aren’t as good as I thought they were, but I can’t tell the difference between the two at all. They sound identical to me.
I heard both, and if to switch between the two of them every 2 senconds, you’ll see that there’s obviously a better quality especially in the drums of the 320Kbps one. That’s what made me answer correctly. In fact, for me there’s a noticeable difference, that’s why i’ll stick with 320
CD’s are and always have been encoded at 128kbps because anything over 128kbps is undetectable by the human ear. I came across this website cuz I just downloaded a 3 CD album that was encoded at 320 kbps and I was searching “why do people encode music at a higher bitrate than 128kbps”. I think its all in your head if you think it sounds better. Besides… any mp3 file ripped from a cd is maxed out at 128 so unless you encode at a higher bitrate directly from the studio (which they don’t even do at studios, I’ve been there) its basically like ripping a dvd on to your computer and burning it onto a blu-ray and then going on to say that your blu-ray is better quality than your dvd.
128kbs MP3′s are aprox. 11 times smaller than the CD version. How can that be the same quality?
Man, where did you get this revolutionary information from? Every word you’ve written is completely wrong and proves you have absolutely no idea about the topic!
CDs have tracks encoded in PCM (lossless) which means they run with full bitrate for an uncompressed 16-bit, 44.1kHz stereo audio. So multiply these numbers (16 bits x 44100 times per second x 2 channels) and you’ll get the correct birate (1411200bps = 1411.2kbps). Can you see the difference? I bet you can, even if you don’t understand it.
Now:“anything over 128kbps is undetectable by the human ear”. Please, enlight me with some proof of that statement. First you’re totally mistaking coding of uncompressed audio with compressed one, then you say people can’t tell 128kbps from anything above this. Well, some of them certainly can’t, but many will. Only 320kbps MP3s are recognized as practically undistinguishable from the digital uncompressed source even by audiophiles in PBX tests.
And finally: CDs can be ripped in any bitrate — up to 320kbps for MP3s and original 1411.2kbps for wave files. It all depends on your ripping software and codec settings. Go and grab a good ripping app (Exact Audio Copy or fre:ac will do the job perfectly), then share your golden thoughts.
BTW, I don’t know what studio you’ve been to, but either it was run by as lame pros as you are, or you haven’t noticed they can record in much higher audio resolutions that conventional Audio CD can’t even handle, like 24bit, 192kHz sampling used for Blu-ray uncompressed soundtracks.
Please read some facts before posting misleading cr@p.
Gotta high 5 ya for explaining all that. I’m a studio engineer and record at 24bit 44.1. I could record at a higher resolution and sample rate, but only if I’m bouncing that onto a DVD. If your into film you going to up in the high bit rate for sure, for audio.
It depends on the song, and what instruments/frequencies are in the music. That’s why people sometimes use variable bit rates too, because at moments during a song where there’s more going on, you need a higher quality.
Even though I voted correctly, there’s less going on in your example track. That’s what makes it a lil more difficult to tell. If it were ripped with a variable bit rate (depending on the settings) that part of the song could just as well have been 128, but at the climax, could have been closer to 320.
Also, 128 is more compressed, so people can be duped into thinking its “better” quality because things that are supposed to be more quiet in dynamic are louder inherently, but that is not how the artist intended the song to sound.
You’re confusing data compression with dynamic compression. There is no dynamic compression inherent to the mp3 process.
The full range of audible amplitudes is reproduced transparently even at low bit rates.
Compressing the dynamics would make hardly any difference to the file size compared to reproducing less high frequency information. But the audible differences in such a dynamically-compressed would be very apparent. Therefore the encoders don’t do it.
TBH just go and use .FLAC files. From experiance i know 320kbs is better. It simpley has more channels. The music is mabye not better ‘quality’ but there is more of it, if that makes sense. It doesn’t chop of as much of the high/low end sound meain it is closer to what the artist intended. The best exapmle i have found is Gold Dust by Flux Pavilion. The difference between 192kbs and 320kbs is noticable, let alone down to 128kbs.
Depends on how the song was recorded. The samples here are extremely compressed, its a very flat tune dynamically so naturally it is very difficult to tell the difference. To me the 128k clip sounds better because the high frequency sounds better – I’m guessing the encoder has some high frequency compensation scheme and since the original audio was heavily compressed its actually making it sound better. With the levels of compression most recordings have I usually can’t detect a difference between 192k and FLAC. Listening to live drums (I’m a lead guitarist) it always amazes me how much better they sound than in recordings – actually being able to hear the characteristics of each cymbal and how a good drummer uses them to accent different parts of the music is really cool. I hope one day the loudness war subsides.
haha it is easy!! of course the first one is 320kbps. u can tell the difference through the vocals and positioning. the vocal depth in the first clip is a little bit laidback compared to other instrument and is more airy and spacious. the second clip’s seperation is not good enough compared to the first one. and lastly, of course it can be found that the first clip’s sound is more solid. CMIIW
Listen to Artist “above & beyond” album ” group therapy” at 320kbs you cant tell the difference sounds so crisp just perfect sound listen please!
wow i played this through my bose headphones and it was clear to me on the first playthrough which one was the higher bitrate, it sounded as if the maracas were being played right next to me
My compact discs sound incredible, the ORCHESTRA & CHORUS at full throttle from the bombastic to the serene, only $2000.00 Legacy speakers. MP3 downloads, while adequate 320 kbs, sound etiolated in comparison.
Possibly my ears are fussy or just better accustomed to ‘the old fashioned way’ of listening to quality music.
The second one is the better one, it is the 320K version.
It isn’t the bitrate, you need to encode your Mp3s good. Just download some electronic or Drum n Bass on iTunes, or Torrent it and tell which is better sounding…
Pretty easy to identify from the maracas which got bad at 128 kbit. However, this illustrates how the differences are subtle and almost never as in-your-face as some claim. Both clips were enjoyable.
FLAC all the way
At 0:05 the 320kbps and the 128kbps have great diffrence
Why no comment on ripping @ Joint Stereo VBR-0- best of all worlds, to my understanding, as the software only uses the space it needs to reproduce the music accurately? Am I wrong here? Is there any music that truly needs ALL of the 320 kbps to be reproduced accurately? I have my EAC set to this setting and it always sounds wonderful. Feedback encouraged.
FYI- NCH Software Switch Sound Converter a nice piece of software for conversion between formats if you so desire. Has alot of options, including FLAC to Joint Stereo VBR-0.
Well i do work with professionally with sound systems and for me it was rly easy to pick the 320 track even on a simple steelseries siberia gaming headset at low volume. There is more detail to a higher resolution sound. This gets alot more obvius if u aplifie it more and use a system that can reproduse sound on a lager frequency range. For those of u in doubt try it agian using a pair os simple homestudio nearfiled monitors like KRK, Alesis, Genelec or so you will defenetly hear the difrence.
I’ve tried voice cancellation and find out that clip #1 has a neat sound better than clip #2.
seriously, the original sound cr@ppy (the recording), its really not the kind of recording to see a difference…
Anyway you do hear a “glitch” in the compression of the 128 kbps file between 0:05 and 0:06 that is really noticable… i don’t know how most people didnt hear it..
I am an Audiophile and a Heavy Metal & Classical music lover, there IS certainly a difference between a 320 vs a 128, heck even a 192… Try listening to a Rock song with lots of Hi-Hats & Crash cymbals in it, the difference is clearly audible, not only that, 320k sounds fuller and crisper, mids and lows are defined whilst a 128k is suppressed & distorted only a complete noob would tell that there is no audible differences, common sense would tell you that a 320k file stores more sound information than a 128k… it takes hearing practice though, besides, of course you gotta have some high-quality Speakers/headphones to fully appreciate a 320k encoded music file. Storage media prices has been plumetting for the past several years (including the ipod Classic), I don’t think there are still reasons not to encode your files at 320.
i chose correctly but it was kinda a giveaway because clip 1 wouldn’t play without ‘rebuffering’ so was obviously the larger file….
It makes sense that 320 is better than 128. I rip all my CDs at 128… Why? Because I only listen to music in my car with lots of ambient noise. If I was to be sitting at home with an expensive pair of headphones or a great 2 channel sound system, I would rip at 320. I can’t see myself wasting money on the storage to bother with 320… The sound difference really is minimal to the majority…
I could tell the difference with my Sennheiser HD 25-1 II
WOOHOO
Hey i have some music files in FLAC format and i want to send them to my iphone, but im not able to do so, can anyone help??
Use fre:ac (free audio converter) or foobar2000 (free player and converter) to convert your FLACs to a proper format for your iPhone (MP3 or AAC).
Convert them into ALAC format if you want to maintain the flac quality ..
I couldn’t tell the difference but it seemed like the age of the recording ruled me out.
I don’t know who it is but I was listening for what is usually a give-away to lower quality encoding – percussion. The hats & cymbals sound like they’re from the 70′s. Low-fi, pretty ordinary sound, relatively.
But I didn’t think those aspects of the recording were good enough in this piece to start with. I mean, the hats (& snare) sound basically crap in both because that’s how they were recorded.
I would like to try it again with something recorded this century.
[...] Bill DL Comments – Audio “quality” is a very subjective subject [...]
on clip 2, right between 5-6s in you can hear a noticable artifact – on my midrange $40 AKG phones.
Actually I can’t hear. But I use Adobe Audition to view its spectrum.
I listened to the bass(?) or low sounding instrument and clip#2 sounded “flatter”. It does depend on what you’re using to listen to these clips of course, a $10 headphone or low quality sound driver on your computer isn’t really going to make much distinction.
[...] LPwannabe – I used to think that audio files were basically a collection of snapshots of a spectrum analyzer with various frequencies at various levels. Then I realized, That isn’t how audio works! [...]
If 128k mp3 sounds fine to you…
than use it.
Whats the argument?
All music loses something when compressed…
whether it can be detected by the human ear is totally
subjective – dependent on hundreds of variables.
I disagree with the idea of which sounds “better”. In the above example the 128K file sounds better because the original file was probably not mixed properly (yes, it may well have been a “professional” recording) and had an over abundance of high end.
I think “better,” in this case, is referring to accuracy. The trouble is that some people have worked out ways to make less-accurate compressions sound more appealing to certain groups. However, this website was apparently started by people more interested in realism and subtlety than in pop-style mixes. But make no mistake – 128 kbps has far less potential for accuracy as compared to 320.
easy, slow connection, high bitrate will load slower
Kind of irrelevant, considering most people are going to play both clips from laptop speakers, and pretty much anyone would be hard-pressed to tell the difference when the sound is coming from two tinny little tweeters.
Put it through a real system and the difference becomes more apparent.
**[...], of course, it is not placebo, since you did not write which file was how big. Cutch’s explanation sounds plausible:
“It depends on the song, and what instruments/frequencies are in the music. That’s why people sometimes use variable bit rates too, because at moments during a song where there’s more going on, you need a higher quality.
Even though I voted correctly, there’s less going on in your example track. That’s what makes it a lil more difficult to tell. If it were ripped with a variable bit rate (depending on the settings) that part of the song could just as well have been 128, but at the climax, could have been closer to 320.
Also, 128 is more compressed, so people can be duped into thinking its “better” quality because things that are supposed to be more quiet in dynamic are louder inherently, but that is not how the artist intended the song to sound.”
But I do not get the point of constant bit rates except if encoding has to be on-the-fly (when streaming live for example).
Hi, just listen to shakers and you’ll notice the difference.
Best, Miro
While there can be a difference between 128 and 320 this track will not show it, it is a very low quiality original. I have some pro monitoring headphones and a very high quality hifi and I have very accurate hearing and the difference was extremely minimal if it existed at all. All the people who state they could clearly hear the difference were either lucky and think they guessed through skill, or they are lying. Tests have been done on thousands of people and it has showed even 96 sounds so simmilar to 256, even audio professionals couldn’t tell the difference with most music. That was research done by sky when they released their streaming service which never actually got going.
My Bose mie2i’s are being replaced by warranty so I have been begrudgingly listening to music with these god forsaken apple earbuds…
I now understand why iTunes gives you the option to downgrade all sync music to 128 when syncing to your iDevice.
I think it’s fair the majority of teenagers and other indifferent iPod and iPhone users use these [removed] earbuds… And if you use these earbuds there is no point in using a higher bit rate as they’re incapable of even average sound quality.
I couldn’t tell which was 128 or 320 because these earbuds can’t produce anything that sounds “good”…
When i sat a few meteres away from my speakters it was really hard to distinguish. When i sat nearer it was still quiet hard, but i could hear #1 was better. After turning the volume up, the difference is no longer not noticeable.
if you convert music from 128 to 320 you cannot get better sound
Clip #1 (34989 votes)
Clip #2 (38786 votes)
Now quit fighting you [removed].
#1 is 320 KBPS and yet it has less votes, case in point, no difference, that is unless you are some uber music Nazi nerd with ears not even God has. It’s obvious that people were going with what they felt sounded better. That also means that it was not a 50/50 chance to guess the right one, seeing as how people would pick the one they thought was best, they were not guessing.
I think the point is that even most people who are into sound are unaware of the differences in sound “quality.”
///SPOILER\\\
The only difference I hear is at 00:06 and 00:14(just before 00:15) on second track there is a twitch which I may call as a lag. There is a bass and a high pitch sound at the same time. Mathematically speaking, for example there is a sin(100*2*pi*t)+sin(2500*2*pi*t). Though sound is not as deterministic as this thus there are lots of harmonics for 2.5kHz and when 128kbps fails to capture those harmonics, instead they are captured as low frequencies (aliasing) and I think that might be the reason for the “lag”, a slightly disturbing peak in the sound.
Also I should say that, I could only hear that after reading the comments seeing first one was the better one, before two were almost identical.
What if the author of the website randomized the order of appearance of the two samples for different listeners, so feedback in the comments wouldn’t help you pick the right answer?
That would make many of the comments here pretty funny.
As many pointed out, whether or not you can hear the difference depends on the quality of speakers you are using and the listening environment. Most people have sufficiently cheap hardware or listen in a noisy environment (car, or even a home with an air vent generating white noise) that the mp3 quality difference is not the weak link.
I knew immediately which one was 320, only needed about 4 seconds per clip to know.
I didn’t read ALL the comments, but a major factor is that MOST people taking this test will not be able to hear a difference unless they know what to listen for. The majority of the music will not show a major difference at the higher bit rate plus the fact that they are probably listening to both samples on a computer sound system, which might not be hi-fi.
One of the primary differences in audio, especially music, is TRANSIENT RESPONSE. A transient is a tiny piece of sound that can be entirely missed at lower sampling rates, yet contains the information that makes music ‘come alive’ to our ears. Early CDs were criticized for sounding ‘flat’ or dull compared to vinyl (I still think they do, but they are MUCH better and since I’m 63 it doesn’t matter as much anymore).
Transient response and dynamic range are two very important factors in our enjoyment of music. The higher the bit rate, the greater your chance of hearing all the transients that are present in your music. All that said, if I’m listening to earbuds or 4-inch computer speakers, I don’t care much if it’s an MP3 or WAV or AAC file. If I’m listening to a state-of-the-art system, I’m gonna play vinyl with a great turntable through a very high quality preamp and 200 watt-per-channel amp into a subwoofer and super speakers. THERE’S where all the factors of great audio come into play.
I am so surprised that clip 2 got more votes. I recognised the difference immediately, it’s slight but it’s definitely there & it does make a difference to the listening experience. While listening to the 320 clip I felt more relaxed as it was “smoother”. I don’t have really expensive headphones either, just some panasonic in-ear ones (though to be fair they work well for the price I paid).
No, there’s not much a difference between the two, especially for [removed] pop music like this. Lossy is lossy. But compare a 128kbps MP3 with FLAC for real music and you will very likely be able to notice the difference. I would still never, ever buy something in a non-lossless format. I can always compress it myself if I so desire.
You reallty notice the deterioration in classical music or any complex music (instrument, choir and soloist tracks) – frequency responses become clipped and distorted, dynamics become thin the front rear sound stage becomes restricted. It all becomes very “spare” and becomes even more noticable with really good amplifiers and good speakers (with good even-order harmonics).
This is going.g t blow your mind. The reason a 320 kbps mp3 is better than one of a lower bitrate is because even though you can’t “hear” the frequencies being left out. When they aren’t there it just doesn’t sound The same. The reason is because of Tue way the sound waves interact with each other in making the air vibrate. This can be applied to The way we see. If you watch someone mve their hand hack and forth real fast you see trails but on a video this doesn’t happen even though it was recorded at a faster frame rate than we can see. So even though a lower nitrate audio sample removes frequencies we can’t necessarily hear, we can hear a difference because these frequencies aren’t there to interact with the ones we can. I can tell the difference in sharpness of an audio clip in 256 from 320 it just sounds different but it isn’t something that makes me say I don’t think it doesn’t sound “good” just not as good as 320 kbps.
i cant really tell the difference but i think if you played really loud you might be able to hear the difference
I’ve always been thinking about bit rates, but here’s my opinion after years of listening. I encode all my music as 96kbps MP3s (yes, burn me at the stake, I did it). I CAN tell the difference between a 96, 128, and 320, but the difference isn’t noticeable enough except when compared side by side. I’ve been listening to and playing music for years (on good quality speakers, mind you) and have only ever noticed a few small problems with lower bitrates, most dominant being cymbals losing their “ring” and voice losing it’s “air” (if you know what I mean), but for home listening these are of no concern to me, as they are only apparent at higher volumes. I think that maybe in the future I will move to OGG Vorbis files (they’re INCREDIBLE!), or maybe AC3, but 128kbps MP3 is definitely good enough for the average listener.
If you want to hear the differnece betwneen 128 kbps and 320 kbps song you need to listen both songs on HD speakers and you need to listen to them loud.
My 60+ year old ears got it right. Listen to the cymbals, especially around 0:07. It’s subtle, but I can definitely hear a difference. The cymbals in the 320 sample are sharp and present; in the 128 sample, they kind of fade into the background.
wow, i hear a HUGE difference, i listened through recently purchased ATH-M50 Headphones, and i dont know which is which but the second clip sounds 10 times better.
This depends on the type of music. Some music will sound a lot lousier at lower bit rates Even at 320kbps – which is the highest bit rate for mp3′s – I can sometimes hear loss of sound, and my ears do not hear well in the high frequency range at all.
So sometimes a 128k track will sound like a 320k track and other times you can easily tell. It also sometimes depends on what software you use to rip the mp3 from the cd. If it’s ripped using high quality encoders and proper settings it is going to sound better than if it’s ripped on Windows Media Player, for example. Again, though, it depends on the track.
In this case I could not hear the difference but sometimes I can hear that even a 320kbps bit rate is an mp3 vs. a cd.
I listened with my dre beats tour in earphones, the voice is much more crisp on CLIP 1#
if your listening using rubish earphones, you will pick up more treble instead of a overall balanced sound….this is why i believe CLIP2# got more votes, even though its the 192kbps
Hi, I used Pioneer HDJ-500 headphones, this is good headphones but i didn’t heard difference first, it took me some time to listen to all the instruments, i could hear a difference in the maraca, it has better quality in #1 then #2. #1 is more crisp but i could only hear a small difference in the voice tho. #1 have better sound quality then #2 but i don’t hear any big difference.
The difference is small, but I think it varies from the type of music and your sound system.
In my case I’ve tried both with 128Kbps and 320Kbps and I notice a huge difference with my music (metal)
Nice to see a blind test. In the past I’ve looked for trials of blindd listerners, and I can’t find any.
So, happy to believe others can hear the difference, but for my phone with only 16GB of memeory it reassures me I can reload them at 128 rather than 196 and save some space. With my good setup for the home theatre PC at home with a terrabyte I’m happy to leave at 320. Space not an issue there.
Thanks.
I picked the 2nd clip because the i thought the clicking noises from the drums were sound atifacts, otherwise i would not have been able to tell the difference!