There is no difference between the tracks!!!

Ok. i see there is a poll… I haven’t listened to the tracks, and can’t right now… But I’ve done the coke test in the past. When there are cymbals and electric guitar involved, there is a definite “swishing” sound in the upper frequencies in 128 kbps bitrates. Also, I think it has a lot to do with the algorithm of the particular codec you are encoding with.

i could tell right away when comparing the two… though high quality headphones are always a plus. where are the results of the test?

personally, i rip with the LAME encoder (http://lame.sourceforge.net) at a high quality variable bitrate. -V2 or -V0 depending on the music (0 being the highest, with an average bitrate that hovers below 256kbps).

I normally can tell, but not with this particular clip.
What song is this from?

>> MOD: it’s From Cymande’s “Brother on the slide”. Watch for a feature on Cymande soon!

got it right. you can hear it in the punch and air when you turn it up a lil bit. this is a poor example though. it’s more noticeable in newer stuff that requires more lows and highs and is compressed a little further.

for suggestions: I agree with the other guy who said encode to V0 since it saves a lot of space compared to 320 but really is hard to tell the diff.

I think this test is unfair, being an audio file and a geek, I can tell you that technically and scientifically 320 IS better than 128. Try playing these on a Bang and Olufson, you’ll know why folks like me are agast that iTunes sells tracks below 256k.

What your testing, which is an interesting test, is perception versus reality. I of course know that perception can INDEED be reality.

Good stuff!
Cezanne

Got it. Out of all the tests I have tried, this has definitely been the most subtle. This is the kind of recording I wouldn’t mind having in 128kbps…

Backing up your music collectiong (archiving) in mp3 is a bad idea, because you lose flexibility. The best thing would be do rip it to a some lossless format such as FLAC. It takes up a lot of space but it is CD quality and it allows you to do whatever you want with it.

Want to transcode it to 128kbps mp3 to your portable player? No problem.
Want to listen to it on your high-end speakers without loss of information? No problem.

Ripping to 320kbps mp3 robs you of that. If you want to transcode an already lossy mp3 to a lower bitrate you are going to end up with a worse sounding file than if you ripped CD -> 128kbps directly.

[spoiler alert]

There is a difference at 00:07-00:08, the bass hammer on is smoother in the first.

It all depends on the quality of your headphones and speakers. On high-end systems, the difference is much more obvious for the common ear.

It also depends on the music style, classical music is very sensitive to mp3 quality. For most Pop/Rock tracks the difference is much less perceptible.

i find that it differs for me depending on type of music.

i couldn’t tell this time

After flipping between the clips twice it was easy for me to tell. I’m glad my ears didn’t fail me since I picked the correct answer. The first thing that clues me in to low bitrate files is the distortion in the higher frequencies. Like somebody else described, it’s got a sort of “swishy” sound to the cymbals and other high frequency content. The attack of transients is where low bitrates really fail.

This was a decent track to compare but there are many other clips that could be used that show far more dramatic differences. Try doing some clips with some audiophile music with lots of dynamic range. Try something from the classic Thelma Houston cd from Sheffield Lab, even the nearly deaf could pick out the differences between 128k and 320k mp3s.

you need rip them VBR (variable bit rate), you’ll get the best sound that way. VBR mimics the actual waves that are on the CD.

i just took this test and got it right.
it was really easy to tell the difference between the two.
why do you keep talking about high frequencies?
the low frequency distortion is much more noticeable with this one.

you don’t really need high quality phones or speakers to tell the difference between 128 and 320kbps.
cause really, the numbers itself has a huge difference,
what more of the sound quality?

by the way, i took this test on my old laptop
using made-in-china-earphones that i got for about 2 bucks.

allo i got it wrong. after listening to it about 20 times. i used $700 dollar noise cancelling headphones quietcomfort 3s which were not the best for this test. despite this you want to go with 320kbps mp3s for sure but there is no point doing that any more. the only way to make and save your music now is with Flac. I recommend everyone to go with Flac even if you can’t hear the difference. If you need to put it on your ipod convert the FLAC to AAC 320kbps or put it on as apple lossless. It’s easy to convert out of Flac. Flac is the way to go people for all future encoding of music.

As for the difference. Well it doesn’t mean you need to throw out all your old MP3′s as if you can’t tell the difference then don’t worry, but if you get the chance slowly replace them all with FLAC. People who can tell the difference are welcome to just start using FLAC.

There is alot of very hard to get music, that is going to take a very long time, if ever to find its way into the Flac format. So we will be using Mp3′s and AAC for a while yet.

The Future is flac tho!

That was fun. I was going to vote for the second one, until I heard an artifact at 0:06. After listening to it again, I think there’s one at 0:15 too.

it sounds the same to me live no shit

i’ve listened to only 2 seconds of each clip, until the first open hi-hat passed and i’ve got it right.

i have cheap “sven” speakers.

I could tell. Until portable flac players become a reality, last longer than 20 mins with playback, and youre not obsessed with backing up your entire mp3 collection to premium quality, stick with mp3! Ps if you intend to backup your collection for portable players on the move, dont go any higher than 192 kbps. If its for pc listening on good speakers, go with mp3 320 kbps constant or a high variable bitrate. Variable will save you alot of space, but despite what some people will tell you, variable can often give you a clearer sound if you listen hard enough. Its because variable can give a wider/higher range of sound frequencies for your music. Hard to really tell, but for the nerds its true. So sometimes a lower bitrate vbr can sound better than a 320 kbps cbr. At a lower bitrate, rock music can sound a bit gargled, but if you prefer other styles then variable or constant around 192kbps may be enough for you, for both pc and portable player use. Better yet, you wont have to convert your collection twice! Another thing to note that a high bitrate on a portable player will eat up those batteries, and some portable players wont work properly with variable bitrate mp3s (vbr) and will only prefer constant (cbr) mp3s, so try your player first with some tracks to make sure they will work ok with the method you choose to use. If youre not sure, try converting your music to different bitrates to decide what sounds best to you whilst not using up too much space on your portable mp3 player (as an example). Just dont play your music too loud whatever you choose to use!

Personally, i felt that the extension of both treble and bass is better for clip one than two. But that is like when you focus on the music. If, like multi-tasking, the difference might not be that obvious. And besides, i doubt you rip the cd using window media player. Haha. Because, it would be more obvious in the differences.

The answer to your question is: no. Not on a portable mp3 player or standard computer speakers, anyway. Why would anyone listen to an mp3 on a Bang & Olufson system or a pair of $700 headphones? If I was fortunate enough to have a hi-fi system of that quality, I’d listen to the CD. 128kbps is plenty good enough for my Zen Touch.

Well, if it is a calm song there is not much to encode due to low entropy. If you listen to a rock song at 128 kbps you should here a clear difference due to the high entropy ( much sound at the same time to encode ). Besides mp3 is obsolete, you should use ogg vorbis or AAC (.mp4). All mp3 files sounds bad regardless the bitrate thus its hard to tell the difference of the two songs above, plus its a very low entropy song. If you compare ogg vorbis (128kpbs) and mp3 (128kpbs), same song, you should here a difference.

This track was quite hard to hear a difference I think. It’s very noticable on certain tracks, but not on this.
For this test I managed to guess right because one of them took longer to load than the other

I could tell the difference on my laptop speakers.

i was wondering, i have a file 192kbps and i re-recorded it using virtual dj, but recording in 320kbps, does this make the quality better or does it just make the file bigger in size as its 320 bit rate

I could tell that the first one was 320 kbps because there was an artifact at 0:06 on the second one and the cymbold on the 320kpbs sample had more punch and stood out more, on the 128kpbs sample the cymbols sound more mixed in.

I did not select the correct choice and I am not surprised. Your test is not properly randomized and I have virtually no experience with MP3. If I wanted to bias a test I would set the 320bps rate as the 1st selection as people will sub-consciously expect the lower rate to be 1st. I suspected this is what was dome before I made the selection. Secondly we naturally hear more detail on the second listen.

If you wanted to really do a correct comparison there would be 3 sample, 2 mp3 at different rates and one the actual .wav selection. These would be randomized on each iteration of the test and only the test program in the back ground would know which was which.

I used the most basic/cheap headphones at my PC, and focused in on the cymbals/percussion, in 3-4 listens, I answered correctly, I’d be happy with 128kbps if all my recordings sounded this close to 320kbps, 192kbps seems fine for me though.

I got it right after comparing the two alot. The cymbals don’t sound as balanced as they ought to. The 320kbps cymbals had more depth to it and sounded more natural to me.

With live recordings I can usually tell the difference between a 192kb’s vbr OGG file and a FLAC file by trying to listen for noises in the equipment used. The noises come more alive in the FLAC file than in the OGG.

They sound ‘similar’.
I use the quotes because if you listen on a good sound system, the difference is extremely visible.
The bass is much better and more evident in the 320 clip (the first one).

Wow, I can’t believe how many people chose the wrong file. I thought it was pretty obvious, and I’m not even that much of an audiophile. Plus I’m using some cheap Philips ones from Argos.

Anyway, near the beginning they don’t sound that much different, but at 07-09 it sounds pretty obvious to me.

Also, I have to agree with the person who said to use V0 instead of 320kbps.

You can not get real 320kbps from oldies. Oldies have low quality sound compared to todays music codes and need to be completely remastered in studios which can not be done unless authors do it themselves. Buy some newer CD,and rip one song to 128kbps and other to 320kbps,you will be amazed by it’s difference. Cheers

I GUESSED IT RIGHT BUT YOU CAN OLY TELL IF YOU HAVE A GOOD SOUND CARD OR A SET OF GOOD HEADPHONES.

Until I bough new Denon CD/MP3 player and new hifi amplifier and speakers I though that there is no difference between 128 and 320 kbps. But with this hifi soundsystem I can tell you : There is VERY BIG difference between those two bitrates. The 128 sounds like 30years old radio, the 320 sounds nearly as good as audio cd.
So for those who wants to encode their music library to computer : the only way is 320kbps !

I picked the right one. Most people couldn’t tell though, in fact more people picked the 128k file. I suppose with the right ears and the right equipment you can, also knowing what to listen for as many point out, makes a difference. Most “regular” people would not notice a difference I suspect.

http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index1.html

being an audiophile i cud make out d difference btwn the two clips. i preffer not to go below 256kbps.
the 1st one has more depth n sound is more crisp n clear thn d 2nd one. bass(drums tom) hav more detail n the treble(the hats) has better stereo effect. overall u can clearly make out wats playin in wich ear wid better details.
if u cant make out any diff. den 128 or 320kbps doesnt matter, bt an audiophile can quickly make out d diff.

I can usually tell very easily, this one was difficult though. There was a lot of extraneous noise in the original recording which masked some of the “tells”. However, the giveaway was the shaker/morracca sound in the left channel, it wasn’t as well defined in the lower bitrate version.

I could tell a clear difference on my crappy laptop built in speakers.

I really don’t understand how people can’t tell the difference.

The difference is day and night.

All you have to do is focus your mind on the cymbals and vocals.

The cymbals sound like broken glass on the 128 version.

“Oddly some recordings, “Back to Black” – Winehouse, for example, sound BETTER at a lower bit rate”

Really? Doesn’t winehouse sound a mess pretty much all of the time?

I choose the clip 1, becoz it sounds better?
Answer: at least there r no some impure sounds behind =)

WOW… You guys are all the victims of your own imagination.

I’m not a sound engineer, but i can tell that something is a trick when i see one. And that’s when being a web-designer is useful. One look at the programming of this page confirmed that the two clips are ACTUALLY THE SAME FILE.

AudioPlayer.embed( “audioplayer_1 “,
{soundFile:
“aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ub2lzZWFkZGljdHMuY29tL2F1ZGlvL2NsaXAxLm1wMw”
});
AudioPlayer.embed( “audioplayer_2″,
{soundFile:
“aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ub2lzZWFkZGljdHMuY29tL2F1ZGlvL2NsaXAyLm1wMw
“});

Check the page source for yourselves. HTML at line 4836. I imagine the writer of this article is laughing at all the comments. (“Look at me! My ear is so trained, the second/first clip is DEFINITELY the better quality one!”)

hi there!
it is most difficult to seperate two clips, which both have an high level background-noise, did you have done the right convertion? – anyway, you can hear a difference in the high-frequence band. next time you do better!

Hello all,

Matt here. I am an audio engineer by trade, and listening in a well treated control room with a set of 3000$ JBL Monitors. The consensus amongst everyone here is correct – the signature of lower encoding mp3s is most definitive in the high end. There is also low end loss, however that loss is extremely difficult to hear without speakers capable of accurate reproduction in the sub frequencies.

Mp3s save space by getting rid of frequencies we are less likely to hear – filtering out over 16khz, and under 20hz. Lower encodings then start selecting very thin frequency bands and removing that information. The frequency bands are stratified – meaning you might hear 40hz and 42hz, but not 41hz. It leaves our very capable minds to fill in the sonic gaps. Different encoding algorithms utilize different systems of doing this, based on what is called “perceptual coding theory.”

This has two effects. One is a perceived loss of nothing is specific, but an overall “thinning” of the sound. The second is audible distortion in the high end, as steeper filter mechanisms cause “phase distortion” or sometimes called “space monkeys” (yes, audio engineers use that as a term). This creates a strange texture, as well as a lack in perceived depth.

However, for the end user listening on something like earbuds, cheap computer speakers, laptop speakers, or cheap headphones, you will most likely notice no difference. This is because those speakers do not really play back those targetted frequencies with accuracy. Earbuds in particular actually use the proximity to the ear drum to create an artifical sense of low and high frequency content.

The one with the lower bitrate downloads faster

Hi!

Very sad! Until you do not know what is HQ you cannot make differences. You have to learn what to hear. You may like a song but the question is “is it on the disk or i just like it?”
Anyway there are relevant differences in dynamics even with low quality speakers.

Bullsh*t, man. Bullmotherf**kingsh*t!
If anyone, and I mean ANYONE tells you that he/she cannot enjoy a song, because it is at 128 kbps and not 320, I am not sure whether the term exists, but I would use the word: sound-snob. Describing it would go like this: you don’t have a clue about what the f**k quality sound is about, but you’re bragging with your 320kbps music cause it is…I don’t know… rare/better technology/you name it.
I would agree with “Matt March 14th, 2010 @6:47 pm”, for one: he is a sound-engineer, which is not about trends/bragging but science, and two: because he is actually right.
I really doubt your friend enjoys his 320kbps music on an equipment like Matt here is talking about.
There is also another thing that is too important to be left out: one’s ears and mind. One may as very well have equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if he/she doesn’t know what to listen to (what are the “bad” things in 128kbps that 320 kbps doesn’t have).
There is also a third part of this issue: artistic beauty. It would be a crime against art (and when we talk about music, we HAVE to talk about art, whether people like it or not) to say that a violin sounds better just because it’s… 320kbps and not 128. This issue, however, is quite subjective, but important nonetheless. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Well, in our case ear of the beholder. And it’s true. There might be some certain sounds that I like to hear during a… Brahms Symphony recording, because I can imagine I am actually standing in front of the orchestra, and they are playing it to me. And those very sounds may be quite disturbing for your ears, because “with today’s technology, unnecessary sounds should be deleted by sound-engineers after a recording”.
Bottom line, 320kbps mp3 files sound better to a few people. The overwhelming majority can’t make the difference between 128kbps and 320 kbps, which is natural.

Well, before I even got to listen to the clips I was already biased. Buffering the second one was much quicker, an indication for the smaller file size.
Trying to be unbiased, I really didn’t hear any difference. But then I’m not really good with HiFi stuff anyway…

This particular music piece doesn’t expose quality differences. They both sound exactly the same. You’d have to be a godd*mn audiophile to notice it.

When you’re tracking music.. like actually recording songs, and doing a final mix… mixing down to 320kbits for a quick listen in the car is much better than 128.

you’re closest to the pure sound of the DAW, (nothing beats a pure wav file though ) but you’re still closer

in the case with ripping, there’s a lot of conversions happening so it might not be that noticeable… but to answer the question… Yes

This clip is not the best example to test 128KHz vs. 320KHz. The most important on CD rip is surce quality! for best test use for ex: Iron and Wine or Vangelis – Tubular Bells album.

Well not only does the bitrate matter but also the type of song. Songs which focus more on vocals wont sound much different cuz even a low bitrate can produce good vocals.
But on other tracks(i have found the difference to be extremely noticeable in rock music and electronica). This is coming from a guy who(atleast tries) to make music. Also my brother is a musician, and he also records music for other bands so I’ve had quite an exposure to various bitrates.
Though nothing beats lossless.

SIMPLE. Heard of analogue scratch disc player before? If so, it means, bits this low CAN be heard. Im a teenage age 15 and has been listening to earphone almost too much so i presume i hav a hearing of an adults. Keep to WAV format if you can. To me, 320kbps is wayyyy tooo low.

Great Test. It would be great to try this with different formats such as ,flac or .ogg, Also with different types of music such as jazz or classical. d(-_-)b

I’m young. However, all I had to do was close my eyes and hear all the small sounds you hear in one but not the other. So I got it right. I always love listening to music most at night or when I close my eyes listening before bed. Somehow I can just hear it all the better.

Now i really want this song, it’s great!

I’m surpprised by this test as the difference between 128kbps and 320 kbps listening on Grado SR-80 headphones was so pianfuly obvious that even 192kbps were not enough quality.

And it also certanley depends on the type of sounds included in the music, its textures and layers and all that…

I failed the test. But I listened to the tracks on my computer, which has the factory-installed sound card and speakers. I rip to 320, because by the time I have my mp3 player hooked up to my above average house or car stereo, the difference is plenty obvious.

Whoever sayed that lossless is overrated as there is no noticable difference is quite stupid…
I mean come on, just listen to the sound of the drums that sound so flat on the second one

And i listen to it with my vintage “AKG K140″ plugged directly into an pretty normal soundcard (asus xonar d1) without an Headphone-Amp (note those Headphones have an Impendance of 600ohm)..
And still the difference for me was quite obvious, even if there are quite better examples for the loss of quality due to mp3 compression (Check some good “Bach” Songs, and you’ll see what i mean)

Maybe its due to my pretty good hearing, as i can hear up to 22khz with 25years…

And an “Ipod” is an lifestyle-product, no way to enjoy high-fidelity music…
I rather grab an Cowon, than an Apple.. though i once were an Apple-fan :S

almost no diffrence.

Headset : Sennheiser pc350

Unless you’re an obsessive neurotic, which seems to be common on the Internet, both clips sound similar despite the disparity in file size.

As far as I’m aware, MP3 is a highly compressible file format which is a useful compromise when drive space is a concern but if the listener wants the highest quality available they should listen to the original CD!

I couldn’t tell the difference. Although I have chosen the right answer. The sh, sh rythmic sound in the first clip felt mellower at first but now I am not sure. I heard it on my laptop, no fancy earphones or surround system and such.

But whenever I download mp3′s in 320 I use Format factory to change them to 128. 320 takes too much space on my hard disk and with low quality speakers that I have I can’t tell the difference between the two.

flac= wav files?

The 2′nd one is 320 you can tell the difference only if you have a “sense of music” the first one has less volume and bass..so i say that 320 kbps is better than 128…

very nice test, I chosed the right option