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: 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!”.
Can you hear the difference?
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.
Listen carefully
If you liked this post, you should also try our online hearing test.
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.
No. You don’t need “better” sound equipment. It probably can have the opposite effect. Most (like 99%) people can’t hear the difference between a 256 kbps MP3 and the original CD, vinyl or master tape.
nah, you just need to turn up the volume to hear the extra noise and harshness
the only difference is what you’re listening to your music with – on high end gear you can hear the difference between a factory and a copied CD. mp3′s totally harsh the music but for casual listening most people don’t notice and if they did they don’t care. the convenience is pretty much worth while, but I’d keep the originals for the time when you become a listener as opposed to just listening. (I’d go 256k at least since storage is cheap) (I know I’m late to the party but who cares)
I don’t know what you’re copying your CDs with, but if you do it properly you’re going to get a 1:1 copy of the original- You simply won’t be able to tell the difference, because there is no difference.
If you CAN hear a difference, then you’ve copied it via the DAC/ADC processors, which will mess with the signal a bit and introduce some noise.
Buddy, I’ve got news for you, I’ve been listening to high end audio for close to forty years at times at decibels that would make your ears bleed and I can tell you there is definitely a difference. Audiophiles nowadays have given up so much for convenience IE space saving, pocket toting etc. you don’t experience the full sound spectrum put before you. The boom box buffoons driving around listening to the bass altering distortion pounding out of the trunk lid of their quasi-street ride haven’t the slightest idea of what true sound is. Turn the bass down and the treble up a little, balance it out with a decent eight or twelve band EQ and listen. REALLY LISTEN. There is definitely a difference.
So according to you, anyone with a car stereo above and beyond the factory one is a “baffoon”? I have a $20,000 plus home system (Lynn, ADS, and two 31 band EQ’s from HK). My car system is worth just over $10,000 (MB Quart, Image Dynamics and Nakamichi… OS PPI as well). While one obviously can’t get the acoustics inside of a car than one can in a well built sound room in a home… that doesn’t mean that my car system would probably blow away most people’s home stereos. $3000 was spent on damping alone, and many other mods were made for the sole purpose of sound quality. Although a much more intense challenge, a car can sound almost as good as any home system, given a dedication for months of preparation and modification. You sir, sound like an elitess snobster IMO, and your comment on turning the bass down and the treble up… I won’t even go near that one, HA HA. A system should be as neutral as possible, so if you like listening to music with “treble” blaring in your ears and a practicly non-existant low end then be my guest, but I’ll be happy happy joy joy with my Lynns and a 15 in a 5cuft monster that can only be described as bliss in a soundwave. Geez.
You may be an audiophile, but you know nothing about digital technologies. The factory copies a central DVD to make more. What’s the difference between you doing it and them? Well ripping it to an MP3, and burning it back may make a difference, but if you are cloning the disk, OR are ripping it to an ISO file, and burning it back, it will be exactly 1:1. If you share an MP3, and than that person shares that MP3, does it lose quality over time? No! You are copying the MP3, but it is DIGITAL! It is hashed! While tape, vinyl, and anything else analogue, this may be true, but for digital recordings like MP3′s, FLAC, AAC, or something like CD’s, they are all digital, and if done right, can be copied. Hell, you could make a copy of a copy of a copy, and repeat 100 times, and still sound the same, because each 16th bit is a hash of the ones before it for Error-Correction. This is why really scratched disks won’t play, but hairline scratches, or tons of little ones, it won’t make a difference in sound quality. There are redundancy, and error correction bits within the audio stream, so scratched disks won’t lose sound quality.
My computer has a very nice 7.1 system and it wasnt too difficult to distinguish the difference. Where it would be VERY noticeable is in my car. Even lowering to 256kbps is very noticeable in my car, so much so that if you have a tracklist that includes a lower quality track it will stand out like a sore thumb.
you guys dont notice because you are tone deaf. for exaple when you play a singing game and you cant tell the diference between the low pitch and high pitch and fail at it, its because you physically cant tell the difference. its more of the person than the equipment. there are other variables that jump right out that make it sound like junk such the symbols and other parts of the track that get lost as the quality deteriorates. one song i had had a violin in the background and i didnt notice until my friend played his which was a 320 kbps (cd quality) opposed to my 96 kbps. there is a huge difference even if you aren’t tone deaf there are things that you lose, another case was a backup guitar because the quality was that bad.
It was obvious which one was the 320kbps one compared to the 128kbps. At around 5 seconds one of them has this weird blip in the recording while the other one doesn’t. That was obviously the 128kbps one. However, just to tell you guys that unless you have decent headphones you most likely aren’t going to here a difference.
Yeahhhh, I notice a pretty huge difference. But that’s because I have a really good DAC and Etymotic mc3′s.
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.
We can all tell David’s “Mental Faculty†is intact but it seems like Sherrif is starting to unhinge. Maybe if you did some research and broadened your taste in music a bit, you would soon realize that being professional DJ/producer is an occupation that requires you to be able to differentiate between 128 and 320 kbps. Why I wasted my time with someone so simple-minded….who knows.
p.s. if you were the “sherrif(f) of my town” i wouldn’t hesitate to shoot you…but i did not shoot the deputy
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.
Interesting Ranko. I’d like to know of this program since compressing a file down to a 128 Bit rate REMOVES all the bells and whistles in order to save in a puny little portable package. Unless it can be “zipped” open (I dunno) and restored back to wav codec, the tune is pretty much FUBAR’d.
My 52y/o ears using $16 earphones clearly heard the difference in the 128 -vs- 320 bitrate compression. The 128kbs was dull and lack luster. Wasn;t even a tune that I like; but could have learned to like it at the quality 320kbs bit rate.
Nice test.
If anyone knows of a program that will convert downloaded peer to
peer Mp3′s at 128kbs bit rates back to high quality Mp3 or WAV or FLAK codec I would really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Rebecca
[email removed]
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.
Either you’re a professional troll, or you truly had no clue what on earth you were talking about here.
CD’s aren’t “encoded” at 128kbps. They’re not really “encoded” at all other than to convert the analogue voltage input to digital 1′s and 0s that represent the same waveform. This is completely different from MP3 encoding which is based on lossy data compression
Wow. Just….. wow.
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.
I know I’m way late to this, but I just want to point out how wrong this is in relation to the clips in the sample. I downloaded them (after doing the test myself, of course)and looked at them in a wave editor, and they have a really good dynamic range. That DR meter application gives a dynamic range rating of 13 dB. This compared to music that’s too loud often getting a rating of 5-7. It should be pretty easy to tell it’s not that loud compared to most other music you’ll probably listen to on your computer, so this comment is quite a surprise to me. ReplayGain gives the 320 a change of -1.62 dB and the 128 a -1.55 dB. Seriously, it’s not that loud. And that’s part of what makes the 128 sound so good; it’s tougher to encode highly dynamic range compressed music than stuff that actually behaves naturally.
The encoder was evidently ACID Pro 6.0′s, so nothing special there. I don’t think there exists such a high frequency compensator for MP3.
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.
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.
Not only should the order be randomized, but each of the two choices should be random: that is, sometimes you will be listening to the same clip. Then, in addition to choosing one or the other as being better, there should be a choice of “I cannot hear a difference” (and maybe also a choice of “I hear a difference, but neither is ‘better’”). If you identify one as being different, it would suggest that you sometimes hear or think you hear differences when there are none, so your results for different clips should be discarded.
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.
Hey Brian, it’s interesting to read what you’ve wrote. I’m an Audiophile, I listen to Dubstep, Electronic, Pop/Rock, Heavy Metal, Alternative and R&B. All my CD Collectins were ripped as .flac (5 default quality and 0 using EAC and dBpowerAMP) and I’m very satisfied with the sound quality and fidelity with my PSB Speakers. Well I do have downloaded music in 320k it just sound better too but with lossless flac the bitrate far difference and perfomance may different. I’ve tested 256 and 128 and flac. All I can say is the best MP3 is 320k, because it decodes more audio info than the 256 and 128. As u said earlier, 320 has amazingly interact audio itself, how can you prove that to me if it is does that at 320 MP3. And guys, I want to ask you guys, what is the best option for flac to maintain its quality and fidelity of audio, is it 0 or 8 (best compressed lossless) I know that all methods are lossless even if it is 0 or 8 but what is the difference if we encode 0 quality flac and 8? TQ
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.
I am 47 and have listened to a fair bit of loud music at various gigs in my past and I found the difference on my little speakers here minimal. I *thought* I could hear a tiny difference and guessed right.
Thing is that I remember a test where a sound was designed to only be heard by young children and teenagers because the frequencies were likely to be outside the range of most adults. Surely this must apply to high bitrate music too? I only notice low bitrate or perhaps poor encoding on the sixties stuff I sometimes listen to. In the car with the players high output I find once the volume goes up the quality of sound drops dramatically whereas some modern tracks with thumping bass seem to be as clear as a bell. Most of my mp3′s seem to be 192 or 320 but I suspect some of the older music is much lower unless it was remastered.
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
I’m sorry but Dre Beats are all just part of the media hype engine. Those are horribly over priced headphones with the bass boosted with a mini amp inside powered by the double AA batteries it uses. It completely muddies up every other audio frequency above the lower Bass ranges. Do your ears some service and research on forums before buying c*** like that. Like hi-fi for example. Although using the ATHM50′s it’s easy to tell that #1 is the higher bitrate although these tracks were encoded poorly in the first place.
I didn’t rate the Dr Dre beats headphones at all. I generally use Sony EX71s which are now quite cheap and clearly not in the upper quality buds available now but they are very crisp and handle bass well. I use PowerAmp music player but actually the beats audio setting on the HTC phone sounds pretty good.
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)
your test in unscientific.
first off you have no original for comparison.
you ask “which one sounds best”
so now it’s a subjective personality test.
but then conclude “there’s no perceived different”
Your experiment leads to a false(as it is untested) conclusion.
ever think that this generation prefers the mp3 sound over transparency?
neither answer actually allows for your conclusion of no perceived difference.
other factors like the MP3 Encoder can have an effect, back in 2002 128kbps mp3s sounded like sh*t, the technology wasn’t there.
I went and found an mp3 from my old collection, there’s a huge high-cut at 12kHz and it’s sounds awful, on the other hand these mp3′s you have have a cut at 15kHz (128kbps) and 16kHz(320kbps) a very subtle difference in comparison, everything above 128kbps is pretty much dynamic range and not obvious artifacts, but no one around probably has a speaker system nor the training to know which one is the worse one of “quality” since quality is relative (just look at the old vinyl crowd for an example of an inferior medium being toted as better quality [look up the "Loudness war" before you yell at me{TL;DR: vinyl is mastered better than CD, but CD will sound better with vinyl mastering}])
CD audio in comparison hard-cuts at 22.05kHz (half of 44.1kHz as per the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem)
LAME has done strides of difference in getting mp3 bitrate down.
Here’s a link for how to do a real blind listening test.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX
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!
Bose 601 make all the difference driving by my Onkyo.
I picked the second recording but only because the second recording sounded clearer because I didn’t hear background noise or extra artifacts which I assumed was the result of low bit rate. The first one sounds like it has more info to it, but I thought the extra info was associated with a bad recording. Turns out, I was suppose to hear those things in the recording.
Your choosing a horrible song for this test. This song virtually has no information. It’s simple so of course it can sound decent with any bitrate. If you choose a song with lots of instruments and bass you will be able to tell the difference. It’s easy for a simple song with no bass to sound good.
This test is confusing people and your stopping people from realizing that 128 is complete garbage. Seriously could you have chosen a worse song. Better yet anyone listing to this song on a computer is not using quality components which would exploit the difference in recordings much better than a computer soundcard. No computer sound card is equipped enough to play a good recording anyway.
People still hear the difference, but the problem is, that your choosing a song most people don’t even know how it’s suppose to sound,they don’t know if it’s suppose to have background noise and artifacts because it may be live or if it’s suppose to be a clear studio recording. I can clearly tell the difference when I play songs from 128 to 320 on my sound system without a doubt. Fix your test and play a song with lots of information and music and one with bass. Don’t use simple recording that will sound good no matter what the bitrate.
Got it right, it’s funny that the lower bitrate one had more votes, Although I did hear little difference, and had to go with my “gut-feeling”, the type of music is supposed to be relaxing so my guess is it should be less punchy than say a metal recording, the lower bitrate one sometimes has a punchier feel to it.
I chose Clip 1 because it took longer to load.
It also depends on your hearing capabilities, take a test if your hearing is equal or lower to 14k then thats the reasong why you werent able to hear a diference
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/
i encode music all the time on my player and yeah i can tell when its a rip off of a rip off
the diference between 320 and 128 is that in 128k you wont hear all the instruments recoreded
LOOK, I’ve done this test already at home on my $10,000 stereo system.
The answer is that any digital file that is lossy, be it 128 or 320 it is going to sound like cr*p compared to the original CD or loss-less file like FLAC played on a decent system.
If you cannot hear the difference between a loss-less file and ANY MP3 file then either your listen system is not good enough to reveal the difference or your hearing cannot detect the difference.
I’d made the mistake of ripping my CDs to 320 MP3 only to discover by A/B comparisons that MP3 sounded like it had the guts sucked out of it compared to FLAC or the original CD. Re ripped all of them again to FLAC and ditched MP3 and for serious listening I still prefer to play the CD because the DAC in my CD player is much better than the DAC in my digital file playing system.
I also have an iAudio 9 which can play MP3 and FLAC and with my cheap $200 headphones I can hear the difference.
I took the test again after a page reload – I could hear the difference at the last seconds on the drums.
My hearing is messed up from cranking car stereo’s (measurable loss in a hearing test).
Last night I listened to Seal “Krazy” (yes with a “K”) on Vinyl – wow it was so much richer compared to the lossy 256kbps version – but I’d have to compare to a lossless format to be sure..
Hard to really tell. Got it right coz I use high quality speaker. The difference is very slim. I needed to listen about 3-4 times to make sure. There are a few notes that are smoother on the 320 kbps, somewhere in the middle of the sound clip. Otherwise it would not be noticeable.
I could barely tell the difference up until the drums at the end, the 320kbps sounded a lot better at that point.
The sound is nearly identical because that recording has no HIGHS
well you [hear] difference or not now try to compare 320kbps mp3 to over 1000kbps flac music
Although I did pick the first one I had to play each one a couple of times to notice the difference. If I had headphones on and not listened to music all morning it would have been instant.
The song you picked is a horrible song for this test. I have done this test a bunch of times with 192kbs vs 320kbs (Mog vs Pandora) and there is a very noticeable particular with modern music.
I’m not sure how modern this song is but I newer songs do sound better and its probably because they were recorded with better equipment than a decade ago.
Well, I personally hear the differnce quite well (with KRK Rokit 5 monitors). And I’m really wondering that most people like the 128 better – I guess that’s the habituation. Also it depends on which music you listen to…
But it always matters, when you want to play a track on a party (so you turn up the sound a lot more than usually). MP3 at 128 becomes a nightmare then.
You (yes YOU!) can easily hear the difference if you know what to listen for. In this track there is a rhythmic shaker to the left in the stereo spectrum. It’s just there in your left ear if you are wearing headphones. Listen to this shaker right after “which way you’re going” at 5 seconds. It shakes twice. (1 & 2 & 3 shake shake & etc.) At this exact point, the low quality track cuts the first “shake” short, maybe distorts it too, because it is too short/sharp of a sound to be reproduced accurately. In the high quality track however, it is just as smooth as all of the other “shakes.” Whether other elements of the track are affected is debatable, but I’m sure that you can find more examples if you listen close enough. My point is, if a difference that small bothers you, than go for higher quality. If it doesn’t bother you, than do what you want. Sometimes convenience of space and portability is a higher priority than sound quality. Personally I use .mp3s for convenience in space on my laptop and in my room at college, but when I come home it’s time to whip out the records and CDs. And FYI, when I’m listening to Coltrane play “Giant Steps,” or Vaughan Williams “Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis,” I’m not listening to the bit rate; I’m listening to the music.
-A jazz studies major.
I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve rediscovered sounds I did not appreciate when listening to mp3s now that ALL my music collection is in .flac format. Anyways, as for mp3s, if you can’t tell the difference between 320 and 128 kbps you are probably due for a doctor’s appointment. The sound difference is astonishing.
Most of this discussion was comparing 128 with 320kbps, although my question is comparing 256 vs 320. I’ve ripped all my music using 256 and sometimes even down coverted 320′s to 256 to save space. Now years later it seems a bit silly given how fast the prices of large disks have gone down, but still my own tests indicate that I can’t tell the difference. I’ve also tested a few friends and they also couldn’t tell the difference. I’m guessing that few people can, and then only if they are playing the music on high quality speakers/headphones. Has anyone tested this? I don’t really believe tests where the listener is told which files are which before the listening test. I think many people could be fooled into believing they can tell unless proven otherwise.
Thanks in advance for any insights you have on the topic.
~Paul
Apologies for unrelated post but WHAT IS THAT TUNE?! I know it and used to have it but can’t remember what it’s called for the life of me….driving me CRAZY!! Thanks in advance for any replies!
Artist: Cymande
Title: Brothers on the Slide
Album: Promised Heights (1974)
Here is a tip (not sure whether this will work with all listening equipment): Listen to the hi-hat, in the 128kbps clip it is muffled quite a bit. However with the 320kbps clip it is very crisp, same with the drums. You have to listen to individual sections, otherwise it will sound very much the same.
Hi.
I’m an audio enthusiast and I did some tests on various soundcards and headphones. I found that to be able to tell the difference between 128 and 320 you need most importantly a good sound card (iPod touch/classic works great), and after that good headphones or speakers.
The on-boad sound card on my Dell Inspiron couldn’t discern 128 and 320 whilst listening via a SoundBlaster soundcard on my desktop it was a dead giveaway. For headphones (specifically IEMs), I could tell with Etymotic HF5 and UE TF10, so you really need a top tier IEM to be able to tell. With UM Miracles (my only custom and the star of my collection) the difference was… shocking. Soundstage, clarity, detail and vocals+bass+treble are all penalised by 128kbps.. basically it sounds terrible. It’s much harder to tell with lower end headphones though – if you’re using Apple earbuds you might be able to tell if you listen specifically to cymbals – they sound a *tiny* bit toned down. Personally I have trouble telling the difference between 192 and 320, but anything below 192 I can tell immediately. It really depends on your equipment.
I have to laugh, as of this post 44,000 voted for clip 2 and 40,000 for clip 1…which means more voted for the 128 bit as sounding better!…Still this is what I’d expect…nearly half for each file, that is it’s basically all guess work at this stage 50/50 odds…I got it right but I can’t say for certain it wasn’t a guess and I’ve got good ears and listening thru decent AKG cups.
No, I can’t tell the difference… most of the time.
However, that’s not really the point.
Is the OP and his friend ripping these mp3s just for listening purposes or for archival purposes?
I convert all my songs to -v2 or -v0 for listening purposes. The quality is rarely a problem and I can fit my entire library on to an ipod classic that way.
As for archiving my music, it is always lossless. In my case, FLAC. That way you can convert it to any flavor of the month or any end quality you want. As long as you have the original lossless quality files, do whatever you want for conversions. If some better lossless format comes around in the future, as I’m sure there will be, I can no doubt easily convert all my FLACs to the new format and be assured that my music will be as flawless as when I ripped it from the original CD decades back.
That’s what matters. Preserving the quality lineage. When you convert a 320/192/128 or any lossy format to ANYTHING else, you’re losing quality.
Regardless of whether you’re listening to the music on [removed] speakers or you have really high quality equipment, there *is* a difference. You’d be especially prone to hear it if you listen to specific kinds of music (such as heavy metal). As technology progresses and becomes cheaper, you’ll want the higher quality rips because you’ll be exposed to the difference sooner or later.
I picked the 320kbps clip, although it was pretty difficult. It was the drums that gave it away for me. The song was pretty basic though it didn’t have alot going on at any one time, so that probably made it harder. I imagine a rock song with constant guitars, bass, vocals and drums would be a better example.
I’m going to continue to archive with FLAC though, just because a new encoder for codecs releases pretty much every year that is more transparent and more effecient. By archiving in FLAC, I can keep converting if a more efficient lossless codec releases and not lose any quality.
I hear it too. And it’s easier to tell after you listen to a song or an album for a few minutes. You suddenly realize how much better the music is sounding. Especially when you go from CD to any compression.
In this test, I didn’t notice it much either… but then, this isn’t my kind of music anyway. When I’m over at my area of music (progressive house, trance, electro, hands up), I do notice the difference. It’s really a matter of personal opinion. Some people will notice and care, others won’t. Someone in my class will be playing music on the speakers in my class, and I can tell by the quality that it was ripped off of YouTube. I notice it, and it aggravates me when I can’t get stuff in high quality. What especially aggravates me is when someone encodes a lower quality file as a higher quality file. AAAAAGHHHH!!!
The difference is there, but it’s only very slight.
I’d be happy to listen to either, and I’m a fussy bugger.
I could detect no real difference through my laptop — I had to dig out my more expensive USB sound brick, and £200 headphones to tell any substantial difference. In fact, I was consistently rating the *lower* bitrate file as “better” with cheap in-ear jobs.
Strange, as usually I am disgusted with the quality of the 128K files I’ve had in the past.
I used my studio headphones and I had to listen to them 3 times to be sure of the answer, and that surprised me a lot because they were almost the same!
Yeah the second one was a bit crisper, but thats a trifle…
I suppose that usually the difference is greater…
Not a good comparison!
The track is pudgy, “all in the middle”, not pushing any dynamic range.
I personally couldn’t tell any difference between the 2 encodings & I reckon it’s because of this.
Secondly, there was a lot of background hiss & s***, suggesting it’s a poor quality recording in the 1st place, so you’re gonna hear noise regardless of encoding.
I suggest a cleaner source track with higher dynamic range for comparison, then we won’t get the stalemate you see here.
Kind regards,
MrLego
The first one sounded better to me, and I didn’t even have the volume turned up on my laptop. I guess there is a difference between the two and I can’t believe I’ve been using 128′s all this time.
VBR v5 = 130 kbps variable is pretty good!
which makes 128 kbps CBR (constans) pretty redundant.
I’ve conducted a lot of blind ABXC tests, and not one person has been able to tell VBR v2/v3 (190 and 160 kbps variable) apart from original wave file from the CD.
Anyone who does listen a difference between high bitrate mp3 and original CD, DOES need to consider the fact that YOUR cd plyer may be having a screwed up mp3 decoder.
There is a reason why mp3 dicards the less significant bits based on psychoacoutics – the acoustics perceived by ear and brain.
There is math and test results out there, and you can’t deny it.
Of course if you don’t believe in double blind ABX testing, you may as well believe that pigs can fly and I can’t do anything about your belief!
Higher Bit Rate >> More Bits/Seconds >> More Sound Information >> Higher Sound Quality >> Greater Storage Space
Lower Bit Rate >> Less Bits/Seconds >> Less Sound Information >> Lower Sound Quality >> Lesser Storage Space
With cheap speakers 128k can be good enough. It also depends on the music. That example was very simplistic so 128k mp3 with low fi speakers is close enough.
But… Played on a good stereo with sub or large speakers the 128k will be more distorted sounding. 128 is not enough to fill in all the gaps.
Encode them at 64 and save more room. It may sound like crap to the rest of us but as long as you can’t tell that is all that matters.
I DEFINITELY heard the difference its very slight but if you listen to shh sh noise in the left speaker its a little more clearer and smoother than the 128kbps version.
I am also using the Klipsch Pro Media 2.1
I got this wrong, but I’m not in the least surprised. Firstly the content of this test just doesn’t have enough complex sounds in it. Secondly it doesn’t help that I am listening on cheap PC sound. But thirdly – when you smooth out the sound with lower bit rates it will often sound cleaner. And if there wasn’t that much detail in the first place you can have a more pleasant sound. I discovered this years ago when I used to put my records onto tape for convenience and also so the records stayed in good condition. Nowadays sometimes I listen to the same thing from CD and from MP3 through the same hi-fi amp & speakers, and although the sound is more accurate and detailed from the CD, in some ways I enjoy listening to the MP3 more.
The difference is that 320 is preferred by hipsters who pretend they can hear a difference. Except that hipster hipsters know that 320 sounds like s*** too, so they use flac.
Seriously, there’s no difference, shut up.
Well I am wondering why you people havent come to a decision .you hear clearly from this test and if you hear both 128 & 320 you can easily tell the difference.320kbps is a bit louder and better.
There is no harm in saying that you don’t hear or notice a difference, however having a meaningless debate arguing and talking down to those that either can or can’t is pointless. Is there a difference? Yes! There wouldn’t be an option to rip it in such a format if there wasn’t. Saying you own this type of setup and all, pointless as well. Yes I took the test and noticed the difference, I just find this back and forth ignorant. All in all, the difference is there and if you can’t tell, stick to 92kbps and 128kbps files. Nothing wrong with it at all.
dude,
bitrates dont matter when you rip from lower bitrate to higher.
you cant rip 128 bit cd quality to 320,jst the size increases thats it.bitrate shows for how many times the song is sampled by the microphone while it is been recirded,more kbps means clearer the sound.once done we cannot upgrade the sound clarity.”"THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 128BIT AND 320BIT”"no 1 is fool to bring more bitrates in market if there is no difference.the more costlier headphone ex. dr dre, senhxxx,bose jst make there own variations in the sound ie. the bass,tre,etc which is more nicer to ears even they cant increase the bitrate from orignal.
Yep the 320 is far better, if u listen carefully to a song downloaded from iTunes at 128, you can hear the high pitch glitchyness in the distant (all the digital beeps etc)not cool! especially if you play it loud! i dont download from iTunes anymore, Fair enough iv a pretty decent sound set-up out of my computer but even so, on a small system its there in the background and its going in your ears. Not cool! i download everything at 320kbps, just seems a waste not to yeh it takes up more space but hard drives are bigger these days and if your going to listen to your favourite music ya may aswell listen to it in quality
that my opinion
have fun ppl
if you rip a song with a lots of channel(instruments) you will see the difference between 128bkps & 320kbps cause 128kbps got a lossy audio quality while you will hear almost lossless(CD) audio quality from 320kbps
it is hard to specify which sound there brings 320kbps and 128kbps audio output because that song contains i think only less than 4 instruments. Try to rip a song that used a lots of intstruments(or maybe w/surround sound) and you will distinguish which sound is crispier. for me 128kbps sounds like a sharp metal and it’s hard for me to enjoy the songs i play. IMHO
Although this is not complex music peace and vary bad for this type of test, I still managed to hear difference on my laptop speakers.
Sorry for my bad English.
Thanks for great test, I played it though my hi fi and 320 was easy to guess, much clearer vocals, better spatial sound. Through the laptop speakers of course, couldnt tell.
so yes 128k is fine for car or ipod, 320 if like me you like your hi fi and spend hours fiddling with impedance matching and cable variations.
It is all about long time listening experience. Doenst matter if you have good or bad speakers.
Lossless audio (cd, vinyl) gives you a pleasent experience.
Lossy audio (mp3) makes you nervous, beacause your brain keeps dealing with chunky audio.
Nobody can tell what is what, but mp3 is bad for your healh.
And this is no joke, go read psicoacoustic papers, search google the right words, you gonna find.
Mp3 is soposed only for STREAMING trought internet.
For enjoying music always go for CD, VinYl, or FLAC, you should rip your cds to FLAC.
I admire apple a lot, but they really f***** with the itunes store, fooling the world that mp3 is something you should pay for.
Look at bandcamp, they give you the mp3 streams for free. if you wanna real music, go LOSSLESS.
To those who got it right? How are you able to remember the previous clip sounding better or worse?
I feel like I would be able to tell the difference if I could A/B the track playing continuously. The second I hit pause, I feel like it clears my memory and the differences and I can’t perceive the differences.
I have some very VERY high end equipment and while i would never listen to both files ( flac or wav only ) I can hear the diff right off the bat. BUT i am not your average music listener. In fact I am a producer and I know the ins and outs about how MP3 is incoded, indeed the lower ( and even 320 or 450 kb/s) is not loss less. try comparing one of my 192 bit bit songs to this 24-48 bit junk.
For a long time, i thought vinyl sounds WORLDS BETTER than cds. Then, I figured out how to hook my cd player into the same speakers. The difference doesn’t seem nearly as large as I used to think
Still though, I think that jazz music sounds better on vinyl than CD. Classical music, however, I gravitate toward CD because a lot of classical on vinyl is older and often contains unwanted noticeable pops/clicks.
It could be just me but as far as MP3 compression, I find that highly compressed files fatigue my ears after a while. I have tested myself before regarding 320 bit rate compared to flac and could not notice a difference during an approx 10 second test.
It was hard to tell with these two files, but I did pick the correct one. For other files, It’s totally easy to tell when it’s 128 vs 320. There is a greater “depth” of sound with 320 tracks. Sounds feel more layered, substantial and more clear than they do when coded with only 128. I can’t stand when my music is low quality, so I always opt for the larger 320 files!
Of course everyone heard it! Everyone posting here has perfect hearing, owns hi-fi sound systems and has impeccable tastes in music allowing them to discern the subtle sound differences. Give me a break. There are only 2 music samples. Make it 5 or 6. Make them the same song, or different songs. Make it 12 song samples. Would you be able to tell the difference? I used to bartend at a very upscale restaurant that had an impressive wine list. I would do wine “tests” for the clientele who were avid wine fans. I would usually set up a 4-5 glass test. They would have to tell me what the grape was on each glass. Not the brand, or the year, just the different grape (merlot, cabernet, pinot noir etc). Me being the fun loving guy that I am would often pour the EXACT SAME WINE IN EACH OF THE 5 GLASSES. I really enjoyed watching all of the wine experts including our distributor pontificate over the subtle differences in each grape.
The difference for these files was very subtle and mostly during the first 2 seconds of the track sounding “clearer” for the 320 kbps.
That said, the encoder used to make the file has a bigger difference on the quality. I used to use 256k AAC on my Shuffle and have cringeworthy high notes, and drums on some tracks. Then switching over to VBR MP3 at ~220k most of the harshness is gone and can barely notice a difference between that and 320k
With an Asus Essence STX sound card and Aktimate Mini+ speakers they did sound slightly different, but I could not hear any obvious quality difference
Wow, audiophiles are such snobs. Both sound fine…
I could tell straight away, listen to the maracas on the left, I could tell straight away, the second time the instrument was used it went unclear for just a little while and it sounds muffled throughout the track.
I am running an Asus Essence ST card and AKG Q701 headphones which while not overly expensive can draw detail out of music very well.
In practical terms 320kbps are better, since hard disc space isn’t hard to come by. I’d only go lower if you have limited space on your MP3 player/iPod.
These Files Dont have enough High Freqency notes..
By the way i’m able to idientify it by crispness of sound..
Give another test using High quality Full Spectrum Sound source..
320kbps MP3,
128kbps MP3 [Stereo]
128kbps MP3 [Joint Stereo]
128kbps MP3 [Dual]
320kbps AAC-LC,
128kbps AAC-LC,
128kbps HE-AAC v1 [AAC-LC + SBR],
64kbps HE-AAC v1 [AAC-LC + SBR]
48kbps HE-AAC v2 [AAC-LC + SBR + PS]
32kbps HE-AAC v2 [AAC-LC + SBR + PS]
24kbps HE-AAC v2 [AAC-LC + SBR + PS]
Also use embeded flash player.. as Downloading files to pc will give some bias as file types can be identified..
Also use embeded flash player.. as Downloading files to pc will give some bias as file types can be identified..
GOSH …. guys…. 96kbps vs 128kbps …. a very big improvement…..
128kbps 320kbps will usually affect those higher frequency sound and yet quite an improvement too….
I can differentiate between 96/128/320 in most of the speakers/headphone
ITs quiteobvious….. back in the days when we have only CD I am like newage /techno addicted with music playing nearly whole day… and when I have chances to play around with mp3 … i did convert some of my (mike oldfield song of the distant earth) to 128kbps… it sounds quite lack of certain energy i am used to before… playing around with setting u will find that 320 is the best among mp3 and yet … I personally do feel that OGG is kinda better than mp3 especially in mid and lower frequency … but nowadays since digital storage is quite cheap then why wont FLAC? which is loseless?
the two are close, but there is a compression artifact on the maracas which is a giveaway.
This test is of little use since computer sound cards, cell phone & portable player systems were specifically designed for making low quality recordings sound crisp and clear.
That crisp and clear sound shouldn’t be mistaken for best quality Hi-Fidelity. A good deal of the program is missing, (clipped off) when the MP3 file was compressed and no adjustments to a sound system can bring back what no longer exists in the source material.
People who grew up listening to music on vinyl that has been format changed to CD and then to MP3 are a lot more sensitive to the differences because we have a stored reference in our heads as to what a certain song sound like.
Strange sounding but true: An old Sony Walkman (even with the tape hiss factor) played music truer to the way it was originally meant to sound than the most expensive IPods etc., these days.
Good quality Hi-Fidelity sound begins at the source material, not the system it’s played on, which will only enhance the low quality the better the sound system is.
i found the test song you used for this article, is not good enough to show the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps….since it has few instruments in it…. i’m using poor audio system and yet can hear the difference for certain songs….especially those that have fuller frequency spectrum as what Vishnu NJ said…
theoretically, lower sample rate will reduce/remove/attenuate the amplitude of some frequency components of the sounds…because of digital encoding process…i.e. the triangle minus sine wave thingy…
that is why we need to use higher rate possible to retain that..thus 320kbps…
PS: sorry for the bad english…
Yo! Good day to u all audio masters. I’ve been listening to mp3s for as long as i can remember. And i’m very particular with quality. I love music but I don’t have the luxury of hitech sound equipment. So i just trust my plain old ears and with some decent headphones. Back in those days ppl said 128kb is near cd quality. And i believe it is. Many 128kb actually sounded very good, even nowadays. When i learned about 160, 320, etc, there was even a ‘VBR’?? Anyways when i learned about these, 128 sounded more and more cr_ppy. Not the ones i had b4 but these recent songs. It seemed now that the higher the bitrate, the better the sound. But then i noticed that my old 128s still sounds better than the newer 192s. WTH?? Then i learned that people’s been ripping music from YOUTUBE and set them as 320kbp mp3s! I tried ripping a very garbage sounding tune from the site, and I learned i can encode it to whatever bitrate i desire. Whalah! A 320kb mp3 music that sounds SH_T!!! In fairness the best sounds i’ve heard are at 320kb. But some, if not a lot, sounded very youtube, along with those extra dialogue you hear from an mtv. Laughable and at the same time ultra annoying! Where have all the pure quality mp3s have gone??? I mean, all my trusted sites are now posting these garbage mp3s!! D_mn.. Im aware the it also depends on the ENCODER. Before i heard that LAME was the best. But that was a long time ago. None of it matters coz if the source file is sh!t, however sophisticated, hitech, complicated one encodes it, the resulting mp3 is even more SH_T. I mean, YOUTUBE?! Bunch of d_mb_ss wannabe’s. Forgive me.. anyone can recommend a site that don’t have the mp3′s i discussed? good day..
I must admit the difference is hard to spot. However it is worth noting this particular song provides a very difficult… example. Listening to metal, for instance, provides more example, because the compression is easier to spot due to the greater noise in general
My job requires me to listen to music – mostly lo rez mp3s – all day long. I’m a big advocate of the “who cares about bitrate” philosophy, as long as we stay above 128. However with this track, I spotted the difference almost immediately.
So much for my theory… well, almost: so much music coming out now is not all that well recorded, mixed or mastered, so in the end, the bitrate is a very very minor improvement.
No matter all the comments above complaining about the song here not being a good sample, it’s a great sample. I’m totally biased by the way, being an enormous fan of Cymande, but the point here is the music was well recorded. I’m not saying it’s audiophile purist proof, but it’s top of the line 1970s pop music quality.
Even more: as suggested in previous comments, a lot of music is now MADE to sound good on a basic system: earphones, computer speakers, small home systems. So I find that a lot of current 128s sound completely fine, for almost any situation. Audiophiles? A tiny minority, not in any way representative for how music is listened to. They are right about how it sounds on their systems. For the vast majority of people and most systems? Hardly a difference.
I picked the right answer, but I merely guess. When I played it again numerous times I believe I hear the first track being more full and whereas the second one appeared slightly flat. However, it was very subtle to my ears. I’m surprised that less than half of the people got it right in the total votes, and yet from the comments here almost everyone got it right. LOL.
Let me say that I have a very high end DAC, former flagship Sennheiser headphones, and a good amp. These cost over two grand in total. I also believe I have good hearing, and can recognize good quality recordings. And yet, I had a hard time differentiating any differences! Some people say they instantly hear the difference and it is obvious. If so, what are they hearing that is obvious? I understand audio terminology like depth, soundstage, air, decay, separation, roundness, etc. Can they describe these difference to me in a way that makes me understand what they are picking up? Some people make it sound like one track is totally cr_p and unlistenable.
I think to make this test more “scientific” it would require randomizing the clips and having the listener guess over 20 times. This ensures that listeners are not merely guessing. The statistics that would be tabulated at the end would include the number of people who picked with 100 % accuracy, 90 to 99 % accuracy, 80 to 89 % etc. I would be interested to know what this result would show, and whether people really are claiming to hear an obvious difference. I would give those who hear over 80% as being statistically credible and the rest as guessing.
Very illuminating. I listened to the sample several times on both good quality headphones and on speakers over a decent amp (no need to mention the brands!) and to be honest I did not hear jack s*** difference. So either a) My speakers/amp/headphones are all rubbish, b) My ears are blocked or damaged c) I am an audio caveman who hears but does not perceive or appreciate the subtle tweaks and flutters of a high-rate sample. OR d) There is barely any audible difference.
Well, i know which one I think it is. The most interesting thing about the test though is this thread, and the degree to which some people like to wax lyrical about points A) they have “superior” equipment and C) because they have superior refinement.
LOL.
It’s very easy to hear the difference, the lower bit rate one immediately sounded low bitrate with the highs sounding digital and echoey, things just don’t sound right !!!
This track used was a poor test.
You will only notice the difference when the reproduction of the song requires a higher bitrate.
eg. for plain speech, a much lower bitrate can be used with no loss of quality.
However, during very instrument-heavy tracks (classical, orchestral) you will notice a HUGE difference.
you will find strings and treble to become “tinny” or a “tinkly” sort of edge to them at lower bitrates, and bass will be not as smooth.
Whereas with higher bitrates it will sound much more real, bass notes deeper and fuller and you may hear things you didnt even realise were in the track! Such as sustain on a note.
Its like the difference between a 10 buck set of “stock” headphones that come with your music player and a $100+ pair of good quality ones.
The main reason high bitrate is required is to reproduce correctly the harmonics of notes. As it is digital and therefore to make a smooth waveform of the sound it must be made from many, many tiny steps. the higher the bitrate, the smaller and more frequent the steps are and so the reproduction is clearer.
Saying that though in nearly every case anything over 192kbs is pointless. ESPECIALLY when youre using budget stereo and headphone equipment.
Using good encoding software and buying a nicer pair of headphones will make VASTLY larger differences, you may as well save your time and hdd space.
Unless you plan on buying gold plated everything and OFC copper leads and so on and so on…. (cough pointless)
*pointless unless you just like having those things, you know, and the placebo effect.
And if you dont understand the significance of those things, well, definitely dont bother because its not worth it.
Sorry, Im usualy big on sound quality. I used a pair of Phillips headphones and couldn’t tell the difference at all. The 2nd track sounded like there was more “hiss” in it but then I really listened it sounds louder than track-1…….Louder isn’t always better though, especially with noise bettween the sound.
Clip #1 is encoded at 320kbps : (43,696 votes)
Clip #2 is encoded at 128kbps : (47,992 votes)
apparently over half the people thought clip two sounded better. It was entertaining reading the not so logical answers in this thread. I am a musician, I record on a weekly basis and have been playing the guitar since I was 7, 28 now, and I couldn’t really tell the difference as far as “what sounds better.” There is obvious more hiss in clip 2, but I prefer clip two; clip one sound like it has been compressed and eq’d. The bass seemed tighter in clip one and in clip two, the one note bass solo seems to not “roll off” or sounds a little more dynamic as if it were not compressed. But I do not claim to have the best ears bc of years of playing deafening guitar, but I did use some high end reference headphones. It was a poor recording to start with if you have noticeable tape hiss, (someone should of slapped a gate on it) yet it’s still a good melody and would listen to it on lower bitrate anyday.
Lulz! “I got it wrong” when I thought clip #2 sounds better? The amusing thing is that the majority of votes agreed with me. This proves my point about how higher bitrates don’t mean squat… not only is it nearly 50/50, but, ironically, there’s a few thousand more that think 128 bitrate sounds better than 320.