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:
Clip 2:
Listen carefully
If you liked this post, you should also try our online hearing test.
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 don’t see how anyone can miss this. There is an obvious artifact at 5-7 sec on the second clip.
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
The 128kbps one sound like more “put together” and some “swishing” sounds. The 320kbps I think has some more details in music.
I could tell the difference on my laptop speakers.
It would be interesting to do the same test with a more demanding classical music recording.
[…] on newbies blogs that 128kbits sounds "better" than 320…as it filters things out Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog the comments are pretty scary __________________ DT770 Premium/600Ω(genuine leather) + […]
[…] using headphones, just a good speaker setup connected to my computer: Can you tell a difference? Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog I can see how a lot of people may not be able to tell 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 π
I think both of them are low-quality…
Anyway, I think the music is too quiet for me to notice, but even though most of my mp3’s are 320kbps CBR or VBR, there is a little placebo on these tests.
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.
[…] Could you please provide links to the blind tests. in that test, ppl prefer 128kb over 320 : Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog read the comments, ppl think that 128 makes the sound more pleasant __________________ DT770 […]
Wow a majority of people are deaf haha… More people thought 128 sounded better.. Most people probably expected the 2nd to be the 320. Thing is with good headphones.. I have Sennheiser HD555’s its not hard at all to tell the difference.
Also I reckon people could like the muffled blended together smoothed out sound that lower quality encoding brings out.. Imagine it like the sustain pedal on a piano.. Most novice pianists over use the sustain pedal because they think it sounds good. 320kb vs 128kb sounds a lot more Crisp. To say it a differnet way imagine a picture thats sharp and has some jaggies and you blur it a bit.. It may look more appealing to some which is what in effect happens at lower quality encoding it audibly blurs it a bit which to some sounds better. Im a musician and I prefer 320 because everything comes off more clear, crisp, and realistic.
[…] you need to train your ears. listen to this : http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/…-test-128-320/ notice how the hihat is wooshy as hell in 128bits at 0:06 also you need to run tests on acoustic […]
[…] got a big facepalm link for you: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog it’s had more votes for the 128 than for the 320 __________________ DT770 […]
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.
The difference is spotted best between 0:05 and 0:06. It’s pretty obvious.
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 320kbps one has more definition and seperation between instruments. The 128kbps mushes instruments of similar frequencies together, imo.
Go for lossless ripping! Accept no lower than 1,411kbps π
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! π 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! π
in Logitech z5500 Clip 1 has better diference between bass and trebble, and more clear sound.
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.
My ears are shot, but I could tell. The vocals sounds similar in the two clips, but listen carefully to the background. The hand drums in the 320 kbs clip are much more nuanced…they sound flat in the 128 kbs clip. The drum fill at the end (at 15 seconds or so) also sounds flat and a bit tinny in the 128 kbs clip.
it sounds the same to me live no shit
Lossless is overrated. Etc. I chose 1; it sounded better than 2, which had some weird choppiness with the high hats, but other than that they sound almost exactly the same — and I had to use my ATH-M50’s and strain my head to hear it. Also had to turn off the Crystallizer on my Auzentech Prelude to be safe.
Long story short it DOESN’T MATTER even with studio-grade equipment the difference is barely noticeable unless you really look for it — and if you’re just listening to your MP3s to listen for impurities then you aren’t actually enjoying them now aren’t you?
Surely when you bought an iPod or whatever you were actually thinking of enjoying your music and not listening for holes in it, right?
This is also the reason why I say Lossless is Overrated.
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.
Good test! I just listened for the lack of punch coming from the drums and paper thin sounding cymbals. I use 320kps VBR on my nano which is plugged into my car radio. Listening fatigue happens to anyone listening to anything and constantly concentrating for many hours. It’s a known fact when working in a studio that to walk outside and take a break from the speakers now and again, wiil keep your ears fresh.
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!
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.
Most of the modern, variable bit rate encoders (MP3, AAC or OGG) have improved dramatically in the last few years. Under most circumstances a 128k vbr encoded file is “good enough.” Hard drive space is so cheap now, the best thing to do is rip you CDs to something lossless (like FLAC or ALAC) and then just transcode to whatever you need. The best of both worlds. I’ve got over 13,000 songs encoded with FLAC that take up around 270GB of space. With 500GB hard drives only costing about $50, why compromise?
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.
It was hard to say… maybe it isnΓΒ΄t so noticeable in a short cut, but in the whole song you get the feeling of the 128kbps…
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.
Weird results… I could tell right away which was better. Maybe people have crappy speakers?
I recommend encoding to 192 bitrate with the ogg vorbis format. Ogg doesn’t work with many portable mp3 players, though.
This is an age old debate while the perception of audible distortion at lower bitrates is really dependent on the hearing of any given person, lower bit rates do in fact butcher singal quality especially with lower quality encoders. Having ripped my collection a number of times first at mp3 CBR, then mp3 VBR, then m4a and now FLAC, I can testify that even if your hearing isn’t superb, you can experience a form of hearing ‘fatigue’ over time if you listen to low bitrate mp3s. You don’t notice it first but after some months it tends to get a bit annoying. I find that its best to over-due it a little even if you can’t immediately hear the difference. For tips, check out http://www.hydrogenaudio.org
[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.
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.
i only got it right because i have nearfield studio monitor speakers for musicmaking purposes, and i knew what goes wrong as the bitrate drops… otherwise it’s inaudible really.
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…
Just took the test and picked correctly, but it was hard. It was hard to put a finger on it, but the 128 sounded unstable. Like maybe the imaging broke down periodically, an odd hard to identify explain distortion.
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
First of all, this was on of the best executed of these comparisons I’ve heard. I did get the answer right, but the differences were subtle.
What always tips me off in these comparisons is the high-frequency percussion sounds (cymbals, shakers,etc). In this example, as in the others I’ve heard, cymbals sound “smeared” in the low bitrate file. There’s a lack of ambiance and detail that lossy compression inevitably brings. And overall, there less of a sense of “space” in the lower rate file.
And now a request: how about adding two more files to the comparison? One should be a completely uncompressed .wav, and the other should be a losslessly compressed file, such as a flac or alac. My guess is that very few people (including me) will be able to tell the difference between the 320K MP3 and the flac or .wav. But the comparison between the 128k file and the lossless/uncompressed files should be more dramatically obvious than the difference between the 128 and the 320.
P.S. I took this test with a pair of Koss PortaPros ($40) plugged directly into my PC’s generic onboard soundcard. Using better equipment (digital out from the PC, with outboard dac and amp, better phones) would probably throw the differences into bolder relief.
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.
Very good test!
It was a nice suitable quiet piece of music, nothing too obvious.
I’m glad I passed π
Did you really encode all of your CDs at 128k?
I encoded a whole bunch of my CD collection before I realised that VBR (variable bit rate) existed (well, it probably didn’t when I started) but I re-ripped them all after I got a new piece of software.
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!
I have many albums ripped to 320 and V0 with lame, and I prefer V0 for a few reasons. First the difference in quality is not detectable, and two the file sizes are considerably smaller. Variable Bit Rate or VBR is a better way to encode then Constant Bit Rate or CBR because the encoder judges each sound frame independently of the last and compresses it with the best quality per frame that it can. CBR will just keep every frame at 320 bit regardless if its needed or not, including dead silence.
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).
Agree with, Dan. Any hi-frequency sounds (like cymbals, or when singers pronounce anything with an “s” letter) is where the lower encoding becomes more evident (the “swishing” noise appears). In this case the swishing appears in #2 (more noticeable @ 6″-to-8″ segment).
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.
There is no difference between the tracks!!!