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.
There is no difference between the tracks!!!
Ok. i see there is a poll… I haven’t listened to the tracks, and can’t right now… But I’ve done the coke test in the past. When there are cymbals and electric guitar involved, there is a definite “swishing” sound in the upper frequencies in 128 kbps bitrates. Also, I think it has a lot to do with the algorithm of the particular codec you are encoding with.
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).
i could tell right away when comparing the two… though high quality headphones are always a plus. where are the results of the test?
personally, i rip with the LAME encoder (http://lame.sourceforge.net) at a high quality variable bitrate. -V2 or -V0 depending on the music (0 being the highest, with an average bitrate that hovers below 256kbps).
I 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 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!
Very good test!
It was a nice suitable quiet piece of music, nothing too obvious.
I’m glad I passed
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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…
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.
Backing up your music collectiong (archiving) in mp3 is a bad idea, because you lose flexibility. The best thing would be do rip it to a some lossless format such as FLAC. It takes up a lot of space but it is CD quality and it allows you to do whatever you want with it.
Want to transcode it to 128kbps mp3 to your portable player? No problem.
Want to listen to it on your high-end speakers without loss of information? No problem.
Ripping to 320kbps mp3 robs you of that. If you want to transcode an already lossy mp3 to a lower bitrate you are going to end up with a worse sounding file than if you ripped CD -> 128kbps directly.
[spoiler alert]
There is a difference at 00:07-00:08, the bass hammer on is smoother in the first.
It all depends on the quality of your headphones and speakers. On high-end systems, the difference is much more obvious for the common ear.
It also depends on the music style, classical music is very sensitive to mp3 quality. For most Pop/Rock tracks the difference is much less perceptible.
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
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.
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.
It was hard to say… maybe it isn´t so noticeable in a short cut, but in the whole song you get the feeling of the 128kbps…
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.
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?
i just took this test and got it right.
it was really easy to tell the difference between the two.
why do you keep talking about high frequencies?
the low frequency distortion is much more noticeable with this one.
you don’t really need high quality phones or speakers to tell the difference between 128 and 320kbps.
cause really, the numbers itself has a huge difference,
what more of the sound quality?
by the way, i took this test on my old laptop
using made-in-china-earphones that i got for about 2 bucks.
allo i got it wrong. after listening to it about 20 times. i used $700 dollar noise cancelling headphones quietcomfort 3s which were not the best for this test. despite this you want to go with 320kbps mp3s for sure but there is no point doing that any more. the only way to make and save your music now is with Flac. I recommend everyone to go with Flac even if you can’t hear the difference. If you need to put it on your ipod convert the FLAC to AAC 320kbps or put it on as apple lossless. It’s easy to convert out of Flac. Flac is the way to go people for all future encoding of music.
As for the difference. Well it doesn’t mean you need to throw out all your old MP3′s as if you can’t tell the difference then don’t worry, but if you get the chance slowly replace them all with FLAC. People who can tell the difference are welcome to just start using FLAC.
There is alot of very hard to get music, that is going to take a very long time, if ever to find its way into the Flac format. So we will be using Mp3′s and AAC for a while yet.
The Future is flac tho!
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.
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.
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.
it sounds the same to me live no shit
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.
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.
in Logitech z5500 Clip 1 has better diference between bass and trebble, and more clear sound.
I could tell. Until portable flac players become a reality, last longer than 20 mins with playback, and youre not obsessed with backing up your entire mp3 collection to premium quality, stick with mp3! Ps if you intend to backup your collection for portable players on the move, dont go any higher than 192 kbps. If its for pc listening on good speakers, go with mp3 320 kbps constant or a high variable bitrate. Variable will save you alot of space, but despite what some people will tell you, variable can often give you a clearer sound if you listen hard enough. Its because variable can give a wider/higher range of sound frequencies for your music. Hard to really tell, but for the nerds its true. So sometimes a lower bitrate vbr can sound better than a 320 kbps cbr. At a lower bitrate, rock music can sound a bit gargled, but if you prefer other styles then variable or constant around 192kbps may be enough for you, for both pc and portable player use. Better yet, you wont have to convert your collection twice!
Another thing to note that a high bitrate on a portable player will eat up those batteries, and some portable players wont work properly with variable bitrate mp3s (vbr) and will only prefer constant (cbr) mp3s, so try your player first with some tracks to make sure they will work ok with the method you choose to use. If youre not sure, try converting your music to different bitrates to decide what sounds best to you whilst not using up too much space on your portable mp3 player (as an example). Just dont play your music too loud whatever you choose to use! 
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
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 difference is spotted best between 0:05 and 0:06. It’s pretty obvious.
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.
[...] 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 [...]
[...] 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 [...]
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.
[...] 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 [...]
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.
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.
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
[...] 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 [...]
[...] 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) + [...]
It would be interesting to do the same test with a more demanding classical music recording.
I could tell the difference on my laptop speakers.
The 128kbps one sound like more “put together” and some “swishing” sounds. The 320kbps I think has some more details in music.
i was wondering, i have a file 192kbps and i re-recorded it using virtual dj, but recording in 320kbps, does this make the quality better or does it just make the file bigger in size as its 320 bit rate
I don’t see how anyone can miss this. There is an obvious artifact at 5-7 sec on the second clip.
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 was wondering if there was a difference. Listening to the tracks I did notice the difference and chose the correct answer!
Thanks for posting this!
-NYC, GO YANKEES!
I did not select the correct choice and I am not surprised. Your test is not properly randomized and I have virtually no experience with MP3. If I wanted to bias a test I would set the 320bps rate as the 1st selection as people will sub-consciously expect the lower rate to be 1st. I suspected this is what was dome before I made the selection. Secondly we naturally hear more detail on the second listen.
If you wanted to really do a correct comparison there would be 3 sample, 2 mp3 at different rates and one the actual .wav selection. These would be randomized on each iteration of the test and only the test program in the back ground would know which was which.
YEAH!!! I WON!! i got the correct!!!! you can hear the difference when ur using a HEADPHONE!!! hear the drums and the beat and you can define which has 320 kbps quality!!
I used the most basic/cheap headphones at my PC, and focused in on the cymbals/percussion, in 3-4 listens, I answered correctly, I’d be happy with 128kbps if all my recordings sounded this close to 320kbps, 192kbps seems fine for me though.
You need good headphones/speakers to be able to take advantage of a higher quality song. The difference is really noticeable if you have quality headphones.
I got it right after comparing the two alot. The cymbals don’t sound as balanced as they ought to. The 320kbps cymbals had more depth to it and sounded more natural to me.
With live recordings I can usually tell the difference between a 192kb’s vbr OGG file and a FLAC file by trying to listen for noises in the equipment used. The noises come more alive in the FLAC file than in the OGG.
The first sample takes more to buffer, so it is obviously the 320 kbps, so the test is not really blind. For the sound, it sounds the same to me.
They sound ‘similar’.
I use the quotes because if you listen on a good sound system, the difference is extremely visible.
The bass is much better and more evident in the 320 clip (the first one).
I got it right, the first one sounded better. Great tune selection, btw, with the Cyamande.
What brought me to the site, however, was a search for how to record mp3′s in 320 kbps format. After reading this board it’s obvious to me now that 320 kb is not the cats meow I thought it was supposed to be. But, to satify my curiosity at least, can someone tell me how to save wave files in 320 format? I have been using Audacity to convert, and it automatically converts to 128.
One second thing, does I-tunes autmatically compress wave files that are imported into the library, or just leave them as large waves.
Thank youuu!
Wow, I can’t believe how many people chose the wrong file. I thought it was pretty obvious, and I’m not even that much of an audiophile. Plus I’m using some cheap Philips ones from Argos.
Anyway, near the beginning they don’t sound that much different, but at 07-09 it sounds pretty obvious to me.
Also, I have to agree with the person who said to use V0 instead of 320kbps.
Meh, after listening a few times you *might* be able to tell the diff … but who listens to the same song over and over trying to see if the cymbals really sound as good as they should?
128Kbps more than good enough… nuff said.
You can not get real 320kbps from oldies. Oldies have low quality sound compared to todays music codes and need to be completely remastered in studios which can not be done unless authors do it themselves. Buy some newer CD,and rip one song to 128kbps and other to 320kbps,you will be amazed by it’s difference. Cheers
Results are obvious on my 7.1 channel surround speakers, the sounds are mostly coming out of about 5 of the channels with very low quality cracking coming out of the rest
I GUESSED IT RIGHT BUT YOU CAN OLY TELL IF YOU HAVE A GOOD SOUND CARD OR A SET OF GOOD HEADPHONES.
This is kind of a set-up. The original presumably didn’t have much high end, judging from these files.
I use the built in ABX testing utility in the geeky media player Foobar to do true double blind testing (it has an integrated ABX comparator utility that takes care of all the accounting and statistical calculations for you) and, for sure, it can be difficult to tell the difference between, say, 192 kbps signals and 320 kbps signals — but it totally depends on the content.
If the source material here had had more high frequency content to start with (it sounded very dull and flat in both files; listen to the cymbals), it would presumably have been considerably easier for those who know what to listen for to identify which was which.
Like most poorly thought out media pseudo-science, this demonstrates little and proves nothing.
There is, however, plenty of good perceptual testing data regarding the general population and differing perceptual encoding data compression schema, maybe it would be better if the author were to point his readers in the direction of something, you know, real.
Until I bough new Denon CD/MP3 player and new hifi amplifier and speakers I though that there is no difference between 128 and 320 kbps. But with this hifi soundsystem I can tell you : There is VERY BIG difference between those two bitrates. The 128 sounds like 30years old radio, the 320 sounds nearly as good as audio cd.
So for those who wants to encode their music library to computer : the only way is 320kbps !
[...] an interesting test: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/…-test-128-320/ [...]
If you can’t distinguish between 128 and 320, then you don’t need anything above 128. You don’t need to have a good trained ear to notice the difference, probably it is the system that you are playing the songs with. Get some good headphones (audiotechnica, grado, denon, sennheiser, etc) or good speakers, remember that speakers are always the most important part in an audio system.
And for Korn, yor rear speakers are not playing with bad quality, they are reproducing the content of the audio that is not common between channels. If you select hall, or simlar preset in your home theater, it should sound similar. Don’t worry, this is normal. If you want to have the same output in all speakers, select MONO or ALL CHANNEL STEREO in your receiver/home theater.
I picked the right one. Most people couldn’t tell though, in fact more people picked the 128k file. I suppose with the right ears and the right equipment you can, also knowing what to listen for as many point out, makes a difference. Most “regular” people would not notice a difference I suspect.
I could tell right away and that is why I cannot stand listening to anything lower than 192kbps. The 320Kbps had nice depth which the 128kbps one totally lacked.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index1.html
320 kbs is by far better. I could never go back to anything lower. I have Shure earbuds (ran me 100 dollars) that allow me to hear every little detail in dense music. Your audio comparison for this one song may fool people into believing it has little difference, but if we start comparing post-rock or wall-of-sound songs (intricate, like the minimalist album titled “Music for 18 Musicians”) then we would easily tell the difference.
If I had all of my extreme metal/intricate bands in 128 kbs then guitars would have a horrible ear-piercing screech, bass would be inaudible, and half of the high notes would be smothered in big static mess of sound. Bands like Isis and Opeth are 50% less enjoyable if I can’t hear the details in their dense, otherworldly (atmospheric) wall of sound.
In the end it depends on the quality of your mp3 player, the quality of earbuds, and of course the style of music.
being an audiophile i cud make out d difference btwn the two clips. i preffer not to go below 256kbps.
the 1st one has more depth n sound is more crisp n clear thn d 2nd one. bass(drums tom) hav more detail n the treble(the hats) has better stereo effect. overall u can clearly make out wats playin in wich ear wid better details.
if u cant make out any diff. den 128 or 320kbps doesnt matter, bt an audiophile can quickly make out d diff.
Uhm…it seemed hard at 1st but if you focus on the decay of the sound and the resolution, there’s a clear difference between the 2 (1st one is obviously better). It only took my 1 shot to get the right answer (or maybe i was too lucky)
I can usually tell very easily, this one was difficult though. There was a lot of extraneous noise in the original recording which masked some of the “tells”. However, the giveaway was the shaker/morracca sound in the left channel, it wasn’t as well defined in the lower bitrate version.
that was easy. I just needed to listen to 2 seconds of each clip to know the difference.
compare 320 with lossless. that is a real challenge
I could tell a clear difference on my crappy laptop built in speakers.
I really don’t understand how people can’t tell the difference.
The difference is day and night.
All you have to do is focus your mind on the cymbals and vocals.
The cymbals sound like broken glass on the 128 version.
I got it right after listening to them on a pair of Shure SE530′s. When I listened to them with a pair of crap ear buds I could not begin to tell the difference. However if the sample had been some fast piano work then you probably could have heard the difference right away. Oddly some recordings, “Back to Black” – Winehouse, for example, sound BETTER at a lower bit rate. Playing the CD on high end audio makes it sound like a mess.
“Oddly some recordings, “Back to Black†– Winehouse, for example, sound BETTER at a lower bit rate”
Really? Doesn’t winehouse sound a mess pretty much all of the time?
Well I’m using some cheap headphones that came with my mp3 player and after a few times I could tell the difference.
It actually surprises me how many people voted for the wrong one.
I choose the clip 1, becoz it sounds better?
Answer: at least there r no some impure sounds behind =)
An interesting test. I could hardly tell the difference, but that is probably a limitation with my equipment and the fact my computer is whirring away. I thought the second one was 320 but tbh I was partly guessing.
WOW… You guys are all the victims of your own imagination.
I’m not a sound engineer, but i can tell that something is a trick when i see one. And that’s when being a web-designer is useful. One look at the programming of this page confirmed that the two clips are ACTUALLY THE SAME FILE.
AudioPlayer.embed( “audioplayer_1 “,
{soundFile:
“aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ub2lzZWFkZGljdHMuY29tL2F1ZGlvL2NsaXAxLm1wMw”
});
AudioPlayer.embed( “audioplayer_2″,
{soundFile:
“aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ub2lzZWFkZGljdHMuY29tL2F1ZGlvL2NsaXAyLm1wMw
“});
Check the page source for yourselves. HTML at line 4836. I imagine the writer of this article is laughing at all the comments. (“Look at me! My ear is so trained, the second/first clip is DEFINITELY the better quality one!”)
Fumiosuzukii: No tricks here. I can assure you they are indeed two different files. Notice the “x” vs “y” in the last part of the sound file.
hi there!
it is most difficult to seperate two clips, which both have an high level background-noise, did you have done the right convertion? – anyway, you can hear a difference in the high-frequence band. next time you do better!
ripping with itunes is not the smartest thing to do.
the mp3 encoder of itunes is not very good. lame is better.
also you should use vbr instead of cbr:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME
Hello all,
Matt here. I am an audio engineer by trade, and listening in a well treated control room with a set of 3000$ JBL Monitors. The consensus amongst everyone here is correct – the signature of lower encoding mp3s is most definitive in the high end. There is also low end loss, however that loss is extremely difficult to hear without speakers capable of accurate reproduction in the sub frequencies.
Mp3s save space by getting rid of frequencies we are less likely to hear – filtering out over 16khz, and under 20hz. Lower encodings then start selecting very thin frequency bands and removing that information. The frequency bands are stratified – meaning you might hear 40hz and 42hz, but not 41hz. It leaves our very capable minds to fill in the sonic gaps. Different encoding algorithms utilize different systems of doing this, based on what is called “perceptual coding theory.”
This has two effects. One is a perceived loss of nothing is specific, but an overall “thinning” of the sound. The second is audible distortion in the high end, as steeper filter mechanisms cause “phase distortion” or sometimes called “space monkeys” (yes, audio engineers use that as a term). This creates a strange texture, as well as a lack in perceived depth.
However, for the end user listening on something like earbuds, cheap computer speakers, laptop speakers, or cheap headphones, you will most likely notice no difference. This is because those speakers do not really play back those targetted frequencies with accuracy. Earbuds in particular actually use the proximity to the ear drum to create an artifical sense of low and high frequency content.
I did the test and I was wrong (I couldn’t tell a real difference in this short snippet). But I work a lot with mp3s and I do notice sometimes that the sound is not ok and in 90% of all cases it was due to the bitrate. Someone told me he read a study which said that at more than 256 kbps you have to have a very good sense of hearing to tell the difference to a higher encoding.
The one with the lower bitrate downloads faster
[...] noch eine Stufe interessanter die Kommentare derjenigen, die den Vergleichstest absolviert hatten: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog Freundliche Grüße, never [...]
It is really though to make the difference on low quality speakers. However, I found a specific position where the difference is revealed. At 0:05 there is a high sound like tick-tick which is distorted in the 128kbps version and you can hear that clearly. I use a very wrong setup: analog headphones with radio transmitter but I heard it… And indeed they are different files!
Hi!
Very sad! Until you do not know what is HQ you cannot make differences. You have to learn what to hear. You may like a song but the question is “is it on the disk or i just like it?”
Anyway there are relevant differences in dynamics even with low quality speakers.
The question is wrong. I found which one is the higher bitrate, but picked the lower one, ‘coz I like it better… So the good question is: “Which one is the 320kbps?” instead of “which one sounds better to you”.
Bullsh*t, man. Bullmotherf**kingsh*t!
If anyone, and I mean ANYONE tells you that he/she cannot enjoy a song, because it is at 128 kbps and not 320, I am not sure whether the term exists, but I would use the word: sound-snob. Describing it would go like this: you don’t have a clue about what the f**k quality sound is about, but you’re bragging with your 320kbps music cause it is…I don’t know… rare/better technology/you name it.
I would agree with “Matt March 14th, 2010 @6:47 pm”, for one: he is a sound-engineer, which is not about trends/bragging but science, and two: because he is actually right.
I really doubt your friend enjoys his 320kbps music on an equipment like Matt here is talking about.
There is also another thing that is too important to be left out: one’s ears and mind. One may as very well have equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, if he/she doesn’t know what to listen to (what are the “bad” things in 128kbps that 320 kbps doesn’t have).
There is also a third part of this issue: artistic beauty. It would be a crime against art (and when we talk about music, we HAVE to talk about art, whether people like it or not) to say that a violin sounds better just because it’s… 320kbps and not 128. This issue, however, is quite subjective, but important nonetheless. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Well, in our case ear of the beholder. And it’s true. There might be some certain sounds that I like to hear during a… Brahms Symphony recording, because I can imagine I am actually standing in front of the orchestra, and they are playing it to me. And those very sounds may be quite disturbing for your ears, because “with today’s technology, unnecessary sounds should be deleted by sound-engineers after a recording”.
Bottom line, 320kbps mp3 files sound better to a few people. The overwhelming majority can’t make the difference between 128kbps and 320 kbps, which is natural.
[...] may also want to view the MP3 Sound Quality Test under: Audio, recordings Tags: featured, hearing test, sound challenge Did you REALLY [...]
yaaaay! i got it right! but i agree.. the difference in quality is very little, really had to listen carefully.
Well, before I even got to listen to the clips I was already biased. Buffering the second one was much quicker, an indication for the smaller file size.
Trying to be unbiased, I really didn’t hear any difference. But then I’m not really good with HiFi stuff anyway…
[...] here again. I took an mp3 listening test here a while ago. The shoot out was between an mp3 of 320kb/s vs. and mp3 of 128kb/s. A number of people commented that a test between a pure wav. file against a 320kb/s mp3 would be [...]
I thought this one was fairly easy to distinguish, but then again everything is easier with headphones. The beats on the second clip are more flat and less pronounced than in the first one, but yes, it is subtle, and if I hadn’t been using headphones, I may not have been able to tell the difference.
This particular music piece doesn’t expose quality differences. They both sound exactly the same. You’d have to be a godd*mn audiophile to notice it.
I don’t hear a difference. I’m pretty familiar with what compression artifacts sound like, and am using a MacBook with some Yuin PK3 earbuds. I’ve tried these tests a number of times over the years, first when deciding if MiniDiscs sounded different than CDs. 10-12 years ago, I almost thought MP3 was a lost cause since 128K sounded awful. Last five or so, though, 128 sounds perfect to me. I rip to 160 to leave a safety margin, and really hate large FLAC filesizes. Anything I get over 256k gets transcoded down to 160.
When you’re tracking music.. like actually recording songs, and doing a final mix… mixing down to 320kbits for a quick listen in the car is much better than 128.
you’re closest to the pure sound of the DAW, (nothing beats a pure wav file though ) but you’re still closer
in the case with ripping, there’s a lot of conversions happening so it might not be that noticeable… but to answer the question… Yes
I got the answer correct; I thought there was a very subtle difference- better ambience and spaciousness in the track I picked. Nonetheless I was very unsure- the difference was hard to pin down.
I was listening on a desktop PC with $50 headphones (pretty good sound, vastly superior to the crappy cheap earbuds or foam things but nothing fancy).
This clip is not the best example to test 128KHz vs. 320KHz. The most important on CD rip is surce quality! for best test use for ex: Iron and Wine or Vangelis – Tubular Bells album.
On this clip the difference is less obvious, but on some songs I do notice a HUGE difference, like night and day. 2 songs come to mind and it was like hearing them for the first time when I re-encoded at 320. However it depends on the speakers/headphones you’re using as well and I admit that I never noticed that difference until I got a set of quality headphones. And I did pick the 320 clip(yay). Not surprised that more people picked the low bit rate one, as like I said on this clip it’s not as obvious as some others.
Well not only does the bitrate matter but also the type of song. Songs which focus more on vocals wont sound much different cuz even a low bitrate can produce good vocals.
But on other tracks(i have found the difference to be extremely noticeable in rock music and electronica). This is coming from a guy who(atleast tries) to make music. Also my brother is a musician, and he also records music for other bands so I’ve had quite an exposure to various bitrates.
Though nothing beats lossless.
First of all, isn’t that a drum machine?
The instruments are electric guitar and electric bass. You aren’t hearing instruments, you are hearing music amplifiers. The transients are coming through 10-12″ speakers made for durability, not attack.
The only thing that ain’t fake in the track is the vocals. And with them, you can hear better separation among the background vocals in #1.
If you want a real test, go acoustic. Say, something old, before synth, like remastered stan getz, pick your poison.
SIMPLE. Heard of analogue scratch disc player before? If so, it means, bits this low CAN be heard. Im a teenage age 15 and has been listening to earphone almost too much so i presume i hav a hearing of an adults. Keep to WAV format if you can. To me, 320kbps is wayyyy tooo low.
Sample 1 drums sound a bit more lumpy not as sharp as sample 2 bass sounds a lot cheaper as well, couldn’t pick much on the vocals. Used ipod earphones.
Great Test. It would be great to try this with different formats such as ,flac or .ogg, Also with different types of music such as jazz or classical. d(-_-)b
The samples are not good for the test. They don´t seem to have the frecuencies often “affected” by mp3 compression.
I’m young. However, all I had to do was close my eyes and hear all the small sounds you hear in one but not the other. So I got it right. I always love listening to music most at night or when I close my eyes listening before bed. Somehow I can just hear it all the better.
Now i really want this song, it’s great!
Well I’ll be.. I couldn’t tell the difference and chose number 2. Could be that I tried comparing the two clips through laptop speakers, that never helps. I’m sure on a high quality home or car stereo the differences would be more evident, but for portable audio they both sounded identical to me.
I’m surpprised by this test as the difference between 128kbps and 320 kbps listening on Grado SR-80 headphones was so pianfuly obvious that even 192kbps were not enough quality.
And it also certanley depends on the type of sounds included in the music, its textures and layers and all that…
I listened to these on a high-end hifi stereo and the 1st track sounded a bit better
I failed the test. But I listened to the tracks on my computer, which has the factory-installed sound card and speakers. I rip to 320, because by the time I have my mp3 player hooked up to my above average house or car stereo, the difference is plenty obvious.
What I think this demonstrates best is that for most real world applications, the MP3 encoding method is really excellent at pulling out what people really can hear, focus on, and prefer. The idea of ANY compressed audio format is not how perfect you can make the music, but how much you can preserve whilst saving as much space as possible.
Most peoples’ equipment won’t expose a serious difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps. As audiophiles, instead of fussing at what compressed formats vendors offer, you should be demanding a lossless form and determining what quality you need to compress it to to suit your equipment.
Whoever sayed that lossless is overrated as there is no noticable difference is quite stupid…
I mean come on, just listen to the sound of the drums that sound so flat on the second one
And i listen to it with my vintage “AKG K140″ plugged directly into an pretty normal soundcard (asus xonar d1) without an Headphone-Amp (note those Headphones have an Impendance of 600ohm)..
And still the difference for me was quite obvious, even if there are quite better examples for the loss of quality due to mp3 compression (Check some good “Bach” Songs, and you’ll see what i mean)
Maybe its due to my pretty good hearing, as i can hear up to 22khz with 25years…
And an “Ipod” is an lifestyle-product, no way to enjoy high-fidelity music…
I rather grab an Cowon, than an Apple.. though i once were an Apple-fan :S
first few times time through, I said that the 128kbs file sounded better.
still sounded better even after knowing the answer.
then I reset my amp. Could tell a difference after and the 320kbs sounded better. Definitely not by enough to tell if I wasn’t listening for it. Just know that what is pleasing to the ear isn’t always what is of highest fidelity, especially when you introduce distortion intentionally(I like my bass)
almost no diffrence.
Headset : Sennheiser pc350
Only if you have a professional earphones or headsets the musical instruments would be much more richer and accurate.
I ordered a Westone UM3X I will try to see the results.
Unless you’re an obsessive neurotic, which seems to be common on the Internet, both clips sound similar despite the disparity in file size.
As far as I’m aware, MP3 is a highly compressible file format which is a useful compromise when drive space is a concern but if the listener wants the highest quality available they should listen to the original CD!
I have a pair of Sennheiser HD 280 Pro’s that were in my shoulder bag when I found this test, but I tried this with the cheap, crappy speakers on my Aspire One (AOA 150) and I could recognize the difference right away, I’m really not sure how the results ended up with around 2k more votes for the lower quality clip.
I couldn’t tell the difference. Although I have chosen the right answer. The sh, sh rythmic sound in the first clip felt mellower at first but now I am not sure. I heard it on my laptop, no fancy earphones or surround system and such.
But whenever I download mp3′s in 320 I use Format factory to change them to 128. 320 takes too much space on my hard disk and with low quality speakers that I have I can’t tell the difference between the two.
I agree with Kubrick on well chosen term Sound-snob.
I have a friend who thinks he is an expert on music. And of course he prefers 320 to 128. The other night he told me that I really lose much when I convert mp3′s from 320 down to 128.
And he is the guy who 20 years ago when we were teenagers couldn’t tell the difference between the “keyboard trumpet” (he thought it was the real thing) and real saxophone (he thought it was keyboard). I kept correcting him.
And ever since we were little he always boasted with his good ear, his “profound” knowledge of music. And when we were kids he listened to Disco and made fun of me because I used to listen to Frank Sinatra, jazz, classical music etc. Some connoisseur of music!
To cut a long story short he is a snob and he only likes singers who are critics’ favourites. So before deciding whether he likes some new single or not, he waits to read a good review and then shoots his mouth. Band that he thought to be lousy soon becomes a great piece of art after his reading of a good review in music magazines.
I think that people who “prefer” 320 to 128 can’t tell the difference between the two and are like my snobish friend.
flac= wav files?
The difference is pretty clear in the low end.
The hi-hatt and voice are more “alive” too on the 320kpbs.
A real challenge would be to distinguish 192 from 256 kpbs.
The 2′nd one is 320 you can tell the difference only if you have a “sense of music” the first one has less volume and bass..so i say that 320 kbps is better than 128…
fake ass! i did the same as you did with my cd’s!
320kbps sounds always better!
very nice test, I chosed the right option
Well, my hobby involves car audio, and i can tell you, once you turn up the volume to a certain point, you clearly hear the difference between 320, 256, and god forbid, as low as 128 or 96kbps
You cant often hear the difference with normal headphones and such but, once played louder and with better speakers, you will cleatly hear it.
I couldn’t tell the difference and as far as bit rate you do what you want. Hell, I compress mine down to 64 Kbps and I really dont notice much of a difference and can still enjoy on my speakers. Maybe WMP is just that good at compressing. I say as long as YOU dont mind, encode away!
If you can STAND to listen at 64kbps, then your ears must be very bad, because the difference is so obvious at a mere 92 that my brother (who doesn’t even really CARE or notice sound quality) can immediately recognize it.
I can’t discern ANY difference between the two clips above, but once you get down into the double digits, it becomes painfully obvious to anyone. . . except you, apparently.
I usually use 196kbps when ripping with Winamp. Good balance between quality and size.
Hi there. I saw your article and I am really interested in it because the questions you ask bother me too…
So.. first I shall answer that THE FIRST ONE sounds better (pooled).
I shall recommend you to rip all CDs in another format (not the lame one). For me, the best is AAC+ (HE-AAC).
Why?
*It sounds better than the lame mp3 (full scale to 20khz, unline the mp3 up to 16khz)
*It draws more data (like 88khz and 96khz) which the mp3 codec just can’t do
*It has built in SURROUND technique which is GOOD for surround experiences
*It is SMALLER than the mp3. (for example, 192kbps/88khz he-aac file sounds way better than mp3 256kbps/44.1khz) and you don’t need to use compression larger than 192kbps because the sound is really good (unlike 320kbps mp3 file, which is worse than the he-aac))
DISADVANTAGES:
*Some players\software does not support HE-aac or the whole aac codec, so you need an apple® or sony® device to play he-aac
*aac+ is incompatible with mixers and is not designed for creating/editing/mixing music
*re-compressing 88khz or 96khz aac file to another format is almost IMPOSSIBLE
Excuse my re-post, but I forgot to tell the best advantage of the aac+ format:
*You can convert audio to unbelivable low bitrate and still have a nice experience (for example, you can convert lossless audio to he-aac 56kbps,48kbps, 40kbps.. parametric stereo and still have a good sound. Note that if you convert to mp3 to that low bitrate, the sound should be really damaged and hard to listen.)
2nd sounds better, although it is hard to tell the difference. I record and rip all my music at 320kbps constant bitrate because the slightly better quality.
In all of this discussion, why is it that NOBODY mentioned the technologies available at the time the music was first RECORDED? No matter what bitrate you choose, the vast majority of music recorded prior to about 1965 will sound the same because of the limitations of the then current technology. It doesn’t matter if you ripped the tune from an AAD or ADD CD, because the original recording was done with analog equipment available at the time the recording was made, and you can’t really “improve” it to bring it up to the “standards” of the 21st Century. My personal preferences are for these older types of recordings (early vocal groups, big bands, REAL Rock ‘N’ Roll [pre-1965]} and find 128 kbs to be perfectly suitable for my listening pleasure.
If you buy a CD that was recorded from cylinders made between say 1898 and 1910, the quality will be the same as that of the original cylinder, and a 128 bitrate will work fine if you make an mp3 of it because the original recording equipment couldn’t capture the nuances.
SO, if you have perfect ears, AND top-of-the-line equipment, AND listen to music that was recorded after, say, 1965, it MAY be advantageous to create high-bitrate mp3s. Otherwise you’re just wasting disc space.
I know the tell tail signs of low quality 128 and picked it straight way. There’s usually a quite obvious swishing/phasing sound in 128 that get’s quite uncomfortable to listen to after a while. Only on a very old hard to get song would I ever except 128 mainly because something is better than nothing in these circumstances. Your average listeners however would have trouble telling the difference and if you don’t listen too carefully 128 is usually fine for the “average” listener.
I started encoded my CD’s back in 2001 when large storage was more expensive. So at the time I decided to go half way and picked 192. My thinking was that this way you get the best balance of file size and quality. At 192 it starts to get extremely hard to tell the difference anyway. I have however gone back and re-done my absolute favourite CD’s at 320, but for the majority I’ve just kept the original 192 versions and they’re good enough for me.
Weak entropy + low frequency music = little perceptible loss regardless of the bitrate.
Try the same with a polyphonic choir.
Sony MDR-V700s
These headphones pick out disparities in the bass very well due to exaggerated sub 500hz frequency response for beat matching in a loud club. 320kbps bass line sounds significantly warmer. More difficult to discern high end differences due to a roll off in >6khz frequency response of the v700s though with concentration a crunch in the cymbals is apparent.
Just comment:
This music is quite “simple” for this test. Try to do the same with some of Infected Mushroom songs.
People,
The quality of sounds played depends a LOT of the speakers, headphones and amplifier(s) where you play it.
Makes no sense and you won’t see any difference between 128 x 320 if your electronics (hardware) to play the sound is poor.
Thus in order to make 320 worth you must have a compatible high quality system.
I could not tell the Difference in the track the fist time. i listened. It could be my age 51, I think 10 years ago i may have been able to detect the difference.
[...] subconscious will substitute what it knows your supposed to be hearing from memory [...]
I got this right but have to admit it was not obvious. The first clip sounded smoother which is not a difference I expected. I have heard 128K files which sound worse than this. I know different passages in the same song will reveal more or fewer compression artifacts… so were these clips randomly selected or were they picked after they were checked out?
I think a good way to check if your conversion process is too lossy is to re-compress the same section to create 2nd and 3rd generation copies. Also try this from one encoder to another to see how much the first codec damages the sound.
Finally, one sure-fire way to check for loss is to take the compressed clip and subtract it from the original clip. This will lay the distortion completely bare.
i think quality depends more on what codecs you use FLAC, and Monkey
audio are two lossless codec if i were you i would encode all my files first to wav and the use FLAC or monkey audio to encode them into mp3s
I got it right but only with my earphone. The first clip sounded smoother, and i could hear that the second clip was missing some details compared to the first one. That made the second sound less smooth. Perhaps the quality doesn’t matter so much if you are not using good earphones, audio sources or any other audio devices.
With what you hear is as important as the encoding.
Good monitors and/or good headphones help you find the difference.
This test is fraudulent. This is an old poorly recorded sound-clip, there are ambient noises, hums, distortions, and ‘tinny’ cymbals typical of poor recordings. As such the higher bitrate better depicts these recording flaws and results in a recording that doesn’t sound as good as the lower bitrate. I am little shocked that some couldn’t hear a difference, but there are a lot of damaged ears out there in this modern age, remember folks keep speakers outside of your ears; )
i didnt read the whole thread so sorry if some one has already said this.
It depends what you are using the music for, if its for a home stereo 100-200watt then the drop in quality should be barely noticeable and nothing really to worry about (unless you are a purest then 320 should sound virtually like cd to the naked ear).
If you are going into larger out puts on your systems then you will notice. If you are using for professional use i would say anything above 1000 watts and you will start to notice a lack of clarity and slight faded sound. If you use 5000 watt or above it will sound absolutely horrible.
Imagine a Jpeg reduced to a photograph size and then printed on to a large poster, will look crystal clear if kept at its compressed size but all pixelly and weird if it is expanded
I encode my cd to wma format 1410kbps know it’s crazy but with a home theater activating the function “virtual ” dolby systems. listening to the song fine
ya you can tell the difference if you are a sound nut. Its small but different. you just have to learn how to listen better. For a second when i was switching back and forth between the two sounds i thought, i dont tell the difference, but then i payed attention and realized i was trying to “look” at the music with my eyes, and not listen with my ears. It takes practice to exercise that “muscle”. But once you do, you will ‘see’>hear the 320 as “warmer” and less forced/grainy. If you dont hear a difference it is because you dont have a sick obsession with sound.
The first is obviously the 320… oh and can you tell me what song this is?
The second one is the 128kbps version – I can tell because of the hihats, they sound liquidy and undefined in the second one. The compression artifacts are noticeable.
OK GUYS… I TELL ABOUT THE DIFFIRENCE OF 128 AND 320 BIT RATE…. IF YOU ARE LISTENING IN YOUR HEADSET OR EARPHONE, YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY THE DIFFERENCE… 128 BIT RATE SONGS CANNOT HOLD A HIGH VOLUME UNLIKE IN 320 BIT RATE… TRY IT IN PLAYING IN A HOME THEATER OR ANY LOUD SPEAKERS WITH A HIGH VOLUME… SO YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE DIFFIRENCE… EMAIL ME FOR MORE INFORMATION….
I could tell from the shaker that the second was 128. I first realised the quite substantial difference between 128 and 320 when I started DJing with mp3s: depending on the original recording, the hi-hats are always more crisp in a 320.
good test, thanks, not as obvious as you would think given the difference between the numbers, a lot of this is just to get people to buy more expensive hifi equipment im sure, i put it to anyone to find a difference between 256Kbps and 320Kbps.
At first I thought #2 might be 320, but I quickly reminded myself NOT to be fooled by loudness, cuz #2 is just plain noiser than #1. When listening for depth & presence, I eventally chose #1.
That’s bad-ass. See, I worried for a while because I bought music at 128 kbps, thought I had messed up big time, but turns out, there’s really not all that much of a difference anyway. So if I can, I will always shoot for 320 kbps, but if necessary, 128 won’t kill me. If those were really encoded the way you said they were, then this is a genius test.
I could not tell which was better (at simple netbook with low fi audio).
I felt like there was a slight hint of difference, but not big enough to pick a winner. I just guessed and got it wrong.
Normally, when listening to something like trance, with lots of high frequencies, the difference is beyond obvious.
I feel like this audio didn’t come from a master with very good highs in it. Eg. the muffled cymbals in both tracks – which usually are THE dead give away (when one is muffled and the other isn’t). It simply means that the original didn’t have much high in it.
To compare 320k to 128k, the song should have at least 320k worth of frequency to it. Otherwise it’s not a real comparison.
I would re-do the test with something that has loud and clear high frequencies that go well beyond what 128k can reproduce. I bet the results will be different.
its a trap! they are both the same.
there is a noticeable difference between 320 vs (any lower bitrate) in highs. if you think your ears are untrained; set up a stereo system on max and play a low bitrate file then, a 320 file. you should be able to hear the difference then.
well, maybe in this song is no difference, but in one that cymbals (of drums) are more “pronunced” there´s a lot of difference, for example in rock, hard rock or heavy.
Where you will hear the difference between a 128kbp track and a 320kbp is on a PA sound system.
128 is unplayable pretty much on a larger system as it exposes the compression.
On cheaper smaller lower quality hi-fi it is hard to tell the difference.
I ended up binning all my earlier purchased 128 tracks once I realised this. Call me a music snob but I prefer to buy recordings that resemble how the artist would want you to heart them.
these days I buy WAVS only.
Compression is only necessary if you don’t have the bandwidth or diskspace – for that reason compressing audio tracks will soon be a thing of the past as disk space and internet usage becomes cheaper.
Cheers.
Adam
I noticed right away on my ghetto speakers that come on my computer screen. Nice test.
If you aren’t using high-end sound systems/headphones, then I doubt that you would notice the difference; there is a difference, though.
I heard the difference quite clearly and chose right – but without a really good Sound System the files are really sounding the same.
Yeah but the problem is that it has to be encoded into 320 from the main source, you can convert a 128 kbps into a 320 kbps track through a converter but all that will do is take up extra space and still keep the quality at the same level
I think this is a good point.
It makes sense that 320 kbps quality can only be heard if you record it at 320 kbps from the main CD or DVD source directly.
If you are converting something that was originally 128 kbps to 320 kbps, it just doesn’t work.
Correct me if I am wrong please.
yep, right on the button
Contrary to a lot of the comments, this is one of the easiest ABX tests I have taken. Clip 1 immediately sounded much more “full”. This is just from a Soundblaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio directly to Shure SRH440 cans.
It may not be very noticeable for all types of songs and especially at low/normal volumes. I find that in my car, I achieve louder volume limits with higher bit-rate music and that the higher bit-rate music does not break up and become distorted at louder outputs.
I could tell the difference the first time I listened to them.
This particular test is easy, especially if you know what to listen to.
This is with cheap integrated audio (at work) & PL30 in-ear phones.
160-192kbps & beyond, however – I can’t tell the difference at all, with this setup.
128kbps MP3 is insufficient in some cases (can’t honestly say most cases). I bet Vorbis and AAC could do much better at this bitrate.
Hi,
There is a blog post that also claims that one can achieve higher compression preserving the quality:
http://blog.sevana.fi/optimize-bitrate-and-size-preserving-high-audio-quality-in-tracks-podcasts-tunes-with-aqua-wideband/
I believe it’s possible as humans may not percept over 22kHz, besides actual perception depends at least on a human (age, hearing, training etc) and surrounding – in a car I get car noise in the street – street noise and even my PC produces extra noise that provides impact to the overall quality.
I use FLAC for all the tracks I rip, so I don’t have to worry about lossy quality tracks.
clip 2 is a little bit harsh, i listened it with my grado.
Actually there is a difference, one is slightly crisper and clearer. I’m a musician and it took me a minute to hear the difference so don’t feel bad if you couldn’t.
what I wanna know, is what song that is! also, yeah its kinda obvious for someone who has listened to both 320 and 128
Cymande -Brothers On The Slide
Obvious diff if you got a semi decent pair of headphones
I can’t sing and can’t play any instruments. Matching some sounds to notes is impossible to me. But i got the difference the second i played the second clip. But to be honest i have a X-Fi Titanium and Sennheiser HD 558 headphones so…
I wonder what results we would get if you test between 128, 900, and 1400 (MP3/AAC, FLAC, and PCM)
This whole MP3 thing was initially about storage space, and the fact that this was the format chosen to sell songs online. Realize that the original CD you have there at home plays at 400-900 kbs, or 5-7 megs per minute of music. Compressing these files made downloading viable, although sound quality is thrown out the window. It’s one thing to use desktop speakers for playback, but if you have real Hi-Fi equipment and are routing music through an external D/A converter, then you must use the Lossless or Wave format or the sound difference will be extremely different….in a bad way. Don’t worry about loading your Ipod with music…it will do the formatting for you and the originals in the computer will stay intact.
It took me a few seconds to tell which was which, even though I’m in my late forties and have hearing loss.
Where I did have trouble was in deciding whether the difference really mattered. I listened to them repeatedly but gave up: neither sounded anywhere near what I would expect from CD. The claim by many sellers that 320 kbps is CD-quality is dishonest “marketing speak”.
The Perfect Music For Sound Quality Test is The Eagles – Hotel California
I found fun that i heard more mic noise in the 2nd and it appeared clearer to me… for this reason i tough it was the 2nd one… but its not really the type of music to compare, the recording is already kind of bad in itself and dont really use a large dynamic range of frequence…
Took me about 5 listenings for each clip, but then I got it correct. Stil not sure if it would be worth the extra storage space.
Too easy! It took slightly longer for clip #1 to buffer
The 2nd one has to be the 320 one because it took longer to load. Can not tell a difference other than that, they sound the exact same. 128 files are a third of the size of 320 ones, so to me 128 files are better.
Can you please tell the song’s name and the artist too?
The artist is Cymande a U.K band from the early 70′s – The track is the ‘message’ and one of the weaker tracks on the album, but cool they most certainly are
peace ….
I picked the higher quality file without even looking at the buffer time ha ha.
You can hear the first one is a bit louder and the sound is played at more levels.
[...] is a comment by ProDigit in response to Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? [...]
there’s totally a difference. also, way to go with the Cymande tunes.
Noobs, don’t do the test unless you have HQ speakers or headphones. You won’t hear any difference with bad speakers, but you will hear a huge one with good ones.
guys,
it all comes down to the source quality. How can one compare two 128 or 320 kbs samples of cr@p quality source sound bite. useless !
I use $250 headphones and the difference is MINIMAL. Most of you guys definitely are lying. Only 47% got it right. The sample isn’t very good for comparing 128 and 320 anyway because there’s like 3 instruments and the recording isn’t phenomenal. Try some correctly recorded classical music or rock, and there will be a difference (not huge still… you guys should check the dictionary for the meaning of huge, seriously).
What about the difference between 256kbps AAC vs 320 MP3? Can someone tell me pros n cons?
320 kbps makes sense only in metal & hard rock..
This clip here was blues.. which do involve less sound from instruments hence even on a lower bitrate they sound almost same..
but u can tell the difference in rock which make heavy use of distortion & drumming…
i too like u had all my songs in 128 kbps.. then had to convert to 320 kbps & then to FLAC format to gain a richer music experience…
FLAC & APE although having bigger file-size are a treat to the ears & sometimes u can also hear some background sounds unnoticed before!!!
whats with all the noobs posting spoilers jeez!
Okay I have an HD 555 (not your avg headphone) and a Titanium HD (high end sound card)
and I cannot hear the difference…I don’t call myself an audiophile but I do like great sound and both sounded the same. I guess i don’t have trained ears.
I picked the 320, but it was not way better than the 128 which has more votes! The more sound sources you have in a song the more bitrate is better. Your typical song is vocals, percussion (drums), strings (lead / rhythm guitar & bass) & piano/keyboard. So 5/6 sources & 128kb/s is enough even 112kb/s, with less sources say just vocals & guitar it’s fine at 96 or 80 be cause it actually has more bitrate allocated to it’s sources than the 5/6 at 128.
It’s when you get to music played by orchestras with dozens of sources that more bitrate doesn’t downgrade it. Usually 256 is enough, people go on about 320 just because it’s the highest setting. If there was 480 they’d say that was best rate.
I even heard it with my laptop speakers, with my actual sound system its way more easy. I normaly listen to well mastered house music, and I can tell if its 320 or 128 at the first beat. It really makes a different, but the audio source (youtube or cd..) is way more important.
MP3 is garbage. Always rip to flac or another lossless codec. I convert my flac to 320 mp3 for convenience but if you are going to take the time to rip a collection of cds why not do it right and have a lossless archive.