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 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.
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 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.
[…] 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 […]
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…
yaaaay! i got it right! but i agree.. the difference in quality is very little, really had to listen carefully.
[…] may also want to view the MP3 Sound Quality Test under: Audio, recordings Tags: featured, hearing test, sound challenge Did you REALLY […]
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.
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”.
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.
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!
[…] 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 […]
The one with the lower bitrate downloads faster 😉
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
I choose the clip 1, becoz it sounds better?
Answer: at least there r no some impure sounds behind =)
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.
“Oddly some recordings, “Back to Black†– Winehouse, for example, sound BETTER at a lower bit rate”
Really? Doesn’t winehouse sound a mess pretty much all of the time?
I 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.
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.
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 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.
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) 😛
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.
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.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index1.html
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.
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.
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.
[…] an interesting test: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/…-test-128-320/ […]
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 !
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.
I GUESSED IT RIGHT BUT YOU CAN OLY TELL IF YOU HAVE A GOOD SOUND CARD OR A SET OF GOOD HEADPHONES.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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 did not select the correct choice and I am not surprised. Your test is not properly randomized and I have virtually no experience with MP3. If I wanted to bias a test I would set the 320bps rate as the 1st selection as people will sub-consciously expect the lower rate to be 1st. I suspected this is what was dome before I made the selection. Secondly we naturally hear more detail on the second listen.
If you wanted to really do a correct comparison there would be 3 sample, 2 mp3 at different rates and one the actual .wav selection. These would be randomized on each iteration of the test and only the test program in the back ground would know which was which.
I 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!