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 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
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
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; )
With what you hear is as important as the encoding.
Good monitors and/or good headphones help you find the difference.
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.
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 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.
[…] subconscious will substitute what it knows your supposed to be hearing from memory […]
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.
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.
Just comment:
This music is quite “simple” for this test. Try to do the same with some of Infected Mushroom songs.
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.
Weak entropy + low frequency music = little perceptible loss regardless of the bitrate.
Try the same with a polyphonic choir.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
I usually use 196kbps when ripping with Winamp. Good balance between quality and size.
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.
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.
very nice test, I chosed the right option
fake ass! i did the same as you did with my cd’s!
320kbps sounds always better! 😉
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…
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. 😉
flac= wav files?
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
almost no diffrence.
Headset : Sennheiser pc350
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)
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
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.
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.
I listened to these on a high-end hifi stereo and the 1st track sounded a bit better
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…
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 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!
The samples are not good for the test. They don´t seem to have the frecuencies often “affected” by mp3 compression.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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