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.
Kind of irrelevant, considering most people are going to play both clips from laptop speakers, and pretty much anyone would be hard-pressed to tell the difference when the sound is coming from two tinny little tweeters.
Put it through a real system and the difference becomes more apparent.
easy, slow connection, high bitrate will load slower
I disagree with the idea of which sounds “better”. In the above example the 128K file sounds better because the original file was probably not mixed properly (yes, it may well have been a “professional” recording) and had an over abundance of high end.
I think “better,” in this case, is referring to accuracy. The trouble is that some people have worked out ways to make less-accurate compressions sound more appealing to certain groups. However, this website was apparently started by people more interested in realism and subtlety than in pop-style mixes. But make no mistake – 128 kbps has far less potential for accuracy as compared to 320.
If 128k mp3 sounds fine to you…
than use it.
Whats the argument?
All music loses something when compressed…
whether it can be detected by the human ear is totally
subjective – dependent on hundreds of variables.
[…] LPwannabe – I used to think that audio files were basically a collection of snapshots of a spectrum analyzer with various frequencies at various levels. Then I realized, That isn’t how audio works! […]
I listened to the bass(?) or low sounding instrument and clip#2 sounded “flatter”. It does depend on what you’re using to listen to these clips of course, a $10 headphone or low quality sound driver on your computer isn’t really going to make much distinction.
Actually I can’t hear. But I use Adobe Audition to view its spectrum.
on clip 2, right between 5-6s in you can hear a noticable artifact – on my midrange $40 AKG phones.
I couldn’t tell the difference but it seemed like the age of the recording ruled me out.
I don’t know who it is but I was listening for what is usually a give-away to lower quality encoding – percussion. The hats & cymbals sound like they’re from the 70’s. Low-fi, pretty ordinary sound, relatively.
But I didn’t think those aspects of the recording were good enough in this piece to start with. I mean, the hats (& snare) sound basically crap in both because that’s how they were recorded.
I would like to try it again with something recorded this century.
Hey i have some music files in FLAC format and i want to send them to my iphone, but im not able to do so, can anyone help??
Use fre:ac (free audio converter) or foobar2000 (free player and converter) to convert your FLACs to a proper format for your iPhone (MP3 or AAC).
Convert them into ALAC format if you want to maintain the flac quality ..
I could tell the difference with my Sennheiser HD 25-1 II 🙂 WOOHOO
It makes sense that 320 is better than 128. I rip all my CDs at 128… Why? Because I only listen to music in my car with lots of ambient noise. If I was to be sitting at home with an expensive pair of headphones or a great 2 channel sound system, I would rip at 320. I can’t see myself wasting money on the storage to bother with 320… The sound difference really is minimal to the majority…
i chose correctly but it was kinda a giveaway because clip 1 wouldn’t play without ‘rebuffering’ so was obviously the larger file….
I am an Audiophile and a Heavy Metal & Classical music lover, there IS certainly a difference between a 320 vs a 128, heck even a 192… Try listening to a Rock song with lots of Hi-Hats & Crash cymbals in it, the difference is clearly audible, not only that, 320k sounds fuller and crisper, mids and lows are defined whilst a 128k is suppressed & distorted only a complete noob would tell that there is no audible differences, common sense would tell you that a 320k file stores more sound information than a 128k… it takes hearing practice though, besides, of course you gotta have some high-quality Speakers/headphones to fully appreciate a 320k encoded music file. Storage media prices has been plumetting for the past several years (including the ipod Classic), I don’t think there are still reasons not to encode your files at 320.
Anyway you do hear a “glitch” in the compression of the 128 kbps file between 0:05 and 0:06 that is really noticable… i don’t know how most people didnt hear it..
seriously, the original sound cr@ppy (the recording), its really not the kind of recording to see a difference…
I’ve tried voice cancellation and find out that clip #1 has a neat sound better than clip #2.
Well i do work with professionally with sound systems and for me it was rly easy to pick the 320 track even on a simple steelseries siberia gaming headset at low volume. There is more detail to a higher resolution sound. This gets alot more obvius if u aplifie it more and use a system that can reproduse sound on a lager frequency range. For those of u in doubt try it agian using a pair os simple homestudio nearfiled monitors like KRK, Alesis, Genelec or so you will defenetly hear the difrence.
Why no comment on ripping @ Joint Stereo VBR-0- best of all worlds, to my understanding, as the software only uses the space it needs to reproduce the music accurately? Am I wrong here? Is there any music that truly needs ALL of the 320 kbps to be reproduced accurately? I have my EAC set to this setting and it always sounds wonderful. Feedback encouraged.
FYI- NCH Software Switch Sound Converter a nice piece of software for conversion between formats if you so desire. Has alot of options, including FLAC to Joint Stereo VBR-0.
At 0:05 the 320kbps and the 128kbps have great diffrence
FLAC all the way 🙂
Pretty easy to identify from the maracas which got bad at 128 kbit. However, this illustrates how the differences are subtle and almost never as in-your-face as some claim. Both clips were enjoyable.
The second one is the better one, it is the 320K version.
It isn’t the bitrate, you need to encode your Mp3s good. Just download some electronic or Drum n Bass on iTunes, or Torrent it and tell which is better sounding…
My compact discs sound incredible, the ORCHESTRA & CHORUS at full throttle from the bombastic to the serene, only $2000.00 Legacy speakers. MP3 downloads, while adequate 320 kbs, sound etiolated in comparison.
Possibly my ears are fussy or just better accustomed to ‘the old fashioned way’ of listening to quality music.
wow i played this through my bose headphones and it was clear to me on the first playthrough which one was the higher bitrate, it sounded as if the maracas were being played right next to me
Listen to Artist “above & beyond” album ” group therapy” at 320kbs you cant tell the difference sounds so crisp just perfect sound listen please!
haha it is easy!! of course the first one is 320kbps. u can tell the difference through the vocals and positioning. the vocal depth in the first clip is a little bit laidback compared to other instrument and is more airy and spacious. the second clip’s seperation is not good enough compared to the first one. and lastly, of course it can be found that the first clip’s sound is more solid. CMIIW
Depends on how the song was recorded. The samples here are extremely compressed, its a very flat tune dynamically so naturally it is very difficult to tell the difference. To me the 128k clip sounds better because the high frequency sounds better – I’m guessing the encoder has some high frequency compensation scheme and since the original audio was heavily compressed its actually making it sound better. With the levels of compression most recordings have I usually can’t detect a difference between 192k and FLAC. Listening to live drums (I’m a lead guitarist) it always amazes me how much better they sound than in recordings – actually being able to hear the characteristics of each cymbal and how a good drummer uses them to accent different parts of the music is really cool. I hope one day the loudness war subsides.
I know I’m way late to this, but I just want to point out how wrong this is in relation to the clips in the sample. I downloaded them (after doing the test myself, of course)and looked at them in a wave editor, and they have a really good dynamic range. That DR meter application gives a dynamic range rating of 13 dB. This compared to music that’s too loud often getting a rating of 5-7. It should be pretty easy to tell it’s not that loud compared to most other music you’ll probably listen to on your computer, so this comment is quite a surprise to me. ReplayGain gives the 320 a change of -1.62 dB and the 128 a -1.55 dB. Seriously, it’s not that loud. And that’s part of what makes the 128 sound so good; it’s tougher to encode highly dynamic range compressed music than stuff that actually behaves naturally.
The encoder was evidently ACID Pro 6.0’s, so nothing special there. I don’t think there exists such a high frequency compensator for MP3.
TBH just go and use .FLAC files. From experiance i know 320kbs is better. It simpley has more channels. The music is mabye not better ‘quality’ but there is more of it, if that makes sense. It doesn’t chop of as much of the high/low end sound meain it is closer to what the artist intended. The best exapmle i have found is Gold Dust by Flux Pavilion. The difference between 192kbs and 320kbs is noticable, let alone down to 128kbs.
No it doesn’t make sense. What is “more channels”??
It depends on the song, and what instruments/frequencies are in the music. That’s why people sometimes use variable bit rates too, because at moments during a song where there’s more going on, you need a higher quality.
Even though I voted correctly, there’s less going on in your example track. That’s what makes it a lil more difficult to tell. If it were ripped with a variable bit rate (depending on the settings) that part of the song could just as well have been 128, but at the climax, could have been closer to 320.
Also, 128 is more compressed, so people can be duped into thinking its “better” quality because things that are supposed to be more quiet in dynamic are louder inherently, but that is not how the artist intended the song to sound.
You’re confusing data compression with dynamic compression. There is no dynamic compression inherent to the mp3 process.
The full range of audible amplitudes is reproduced transparently even at low bit rates.
Compressing the dynamics would make hardly any difference to the file size compared to reproducing less high frequency information. But the audible differences in such a dynamically-compressed would be very apparent. Therefore the encoders don’t do it.
CD’s are and always have been encoded at 128kbps because anything over 128kbps is undetectable by the human ear. I came across this website cuz I just downloaded a 3 CD album that was encoded at 320 kbps and I was searching “why do people encode music at a higher bitrate than 128kbps”. I think its all in your head if you think it sounds better. Besides… any mp3 file ripped from a cd is maxed out at 128 so unless you encode at a higher bitrate directly from the studio (which they don’t even do at studios, I’ve been there) its basically like ripping a dvd on to your computer and burning it onto a blu-ray and then going on to say that your blu-ray is better quality than your dvd.
128kbs MP3’s are aprox. 11 times smaller than the CD version. How can that be the same quality?
Man, where did you get this revolutionary information from? Every word you’ve written is completely wrong and proves you have absolutely no idea about the topic!
CDs have tracks encoded in PCM (lossless) which means they run with full bitrate for an uncompressed 16-bit, 44.1kHz stereo audio. So multiply these numbers (16 bits x 44100 times per second x 2 channels) and you’ll get the correct birate (1411200bps = 1411.2kbps). Can you see the difference? I bet you can, even if you don’t understand it.
Now:“anything over 128kbps is undetectable by the human ear”. Please, enlight me with some proof of that statement. First you’re totally mistaking coding of uncompressed audio with compressed one, then you say people can’t tell 128kbps from anything above this. Well, some of them certainly can’t, but many will. Only 320kbps MP3s are recognized as practically undistinguishable from the digital uncompressed source even by audiophiles in PBX tests.
And finally: CDs can be ripped in any bitrate — up to 320kbps for MP3s and original 1411.2kbps for wave files. It all depends on your ripping software and codec settings. Go and grab a good ripping app (Exact Audio Copy or fre:ac will do the job perfectly), then share your golden thoughts.
BTW, I don’t know what studio you’ve been to, but either it was run by as lame pros as you are, or you haven’t noticed they can record in much higher audio resolutions that conventional Audio CD can’t even handle, like 24bit, 192kHz sampling used for Blu-ray uncompressed soundtracks.
Please read some facts before posting misleading cr@p.
Gotta high 5 ya for explaining all that. I’m a studio engineer and record at 24bit 44.1. I could record at a higher resolution and sample rate, but only if I’m bouncing that onto a DVD. If your into film you going to up in the high bit rate for sure, for audio.
Either you’re a professional troll, or you truly had no clue what on earth you were talking about here.
CD’s aren’t “encoded” at 128kbps. They’re not really “encoded” at all other than to convert the analogue voltage input to digital 1’s and 0s that represent the same waveform. This is completely different from MP3 encoding which is based on lossy data compression
Wow. Just….. wow.
I heard both, and if to switch between the two of them every 2 senconds, you’ll see that there’s obviously a better quality especially in the drums of the 320Kbps one. That’s what made me answer correctly. In fact, for me there’s a noticeable difference, that’s why i’ll stick with 320 😉
I must have lead ears, or my 200$ head-phones aren’t as good as I thought they were, but I can’t tell the difference between the two at all. They sound identical to me.
Everything depend on the sound source, 128k reprensent the amount of byte used to encode the sound for a given time line. most of time 128kb is enough to record every frequency at the time without some lost. sometime when soud become more rich ( heavy metal ) more bitrate ( 320kb ) it more suitable to record everuy frequency without loss. it easyer to notise the bitrate diference with a black metal song that with a smooth music song. more the frequency at at time is presend more the bitrate is need to record the song without loss.
It’s funny how most people are wrong when answering this, they say the 128kbps is more clear, Mp3s remove frequencys from the file that we cant hear anyway like above 20khz and below 20hz i think
Actually the ear(wave to brain neural activity) can only decipher one frequency at a moment in time but a CD holds all frequencies for a given moment in the recorded music.
MP3 using an algorithm will remove the frequencies that the algorithm result says the human ear(wave to brain neural activity) will not hear(brain neural activity) given all frequencies that will be present for the ear to hear in that moment in the music.
how can i find all 320kbps mp3 files at once?
In 320kbps, the sound is more clearer and accurate. 128kbps have the same sound of the 320k stream, but some distortion is perceived in certain instruments. So, 320k sounds better.
Listening to the two files, it was easy to see that the first file was 320. I did not have to listen to the second file to know this, within seconds I knew because everything was clear, even the cymbals were crystal clear, which would never happen with the 120 file.
When I heard the second file–very muffled.
I can always tell when when song is encoded in 128kpbs. Those songs have a lot of treble and distortion, low bass, which gets worse the higher one turns up the volume. 320kpbs files sound better and better the more the volume is turned up. As far as space is concerned, yes 320 encoded songs can take up to three times more space, but If you are a music fan, space is not a factor, being that space is so cheap nowadays. I mean, you can buy a 200 gigabyte hard drive for not a lot of money. Space is not an excuse as far as I’m concerned to settle for poor sounding music. Actually, I consider 128, and anything under 192, to be almost not worth listening to. The truth is 128, and similarly like low bit rates, sound terrible!
Go with 320, for sure.
There is no difference in the low frequencies. You can measure this if you like but it’s a mathematic certainty.
Maybe theoretically there’s no difference in the low frequencies, but if you listen to music with a lot of bass, it will sound “off” at a lower bitrate. Especially when you’re young and your hearing ability is better. It’s the reason I once switched to 320kbps ripping. (At that age nobody around me even cared about music, so my reasons were genuine).
Either way, I do think this test is a really good initiative, as it shows that 320kbps isn’t really necessary for all types of music and that it differs less and less the older you get.
The original is pretty lo-fi and will not illustrate the difference well.
sorry, 128kbps.
I hate mp3 at 120kbps. It appear ‘flanging’ effect in certain parts of the music and the sound lose quality in high frequencies. 320k sound better.
Yes is better than 128kbps,but if you extract 128 to 320,thats not better
ya, found it
Cymande – Brothers On The Slide
good stuff
Is there an application that I can use to change 128 Kps tracks to 320 Kps, besides riping.
No.
No. You will just make it worse by doing so.
The only thing that would do is take up unneeded space, there would be no quality gain (to counter, there would also be no quality loss in comparison to original MP3).
Every time you transcode you lose fidelity. It doesn’t matter the bitrate. MP3 is lossy by nature. So you would have 32kbs but worse fidelity than the orignal 128kbps rip.
*320
I have music in 128 & 320 and iv done my test but what you need in a high end stero and let it blast…Then you really can tell the difference…It much richer sound…Try On your Torrent site..Down Load say zz Top in 128 Then find a remastered copy at 320 then there will be no more questions asked yes 320 is better
Comparing a remastered copy with the original relase isn’t fair. Maybe you’re hearing the extra effort put into the remastering?
You can use Adobe Audition.
Interesting Ranko. I’d like to know of this program since compressing a file down to a 128 Bit rate REMOVES all the bells and whistles in order to save in a puny little portable package. Unless it can be “zipped” open (I dunno) and restored back to wav codec, the tune is pretty much FUBAR’d.
My 52y/o ears using $16 earphones clearly heard the difference in the 128 -vs- 320 bitrate compression. The 128kbs was dull and lack luster. Wasn;t even a tune that I like; but could have learned to like it at the quality 320kbs bit rate.
Nice test.
If anyone knows of a program that will convert downloaded peer to
peer Mp3’s at 128kbs bit rates back to high quality Mp3 or WAV or FLAK codec I would really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Rebecca
[email removed]
This was pretty easy in my opinion even with sucky headphones. The 128kbps one definitely has distorted cymbals and percussion sounds. The 320kbps on the other hand sound much more crisp, natural sounding, and the soundstage seemed wider.
Don’t mean to sound mp3 snobbish and from what i have read your friend may actually be one but just try a little experiment. If you listen to dream theater or any band of that ilk then first encode it in 92 kbps (don’t listen to it yet), then encode the same song in 192 kbps and then in 320 kbps. Even if you can’t hear properly the difference will be obvious. The cymbals, hi-hats and instruments in that frequency will lose their clarity in the 92 kbps and 192 kbps ones but will sound much better in the 320 one. Most important of all will be the loss of sound definition and focus. Kinda like when we hear a song in a stadium and in an open space it sounds different. Though not literally so much out here. Try it and see or in this case hear for yourself. Oh and if you are not into loud music then try it on Kesha’s song ‘Tik tok’. You will certainly find that the chorus isn’t as punchy as when listening to it on a higher bitrate as the drums and the cymbals lose their clarity and you don’t need a hifi stereo to notice it. No offence to anyone but some songs aren’t made to be heard on lower bitrates or maybe even mp3s.
Wouldn’t converting mp3 audio to flac sound better in a decent sound system,and sorry i’m not an expert on digital music i prefer good old vinyl,but although i tried it several times its randomised IMHO.i guessed correctly 7 of 8 times using cheap headphones
Well, For the first I heard, both of them sound same but I again listenned to them and I found 320 bitrate(#2 clip) was better because the drum sound more sharp and clear at the second clip!
But #2 is the 128kbps one.
lol, that makes me laugh.
I think its randomized, which makes sense, because it was #1 for me.
Hi,
It depends on the use of the audio (obviously); for example:
If at a low amplitude the errors tend to cause resonance in the speak at a frequency beyond our hearing range.
However, if played on powerful speakers, line-arrays for example, the greater amplictude causes lower frequency resonance in the speaker which is noticeable.
Try it yourself: if you have a pair of high power rated speakers listen to both 128 and 320 at both high and low amplitudes; at low amplitude they should sound the same (ish), but at higher amplitudes distortion will be heard first on the lower bit rate 128 track.
George
Have to second that. Try listening to 128 versus 320 kbps Dance/Electronic music. And yes, your speakers completely matter. With quality speakers, and 320kbps music encoded from a quality source, I can pick out new things I never heard before. Try it!
Wrong. Impossible, to be exact. As the differences between bitrates occur in the higher frequencies, what you are proposing contradicts the basics of wave theory.
Not necessarily. The amount of “depth” you hear in a low-frequency note is dependent on the amount of overtones you hear in the high-frequency range.
Even a lower frequency sound at 100hz may have a resonant overtone or sympathetic frequency at even harmonics from the base frequency. For example when you pluck an A string you are also inducing subtle vibrations into the instrument that resonate at the 440 hz and at others such as 880, 1320 and 1760 hz. This is also known as sympathetic vibration. When the A string is oscillating these frequencies are “excited” and those within the 20hz to 20khz range of human hearing are very much noticable to many people, especially trained musicians. This is the “depth” in which true audiophiles refer to and much of this is lost in digital. It’s not as apparent in a beat box situation nor in a-lot of POP music but listen to music with melody, harmony and rythem put together such as an orchestra or a good multi instrument band with non-digital instruments and you too will notice an appreciable difference, AND the quality of the sound systems your listening to also plays a big part.
Spot on dude! I would have to say as someone who has spent the last decade “playing” wiht audio, video, IT, and Comms that you are 100% correct. 320kbps should be the standard. However, believe it or not, 33’s and 45’s sound better in many instances. (My father has proved it to me. lol)
Great overview dude. Kudos.
so put another test up…
this time make it test tones at varying frequencies…
start at 20hertz, and work up to 20k… (each tone again at 128 and 320)
I am so glad my hearing still works. I was expecting the first audio clip to be at 128 kbs. I just assumed it was, but after listening… I went with the correct choice. So my 52 year old ears did not fail me. Now, how many young rap lovers would appreciate the difference ?
A wonderful test. I am a trained musician, so this was fun.
It was a 50/50 chance if you made a complete guess [removed].
Well,
I’m a DJ who uses Technic 1200s and Serato SL3. I spin hip-hop, soul, R&B, etc all the time and my 21 year old ears did just fine. Thanks for the ignorant comment though; it’s always nice when people generalize your mental faculty based on your taste in music.
Your “Mental Faculty” seems intact. Considering that he made no jabs at anybody’s intelligence. He was referring to hearing loss, a problem known to DJ professionals. As well as having good enough hearing to hear it at 21 is not special. Having this at 52 IS something special.
He was stating that people who listen to their music at dangerously loud volumes (which young people tend to do when listening to Rap music) their hearing at age 52 will not be anything close to what he has.
We can all tell David’s “Mental Faculty†is intact but it seems like Sherrif is starting to unhinge. Maybe if you did some research and broadened your taste in music a bit, you would soon realize that being professional DJ/producer is an occupation that requires you to be able to differentiate between 128 and 320 kbps. Why I wasted my time with someone so simple-minded….who knows.
p.s. if you were the “sherrif(f) of my town” i wouldn’t hesitate to shoot you…but i did not shoot the deputy
Well said David, I don’t listen to rap yet find Thomas’ comment quite ignorant even though it’s not aimed at me.
Here is what it (((sounded))) like to me… “young” “rap-lovers” can’t appreciate lossless quality sound like a “trained musician” comparing Rap listeners ability to hear to that of a “trained musician.” Nothing to do with dj’s exposure to noise… but if it was the case, as covered before on this thread at higher amplitude speakers/volume one is able to more easily differentiate the quality of music files. He may have a case if he says as a “trained musician” he has access to better speakers but at that point he’s just being a [removed]. But lets not get ahead of ourselves and put words in the mans post Sherrif…
I’m a teen who loves pop, dubstep, classical, you name it. But I’m also a well seasoned musician. I play the horn and violin. Because of my ears, I got it right as well. It was pretty clear to me. So, I would appreciate the difference. 🙂
The only difference is the file size… (lolz)
Anyway, I bet you will notice very different sound when you compare the 128 one with the 64 one…
sry, but I hear it
Yeah there’s definitely a difference, and I don’t even have good quality speakers. It just has a much crisper sound. (:
Yeah, you need a high-end headphones + amplifier to feel the differences.
No. You don’t need “better” sound equipment. It probably can have the opposite effect. Most (like 99%) people can’t hear the difference between a 256 kbps MP3 and the original CD, vinyl or master tape.
nah, you just need to turn up the volume to hear the extra noise and harshness
the only difference is what you’re listening to your music with – on high end gear you can hear the difference between a factory and a copied CD. mp3’s totally harsh the music but for casual listening most people don’t notice and if they did they don’t care. the convenience is pretty much worth while, but I’d keep the originals for the time when you become a listener as opposed to just listening. (I’d go 256k at least since storage is cheap) (I know I’m late to the party but who cares)
I don’t know what you’re copying your CDs with, but if you do it properly you’re going to get a 1:1 copy of the original- You simply won’t be able to tell the difference, because there is no difference.
If you CAN hear a difference, then you’ve copied it via the DAC/ADC processors, which will mess with the signal a bit and introduce some noise.
Buddy, I’ve got news for you, I’ve been listening to high end audio for close to forty years at times at decibels that would make your ears bleed and I can tell you there is definitely a difference. Audiophiles nowadays have given up so much for convenience IE space saving, pocket toting etc. you don’t experience the full sound spectrum put before you. The boom box buffoons driving around listening to the bass altering distortion pounding out of the trunk lid of their quasi-street ride haven’t the slightest idea of what true sound is. Turn the bass down and the treble up a little, balance it out with a decent eight or twelve band EQ and listen. REALLY LISTEN. There is definitely a difference.
So according to you, anyone with a car stereo above and beyond the factory one is a “baffoon”? I have a $20,000 plus home system (Lynn, ADS, and two 31 band EQ’s from HK). My car system is worth just over $10,000 (MB Quart, Image Dynamics and Nakamichi… OS PPI as well). While one obviously can’t get the acoustics inside of a car than one can in a well built sound room in a home… that doesn’t mean that my car system would probably blow away most people’s home stereos. $3000 was spent on damping alone, and many other mods were made for the sole purpose of sound quality. Although a much more intense challenge, a car can sound almost as good as any home system, given a dedication for months of preparation and modification. You sir, sound like an elitess snobster IMO, and your comment on turning the bass down and the treble up… I won’t even go near that one, HA HA. A system should be as neutral as possible, so if you like listening to music with “treble” blaring in your ears and a practicly non-existant low end then be my guest, but I’ll be happy happy joy joy with my Lynns and a 15 in a 5cuft monster that can only be described as bliss in a soundwave. Geez.
You may be an audiophile, but you know nothing about digital technologies. The factory copies a central DVD to make more. What’s the difference between you doing it and them? Well ripping it to an MP3, and burning it back may make a difference, but if you are cloning the disk, OR are ripping it to an ISO file, and burning it back, it will be exactly 1:1. If you share an MP3, and than that person shares that MP3, does it lose quality over time? No! You are copying the MP3, but it is DIGITAL! It is hashed! While tape, vinyl, and anything else analogue, this may be true, but for digital recordings like MP3’s, FLAC, AAC, or something like CD’s, they are all digital, and if done right, can be copied. Hell, you could make a copy of a copy of a copy, and repeat 100 times, and still sound the same, because each 16th bit is a hash of the ones before it for Error-Correction. This is why really scratched disks won’t play, but hairline scratches, or tons of little ones, it won’t make a difference in sound quality. There are redundancy, and error correction bits within the audio stream, so scratched disks won’t lose sound quality.
Hey. Technically if you rip it properly, and use lossless compression, there is mathematically no difference.
This video is very instructive:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
My computer has a very nice 7.1 system and it wasnt too difficult to distinguish the difference. Where it would be VERY noticeable is in my car. Even lowering to 256kbps is very noticeable in my car, so much so that if you have a tracklist that includes a lower quality track it will stand out like a sore thumb.
you guys dont notice because you are tone deaf. for exaple when you play a singing game and you cant tell the diference between the low pitch and high pitch and fail at it, its because you physically cant tell the difference. its more of the person than the equipment. there are other variables that jump right out that make it sound like junk such the symbols and other parts of the track that get lost as the quality deteriorates. one song i had had a violin in the background and i didnt notice until my friend played his which was a 320 kbps (cd quality) opposed to my 96 kbps. there is a huge difference even if you aren’t tone deaf there are things that you lose, another case was a backup guitar because the quality was that bad.
It was obvious which one was the 320kbps one compared to the 128kbps. At around 5 seconds one of them has this weird blip in the recording while the other one doesn’t. That was obviously the 128kbps one. However, just to tell you guys that unless you have decent headphones you most likely aren’t going to here a difference.
At 5s it’s evident. I couldn’t distinguish at first, but once you’ve learned that the trick is to listen to the little background sounds and not what’s in the forefront, it’s very evident. Setup: DT 880 @ Titanium HD
Exactly, i listen around 15 each other and the difference is kind obvious at 5s. Sennheiser hd 598
Yeahhhh, I notice a pretty huge difference. But that’s because I have a really good DAC and Etymotic mc3’s.
I listened to each file twice.
the first time through the speakers in the tv (I use a tv through hdmi as my monitor)
the second time I flipped the audio output to my home sound system.
the difference was immediately noticeable!
this brings to light something this test fails to consider: garbage speakers limit the quality of even the best sampling rates. quality speakers allow the sound to reach is full potential.
given your results, I would say most people have the run of the mill $50-$100 computer speakers (or they listened to each sample through their smart phones…)
if you listen to the song with high volume then you can find the difference