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 hear it too. And it’s easier to tell after you listen to a song or an album for a few minutes. You suddenly realize how much better the music is sounding. Especially when you go from CD to any compression.
I picked the 320kbps clip, although it was pretty difficult. It was the drums that gave it away for me. The song was pretty basic though it didn’t have alot going on at any one time, so that probably made it harder. I imagine a rock song with constant guitars, bass, vocals and drums would be a better example.
I’m going to continue to archive with FLAC though, just because a new encoder for codecs releases pretty much every year that is more transparent and more effecient. By archiving in FLAC, I can keep converting if a more efficient lossless codec releases and not lose any quality.
Regardless of whether you’re listening to the music on [removed] speakers or you have really high quality equipment, there *is* a difference. You’d be especially prone to hear it if you listen to specific kinds of music (such as heavy metal). As technology progresses and becomes cheaper, you’ll want the higher quality rips because you’ll be exposed to the difference sooner or later.
No, I can’t tell the difference… most of the time.
However, that’s not really the point.
Is the OP and his friend ripping these mp3s just for listening purposes or for archival purposes?
I convert all my songs to -v2 or -v0 for listening purposes. The quality is rarely a problem and I can fit my entire library on to an ipod classic that way.
As for archiving my music, it is always lossless. In my case, FLAC. That way you can convert it to any flavor of the month or any end quality you want. As long as you have the original lossless quality files, do whatever you want for conversions. If some better lossless format comes around in the future, as I’m sure there will be, I can no doubt easily convert all my FLACs to the new format and be assured that my music will be as flawless as when I ripped it from the original CD decades back.
That’s what matters. Preserving the quality lineage. When you convert a 320/192/128 or any lossy format to ANYTHING else, you’re losing quality.
I have to laugh, as of this post 44,000 voted for clip 2 and 40,000 for clip 1…which means more voted for the 128 bit as sounding better!…Still this is what I’d expect…nearly half for each file, that is it’s basically all guess work at this stage 50/50 odds…I got it right but I can’t say for certain it wasn’t a guess and I’ve got good ears and listening thru decent AKG cups.
Hi.
I’m an audio enthusiast and I did some tests on various soundcards and headphones. I found that to be able to tell the difference between 128 and 320 you need most importantly a good sound card (iPod touch/classic works great), and after that good headphones or speakers.
The on-boad sound card on my Dell Inspiron couldn’t discern 128 and 320 whilst listening via a SoundBlaster soundcard on my desktop it was a dead giveaway. For headphones (specifically IEMs), I could tell with Etymotic HF5 and UE TF10, so you really need a top tier IEM to be able to tell. With UM Miracles (my only custom and the star of my collection) the difference was… shocking. Soundstage, clarity, detail and vocals+bass+treble are all penalised by 128kbps.. basically it sounds terrible. It’s much harder to tell with lower end headphones though – if you’re using Apple earbuds you might be able to tell if you listen specifically to cymbals – they sound a *tiny* bit toned down. Personally I have trouble telling the difference between 192 and 320, but anything below 192 I can tell immediately. It really depends on your equipment.
Here is a tip (not sure whether this will work with all listening equipment): Listen to the hi-hat, in the 128kbps clip it is muffled quite a bit. However with the 320kbps clip it is very crisp, same with the drums. You have to listen to individual sections, otherwise it will sound very much the same.
Apologies for unrelated post but WHAT IS THAT TUNE?! I know it and used to have it but can’t remember what it’s called for the life of me….driving me CRAZY!! Thanks in advance for any replies!
Artist: Cymande
Title: Brothers on the Slide
Album: Promised Heights (1974)
Most of this discussion was comparing 128 with 320kbps, although my question is comparing 256 vs 320. I’ve ripped all my music using 256 and sometimes even down coverted 320’s to 256 to save space. Now years later it seems a bit silly given how fast the prices of large disks have gone down, but still my own tests indicate that I can’t tell the difference. I’ve also tested a few friends and they also couldn’t tell the difference. I’m guessing that few people can, and then only if they are playing the music on high quality speakers/headphones. Has anyone tested this? I don’t really believe tests where the listener is told which files are which before the listening test. I think many people could be fooled into believing they can tell unless proven otherwise.
Thanks in advance for any insights you have on the topic.
~Paul
I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve rediscovered sounds I did not appreciate when listening to mp3s now that ALL my music collection is in .flac format. Anyways, as for mp3s, if you can’t tell the difference between 320 and 128 kbps you are probably due for a doctor’s appointment. The sound difference is astonishing.
You (yes YOU!) can easily hear the difference if you know what to listen for. In this track there is a rhythmic shaker to the left in the stereo spectrum. It’s just there in your left ear if you are wearing headphones. Listen to this shaker right after “which way you’re going” at 5 seconds. It shakes twice. (1 & 2 & 3 shake shake & etc.) At this exact point, the low quality track cuts the first “shake” short, maybe distorts it too, because it is too short/sharp of a sound to be reproduced accurately. In the high quality track however, it is just as smooth as all of the other “shakes.” Whether other elements of the track are affected is debatable, but I’m sure that you can find more examples if you listen close enough. My point is, if a difference that small bothers you, than go for higher quality. If it doesn’t bother you, than do what you want. Sometimes convenience of space and portability is a higher priority than sound quality. Personally I use .mp3s for convenience in space on my laptop and in my room at college, but when I come home it’s time to whip out the records and CDs. And FYI, when I’m listening to Coltrane play “Giant Steps,” or Vaughan Williams “Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis,” I’m not listening to the bit rate; I’m listening to the music.
-A jazz studies major.
Well, I personally hear the differnce quite well (with KRK Rokit 5 monitors). And I’m really wondering that most people like the 128 better – I guess that’s the habituation. Also it depends on which music you listen to…
But it always matters, when you want to play a track on a party (so you turn up the sound a lot more than usually). MP3 at 128 becomes a nightmare then.
Although I did pick the first one I had to play each one a couple of times to notice the difference. If I had headphones on and not listened to music all morning it would have been instant.
The song you picked is a horrible song for this test. I have done this test a bunch of times with 192kbs vs 320kbs (Mog vs Pandora) and there is a very noticeable particular with modern music.
I’m not sure how modern this song is but I newer songs do sound better and its probably because they were recorded with better equipment than a decade ago.
well you [hear] difference or not now try to compare 320kbps mp3 to over 1000kbps flac music 🙂
The sound is nearly identical because that recording has no HIGHS
I could barely tell the difference up until the drums at the end, the 320kbps sounded a lot better at that point.
Hard to really tell. Got it right coz I use high quality speaker. The difference is very slim. I needed to listen about 3-4 times to make sure. There are a few notes that are smoother on the 320 kbps, somewhere in the middle of the sound clip. Otherwise it would not be noticeable.
I took the test again after a page reload – I could hear the difference at the last seconds on the drums.
My hearing is messed up from cranking car stereo’s (measurable loss in a hearing test).
Last night I listened to Seal “Krazy” (yes with a “K”) on Vinyl – wow it was so much richer compared to the lossy 256kbps version – but I’d have to compare to a lossless format to be sure..
LOOK, I’ve done this test already at home on my $10,000 stereo system.
The answer is that any digital file that is lossy, be it 128 or 320 it is going to sound like cr*p compared to the original CD or loss-less file like FLAC played on a decent system.
If you cannot hear the difference between a loss-less file and ANY MP3 file then either your listen system is not good enough to reveal the difference or your hearing cannot detect the difference.
I’d made the mistake of ripping my CDs to 320 MP3 only to discover by A/B comparisons that MP3 sounded like it had the guts sucked out of it compared to FLAC or the original CD. Re ripped all of them again to FLAC and ditched MP3 and for serious listening I still prefer to play the CD because the DAC in my CD player is much better than the DAC in my digital file playing system.
I also have an iAudio 9 which can play MP3 and FLAC and with my cheap $200 headphones I can hear the difference.
It also depends on your hearing capabilities, take a test if your hearing is equal or lower to 14k then thats the reasong why you werent able to hear a diference
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/
i encode music all the time on my player and yeah i can tell when its a rip off of a rip off
the diference between 320 and 128 is that in 128k you wont hear all the instruments recoreded 😀
I chose Clip 1 because it took longer to load.
Got it right, it’s funny that the lower bitrate one had more votes, Although I did hear little difference, and had to go with my “gut-feeling”, the type of music is supposed to be relaxing so my guess is it should be less punchy than say a metal recording, the lower bitrate one sometimes has a punchier feel to it.
I picked the second recording but only because the second recording sounded clearer because I didn’t hear background noise or extra artifacts which I assumed was the result of low bit rate. The first one sounds like it has more info to it, but I thought the extra info was associated with a bad recording. Turns out, I was suppose to hear those things in the recording.
Your choosing a horrible song for this test. This song virtually has no information. It’s simple so of course it can sound decent with any bitrate. If you choose a song with lots of instruments and bass you will be able to tell the difference. It’s easy for a simple song with no bass to sound good.
This test is confusing people and your stopping people from realizing that 128 is complete garbage. Seriously could you have chosen a worse song. Better yet anyone listing to this song on a computer is not using quality components which would exploit the difference in recordings much better than a computer soundcard. No computer sound card is equipped enough to play a good recording anyway.
People still hear the difference, but the problem is, that your choosing a song most people don’t even know how it’s suppose to sound,they don’t know if it’s suppose to have background noise and artifacts because it may be live or if it’s suppose to be a clear studio recording. I can clearly tell the difference when I play songs from 128 to 320 on my sound system without a doubt. Fix your test and play a song with lots of information and music and one with bass. Don’t use simple recording that will sound good no matter what the bitrate.
Bose 601 make all the difference driving by my Onkyo.
I picked the 2nd clip because the i thought the clicking noises from the drums were sound atifacts, otherwise i would not have been able to tell the difference!
Nice to see a blind test. In the past I’ve looked for trials of blindd listerners, and I can’t find any.
So, happy to believe others can hear the difference, but for my phone with only 16GB of memeory it reassures me I can reload them at 128 rather than 196 and save some space. With my good setup for the home theatre PC at home with a terrabyte I’m happy to leave at 320. Space not an issue there.
Thanks.
your test in unscientific.
first off you have no original for comparison.
you ask “which one sounds best”
so now it’s a subjective personality test.
but then conclude “there’s no perceived different”
Your experiment leads to a false(as it is untested) conclusion.
ever think that this generation prefers the mp3 sound over transparency?
neither answer actually allows for your conclusion of no perceived difference.
other factors like the MP3 Encoder can have an effect, back in 2002 128kbps mp3s sounded like sh*t, the technology wasn’t there.
I went and found an mp3 from my old collection, there’s a huge high-cut at 12kHz and it’s sounds awful, on the other hand these mp3’s you have have a cut at 15kHz (128kbps) and 16kHz(320kbps) a very subtle difference in comparison, everything above 128kbps is pretty much dynamic range and not obvious artifacts, but no one around probably has a speaker system nor the training to know which one is the worse one of “quality” since quality is relative (just look at the old vinyl crowd for an example of an inferior medium being toted as better quality [look up the “Loudness war” before you yell at me{TL;DR: vinyl is mastered better than CD, but CD will sound better with vinyl mastering}])
CD audio in comparison hard-cuts at 22.05kHz (half of 44.1kHz as per the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem)
LAME has done strides of difference in getting mp3 bitrate down.
Here’s a link for how to do a real blind listening test.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX
The difference is small, but I think it varies from the type of music and your sound system.
In my case I’ve tried both with 128Kbps and 320Kbps and I notice a huge difference with my music (metal)
Hi, I used Pioneer HDJ-500 headphones, this is good headphones but i didn’t heard difference first, it took me some time to listen to all the instruments, i could hear a difference in the maraca, it has better quality in #1 then #2. #1 is more crisp but i could only hear a small difference in the voice tho. #1 have better sound quality then #2 but i don’t hear any big difference.
I listened with my dre beats tour in earphones, the voice is much more crisp on CLIP 1#
if your listening using rubish earphones, you will pick up more treble instead of a overall balanced sound….this is why i believe CLIP2# got more votes, even though its the 192kbps
I’m sorry but Dre Beats are all just part of the media hype engine. Those are horribly over priced headphones with the bass boosted with a mini amp inside powered by the double AA batteries it uses. It completely muddies up every other audio frequency above the lower Bass ranges. Do your ears some service and research on forums before buying c*** like that. Like hi-fi for example. Although using the ATHM50’s it’s easy to tell that #1 is the higher bitrate although these tracks were encoded poorly in the first place.
I didn’t rate the Dr Dre beats headphones at all. I generally use Sony EX71s which are now quite cheap and clearly not in the upper quality buds available now but they are very crisp and handle bass well. I use PowerAmp music player but actually the beats audio setting on the HTC phone sounds pretty good.
This depends on the type of music. Some music will sound a lot lousier at lower bit rates Even at 320kbps – which is the highest bit rate for mp3’s – I can sometimes hear loss of sound, and my ears do not hear well in the high frequency range at all.
So sometimes a 128k track will sound like a 320k track and other times you can easily tell. It also sometimes depends on what software you use to rip the mp3 from the cd. If it’s ripped using high quality encoders and proper settings it is going to sound better than if it’s ripped on Windows Media Player, for example. Again, though, it depends on the track.
In this case I could not hear the difference but sometimes I can hear that even a 320kbps bit rate is an mp3 vs. a cd.
wow, i hear a HUGE difference, i listened through recently purchased ATH-M50 Headphones, and i dont know which is which but the second clip sounds 10 times better.
My 60+ year old ears got it right. Listen to the cymbals, especially around 0:07. It’s subtle, but I can definitely hear a difference. The cymbals in the 320 sample are sharp and present; in the 128 sample, they kind of fade into the background.
I am 47 and have listened to a fair bit of loud music at various gigs in my past and I found the difference on my little speakers here minimal. I *thought* I could hear a tiny difference and guessed right.
Thing is that I remember a test where a sound was designed to only be heard by young children and teenagers because the frequencies were likely to be outside the range of most adults. Surely this must apply to high bitrate music too? I only notice low bitrate or perhaps poor encoding on the sixties stuff I sometimes listen to. In the car with the players high output I find once the volume goes up the quality of sound drops dramatically whereas some modern tracks with thumping bass seem to be as clear as a bell. Most of my mp3’s seem to be 192 or 320 but I suspect some of the older music is much lower unless it was remastered.
If you want to hear the differnece betwneen 128 kbps and 320 kbps song you need to listen both songs on HD speakers and you need to listen to them loud.
I’ve always been thinking about bit rates, but here’s my opinion after years of listening. I encode all my music as 96kbps MP3s (yes, burn me at the stake, I did it). I CAN tell the difference between a 96, 128, and 320, but the difference isn’t noticeable enough except when compared side by side. I’ve been listening to and playing music for years (on good quality speakers, mind you) and have only ever noticed a few small problems with lower bitrates, most dominant being cymbals losing their “ring” and voice losing it’s “air” (if you know what I mean), but for home listening these are of no concern to me, as they are only apparent at higher volumes. I think that maybe in the future I will move to OGG Vorbis files (they’re INCREDIBLE!), or maybe AC3, but 128kbps MP3 is definitely good enough for the average listener.
i cant really tell the difference but i think if you played really loud you might be able to hear the difference
This is going.g t blow your mind. The reason a 320 kbps mp3 is better than one of a lower bitrate is because even though you can’t “hear” the frequencies being left out. When they aren’t there it just doesn’t sound The same. The reason is because of Tue way the sound waves interact with each other in making the air vibrate. This can be applied to The way we see. If you watch someone mve their hand hack and forth real fast you see trails but on a video this doesn’t happen even though it was recorded at a faster frame rate than we can see. So even though a lower nitrate audio sample removes frequencies we can’t necessarily hear, we can hear a difference because these frequencies aren’t there to interact with the ones we can. I can tell the difference in sharpness of an audio clip in 256 from 320 it just sounds different but it isn’t something that makes me say I don’t think it doesn’t sound “good” just not as good as 320 kbps.
Hey Brian, it’s interesting to read what you’ve wrote. I’m an Audiophile, I listen to Dubstep, Electronic, Pop/Rock, Heavy Metal, Alternative and R&B. All my CD Collectins were ripped as .flac (5 default quality and 0 using EAC and dBpowerAMP) and I’m very satisfied with the sound quality and fidelity with my PSB Speakers. Well I do have downloaded music in 320k it just sound better too but with lossless flac the bitrate far difference and perfomance may different. I’ve tested 256 and 128 and flac. All I can say is the best MP3 is 320k, because it decodes more audio info than the 256 and 128. As u said earlier, 320 has amazingly interact audio itself, how can you prove that to me if it is does that at 320 MP3. And guys, I want to ask you guys, what is the best option for flac to maintain its quality and fidelity of audio, is it 0 or 8 (best compressed lossless) I know that all methods are lossless even if it is 0 or 8 but what is the difference if we encode 0 quality flac and 8? TQ
No, there’s not much a difference between the two, especially for [removed] pop music like this. Lossy is lossy. But compare a 128kbps MP3 with FLAC for real music and you will very likely be able to notice the difference. I would still never, ever buy something in a non-lossless format. I can always compress it myself if I so desire.
You reallty notice the deterioration in classical music or any complex music (instrument, choir and soloist tracks) – frequency responses become clipped and distorted, dynamics become thin the front rear sound stage becomes restricted. It all becomes very “spare” and becomes even more noticable with really good amplifiers and good speakers (with good even-order harmonics).
I am so surprised that clip 2 got more votes. I recognised the difference immediately, it’s slight but it’s definitely there & it does make a difference to the listening experience. While listening to the 320 clip I felt more relaxed as it was “smoother”. I don’t have really expensive headphones either, just some panasonic in-ear ones (though to be fair they work well for the price I paid).
I didn’t read ALL the comments, but a major factor is that MOST people taking this test will not be able to hear a difference unless they know what to listen for. The majority of the music will not show a major difference at the higher bit rate plus the fact that they are probably listening to both samples on a computer sound system, which might not be hi-fi.
One of the primary differences in audio, especially music, is TRANSIENT RESPONSE. A transient is a tiny piece of sound that can be entirely missed at lower sampling rates, yet contains the information that makes music ‘come alive’ to our ears. Early CDs were criticized for sounding ‘flat’ or dull compared to vinyl (I still think they do, but they are MUCH better and since I’m 63 it doesn’t matter as much anymore).
Transient response and dynamic range are two very important factors in our enjoyment of music. The higher the bit rate, the greater your chance of hearing all the transients that are present in your music. All that said, if I’m listening to earbuds or 4-inch computer speakers, I don’t care much if it’s an MP3 or WAV or AAC file. If I’m listening to a state-of-the-art system, I’m gonna play vinyl with a great turntable through a very high quality preamp and 200 watt-per-channel amp into a subwoofer and super speakers. THERE’S where all the factors of great audio come into play.
True about frequency range. Not true about transients. Transients are damaged by sound compression, not data compression.
I knew immediately which one was 320, only needed about 4 seconds per clip to know.
What if the author of the website randomized the order of appearance of the two samples for different listeners, so feedback in the comments wouldn’t help you pick the right answer?
That would make many of the comments here pretty funny.
As many pointed out, whether or not you can hear the difference depends on the quality of speakers you are using and the listening environment. Most people have sufficiently cheap hardware or listen in a noisy environment (car, or even a home with an air vent generating white noise) that the mp3 quality difference is not the weak link.
Not only should the order be randomized, but each of the two choices should be random: that is, sometimes you will be listening to the same clip. Then, in addition to choosing one or the other as being better, there should be a choice of “I cannot hear a difference” (and maybe also a choice of “I hear a difference, but neither is ‘better'”). If you identify one as being different, it would suggest that you sometimes hear or think you hear differences when there are none, so your results for different clips should be discarded.
///SPOILER\\\
The only difference I hear is at 00:06 and 00:14(just before 00:15) on second track there is a twitch which I may call as a lag. There is a bass and a high pitch sound at the same time. Mathematically speaking, for example there is a sin(100*2*pi*t)+sin(2500*2*pi*t). Though sound is not as deterministic as this thus there are lots of harmonics for 2.5kHz and when 128kbps fails to capture those harmonics, instead they are captured as low frequencies (aliasing) and I think that might be the reason for the “lag”, a slightly disturbing peak in the sound.
Also I should say that, I could only hear that after reading the comments seeing first one was the better one, before two were almost identical.
Clip #1 (34989 votes)
Clip #2 (38786 votes)
Now quit fighting you [removed].
#1 is 320 KBPS and yet it has less votes, case in point, no difference, that is unless you are some uber music Nazi nerd with ears not even God has. It’s obvious that people were going with what they felt sounded better. That also means that it was not a 50/50 chance to guess the right one, seeing as how people would pick the one they thought was best, they were not guessing.
I think the point is that even most people who are into sound are unaware of the differences in sound “quality.”
if you convert music from 128 to 320 you cannot get better sound
When i sat a few meteres away from my speakters it was really hard to distinguish. When i sat nearer it was still quiet hard, but i could hear #1 was better. After turning the volume up, the difference is no longer not noticeable.
My Bose mie2i’s are being replaced by warranty so I have been begrudgingly listening to music with these god forsaken apple earbuds…
I now understand why iTunes gives you the option to downgrade all sync music to 128 when syncing to your iDevice.
I think it’s fair the majority of teenagers and other indifferent iPod and iPhone users use these [removed] earbuds… And if you use these earbuds there is no point in using a higher bit rate as they’re incapable of even average sound quality.
I couldn’t tell which was 128 or 320 because these earbuds can’t produce anything that sounds “good”…
While there can be a difference between 128 and 320 this track will not show it, it is a very low quiality original. I have some pro monitoring headphones and a very high quality hifi and I have very accurate hearing and the difference was extremely minimal if it existed at all. All the people who state they could clearly hear the difference were either lucky and think they guessed through skill, or they are lying. Tests have been done on thousands of people and it has showed even 96 sounds so simmilar to 256, even audio professionals couldn’t tell the difference with most music. That was research done by sky when they released their streaming service which never actually got going.
Incorrect. There is a definite difference to the trained ear. Very clearly heard. No guessing involved and no reason to lie. Not everyone can hear these differences, but it does not mean that they don’t exist. It’s an actual proven fact. Some people without a trained ear will also hear it clearly, but just won’t understand why, or may not even consciously acknowledge it. Some people with trained ears such as the audio professionals you mentioned can’t tell the difference, but there are those that certainly and immediately can, every time. A guess would only be accurate some of the time.
Most people simply don’t care enough, but I would argue that it is accumulative and is one of the contributing factors of why listening to music does not hold the same reverence to people these days as it once used to, among many other factors of course. However, as with anything, especially when the difference is minimal, there is a bit of subjectivity to it all too.
Who am I?
I am a professional in this area and have studied these types of things for a long time. I have spoken to many successful people in the field on the subject over many years. I’m currently writing a book on the undoing of the music industry which touches heavily on subjects such as these as a major contributing factor. My obsession with these subjects and drive for the book has come from my own frustrations, breakthroughs, distinctions and opinions made through a 32 year professional career in the music business and recording processes.
Thanks for your insightful comment! I recently visited two audio stores to ask about this. Originally I was considering wireless speakers and at both they advised me against it. I then got into a discussion of compression. I was advised to rip my CDs to my computer at highest quality or just play the CDs off of the CD player.
My dad was a serious audiophile, built our first stereo amplifier and speakers, periodically played audio test lps and had me listen to them, had a huge classical music collection, late in his life worked at Tweeter etc., and installed home systems. I have listened mostly to jazz, jazz fusion and latin music since I was in high school, and hated using Dolby noise reduction, as it cut out so much of the high frequency sounds (though I am sure it has evolved since then).
My father has long since passed away. recently, I have been thinking of him whenever I listen to music in the car, with ear buds, or through speakers on my desk, which makes up 95% of my listening. He would have been aghast! I hooked up my decent but neglected Klipsch speakers to the stereo in a new configuration and listened to Stevie Wonder, Songs in the Key of Life, downloaded off of iTunes and then on CD. It was not a blind test of course, but there was a feeling of him being in the room on the CD version I didn’t get from the downloaded. I plan to set up some blind tests for myself. I had forgotten how great it is to just sit and listen to music on a good system!
Thanks again for your comment. My dad would have been happy to read it!
But this song is much harder to tell than an electronic song. This was obviously first recorded onto vinyl. It’s a very difficult track to tell. The drums sound low quality on both files. But, I will say this, in my other room I have some very expensive speakers. I was just listening to this on a laptop, and got it wrong. But if I was listening to it through decent speakers, maybe I would have told the difference like you. So tell me, what audio equipment did you take this test with?
Nonsense – there’s a huge difference in SQ. Just to list a few differences:
1. The first sample has depth and sounds exciting – the second sounds flat and dead and boring.
2. There’s massively more bass guitar detail in the first sample
3. The hi hats sound more like real cymbals in the first sample.
AKG K551 cans (so nothing really great) plugged straight into my standard XPS laptop.
duckonthemoon, I think you need to have your hearing checked.
When I listen to old game music, the sound is much crispier and distinct at higher bit rate.
Hi, just listen to shakers and you’ll notice the difference.
Best, Miro
**[…], of course, it is not placebo, since you did not write which file was how big. Cutch’s explanation sounds plausible:
“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.”
But I do not get the point of constant bit rates except if encoding has to be on-the-fly (when streaming live for example).