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 always heard that above 128kbps was just data padding on the file. Mp3’s are always compressed. No matter what if you’re going around bumpin MP3’s you’re bumping subpar quality.
Throw in the same bassy track with a FLAC or the Actual CD (or 1:1 COPY OF SAID CD) it will sound WAY better than the MP3 track. Unless you are burning MP3 CD’s for space saving (which would kind of defeat the purpose of burnin 320K files) then there is no point to it. You might as well get your hands on a FLAC or the Actual CD/Copy and bump that. You’ll notice an even bigger difference than this comparison which will make the 320K file sounds like crap too.
the cymbals are a huge giveaway
Indeed. They sounded inconsistent in the second sample.
Besides, this is not the type of music that suffers most from lower bitrates. With orchestral music it’s often easy to detect that you’re listening to a less than 256kbps version even when there’s nothing to compare it to.
Anyway. $ per GB has dropped a lot since this article was written. I don’t really see why anyone would rip to MP3 at all now, since lossless takes only about 3 times more space than 320kbps. A normal 2TB hard drive can easily contain around 200 days worth of lossless audio (or around 85000 3.5min tracks).
I got it right. For what it’s worth, I am no musician (you would me tone deaf if I ever tried to sing), but I still listen and enjoy all sorts of music (classic, pop, rap etc.). I am using gear of decent gear (good sound card+ decent headphone amp+AKG K701 headphones), though nothing crazy.
I’ve actually done a similar test a couple years back between Lossless/320kps MP3 (I recommend Foobar’s ABX pluggin if you want to try it yourself) and could also tell the difference. It wasn’t easy though, it took multiple listening and a lot of concentration (I was knackered afterwards). In practice, it is more effort than one would use to actually *enjoy* music. But given the amount of effort/time that goes into ripping/tagging CDs, I opted to go lossless for all my rips. Storage is inexpensive nowadays and I never need to worry again. If I want 320kps MP3 to listen on a portable device, I can make them from my lossless files. If the portable device can’t store 320kps, I can choose to encode (the lossless files) at a lower bitrate. This is preferable to transcoding from 320kps to a lower bitrate. On that note, for MP3, I also tend to favour variable bitrates if you care about storage. It’s pretty efficient.
Still, I would not say that properly encoded 128kps MP3 is “pretty much garbage”. I can tell the difference side by side, but, again, assuming it is encoded properly by a modern codec from the source I can still enjoy the resulting output. But if you really are going to rip 500 CDs again, do consider going lossless..
I agree with all that dodgeman.
I would’ve sworn blind before coming to this page that I could tell the difference between a 128 and 320kbps mp3, but try as I could, I couldn’t tell the difference. And I was listening on what I consider (perhaps wrongly as it turns out?!) a reasonably decent pair of headphones (not the inner ear kind). Try as I might, I couldn’t tell the difference. They sounded the same.
I am, well, too old to be disappointed. I’m certainly not irate or upset. Assuming that they are IN FACT, different bit-rate files, then it is what it is. I am more intrigued than anything.
This test reminds me of something a friend told me about a while ago regarding another test that was executed, that time with red and white wine. They found that the vast majority of people, including wine “experts”, given wine in a concealed vessel, couldn’t tell whether it was red or white.
Think about that: not even being able to tell whether a wine is red or white, because you can’t see its colour through a clear glass.
I’ll bookmark this page, and come back to it perhaps when I’ve set up a decent non-headphone system to listen on. Or maybe, I’ll do my own test, and ask a friend to randomise the files.
It would be interesting to hear, as I think some have suggested, different types of content. I ended up on this site because I was interested to know the effect of mp3 compression on the low end and high end, as regards dance (electronic) music.
Just read through the comments. Perhaps my previous post sounded snobbish or eletist or whatever I read in the posts. It is interesting to me that everybody seems to think they have the same hearing as the next guy. I am sure everybody has a friend that can see better than them at close range. Or another can spot an ant at 200 yards. Another one that can smell something minutes before you can. Why does everyone assume that hearing is different? I know my dog can hear far better than I can, just like my vision is vastly superior to his. It is not snobbish. It is simply that we are all different. If you cannot hear the difference it is not a big deal. Your ears are simply different. It is not even something you should argue about or get upset about anothers comments about the quality being poor. I know my wife cannot hear any difference in the expensive home audio equipment I have bought. Or the money I spend on car audio. To me it is pleasurable to hear the difference and even a tiny improvement is worth it to me because I enjoy the difference and small things that I hear in music that I never even knew where there before the upgrade. I try to explain and show her but she just does not get it. Cannot even tell the difference even when the sound is completely different, like an entirely new instrument can be heard when it was not even audible before. People are different. If you can’t hear a difference it is to your advantage. You can carry more music in a smaller space. You just are missing parts that others enjoy. If you are happy what is the difference?
Just getting over a head cold with partially plugged ears. Listened to this on my MacBook 1.1 (I think from back in 2005?) Sorry. I could hear the difference. Clicked on the higher bitrate. Did it blind since I was also curious if it was a hearable difference. Something just seemed missing in the voice. Those that cannot hear the difference then that is your opinion. Sorry but I guess it must mean your ears suck. Just like I need glasses or I cannot legally drive, you are hearing impaired. Not a big deal. At least you can put far more songs onto your device without any issues. The sound quality bothers me though, even when using poor quality speakers. That is why I also need to spend more on audio equipment for home and auto.
Well, I guessed right 🙂 but I can’t hear any clear difference. And I doubt there is any audible difference (what is actually confirmed by the 50/50 stats). That doesn’t mean 128kbps is good enough as 320. First of all 128=128 is not always true, there are different codecs and configurations, you can encode in 128 better than in 320. For example, this particular 128kbps example have MS stereo mode extension what sometimes gives you better sound quality with lower bitrate and 320 doesn’t. Just a little trick from the author, that for some reason want to defend low bitrate audio. Then, there is a sound richness, you will not hear the difference between 1kbps beep and 1000GBps beep. But yeah, you will hear the difference between well CD riped 128 and 320 kbps in most music tracks independently of what your audio system is, as long as it cost more than 10 bucks. I personally encode my CDs only in VBR with highest settings what gives me good sound quality and small file size. This way there is almost no audible difference between CD and mp3 with cheap/mid range systems like 100 – 200 bucks.
Lulz! “I got it wrong” when I thought clip #2 sounds better? The amusing thing is that the majority of votes agreed with me. This proves my point about how higher bitrates don’t mean squat… not only is it nearly 50/50, but, ironically, there’s a few thousand more that think 128 bitrate sounds better than 320.
Clip #1 is encoded at 320kbps : (43,696 votes)
Clip #2 is encoded at 128kbps : (47,992 votes)
apparently over half the people thought clip two sounded better. It was entertaining reading the not so logical answers in this thread. I am a musician, I record on a weekly basis and have been playing the guitar since I was 7, 28 now, and I couldn’t really tell the difference as far as “what sounds better.” There is obvious more hiss in clip 2, but I prefer clip two; clip one sound like it has been compressed and eq’d. The bass seemed tighter in clip one and in clip two, the one note bass solo seems to not “roll off” or sounds a little more dynamic as if it were not compressed. But I do not claim to have the best ears bc of years of playing deafening guitar, but I did use some high end reference headphones. It was a poor recording to start with if you have noticeable tape hiss, (someone should of slapped a gate on it) yet it’s still a good melody and would listen to it on lower bitrate anyday.
Sorry, Im usualy big on sound quality. I used a pair of Phillips headphones and couldn’t tell the difference at all. The 2nd track sounded like there was more “hiss” in it but then I really listened it sounds louder than track-1…….Louder isn’t always better though, especially with noise bettween the sound.
This track used was a poor test.
You will only notice the difference when the reproduction of the song requires a higher bitrate.
eg. for plain speech, a much lower bitrate can be used with no loss of quality.
However, during very instrument-heavy tracks (classical, orchestral) you will notice a HUGE difference.
you will find strings and treble to become “tinny” or a “tinkly” sort of edge to them at lower bitrates, and bass will be not as smooth.
Whereas with higher bitrates it will sound much more real, bass notes deeper and fuller and you may hear things you didnt even realise were in the track! Such as sustain on a note.
Its like the difference between a 10 buck set of “stock” headphones that come with your music player and a $100+ pair of good quality ones.
The main reason high bitrate is required is to reproduce correctly the harmonics of notes. As it is digital and therefore to make a smooth waveform of the sound it must be made from many, many tiny steps. the higher the bitrate, the smaller and more frequent the steps are and so the reproduction is clearer.
Saying that though in nearly every case anything over 192kbs is pointless. ESPECIALLY when youre using budget stereo and headphone equipment.
Using good encoding software and buying a nicer pair of headphones will make VASTLY larger differences, you may as well save your time and hdd space.
Unless you plan on buying gold plated everything and OFC copper leads and so on and so on…. (cough pointless)
*pointless unless you just like having those things, you know, and the placebo effect.
And if you dont understand the significance of those things, well, definitely dont bother because its not worth it. 😛
It’s very easy to hear the difference, the lower bit rate one immediately sounded low bitrate with the highs sounding digital and echoey, things just don’t sound right !!!
I picked the right answer, but I merely guess. When I played it again numerous times I believe I hear the first track being more full and whereas the second one appeared slightly flat. However, it was very subtle to my ears. I’m surprised that less than half of the people got it right in the total votes, and yet from the comments here almost everyone got it right. LOL.
Let me say that I have a very high end DAC, former flagship Sennheiser headphones, and a good amp. These cost over two grand in total. I also believe I have good hearing, and can recognize good quality recordings. And yet, I had a hard time differentiating any differences! Some people say they instantly hear the difference and it is obvious. If so, what are they hearing that is obvious? I understand audio terminology like depth, soundstage, air, decay, separation, roundness, etc. Can they describe these difference to me in a way that makes me understand what they are picking up? Some people make it sound like one track is totally cr_p and unlistenable.
I think to make this test more “scientific” it would require randomizing the clips and having the listener guess over 20 times. This ensures that listeners are not merely guessing. The statistics that would be tabulated at the end would include the number of people who picked with 100 % accuracy, 90 to 99 % accuracy, 80 to 89 % etc. I would be interested to know what this result would show, and whether people really are claiming to hear an obvious difference. I would give those who hear over 80% as being statistically credible and the rest as guessing.
Very illuminating. I listened to the sample several times on both good quality headphones and on speakers over a decent amp (no need to mention the brands!) and to be honest I did not hear jack s*** difference. So either a) My speakers/amp/headphones are all rubbish, b) My ears are blocked or damaged c) I am an audio caveman who hears but does not perceive or appreciate the subtle tweaks and flutters of a high-rate sample. OR d) There is barely any audible difference.
Well, i know which one I think it is. The most interesting thing about the test though is this thread, and the degree to which some people like to wax lyrical about points A) they have “superior” equipment and C) because they have superior refinement.
LOL.
My job requires me to listen to music – mostly lo rez mp3s – all day long. I’m a big advocate of the “who cares about bitrate” philosophy, as long as we stay above 128. However with this track, I spotted the difference almost immediately.
So much for my theory… well, almost: so much music coming out now is not all that well recorded, mixed or mastered, so in the end, the bitrate is a very very minor improvement.
No matter all the comments above complaining about the song here not being a good sample, it’s a great sample. I’m totally biased by the way, being an enormous fan of Cymande, but the point here is the music was well recorded. I’m not saying it’s audiophile purist proof, but it’s top of the line 1970s pop music quality.
Even more: as suggested in previous comments, a lot of music is now MADE to sound good on a basic system: earphones, computer speakers, small home systems. So I find that a lot of current 128s sound completely fine, for almost any situation. Audiophiles? A tiny minority, not in any way representative for how music is listened to. They are right about how it sounds on their systems. For the vast majority of people and most systems? Hardly a difference.
I must admit the difference is hard to spot. However it is worth noting this particular song provides a very difficult… example. Listening to metal, for instance, provides more example, because the compression is easier to spot due to the greater noise in general
Yo! Good day to u all audio masters. I’ve been listening to mp3s for as long as i can remember. And i’m very particular with quality. I love music but I don’t have the luxury of hitech sound equipment. So i just trust my plain old ears and with some decent headphones. Back in those days ppl said 128kb is near cd quality. And i believe it is. Many 128kb actually sounded very good, even nowadays. When i learned about 160, 320, etc, there was even a ‘VBR’?? Anyways when i learned about these, 128 sounded more and more cr_ppy. Not the ones i had b4 but these recent songs. It seemed now that the higher the bitrate, the better the sound. But then i noticed that my old 128s still sounds better than the newer 192s. WTH?? Then i learned that people’s been ripping music from YOUTUBE and set them as 320kbp mp3s! I tried ripping a very garbage sounding tune from the site, and I learned i can encode it to whatever bitrate i desire. Whalah! A 320kb mp3 music that sounds SH_T!!! In fairness the best sounds i’ve heard are at 320kb. But some, if not a lot, sounded very youtube, along with those extra dialogue you hear from an mtv. Laughable and at the same time ultra annoying! Where have all the pure quality mp3s have gone??? I mean, all my trusted sites are now posting these garbage mp3s!! D_mn.. Im aware the it also depends on the ENCODER. Before i heard that LAME was the best. But that was a long time ago. None of it matters coz if the source file is sh!t, however sophisticated, hitech, complicated one encodes it, the resulting mp3 is even more SH_T. I mean, YOUTUBE?! Bunch of d_mb_ss wannabe’s. Forgive me.. anyone can recommend a site that don’t have the mp3’s i discussed? good day..
i found the test song you used for this article, is not good enough to show the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps….since it has few instruments in it…. i’m using poor audio system and yet can hear the difference for certain songs….especially those that have fuller frequency spectrum as what Vishnu NJ said…
theoretically, lower sample rate will reduce/remove/attenuate the amplitude of some frequency components of the sounds…because of digital encoding process…i.e. the triangle minus sine wave thingy…
that is why we need to use higher rate possible to retain that..thus 320kbps…
PS: sorry for the bad english… 🙁
This test is of little use since computer sound cards, cell phone & portable player systems were specifically designed for making low quality recordings sound crisp and clear.
That crisp and clear sound shouldn’t be mistaken for best quality Hi-Fidelity. A good deal of the program is missing, (clipped off) when the MP3 file was compressed and no adjustments to a sound system can bring back what no longer exists in the source material.
People who grew up listening to music on vinyl that has been format changed to CD and then to MP3 are a lot more sensitive to the differences because we have a stored reference in our heads as to what a certain song sound like.
Strange sounding but true: An old Sony Walkman (even with the tape hiss factor) played music truer to the way it was originally meant to sound than the most expensive IPods etc., these days.
Good quality Hi-Fidelity sound begins at the source material, not the system it’s played on, which will only enhance the low quality the better the sound system is.
the two are close, but there is a compression artifact on the maracas which is a giveaway.
GOSH …. guys…. 96kbps vs 128kbps …. a very big improvement…..
128kbps 320kbps will usually affect those higher frequency sound and yet quite an improvement too….
I can differentiate between 96/128/320 in most of the speakers/headphone
ITs quiteobvious….. back in the days when we have only CD I am like newage /techno addicted with music playing nearly whole day… and when I have chances to play around with mp3 … i did convert some of my (mike oldfield song of the distant earth) to 128kbps… it sounds quite lack of certain energy i am used to before… playing around with setting u will find that 320 is the best among mp3 and yet … I personally do feel that OGG is kinda better than mp3 especially in mid and lower frequency … but nowadays since digital storage is quite cheap then why wont FLAC? which is loseless?
Also use embeded flash player.. as Downloading files to pc will give some bias as file types can be identified..
These Files Dont have enough High Freqency notes..
By the way i’m able to idientify it by crispness of sound..
Give another test using High quality Full Spectrum Sound source..
320kbps MP3,
128kbps MP3 [Stereo]
128kbps MP3 [Joint Stereo]
128kbps MP3 [Dual]
320kbps AAC-LC,
128kbps AAC-LC,
128kbps HE-AAC v1 [AAC-LC + SBR],
64kbps HE-AAC v1 [AAC-LC + SBR]
48kbps HE-AAC v2 [AAC-LC + SBR + PS]
32kbps HE-AAC v2 [AAC-LC + SBR + PS]
24kbps HE-AAC v2 [AAC-LC + SBR + PS]
Also use embeded flash player.. as Downloading files to pc will give some bias as file types can be identified..
🙂
I could tell straight away, listen to the maracas on the left, I could tell straight away, the second time the instrument was used it went unclear for just a little while and it sounds muffled throughout the track.
I am running an Asus Essence ST card and AKG Q701 headphones which while not overly expensive can draw detail out of music very well.
In practical terms 320kbps are better, since hard disc space isn’t hard to come by. I’d only go lower if you have limited space on your MP3 player/iPod.
Wow, audiophiles are such snobs. Both sound fine…
With an Asus Essence STX sound card and Aktimate Mini+ speakers they did sound slightly different, but I could not hear any obvious quality difference
The difference for these files was very subtle and mostly during the first 2 seconds of the track sounding “clearer” for the 320 kbps.
That said, the encoder used to make the file has a bigger difference on the quality. I used to use 256k AAC on my Shuffle and have cringeworthy high notes, and drums on some tracks. Then switching over to VBR MP3 at ~220k most of the harshness is gone and can barely notice a difference between that and 320k
It was hard to tell with these two files, but I did pick the correct one. For other files, It’s totally easy to tell when it’s 128 vs 320. There is a greater “depth” of sound with 320 tracks. Sounds feel more layered, substantial and more clear than they do when coded with only 128. I can’t stand when my music is low quality, so I always opt for the larger 320 files!
Of course everyone heard it! Everyone posting here has perfect hearing, owns hi-fi sound systems and has impeccable tastes in music allowing them to discern the subtle sound differences. Give me a break. There are only 2 music samples. Make it 5 or 6. Make them the same song, or different songs. Make it 12 song samples. Would you be able to tell the difference? I used to bartend at a very upscale restaurant that had an impressive wine list. I would do wine “tests” for the clientele who were avid wine fans. I would usually set up a 4-5 glass test. They would have to tell me what the grape was on each glass. Not the brand, or the year, just the different grape (merlot, cabernet, pinot noir etc). Me being the fun loving guy that I am would often pour the EXACT SAME WINE IN EACH OF THE 5 GLASSES. I really enjoyed watching all of the wine experts including our distributor pontificate over the subtle differences in each grape.
For a long time, i thought vinyl sounds WORLDS BETTER than cds. Then, I figured out how to hook my cd player into the same speakers. The difference doesn’t seem nearly as large as I used to think
Still though, I think that jazz music sounds better on vinyl than CD. Classical music, however, I gravitate toward CD because a lot of classical on vinyl is older and often contains unwanted noticeable pops/clicks.
It could be just me but as far as MP3 compression, I find that highly compressed files fatigue my ears after a while. I have tested myself before regarding 320 bit rate compared to flac and could not notice a difference during an approx 10 second test.
I have some very VERY high end equipment and while i would never listen to both files ( flac or wav only ) I can hear the diff right off the bat. BUT i am not your average music listener. In fact I am a producer and I know the ins and outs about how MP3 is incoded, indeed the lower ( and even 320 or 450 kb/s) is not loss less. try comparing one of my 192 bit bit songs to this 24-48 bit junk.
To those who got it right? How are you able to remember the previous clip sounding better or worse?
I feel like I would be able to tell the difference if I could A/B the track playing continuously. The second I hit pause, I feel like it clears my memory and the differences and I can’t perceive the differences.
It is all about long time listening experience. Doenst matter if you have good or bad speakers.
Lossless audio (cd, vinyl) gives you a pleasent experience.
Lossy audio (mp3) makes you nervous, beacause your brain keeps dealing with chunky audio.
Nobody can tell what is what, but mp3 is bad for your healh.
And this is no joke, go read psicoacoustic papers, search google the right words, you gonna find.
Mp3 is soposed only for STREAMING trought internet.
For enjoying music always go for CD, VinYl, or FLAC, you should rip your cds to FLAC.
I admire apple a lot, but they really f***** with the itunes store, fooling the world that mp3 is something you should pay for.
Look at bandcamp, they give you the mp3 streams for free. if you wanna real music, go LOSSLESS.
Thanks for great test, I played it though my hi fi and 320 was easy to guess, much clearer vocals, better spatial sound. Through the laptop speakers of course, couldnt tell.
so yes 128k is fine for car or ipod, 320 if like me you like your hi fi and spend hours fiddling with impedance matching and cable variations.
Although this is not complex music peace and vary bad for this type of test, I still managed to hear difference on my laptop speakers.
Sorry for my bad English.
it is hard to specify which sound there brings 320kbps and 128kbps audio output because that song contains i think only less than 4 instruments. Try to rip a song that used a lots of intstruments(or maybe w/surround sound) and you will distinguish which sound is crispier. for me 128kbps sounds like a sharp metal and it’s hard for me to enjoy the songs i play. IMHO 🙂
if you rip a song with a lots of channel(instruments) you will see the difference between 128bkps & 320kbps cause 128kbps got a lossy audio quality while you will hear almost lossless(CD) audio quality from 320kbps
Yep the 320 is far better, if u listen carefully to a song downloaded from iTunes at 128, you can hear the high pitch glitchyness in the distant (all the digital beeps etc)not cool! especially if you play it loud! i dont download from iTunes anymore, Fair enough iv a pretty decent sound set-up out of my computer but even so, on a small system its there in the background and its going in your ears. Not cool! i download everything at 320kbps, just seems a waste not to yeh it takes up more space but hard drives are bigger these days and if your going to listen to your favourite music ya may aswell listen to it in quality
that my opinion 🙂 have fun ppl
dude,
bitrates dont matter when you rip from lower bitrate to higher.
you cant rip 128 bit cd quality to 320,jst the size increases thats it.bitrate shows for how many times the song is sampled by the microphone while it is been recirded,more kbps means clearer the sound.once done we cannot upgrade the sound clarity.””THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 128BIT AND 320BIT””no 1 is fool to bring more bitrates in market if there is no difference.the more costlier headphone ex. dr dre, senhxxx,bose jst make there own variations in the sound ie. the bass,tre,etc which is more nicer to ears even they cant increase the bitrate from orignal.
There is no harm in saying that you don’t hear or notice a difference, however having a meaningless debate arguing and talking down to those that either can or can’t is pointless. Is there a difference? Yes! There wouldn’t be an option to rip it in such a format if there wasn’t. Saying you own this type of setup and all, pointless as well. Yes I took the test and noticed the difference, I just find this back and forth ignorant. All in all, the difference is there and if you can’t tell, stick to 92kbps and 128kbps files. Nothing wrong with it at all.
Well I am wondering why you people havent come to a decision .you hear clearly from this test and if you hear both 128 & 320 you can easily tell the difference.320kbps is a bit louder and better.
The difference is that 320 is preferred by hipsters who pretend they can hear a difference. Except that hipster hipsters know that 320 sounds like s*** too, so they use flac.
Seriously, there’s no difference, shut up.
This although I think the right term is audiophiles
I got this wrong, but I’m not in the least surprised. Firstly the content of this test just doesn’t have enough complex sounds in it. Secondly it doesn’t help that I am listening on cheap PC sound. But thirdly – when you smooth out the sound with lower bit rates it will often sound cleaner. And if there wasn’t that much detail in the first place you can have a more pleasant sound. I discovered this years ago when I used to put my records onto tape for convenience and also so the records stayed in good condition. Nowadays sometimes I listen to the same thing from CD and from MP3 through the same hi-fi amp & speakers, and although the sound is more accurate and detailed from the CD, in some ways I enjoy listening to the MP3 more.
I DEFINITELY heard the difference its very slight but if you listen to shh sh noise in the left speaker its a little more clearer and smoother than the 128kbps version.
I am also using the Klipsch Pro Media 2.1
With cheap speakers 128k can be good enough. It also depends on the music. That example was very simplistic so 128k mp3 with low fi speakers is close enough.
But… Played on a good stereo with sub or large speakers the 128k will be more distorted sounding. 128 is not enough to fill in all the gaps.
Encode them at 64 and save more room. It may sound like crap to the rest of us but as long as you can’t tell that is all that matters.
Higher Bit Rate >> More Bits/Seconds >> More Sound Information >> Higher Sound Quality >> Greater Storage Space
Lower Bit Rate >> Less Bits/Seconds >> Less Sound Information >> Lower Sound Quality >> Lesser Storage Space
VBR v5 = 130 kbps variable is pretty good!
which makes 128 kbps CBR (constans) pretty redundant.
I’ve conducted a lot of blind ABXC tests, and not one person has been able to tell VBR v2/v3 (190 and 160 kbps variable) apart from original wave file from the CD.
Anyone who does listen a difference between high bitrate mp3 and original CD, DOES need to consider the fact that YOUR cd plyer may be having a screwed up mp3 decoder.
There is a reason why mp3 dicards the less significant bits based on psychoacoutics – the acoustics perceived by ear and brain.
There is math and test results out there, and you can’t deny it.
Of course if you don’t believe in double blind ABX testing, you may as well believe that pigs can fly and I can’t do anything about your belief!
The first one sounded better to me, and I didn’t even have the volume turned up on my laptop. I guess there is a difference between the two and I can’t believe I’ve been using 128’s all this time.
Not a good comparison!
The track is pudgy, “all in the middle”, not pushing any dynamic range.
I personally couldn’t tell any difference between the 2 encodings & I reckon it’s because of this.
Secondly, there was a lot of background hiss & s***, suggesting it’s a poor quality recording in the 1st place, so you’re gonna hear noise regardless of encoding.
I suggest a cleaner source track with higher dynamic range for comparison, then we won’t get the stalemate you see here.
Kind regards,
MrLego
I used my studio headphones and I had to listen to them 3 times to be sure of the answer, and that surprised me a lot because they were almost the same!
Yeah the second one was a bit crisper, but thats a trifle…
I suppose that usually the difference is greater…
The difference is there, but it’s only very slight.
I’d be happy to listen to either, and I’m a fussy bugger.
I could detect no real difference through my laptop — I had to dig out my more expensive USB sound brick, and £200 headphones to tell any substantial difference. In fact, I was consistently rating the *lower* bitrate file as “better” with cheap in-ear jobs.
Strange, as usually I am disgusted with the quality of the 128K files I’ve had in the past.
In this test, I didn’t notice it much either… but then, this isn’t my kind of music anyway. When I’m over at my area of music (progressive house, trance, electro, hands up), I do notice the difference. It’s really a matter of personal opinion. Some people will notice and care, others won’t. Someone in my class will be playing music on the speakers in my class, and I can tell by the quality that it was ripped off of YouTube. I notice it, and it aggravates me when I can’t get stuff in high quality. What especially aggravates me is when someone encodes a lower quality file as a higher quality file. AAAAAGHHHH!!!