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.

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.

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.

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.

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.