• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Can you hear the difference between a 128k and 320k mp3?

Register to hide this ad
Awesome! Listened to them both a few times and woo! picked A. Had a hard time on the voice - but as soon as the (sounds like maracas?) came on - A for sure!

Very interesting.
 
They were both obviously ripped, so it was a matter of deciding which one was ripped worse.

I'd be interested to know what people did the test through. I used basic cheap computer speakers/sub.
 
Brent71 said:
Well, that's pretty obvious. In order to get any audio off of the cd you have to rip it somehow. It's not the ripping that's bad, it's the compression scheme used.
Click to expand...

I don't know too much about this stuff. (I my music is only on retail CDs, full res CDRs, and vinyl.) Maybe you can help me. So, you mean to say that it is assumed that both these samples are going to sound worse than WAV files and that the point of the exercise is to determine which sounds less worse?
 
Brett a said:
I don't know too much about this stuff. (I my music is only on retail CDs, full res CDRs, and vinyl.) Maybe you can help me. So, you mean to say that it is assumed that both these samples are going to sound worse than WAV files and that the point of the exercise is to determine which sounds less worse?
Click to expand...
Yes. mp3 is a lossy compression scheme. 128k has been touted as "cd quality" for years by the ignorant public, even though it's far from it. 320k is the highest bitrate that the mp3 scheme allows. A lossless compression scheme like FLAC, shn, APE (Monkey's Audio), etc. would be bit identical to the original when played. Think of the lossless formats like a zip file for audio.
 
and

Interestingly enough, the encoding process has been getting better, so using the most recent LAME encoder, one can now make mp3s encoded at a data rate of 128 kbit/sec that sound pretty decent.
 
I listened to both a dozen times and was unable to tell the difference through a set of Sennheiser HD 457 Headphones. I'll have to give it another go out loud and on some of my other equipment. Most of my music is between 160Kbps and 256Kbps, Some of it is 128 (Ripped 6-8 years agao).

It does depend largely on what type of encoder you use. I think most people use WMP which has a pretty good encoder.
 
If I could get .lame or .ape to play in my car I would use it for everything. For now I'll have to stick with Mp3s. I rip to 192.
 
When I listen to MP3's on my computer, I can't tell much difference, but when I plug it into my system, I can tell instantly the higher bitrate mp3's from the lower ones...
 
Brent71 said:
LAME is an mp3 encoder.
Click to expand...

No, "LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder"... ;)

Seriously, many people who dismiss MP3s in general have never cared to do blind tests. MP3s with a decent VBR setting (or high-CBR) can be made to sound very good indeed, although it's perhaps not the most modern and efficient compression format.
 
Here's a Sample. . .

I recently started a new thread on artifacts in MP3 files. . .

This MP3 file is a very good representation of the original master file, and has plenty of ride, crash, and hi-hat cymbals in the recording.

The artifact sample is a result of reducing a 24 bit - 96kHz original master file, down to a 16 bit 44.1kHz 320kbps MP3 file; at the highest quality encoding selected. Then, phase inverting one of the stereo files and lining it up (as best as possible) with the other file. It's only lined up within a .008 second tolerance because the software won't let me view waveforms from multiple files at less than a 1:1 ratio. But, it's pretty close.

The artifact sample allows you to hear what's left over. A perfectly matched set of phase inverted files would yield no sound at all.

You will note that the artifact file is fairly quiet as compared to the full version MP3. It would be difficult for the vast majority of people to notice the differences between the original 24bit master, and the highest quality encoded 320kbps MP3.

http://www.FalconEddyStudios.com/mp3/RockDaBoat-24BitMaster.mp3

http://www.FalconEddyStudios.com/mp3/MP3-320kbps-Artifacts.mp3

. . Falcon
 
Even though I knew the answer from the previous page, I couldn't figure it out with my headphones (big radio shack ones)

Plugged my Onkyo TX-4500 MK II into the computer, and I could immediately tell even through the large 4 speakers attached..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

onepixel
Can you SEE the difference between a 128k and 320k mp3?
Replies
6
Views
1K
JonL
JonL
nick12345
WAV vs MP3 - I can't tell the difference!
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
uofmtiger
uofmtiger
flybigjet
Listening difference between MP3 and CD?
Replies
2
Views
514
Drumolator
D
Walt
Can your "ear" hear the difference between ...
Replies
8
Views
2K
THOR
THOR
Smaug
Difference between .WAV, FLAC, and different sample rates of MP3
Replies
12
Views
988
Condorsat
Condorsat
Back
Top Bottom